| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Old Board > Exchristian.net On Unchainedradio |
| Posted by: sexkitten Oct 20 2004, 02:16 PM |
| Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Rants & Replies > Exchristian.net On Unchainedradio Posted by: moorezw Jul 27 2004, 11:48 AM Everyone- I'd like to invite you to listen to the webcast of "The Narrow Mind", hosted by the Pastor Gene Cook, Jr. Gene has invited me to be on his show tonight to talk about this website and forum, as well as my own apostasy. The show broadcasts tonight, Tuesday July 27th at 6:00 PST. If you miss it, the show can be downloaded free for a week at Pastor Gene's website: http://www.unchainedradio.com You can also find instructions on listening to the stream at his site. Be advised, you will need to regsiter to the site to listen. If you are unable (or unwilling) to register, I will try to make the show available for download also. Posted by: Quicksand Jul 27 2004, 12:09 PM Very good. I am all regest up. Posted by: Rachelness Jul 27 2004, 12:15 PM Does anyone know what time that is in England? Is it a 5 hour time difference? I'm not sure. I'm registered too, and ready to go. Posted by: Reach Jul 27 2004, 12:32 PM We are all set here. I'm hopeful the discussion will go well. When I was a Christian, having some unanswered questions, I approached Pastor Gene Cook with them. Taking the initiative, he obtained my permission and took on my questions doing a show attempting to answer them and fielded calls on other difficult issues some of my own pastors had refused to address while they named me heretical for simply asking questions I was supposed to "have the sense" to not bring up. Again, all the best, Zach! Reach P.S. Rachelness, here's a link to http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/. Unless there is a change I'm unaware of, note that California, where the show airs, is on Daylight Savings Time, not Standard Time. The time should be 6:00 PDT, Pacific Daylight Time. Posted by: TexasFreethinker Jul 27 2004, 12:50 PM Break a leg, Zach. I'll be listening. Posted by: Rachelness Jul 27 2004, 12:53 PM Thank you Reach. Posted by: BlueGiant Jul 27 2004, 01:25 PM Go to town, man. I'll listen as soon as I get a chance. Posted by: TruthWarrior Jul 27 2004, 01:28 PM I joined! Sounds like it will be exciting! If nobody likes to run the big beefy RealPlayer, you can get Media Player Classic instead*, go http://www.divx-digest.com/software/media_player_classic.html. It's free and doesn't use much memory or have stupid ads. It does play the radio stream too. Just stick the http://live.str3am.com:2540/ address in the file/open thing of it. *However I think you need to install Realplayer first so it works.* Posted by: MalaInSe Jul 27 2004, 02:20 PM QUOTE (Reach @ Jul 27 2004, 12:32 PM) P.S. Rachelness, here's a link to http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/. Unless there is a change I'm unaware of, note that California, where the show airs, is on Daylight Savings Time, not Standard Time. The time should be 6:00 PDT, Pacific Daylight Time. For your sychronizing pleasure, it is currently 3:19pm here in Sunny California. Hopefully, comparing the time stamp will help. We are on Daylight Savings Time, inexplicably. Renee Posted by: Rachelness Jul 27 2004, 02:25 PM I think I worked out it will be 2 AM for me which means staying up, but I'm looking forward to this - It sounds interesting. Posted by: TruthWarrior Jul 27 2004, 02:30 PM We should have a chat here during & after the big show! Posted by: .:WebMaster:. Jul 27 2004, 05:51 PM Zach, He used the typical apologetic formula of putting you on the defensive. I recognize it because I've used it so many times myself. Everyone should keep in mind that the skeptic is not required to prove their skepticism. The person who is claiming there is a magical father and son who are really the same person in the sky who will make you suffer forever in eternal agony for not believing in his wonderful love. Never bother defending against apologetics - all it does is certify that their argument is supportable. When it comes to morality and philosophy, the debate has raged since men and women could talk. There are some things that defy explanation, but that in no way PROVES that JESUS IS GOD AND UNBELIEVERS ARE GOING TO HELL HELL HELL> However, that is what the Christian apologist does. He finds something that a person cannot adequately and completely defend or explain and then, not being able to answer a question, that somehow certifies the TRUTH of Christianity. In reality the Christian worldview suggests that everything is answered and wrapped up in a nice little box. Since the skeptic does not have everything wrapped up in a small little box, the apologist jumps on that and likes to think this PROVES that JESUS IS GOD AND UNBELIEVERS GO STRAIGHT TO HELL for rejecting a god who loves them more than humans can ever comprehend. Finally Zach, if you notice, his new site is only a month old. I think he is fishing for participants. Can't wait for next Tuesday... Posted by: TexasFreethinker Jul 27 2004, 06:06 PM Good job Zach. I can't believe that Gene is ending the show by saying that your non-belief proves that you follow the christian world view. Your openness about uncertainty in some areas contrasted starkly with his "my belief is true because it is true" approach. Unfortunately, "The Narrow Mind" is well-named. Posted by: Rachelness Jul 27 2004, 06:07 PM The moral code or base for any person is built on human empathy, not biblegod. Posted by: ericf Jul 27 2004, 06:09 PM Try to make it available for the rest of us to listen to... I am not going to register on that site. Posted by: TruthWarrior Jul 27 2004, 06:12 PM That was a good show. Good job Zach! Will you really be on next week too? Posted by: ericf Jul 27 2004, 06:14 PM Username: faithless password: abc123 There... now no one else needs to register -- enjoy EDIT: I still don't know where i would find this or if it is there yet. Posted