Friday, January 1, 2010

An Exercise in Obfuscation: Jason Bradfield’s “Logic”

Recently Dee Dee spoke of a situation where a hyperpreterist named Mike Bennett sent out an email comparing her picture to a picture of the Whore of Babylon.  When this monstrous act was exposed, the hyperpreterists’ went into damage control mode.  Another hyperpreterist known for his propensity to ignore the obvious & to defend defenseless acts came to Bennett’s rescue.  Jason Bradfield, said that we couldn’t infer anything from the picture.  Bradfield went on to LIE about the context of the email — as Bradfield claimed there was NO TEXT with the pictures.  In fact the text even further showed that the intent was to compare Dee Dee (another man’s wife) to a whore. 

The subject line of the email was:
Preterist Idealism - found to be right!!!
Now, a person needs CONTEXT to know what the subject line means.  Why is Bennett relating the picture to “Preterist Idealism” & what does he mean that these pictures have made it “found to be right”?  Without context it would make no sense, but we HAVE CONTEXT from Bennett in what he has said about Preterist Idealism in other places.
“Idealism is re-fulfillment - not just application” (Bennett from a 10/06/07 email)
“PRETERIST Idealists… The time texts should still apply. They just try to have some sort of silly “re-fulfillment” now.” (Bennett from a 5/8/8 comment on his hyperpreterist website)
So, the context is that Dee Dee was a RE-FULFILLMENT of the Whore of Babylon…well unless a person wants to ignore the obvious & ignore the context of Bennett’s email.
When all of this was even further exposed, including now the LIE that Bradfield propagated, you’d think Christian people would admit it & repent but instead, Bennett & Bradfield NOT being historically or biblically Christians, instead sent an email to all the members of their website — another attempt at damage control.  The email was nothing but MORE LIES.
In the email, Bradfield LIED to his own site members, saying:
Mike took the two pics, posted them side by side with no comments, and emailed it
Not only did Bradfield LIE by not telling his members about the subject line of the email (which revealed the context of the pictures), there WAS indeed text with the pictures — it read, “Sorry, I couldn’t resist :)”
Resist what?  Bennett couldn’t resist comparing another man’s wife to the Whore of Bablyon???
You would think that at least a few of the members of that hyperpreterist site would have a backbone & say, “I don’t care if we are fellow [hyper]preterists — this is wrong & should be denounced publicly” — Nope, not a peep from them.  They just circled the wagons around Bennett & Bradfield & kept the lovefest going.
But it gets worse.  Sam Frost, the de facto leader of these guys & their only “authority” (or do they have any authority over them???) was approached both publicly & privately to deal with the issue.  He too refused to do anything about it.
But here is the kicker folks.  Bradfield just posted a video of himself interviewing 4 little children about a NY Post cartoon of two policemen with a smoking gun standing over a dead chimp with a caption from one of the policemen that reads, “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill”.  The cartoon has caused some controversy because some people are claiming the chimp must represent Obama & thus imply it is racist to depict a black man as a chimp/monkey. (see link about original cartoon)
I would agree that the cartoonist probably didn’t have any racial intentions & probably was referring to the collective authors of the bill (not Obama specifically) as goofy as monkeys.  The picture is also a play on a recent news event where a woman who owned a chimp had to call the police to come shoot it when it brutally attacked the woman’s friend (link).
But here is the issue folks - Bradfield assembles a panel of naive children who have NO CONTEXT for the cartoon, the chimp attack story, or the political background of the caption.  He then goes on to ask them questions like who the men are in the picture — when the kids say, policemen, Bradfield challenges their “inference”.  When he asks them about the chimp & what its doing, the kids say it is dead.  Bradfield challenges their inference not only that it is dead but whether it is even a chimp — “Maybe it’s a kid dressed up like a monkey?” Bradfield says.  Then when the kids point out that the policemen shot the monkey, Bradfield tries to persuade the kids that they can’t “infer” that because the gun isn’t pointed at the monkey.  “Maybe they are shooting at the person who shot the monkey?” says Bradfield.  Looks like Bradfield’s little demonstration wasn’t working since the kids were actually smarter than he was giving them credit.
Considering what Bradfield & Bennett did with the Dee Dee Warren/Whore of Babylon issue & seeing how Bradfield obfuscates & tries to use children without any background or context to say we can’t infer anything, I just have to shake my head & wonder why in the world anyone is taking these guys seriously — I don’t care if you are a hyperpreterist or not at this point.  YOU HAVE TO SEE THESE GUYS HAVE NO BUSINESS TALKING ABOUT “LOGIC” LET ALONE TRYING TO TEACH THEOLOGY.
Finally, the first response to Bradfield’s exercise in illogic was from his fellow hyperpreterists’ who even says:
I had previously read about the chimp that went out of control and had to be shot. So, with that as background, I saw this cartoon and immediately busted up laughing! That was my background info, and obviously was the background info of the cartoonist (since the incident had just happened, police had finally shot the animal, and they shot it two times no less).
See, even THIS guy realizes context/background is important.  In the Dee Dee Warren/Whore of Babylon issue we had:
(1) Bennett’s background on using the phrase “re-fulfillment” in relation to Preterist Idealism
(2) Understanding the picture opposite of Dee Dee was a depiction of the Whore of Babylon.
(3) The subsequent lies from both Bennett & Bradfield & the cover-up by Frost.
Now, how about you members over there on that site, you still think these guys are good role models & leaders?  When I first began to doubt hyperpreterism the first thing was seeing that for some reason, the “leaders” of the movement were extremely corrupt.  I sought to figure out why.  Finally I realized it was part & parcel of the corrupt theology — a theology that is so arrogant that it claims 2000 years worth of Christian interpretation has been grossly erroneous & only these few guys are somehow here to correct it all????  WOW!!!!

No comments: