Steve Stoops Lower Still

In the last post I gave 5 points for Steve Hays to interact with, hoping this would bring matters to a head so we don’t get sidetracked into fruitless discussion.

Fail. He briefly commented on two of the five, ignored the rest in hopes that Dr. White and Dr. Brown would take him up on his podcast assignment so they could answer the tough questions, and spent the rest of his time creatively dodging questions and talking about my personality complexes. It’s a sad day for Triablogue, indeed.

Steve’s latest response (“Voodoo Dolls”)  is filled with more ad-hominem, name-calling, and an almost total-avoidance of the real issues that I brought up in my last blog. Just read them both and ask yourself, Is Steve really interested in talking about Middle-Eastern conflict and present day Israel on his blog? Or is he giving more energy to the less substantive issues – even while admitting that they are less substantive? And is he giving weight to the main points (numbered, and/or bold so people wouldn’t miss them; another fail) of my last post, or is he dodging simple questions and throwing out everything he can to distract readers – from charges of being like Dave Armstrong, to my “persecution-complex,” “guilt-complex,” “overwrought feelings,” having “a man-crush,”" voodoo dolls”, etc. ? You decide.

First things first. Steve ought to read Burge’s book before his public ignorance of its arguments grows larger than his apologetics blog can handle.

Second, I hereby officially recommend that everyone who is interested in Middle-Eastern conflict and present-day “Israel,”  read Professor Burge’s book Whose Land? Whose Promise? (among other books – that I have actually bothered to read! – such as The Israel-Arab Reader ed. Laqueur and Rubin, A Concise History of the Middle-East by Goldschmidt, Unholy War by Exposito, etc.) Why? Because Burge’s book contains a fair argument (which Steve has not even indicated an awareness of), namely, that if Jews want to claim their God-given right over “their land,” they should at least be consistent in applying the God-given conditions for possessing that land. Of course, there are other arguments in the book, not all of which I am ready to endorse (is that not the case with any book a person reads?). Many of those are going to be hailed by reviewers as, well, you name it – anti-Semitic, pro-Hamas, blah blah, often because the American air we breathe is, if you don’t have something positive to say about modern-day Israel, you’re automatically, unequivocally on the wrong “side.” Obviously, Steve is entirely incapable of even distinguishing between any of these arguments since he writes out of ignorance instead of study. Indeed, the “double standard” might actually be on his side of the table: he accuses Burge of having a tainted lens because of his associations, but Steve will not acknowledge how his view of Burge/Burge’s arguments is tainted by his reliance on reviewers and secondary sources. Go figure.

Third, as if it even needed to be said, Steve’s entire argument made thus far (if there is one to be identified) is by and large, fallacious. Gary Burge could be the most evil person on the planet, a racist sexist homophobic Marxist Mormon murderer, and none of that would change the facts, or change the legitimacy of the facts if they are spoken by such a person. Steve knows that it doesn’t matter who is making an argument, what matters is what is being said. That’s why I am so amazed that Steve is willing to pass by the substance of arguments themselves (apologetics -argument-truth) in order to attack people via their associations (politics-ad hominem-people). He says:

If Burge is ordained in the PC-USA, that tells you something about his theological sympathies, or tolerance for liberal theology. If Burge is a regular contributor to Sojourners, that tells you something about his (leftwing) political sympathies. Those are presuppositions that he brings to his analysis of the Arab/Israeli conflict.

OK. But, how does this even matter if Steve is incapable and/or willing to demonstrate how those presuppositions render Burge’s argument in his book that I cited from (which is how all of this got started) wrong or invalid? Baxter was an Amyraldian. Did that infect his book The Reformed Pastor so much that it can’t be recommended to Christians? Michael Brown debated James White. Doesn’t that raise serious questions about the presuppositions of Brown to the point where we shouldn’t recommend anything he writes? Silliness. The burden of proof from the get go is on Steve to demonstrate when, how, and why Burge’s associations renders his argument in Whose Land? as bad or unworthy of attention. He has not done so, nor does it seem to be in his interest. Steve is either (1) discrediting Burge and has no intention of actually showing how any of that matters for Burge’s primary argument in Whose Land? (2) discrediting Burge and assuming that this is enough to discredit Burge’s arguments. There could be more options, but I’m not seeing them.

Fourth, I said on my last blog on this issue:

he doesn’t seem to be saying what he really wants to say: that (1) it was an unwise decision for me to be asked to blog at AOmin.org, and (2) that RealApologetics.org should be shut down until I meet up to Steve’s standards of apologetic ministry. Certainly that is his position – and if not, he is obviously free to publicly deny the above and explain what he really believes is the case.

Steve begins his latest post by ignoring the entire thrust/challenge of this paragraph, and then goes off about:

Jamin suffers from acute Armstrong-syndrome. Patients with this malady place themselves squarely at the center of each and every issue. It’s all about them, all the time. Jamin evidently needs to have his persecution-complex validated on a regular basis.

Well, I guess that settles the issue! Steve wants RealApologetics.org to be shut-down until its staff meets up to Steve’s particular standards of apologetic ministry. Who, again, is self-oriented?

Fifth, Steve says I misread one of his statements to apply to me instead of Burge:

What accounts for the fact that Jamin takes a statement about Burge, and instantly transfers it to himself? Is Jamin a PC-USA minister? Is Jamin a contributor to Sojourners?

Does Jamin have such a man-crush on Burge that he treats any attack on Burge as an attack on Jamin? Is Jamin to Burge what Chris Crocker is to Britney Spears? In addition to his persecution complex, Jamin apparently suffers from a guilt-complex. If I say something negative about Gary Burge, Jamin takes it personally. What is this? Sympathetic magic? Like stabbing a voodoo doll.

Wow. This is undoubtedly as uncharitable as the misreading of my essay in the Manata dispute (click here). Let me actually quote what Steve originally said, and what he claims I applied to myself because of persecution complexes, guilt complexes, a “man-crush,” etc.:

I see him [Jamin] plugging Gary Burge’s tendentiously entitled Whose Land? Whose Promise?: What Christians Are Not Being Told about Israel and the Palestinians. But the fact that Burge is a PC-USA minister, along with the further fact that he’s a contributor to Jim Wallis’s leftwing rag Sojourners, ought to alert one to his presuppositions.

Is it not understandable that I read “his presuppositions” as “Jamin’s presuppositions” instead of “Burge’s presuppositions,” given the full context of the post, and given the full context of  everything else Steve has said about me? My goodness. Remind me never to get in a blog-exchange with Steve again. If you so much as misunderstand a pronoun, you will be charged with having a “guilt-complex,” “persecution-complex,” having a “man-crush,” compared to Britney Spears, and associated with “magic” and “voodoo dolls.” Sigh. That’s Christian-t0-Christian apologetic ministry according to Steve Hays at Triablogue! (And people wonder why I started RealApologetics.org…)

Steve then asks a series of questions that I will answer:

ii) Jamin is asking me whether I think “and so on and so forth” just didn’t happen. But I’m afraid it’s hard for me to evaluate the historicity of “so on and so forth.” Seems a wee bit vague, if you ask me.

Just for starters, how do I differentiate between “so on” historical events and “so forth” historical events?

OK. If this isn’t an effort to avoid answering a simple question, I don’t know what is. So let’s be extra clear: Has Israel ever committed any (unjust) war atrocities or war crimes since its establishment in 1948? If so, should any of them be condemned? There you go.

iii) “Mass murder”? What does that refer to? You mean, like the fake Jennie massacre?

Uhmm, no. Not a fake massacre Steve. (Sigh. Why on earth would I be referring to a historical event that didn’t happen? Again, uncharitable assumptions). I’m talking about when armed Israeli soldiers level entire villages, killing hundreds of innocent lives in a process that is not self-defense and is not pre-emptive strike. Now will Steve address the real issue? Or will he go with the flow and pretend as if Israel’s establishment and expansion from 1948 to present was just a blameless series of self-defense skirmishes?

iv) “Torture?” Of course, that word is bandied about by far left opponents of counterterrorism. For some, playing “I Love You by Barney the Purple Dinosaur” constitutes torture. I love you, you love me – we’re a happy family. With a great big hug and a kiss from me to you. Won’t you say you love me too? Yep. If that’s not a war crime, I don’t know what is.

No Steve, I’m not talking about playing the theme song to Barney. Good grief…

v) “Millions” of refugees? Shouldn’t we be suspicious of a rubbery statistic like that? Does that refer to the dislocation triggered by the 1948 war? If so, were there “millions” of “Palestinians” living on the West Bank in 1948?

Refusing to deal with the real issue yet again. And no, you shouldn’t be suspicious if you have any knowledge about the formation and history of the secular nation of Israel. When I said “millions” I was referring to the total number of Palestinian refugees that have been created since the 1948 founding, not at the 1948 founding. No one knows exactly how many Palestinian refugees have been created since that time – or how many were created directly by Israel’s efforts in the last half-century. Some estimates run up to 4 million, some just below a million, the UNRWA has 3.4 million Palestinian registered, etc. Whatever the case, again, the number is hardly the issue.

So let’s once again try and be more simple for Steve’s sake: have hundreds of thousands, if not millions (which is probable), of Palestinians become refugees as a result of Israel’s efforts that began at its general founding in 1948? If so, is this relevant when talking about modern-day Israel and Middle-Eastern conflict? Will Steve Hays at least answer that?

Was Yasser Arafat a “refugee”? Wasn’t he born in Egypt?

I have no idea, and I don’t remember mentioning Arafat. More fog…

vii) “Unjust use of water supply”? Isn’t the Jordan River the main source of fresh water in the region?  If anyone could manipulate the water supply, wouldn’t that be Arab nations (i.e. Lebanon, Jordan, Syria) upstream from Israel?

Ok…at this point, it’s clear that I’m obviously not being heard, so lets put the water on hold, and get even more basic than the five points in the last blog.

Steve,

1. Is it even possible for the modern-day nation of Israel to do anything worthy of condemnation?
2. And have they done anything that is worthy of condemnation in the past?
3. If they have, would it not be helpful to acknowledge and understand those events before blindly conceding to every effort to “support Israel”? (Because, if my neighbor commits sin, I don’t want to be responsible for having helped that sin to occur. Wouldn’t you agree? Or is present-day Israel incapable of doing something wrong as a national entity?)

If Steve can’t answer these plainly and charitably (e.g. that means not making claims of man-crushes, associating me with Britney spears, and Lord knows what else), this interaction is finished.