by: TruthWarrior Jul 27 2004, 06:16 PM QUOTE (ericf @ Jul 27 2004, 10:09 PM) Try to make it available for the rest of us to listen to... I am not going to register on that site. Seems that the other show archives just have a link to the mp3 to download so you don't have to register to get it. Actually I don't think ya had to register to hear the audio stream either. I just put the address in my player and it worked. Posted by: ericf Jul 27 2004, 06:17 PM The audio stream you don't need to register. I was listening to that but way too late. Didn't catch any of it. I can't find any link to the show from tonight. Posted by: .:WebMaster:. Jul 27 2004, 06:23 PM I'm sure he has to upload the mp3 first. When he does, I'll make it available on the front pages. Posted by: TexasFreethinker Jul 27 2004, 06:24 PM I tried to call in to ask Gene to let you continue your Paul and the Garden of Eden example, but I never got thru. Maybe you can bring that up again next Tuesday. Posted by: moorezw Jul 27 2004, 07:21 PM Thanks for listening. It's hard to get all my perspective across, especially in an hour and on the defensive. Hopefully, I was able to communicate myself adequately- but if I didn't, I'll have another chance next week. Posted by: CodeWarren Jul 28 2004, 12:03 AM Great job, Zach. The problem in defending science such as evolution against others who view things so cut and dry is that when you say that nothing in science is truly "fact", they accept that is a pathway into discrediting everything in your worldview, so you HAVE to follow Christianity, or what have you. It's hard to describe to people that science operates on provisional truth as a method, not necessarily as a way of living. You hinted at it when discussing skepticism in science. Great job in explaining retroviruses, BTW . Perhaps you should explain to him that it's because of science that he is speaking on the radio. And to be honest, you probably needed to counter him better when discussing what is "true", and that whole tangent on truth and proof and such was just ridiculous. Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on "objective truth" or anything like that. When he said that you can't prove anything, what you didn't really point out is that science, as a process, has to operate as if nothing is fact. As human beings, we take, provisionally, certain long held and accepted and scientifically verified statements as fact. The problem now, is that he's countered you into saying that nothing is proven. What you have to get across is that there is something akin to "fact", and that is what helps in living. You might disagree with me on that, though, so I'm not sure what direction you might take. Anyway, do you have any thoughts on what you want to talk about next week? Posted by: Fweethawt Jul 28 2004, 01:05 AM You can download the MP3 at this link for now. http://unchainedradio.com/freedownload/0728NMmono.mp3 This guy is something else. Posted by: Fweethawt Jul 28 2004, 02:00 AM I don't know Zach! I was pretty ticked off after listening to his condescending comments directed toward you and others with a secular world-view. He really laid it on pretty heavy after you hung up. He didn't seem to be very concerned about the reason for this sight at all. Knowing him, he probably just thinks, "Hey, what's the big deal? The bible tells us that men are sinners, you're going to have situations such as those." Narrow mind, indeed! I wonder how much headway you can make next week if you presented evidence of Christian™ morality in the animal kingdom....... Posted by: .:WebMaster:. Jul 28 2004, 02:29 AM That link on unchained radio will not be free after one week, so I've uploaded the file here for anyone interested in downloading and listening after that time: http://exchristian.net/1/ZachMoore.mp3 Posted by: TexasFreethinker Jul 28 2004, 02:51 AM QUOTE (CodeWarren @ Jul 28 2004, 03:03 AM) Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on "objective truth" or anything like that. Christianity also doesn't offer the unambiguous, unchanging objective moral basis that Gene claimed it does. That claim of his shouldn't go unchallenged and there are several examples where christians disagree with each other on morals from the bible or the bible contradicts moral stances that are widely accepted today (slavery, etc). Posted by: CodeWarren Jul 28 2004, 03:13 AM Gene also seems to want to have his cake and eat it to with morality, TF: If you claim that the Bible was divinely inspired, that is inconsitent with the "learning curve"-style approach to morality and law that God exhibits in the Old Testament, and his subsequent stark contrast of enlightened pacifistic morality in the New Testament. A set of secular provisional moralities is far more consistent than the near 180-degree change of character that God exhibits in the Bible. Posted by: moorezw Jul 28 2004, 04:23 AM CodeWarren- There's really no good way to counter the apologist "absolute truth" argument. If you say that you believe it exists, you're challenged to prove it exists, outside the Bible. And if you say that you don't believe it exists, you're challenged with making an absolute statement. I tried very hard to communicate that I don't believe in ANY absolutes, at least as the Christian conceives them. At a certain fundamental level, even my own existence isn't 'absolute truth,' since the possibility exists for another interpretation of my sentience. Of course, if we were to operate as if NOTHING was true, then how would we even exist? So we have to make some basic assumptions (I exist, I am sentient, I can perceive the Universe empirically) before we can even operate as creatures. Now, certainly those assumptions are reasonable to make, even obvious, but they are not 'absolute.' For example, I could be a sophisticated robot that mimics a human being so well that I've fooled others and myself. I tried really hard to get across the way Science works, also. I know that Gene hasn't had any scientific education, and