As I watch PaulT flail about I've been thinking why there is such a disparity between me and the "Clarkian" anti-prets. I mean we have the common goal of opposing hyper or full preterism right? So shouldn't we be getting along swimmingly? I mean look, it was not too long ago that PaulT and Sam Frost were blasting each other as "illogical" and as "liars", but now that Frost suddenly APPEARS to have switched sides, all of the "illogic" and "lying" is swept under the rug in pursuit of the common goal.
WHERE I WENT WRONG...at least by Clarkians point of view
First, in any relationship; be it a business partnership, a sports team, a military alliance or a marriage there has to be MORE THAN a common goal. There has to be common principles driving toward that goal. For example, in WW2 the Allies joined with Russia/U.S.S.R just long enough to accomplish the common goal of defeating the Axis powers. But the USA and Russia didn't share the common principles and spent the next 50+ years at odds in a "Cold War".
Where I went wrong with the Clarkian anti-prets like PaulT, Sam Frost, Dee Dee Warren and their leader, Kenneth Talbot is that I don't share their common principles...or rather, their LACK of principles. For example, when I pointed out the flawed principles of their leader, PaulT actually said: "Roderick, I don't care if everything you say about him is true, we must protect his reputation." THAT is NOT a principle I share. I don't cover up corruption even among the people with whom I share a common goal. If they are corrupt, they are corrupt. This stance has made me a pariah among the Clarkians. The Clarkians have other principles I do not share, such as blatant misquoting people or making up quotes out of nowhere. They also like to call people undefined names like "turd", "bonehead", "jerks". I have no problem describing (naming) people and things but I like to use objective words like "snob", "elitist", "liar" -- those things can be immediately demonstrated as to whether it is true or not. On the other hand, how is a person demonstrated to be a "turd"??? These kind of names are simply immature and senseless.
So, just because people have common goals doesn't mean they can work together. If a sports team who's goal is to win the game has some people who want to play by the rules to win and some people who will make questionable plays to win; then that team will eventually fail to make the goal. I don't want to be on the Clarkian team where its "players" are men and women who often operate in inconsistency, hypocrisy, senseless and immature name calling, and outright flamboyant egotism, not to mention outright lying. If that makes me a lone-ranger outcast, so be it.
Remember Braveheart? William Wallace thought he shared the common goal with the Nobles of routing the English from Scotland, but when the Nobles acted corruptly, even betraying Wallace and principles; Wallace eventually opposed both the English and the Scottish Nobles. Although I'm no blue-faced Braveheart :o I feel much like Wallace.
The anti-pret "Nobles" and their "Robert the Bruce" seminarian are compromisers and corrupt men and women who can't be trusted by either side....or is their leader really Mornay?
No comments:
Post a Comment