that the workings of Science remain a mystery to the general public, let alone Christian apologists who profit rhetorically from their misconceptions. Maybe next week I'll be able to clarify any confusion that I may have caused. Posted by: R.C. Jul 28 2004, 07:18 AM I thought he cunningly exploited the 2+2=5 proposition, when he stated that "if leaving xtianity will cause me to believe that 2+2=5 then that's a good reason for me to stay". I clearly understood what you meant that by applying certain equations, one could "prove" that 2+2=5, but that's because I somewhat understand the analytic/synthetic dichotomy; I sort of doubt that he is aware of those concepts...or if he is aware of them, then he's aware that most of his listeners(contributors) don't, and he can score points that way. 2+2 can equal five...on the analytic plane...by using numbers only. But that does'nt mean that 2 apples plus 2 apples are going to equal five apples in the practical synthetic plane. He did'nt make that disctinction clear; and when there is an awareness that listeners could be misled to a wrong conclusion by failing to make a distinction where one is needed, then in my opinion, it's the same as flat out lying. It seemed to me that he was interpreting it this way to his audience, and that because of your non-belief in xtianity, you were prone to dillusion, and that by believing that a mathematician can "prove" that math itself can be illogical by using numbers and equations alone, that that belief could somehow influence your percreption of practical reality. If that were the case, then he's got a point; but as it's not the case, then he's either ignorant or a pious liar. RC Posted by: Quicksand Jul 28 2004, 07:36 AM Zach- Great job. I am finishing up with "Holy War" by Karen Armstrong and have "History of God" in the queue right now. Great book. Through the debate/discussion I pictured your place with a massive library. Anyway, I would be as hard pressed to debate as well as you did. I am wondering why Gene did not give you a few minutes at the end of the program to say a few closing comments... So Gene Cook if you are reading through these comments, please allow Zach some closing time to make a closing statement next Tuesday. Regarding Paul's concept that all men know God by nature, to me, is way that Christians try to win the debate by fiat. That is, God is the root of all man's knowledge, when it very well could be the Magic Snowcone. That's a presupposition, positing that Nature needs a reason and that reason must be God. Caller: Is that the only true explanation? (In reference to God as being the only answer to "reason" -whatever that means for existence.) Later on...Gene: Because its the true explanation. Circularity at its finest with no direct evidence other than an axiomatic statement of "Oh it must be God" Why? "Because the Bible says so. 2+2=4. Does 2 cats plus 2 dozen dogs equal 4? No. We can't always infer reality based upon math. Why does the Christian frequently associate God with math or gravity? I have proof of Gravity (cause I have not floated to the moon while typing this) but God...give me a coherent definition. Heck, even the Anathasian (sp?) Creed states that God is incomprehensible in spite of the Creed's rather vacuous and over-the-top definition of the trinity. One note about our senses. It very well could be true that my senses are deceiving me, but with no evidence to the contrary I have to assume that my senses are reporting truthfully. Didn't the sophist conclude that the speculation is meaningless when there is no way to bypass your senses in the 1st place? Anyway, once you doubt your senses you have no way to begin to observe the universe around you. Whatever truth you happen to derive from that, theistic or atheistically afterwards is a matter left up to you. Apologists like Ray Comfort will actually say the opposite that your senses do decieve you. Also, Gene's ire when you suggested that Jesus was a "character." Whew....I thought he was going to damn you right then and there or cut you off the line. All-in-all Zach great job. I hope to hear you more. And, I thought you did a great job explaining morality from a Humanist perspective. Posted by: moorezw Jul 28 2004, 12:41 PM R.C.- I think Gene is in more of a position of ignorance than misrepresentation. Although I did find it surprising that the idea of contradictions derived from number theory was so antithetical to his faith- I wonder where Jesus or Paul had anything to say about mathematics... Quicksand- I really wouldn't consider it a debate, certainly not a formal one. I don't know that I should hold out hope for a closing statement, either- Gene likes to end his show with a short monologue that summarizes the topics according to his doctrine. Posted by: CodeWarren Jul 28 2004, 12:44 PM QUOTE And if you say that you don't believe it exists, you're challenged with making an absolute statement. Gah, that's very true Zach, hadn't thought about that. QUOTE Also, Gene's ire when you suggested that Jesus was a "character." Whew....I thought he was going to damn you right then and there or cut you off the line. Yeah, I was actually surprised at how defensive Gene got when you called Jesus a character in a book. He seems to think that if you think Jesus existed, that automatically means you think he was exactly how the Bible presented him, etc. In the novel The Dante Club, the author uses real poets in history like Longfellow to tell a fictional tale. And it's obviously been done in many other forms of historical fiction, so why is it so hard for Mr. Cook to reject the dichotomy he presupposes above? (rhetorical question of course ) Posted by: MalaInSe Jul 28 2004, 01:02 PM QUOTE (moorezw @ Jul 28 2004, 12:41 PM) I really wouldn't consider it a debate, certainly not a formal one. I don't know that I should hold out hope for a closing statement, either- Gene likes to end his show with a short monologue that summarizes the topics according to his doctrine. So, what IS the position, Zach. From the show and review of the website, I'm gathering that the premise is: "Logic requires one start from a god-belief, because the god we believe said so, in a book we believe he inspired." I mean, is that really it? Is it that glaringly circular, and they actually have the huevos to believe it's logically sound? How do they explain the foundation for the god-belief itself? Oh yeah, because god, according to the book, says that believers have knowledge. I'll admit that, because I've been gone from the faith so long, I don't always get the debate issues, but even I get that this premise is astoundingly stupid, from a logic standpoint. And all this talk about "in my worldview," what's that? "Well, on my magical island, where unicorns and dragons cavort..." I'm just amazed that it's even put forth as a valid position, so I must be reading the position incorrectly. Ren Posted by: moorezw Jul 28 2004, 01:15 PM MalaInSe- I've spent a lot of time listening to all of Gene's sermons and shows that are available online, and from what I can conclude, he is a presuppositionalist. That is, he believes that the Christian god exists as it says in the Bible, because that's what it says in the Bible. I know it's circular as do you and most of the people here, but Gene would probably disagree. When confronted with the accusation of that fallacy, he has in the past argued that since logic derives from the Christian god, it is meaningless to use logic to disprove him. Likewise, with moral arguments. Ultimately, he's coming from a position of faith, but he projects that same position on everyone else. Anytime someone talks about truth, logic, or morality, he perceives them as 'borrowing from the Christian worldview.' It's really impossible to argue against that, so I really didn't try to. Posted by: Quicksand Jul 28 2004, 01:31 PM Zach I know you're addressing MalaInSe, but I had to comment. QUOTE ...and from what I can conclude, he is a presuppositionalist. That is, he believes that the Christian god exists as it says in the Bible, because that's what it says in the Bible. I don't think Gene is much different from a Robert Morey or any other fundy in that case. Well, Robert Morey is dangerous, viscous ideologue if you ask me. QUOTE I know it's circular as do you and most of the people here, but Gene would probably disagree. When confronted with the accusation of that fallacy, he has in the past argued that since logic derives from the Christian god, it is meaningless to use logic to disprove him. Likewise, with moral arguments. You showed great patience with him. I don't have it. I live in an extremely Christian conservative area and flippin through the radio dial, this type of Xian, fundy rationalization is all you hear. QUOTE Ultimately, he's coming from a position of faith, but he projects that same position on everyone else. Anytime someone talks about truth, logic, or morality, he perceives them as 'borrowing from the Christian worldview.' That's why I find his ilk so condensing! "No Child...You have it WRONG Itis really like this!' All my life I have heard that from those who only "speak God's truth." QUOTE It's really impossible to argue against that, so I really didn't try to. Obviously your are right, but its damn annoying to me! Posted by: ericf Jul 28 2004, 04:19 PM lol, this was a very interesting discussion. Of course, neither of you changed the other's views at all. Not like that was your intention... it was clear that it wasn't. He was just so oblivious to the fact that some people would rather live in uncertainty than strongly assert something that probably is a lie. Anyway, I downloaded it and loved it. I'll probably listen to it again and I can't wait for the second installment. I am sure it will be more of the same but it was cool to listen to. Posted by: MrSpooky Jul 28 2004, 05:42 PM Wow. This guy needs some more philosophical training. ^___________^ EDIT: Dammit, Zack! You could've brought up Burden of Proof in several places! EDIT2: GRRNESS!!!! I wish I could've helped you on that, man! There is a lot of philosophy that was needed there! Posted by: .:WebMaster:. Jul 28 2004, 06:14 PM Remember the great apologetic trick of Gene's personal imaginary friend. Answer a question with a question. Gene: "Do you believe there is an absolute truth?" Zach: "Let me ask you this first. Why do you think you're version of truth is the absolute one?" Don't defend, put him on the defensive. It is never the responsiblity of the skeptic to prove or defend their skepticism. It is the responsiblity of the person claiming to have absolute truth, an invisible friend, a nice apartment in the clouds, etc., to prove their claims. Gene uses the typical presuppositional approach, as you mentioned Zach, that the Christian view is correct and everyone really knows that in their heart. He argues from that position and gets you to defend your position. Really that is a bit of a strawman approach, because he has absolutely no evidence that his presupposition is true, and he does not even attempt to prove it. Zach: "Well you obviously believe there is absolute truth. How do you come to your conclusions?" Get him to explain why he believes what he believes and don't let up. "I believe because the bible says it." Why do you believe the bible? "I see it in nature." Others see other things in nature. How can you be sure your view is right? Just turn the tables on him. Will he change his mind? No. He is not interested in learning or changing, he is interested in winning an argument and certifing that his religion is the one you should convert to. He is not authentic, and he is not honest. His agenda is to convert - period. Posted by: moorezw Jul 28 2004, 07:14 PM Well, if he brings up the question of absolute truth again, I'll certainly bring up that counter-question. But I, and we all know what his response would be. I just don't see the point of arguing against circular reasoning, especially when it is believed to transcend the criticisms of logic. My purpose was to communicate my perspective, not necessarily to challenge his. I knew that he would be challenging mine, and believe me, I know how frustrating it is that his worldview prevents him from even conceiving of mine, but I'm just accepting it. Fortunately, I have the patience to do so. Posted by: Fweethawt Jul 28 2004, 07:41 PM QUOTE (moorezw @ Jul 28 2004, 11:14 PM) Fortunately, I have the patience to do so. You do have plenty of that. I don't know how you kept your cool during that program. I was so pissed that I walked away from my computer and kicked the shit out of a fellow co-worker... I didn't actually do that, but yeah, I was pissed. Posted by: Reality Amplifier Jul 28 2004, 08:20 PM QUOTE (moorezw @ Jul 28 2004, 08:14 PM) My purpose was to communicate my perspective, not necessarily to challenge his. I knew that he would be challenging mine, and believe me, I know how frustrating it is that his worldview prevents him from even conceiving of mine, but I'm just accepting it. Fortunately, I have the patience to do so. Well done Zach. Well done. Posted by: Nivek Jul 28 2004, 08:28 PM Good Job Zach... Just got done listening to the mp3... n Posted by: phoenix Jul 28 2004, 09:19 PM i'm listening to the mp3 right now. nice job, zach... Posted by: Casey Jul 29 2004, 12:39 AM Just listened to the mp3 myself. Thanks Zach, well done. I'm not sure I understood all the arguments, but it was great just to listen. Thanks again, I look forward to the next installment. Casey Posted by: Reach Jul 29 2004, 06:13 AM On vacation for a couple more days, I was unable to pick up the broadcast but I will listen to it in the next few days and try to post a comment. Good luck, next week, Zach. Gene Cook doesn't invite every guest/opponent back for another go around. Posted by: Tocis Jul 29 2004, 11:16 AM Heya, I have started listening to that 60 minute record of the show, and somehow I felt motivated to register and send this email to the ones running that show... maybe you find that interesting. QUOTE Dear sir or madam, I am just listening to the MP3 record of your last "Narrow mind" issue featuring Zachary Moore. This name is well-known to me (as a regular on exchristian.net, to be specific, I'm the German Asatruar Heathen known as "Tocis" there), and while listening to your show, I cannot help but wonder if you are aware of the fact that (as far as I can tell) the rest of the world has VERY differing views on christianity... compared to what I have come to know as the predominant US opinion. To me, US christianity is almost like a wholly different religion, compared to the German protestantism I know... ...in case you are interested in a discussion/debate/other email exchange with me, feel free to contact me via the email address I stated while registering. If you don't want to know my points of view, fine with me... but if you do, this could become interesting, even with the obvious difficulty of time zone difference between the US and Germany, and the language barrier (I'm quite adept where written English is concerned, but actual spoken language may well be another thing). Anyway, consider this an offer. Regards Tocis (regular at exchristian.net) Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jul 29 2004, 11:20 AM ...I hope you get a response Tocis. Posted by: BlueGiant Jul 29 2004, 12:00 PM Good job on the show, Zach. I've definately have been there before myself (though not on a radio program, just in various coffee houses). You held your own pretty well, and nice use of Central Dgoma. It seemed pretty obvious to me that Cook was not listening to you, save for the presence of certain key prhrases (much like an Eliza program, actually) and then using them to attempt the "tried and true" conversion tactics. For being on the defensive, you did a great job, it's definately not easy to go from that position. And while people are in the area of giving advice for the next show, figure that I should throw my two cents in as well. Try to get him to go personal. What I mean is, get him to describe his religion in a personal way, I have found, in the past, that fundies, particularly when they are trying conversion, will not do that, and will instead tweak what they are saying to fit dogma perfectly. Just a thought. Oh, and I really liked the character Jesus. Evangelicals/Fundies, tend to get really pissy if you start talking about their myths as...well...myths. For some reason they can't understand how this term applies to them. Tocis, good luck with the info excahnge with these guys. Posted by: phoenix Jul 29 2004, 07:48 PM tocis, i hope you get on! that would be wonderful. Posted by: Rameus Jul 29 2004, 09:17 PM QUOTE "If you are a Christian out there listening to this webcast, you need to pray for Zach..." That's what the host said after Zack hung up. *rolls eyes* Rameus P.S. Zack, you were a hell of a lot more diplomatic than I would have been. Posted by: moorezw Jul 30 2004, 07:48 AM I've transcribed the show for anyone who wanted to listen to it, but hasn't been able to download/listen for whatever reason. It is http://www.angelfire.com/oh/imladris/narrowmind/072704.htm. Posted by: jjacksonRIAB Jul 30 2004, 08:41 AM QUOTE (moorezw @ Jul 30 2004, 07:48 AM) I've transcribed the show for anyone who wanted to listen to it, but hasn't been able to download/listen for whatever reason. It is http://www.angelfire.com/oh/imladris/narrowmind/072704.htm. I appreciate that... I was about to copy it on a CD and move it over to my personal computer when the CPU/MOBO burned out. Found out when I took it apart it was because it was overclocked when I bought it Posted by: Lokmer Jul 30 2004, 08:50 AM I also have the mp3 on my hdd that I can send to anyone who's having trouble getting ahold of it. Good job, Zach I quite enjoyed the debate, though I did find it frustrating that he was able to push you from your native conditional empiricism into a radical existentialist epistemology. This is a particular problem with fundamentalist evangelicals, they have a Scottish Common Sense epistomology and consider anything more sophistocated to be a denial of any sort of truth, and thus to keep themselves safe they try to turn anyone with a different epistomology into an existentialist out to destroy truth. What they have failed to realize is that Scottish Common Sense (which is naive` empiracism) comes from the philosophy of agnostic/atheist John Locke, while existentialism was formulated by the Christian philosopher Soren Kierkegaard. Anyhoo, next time you're back on, give 'im hell again Looking forward to it. -Lokmer Posted by: jjacksonRIAB Jul 30 2004, 09:15 AM Zach, Well done. "If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties." - Francis Bacon Posted by: Bill Johnson Jul 30 2004, 09:45 AM Here is some advice: 1. Avoid sighing. Pause if you have to before you make a response so you can clearly imagine what you are going to say. Be silent while you are thinking. 2. Be more aggressive and ask him questions. 3. Debate and avoid the questionnaire. Questions are for introduction, rest of the discussion should be debate. 4. Make notes from the first exchange as Gene is likely to bring up issues from the previous discussion. Posted by: Libertus Jul 30 2004, 10:20 AM Great job Zach! That guy is a piece of work, whew! QUOTE (Fweethought) I was pissed Me too! Especially during his little Springeresque wrap up. I wanted to scream. Good luck next week, Zach. We'll all be waiting. Libertus Posted by: .:WebMaster:. Jul 30 2004, 01:05 PM Great job on converting the whole thing to text. Mind if I post it here? Posted by: jjacksonRIAB Jul 30 2004, 01:07 PM QUOTE (Libertus @ Jul 30 2004, 10:20 AM) Great job Zach! That guy is a piece of work, whew! QUOTE (Fweethought) I was pissed Me too! Especially during his little Springeresque wrap up. I wanted to scream. Good luck next week, Zach. We'll all be waiting. Libertus Yeah, I didn't really appreciate that either, but it's his perogative and he controls the topic too. No suprise there. What I liked most about your style, Zach, is that your philosophy is in the void between one way and another. Being pro or con inevitably leads to hypocrisy and you stated your position very well I think. What's your plan for the next discussion? Posted by: jjacksonRIAB Jul 30 2004, 01:13 PM I wish we had our own radio station... I've got a good deal of equipment (mixing, mic-ing, etc) that would make that possible - at the very least it would be good to get something on public access. We have the talent here, but probably not the time. Posted by: moorezw Jul 30 2004, 06:22 PM Dave- Sure, no problem. JjacksonRIAB- The next time we talk, I'd like to touch on some other issues that I had planned to talk about, but didn't get a chance. I'd also like to delve deeper into what it means to have faith. I also really want to address some of the things he said in his closing statement. As for a radio show... what's Reggie Finley, chopped liver? Maybe we could work out something with him. Posted by: I Broke Free Jul 31 2004, 06:37 AM QUOTE (moorezw @ Jul 30 2004, 11:48 AM) I've transcribed the show for anyone who wanted to listen to it, but hasn't been able to download/listen for whatever reason. It is http://www.angelfire.com/oh/imladris/narrowmind/072704.htm. Zach Thank you for the transcripts, I find it I get more out of an interview if I read it rather than hear it. You did a great job, thank you for an excellent job and representing this ExChristian so well. IBF Posted by: Tocis Jul 31 2004, 09:04 AM Just finished listening to that MP3... finally. Oh boy, what a dishonest host (referring to what he said after Zach hung up)... Posted by: Neil Jul 31 2004, 01:54 PM Oh jeez... I've got to listen to this one. Gene Cook argues like he's the second coming of Greg Bahnsen. I've got a pretty good idea what I'm going to hear. Posted by: Dhampir Jul 31 2004, 03:51 PM I just wanted to ask, can someone, a mod, or the webmaster start a pinned thread, where all such conversations and debates with xitians, or such on-topic audio can be amassed? I want to listen to a lot that I had been unable too for various reasons, and these days I cant find most of it. Posted by: Outsider Jul 31 2004, 04:14 PM QUOTE Well, the difference is that I believe my assumptions comport with reality, and that my Christian worldview is a precondition for knowledge, epistemology. Zach, That was a great show and you did well. After Gene said the above quote, I don't think I could have shown the patience that you showed. Good job! Posted by: extremeone Aug 1 2004, 01:39 AM just listened to the mp3... almost slapped my speakers after hearing that xtain talk the way he did...i think next time... you shouldnt be so kind..moore you have the knowledge to shut him up... do it.... mt positive energy is with you... hope it flows well. Posted by: jjacksonRIAB Aug 1 2004, 08:41 AM QUOTE (moorezw @ Jul 30 2004, 06:22 PM) Dave- Sure, no problem. JjacksonRIAB- The next time we talk, I'd like to touch on some other issues that I had planned to talk about, but didn't get a chance. I'd also like to delve deeper into what it means to have faith. I also really want to address some of the things he said in his closing statement. As for a radio show... what's Reggie Finley, chopped liver? Maybe we could work out something with him. Hey, I hadn't heard of Reggie Finley, but now that I have... Maybe you could make an appearance there too and talk about your experience with Gene. That would make for a good follow-up. Posted by: Quicksand Aug 2 2004, 05:09 AM QUOTE (Dhampir @ Jul 31 2004, 03:51 PM) I just wanted to ask, can someone, a mod, or the webmaster start a pinned thread, where all such conversations and debates with xitians, or such on-topic audio can be amassed? I want to listen to a lot that I had been unable too for various reasons, and these days I cant find most of it. That's a great idea Dhamphir. I've been scouring the net myself looking for debates and or apologetic lectures to listen to while I sit here at work. (I like to keep my mind engaged.) I'd be willing to email them out to whoever and submit them here on Exchristian. File size ranges from 5mb to 10mb tho. However, I have not kept real good biographical information (when and where) on these debate/lectures. Posted by: Reach Aug 3 2004, 04:12 AM Ok, finally had a chance to listen. Great job, Zach. Just be yourself and go get 'em tonight. Break a leg, Zach. Life is not a rehearsal. You're on stage. -Reach, with roses for your "performance" Posted by: Quicksand Aug 3 2004, 11:56 AM QUOTE I will continue my interview with Zach Moore tonight. Zach was raised in a Christian home and has "left" the faith for intellectual reasons, or so he says! This Saturday night I will debating Derek Sansone on the topic "Does God Exist?". This will be a public debate held in La Mesa. For directions please reply to this email. Next week on the Narrow Mind I will be taking live calls and answering questions from our listeners. Arrogance! Grumble grumble grumble. Posted by: Lokmer Aug 3 2004, 05:44 PM Zach, listening live right now, you really nailed him good this time. Excellent job! -Lokmer Posted by: Reach Aug 3 2004, 06:08 PM Yeah. Way to go, Zach! Posted by: TruthWarrior Aug 3 2004, 06:19 PM Wow! That was perfect Zach! Ya ripped him a new one! Posted by: Neil Aug 3 2004, 06:20 PM Thank Gord! Someone finally put Gene Cook in his place. Posted by: Fweethawt Aug 3 2004, 07:06 PM Now my mind is buzzin' and my tummy feels like is has a bunch of butterflies slam-dancing in there. I can't wait to hear how it went. By the sounds of things, I wonder if he'll make this show available for download? Posted by: Neil Aug 3 2004, 07:53 PM I missed most of it, because there was a friggin' storm here. I can't wait until Gene posts it online for download. If nothing else, I really hope that Zach went after Gene's annoying arguments about morality in the atheist world and the laws of logic. Boy, does Gene love the laws of logic. It's like he listens to Bahnsen/Stein debate daily and wacks off to it. It's all he uses: Atheist morality and laws of logic. Over and over. Try something new, Gene. Posted by: Fweethawt Aug 3 2004, 07:59 PM QUOTE (Neil @ Aug 3 2004, 11:53 PM) I can't wait until Gene posts it online for download. Last week, the first installment of the show was available for download within hours after it was over. I'll keep an eye out for the availability of the latest and post a link here, that is, if it becomes available at all. I'll be able to check in from time to time within the next six or seven hours. Posted by: TexasFreethinker Aug 4 2004, 02:16 AM QUOTE (Neil @ Aug 3 2004, 10:53 PM) If nothing else, I really hope that Zach went after Gene's annoying arguments about morality in the atheist world and the laws of logic. Boy, does Gene love the laws of logic. It's like he listens to Bahnsen/Stein debate daily and wacks off to it. It's all he uses: Atheist morality and laws of logic. Over and over. They talked a lot about that again last night. Gene has convinced himself that the fact that logic exists proves that the christian god exists (and vice versa). His argument doesn't make sense, but he thinks it's the silver bullet that can defeat all other "world views" (his favorite phrase). Zach was good this time at calling him on his circular reasoning and unsupported presuppositions. Gene admitted several times that his reasoning was circular - as if that were a good thing. Gene refused to accept the possibility that the bible has errors or contradictions. "If you see contradictions then you're just reading it wrong" is the gist of his position. He pretended that all True Christians™ agree on the interpretation of the bible thru the magic of harmonizing exegesis (I forget his exact phrase). He neglected to mention that even among christians who believe the bible is inerrant there are numerous conflicting interpretations of the same items. Similarly, he acts as if the Christian Worldview™ is a valid basis (in fact the only valid basis) for morality, conveniently neglecting to mention that all True Christians™ don't agree on specific morality questions either. Zach tried to point out these problems, but Gene wasn't open to considering them. Again, giving evidence that Gene was accurate in the naming of his radio program - Narrow Mind. Good job Zach. Posted by: Fweethawt Aug 4 2004, 02:38 AM QUOTE (Fweethawt @ Aug 3 2004, 11:59 PM) I'll be able to check in from time to time within the next six or seven hours. Well, Here it is, about six hours and forty-five minutes from the last time I checked. It's still not available. Posted by: Neil Aug 4 2004, 03:19 AM QUOTE (TexasFreethinker @ Aug 4 2004, 04:16 AM) Gene has convinced himself that the fact that logic exists proves that the christian god exists (and vice versa). His argument doesn't make sense, but he thinks it's the silver bullet that can defeat all other "world views" (his favorite phrase). Well, that's because Gene Cook has convinced himself that the Transcendental Argument for God is the one argument that atheists can't penetrate. He thinks he can just put his Bahnsen boots on and stomp all over atheists with them. He doesn't want to see that it was a childish and circular time-wasting argument back in 1985, and it's a childish and circular time-wasting argument now. It's easy to poke holes through, and anyone who debates Gene Cook should immediately anticipate it coming. Thank you, Zach, for catching him with his pants down. Gene's had it coming for a long time. I only wish that Gene's man enough to post the conversation. Posted by: Quicksand Aug 4 2004, 04:55 AM I missed it dammit! I emailed Gene/Webmaster a courteteous letter about it. Let's see if I get a response. gcjr@verizon.net Posted by: Aminor7 Aug 4 2004, 08:51 AM Where can I find the Narrow Mind broadcast for 8/03? I've been through the entire unchainedradio site 3 or 4 times while logged in (not a pleasant experience) and I still can't find anything but vague references to the show. Posted by: Bill Johnson Aug 4 2004, 09:16 AM Wednesday, August 4th, 1:15 PM and still no sign of this weeks downloadable edition of (Gene's) Narrow Mind. Posted by: R.C. Aug 4 2004, 11:49 AM I just received an e-mail from Unchained Radio. They plan to have the 08/03 debate available on the web site by this evening. RC Posted by: Quicksand Aug 4 2004, 11:54 AM QUOTE (R.C. @ Aug 4 2004, 11:49 AM) I just received an e-mail from Unchained Radio. They plan to have the 08/03 debate available on the web site by this evening. RC I got that about an hour or two ago. Makes you wonder how much its going to be edit eh? Posted by: R.C. Aug 4 2004, 12:05 PM Is anyone following the debate between Zach and Antithesis on the Unchained Radio Forum? I just became aware of a new argument for gods existence: Quote (Antithesis) QUOTE The proof of his existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. This is one reason I find it difficult to listen to xtians arguments; all that circular reasoning makes me dizzy. RC Posted by: Libertus Aug 4 2004, 12:13 PM I'll have to take a look at that later. I did search, still unsuccessfully, for last night's show. I'm looking forward to it, Zach! Libertus Posted by: TexasFreethinker Aug 4 2004, 12:13 PM QUOTE (R.C. @ Aug 4 2004, 03:05 PM) This is one reason I find it difficult to listen to xtians arguments; all that circular reasoning makes me dizzy. Agreed. I was really trying to make sense out of Gene's argument last night to better understand where he was coming from, but I failed. I think he honestly believes this stuff, but I'm not sure how anyone who looks at it impartially would think that his argument has merit. Posted by: SOIL Aug 4 2004, 12:17 PM Howdy folks, I listened to the live version of the unchained radio discussion yesterday (and most of the first one also). I don't understand why there have been so many negative comments (in this thread) aimed at the fellow on that site, (Gene Cook, I remember his name now). It sounded to me like he was trying to be respectful toward Zach. I think Zach made good points (for instance, some of the stuff about Humanity I could kind of relate to - after having read several of AUB's posts). I thought both guys were being fairly civil with each other overall, and I appreciate the spirt I sensed coming through BOTH of them. I can understand why you folks don't agree with Gene - and I can also understand his perspective. Btw, I don't remember anyone saying here that Zach was given the last word on the show last night. I guess I just feel like you guys seem to act like you will be more respected here by each other (peer pressure?) if you make condescending remarks toward the character of the fellow who Zach was talking with? OK - I have my helmet on now - feel free to take aim at me now.... (LOL) P.S. It seemed to me that Gene allowed Zach plenty of time to say what he wanted to say, even though I have noticed in other situations like that, sometimes a host who is trying to make his (or her) points - may commandeer more of the talking time for themselves - (now that I think about it - perhaps it would be interesting to count the number of words that each participant spoke .... that is ... if anyone wants to transcribe this one). -Dennis Posted by: MalaInSe Aug 4 2004, 12:44 PM Anyone attending the Cook/Sansone debate? Is it worth going to? It happens to be happening right in my neighborhood. Gak. I was informed earlier that I live in the same town as that idiotic inerrancy guy. Do I live in the same town as Gene Cook too? I gotta get out of here. Renee Posted by: TexasFreethinker Aug 4 2004, 12:50 PM QUOTE (SOIL @ Aug 4 2004, 03:17 PM) Howdy folks, I listened to the live version of the unchained radio discussion yesterday (and most of the first one also). I don't understand why there have been so many negative comments (in this thread) aimed at the fellow on that site, (Gene Cook, I remember his name now). It sounded to me like he was trying to be respectful toward Zach. I think Zach made good points (for instance, some of the stuff about Humanity I could kind of relate to - after having read several of AUB's posts). I thought both guys were being fairly civil with each other overall, and I appreciate the spirt I sensed coming through BOTH of them. I can understand why you folks don't agree with Gene - and I can also understand his perspective. Btw, I don't remember anyone saying here that Zach was given the last word on the show last night. I guess I just feel like you guys seem to act like you will be more respected here by each other (peer pressure?) if you make condescending remarks toward the character of the fellow who Zach was talking with? OK - I have my helmet on now - feel free to take aim at me now.... (LOL) P.S. It seemed to me that Gene allowed Zach plenty of time to say what he wanted to say, even though I have noticed in other situations like that, sometimes a host who is trying to make his (or her) points - may commandeer more of the talking time for themselves - (now that I think about it - perhaps it would be interesting to count the number of words that each participant spoke .... that is ... if anyone wants to transcribe this one). -Dennis Dennis, I don't think the majority of comments about the debate have been especially mean towards Gene. (Feel free to point some out). I have never listened to Gene before, so I don't know what his "regular" style is. Some of the comments seem to be based on his ongoing approach to debates and not solely a result of these two Zach episodes. However, even in these two shows I felt that Gene was not open to criticism or investigation of his own beliefs. Zach was very up front about his beliefs being tentative and subject to correction. Gene, on the other hand, did not come into the debates with an open mind - he was there to get his message across and ridiculed Zach about his willingness to change beliefs. Gene also opened himself to ridicule by using circular arguments and then admitting that they were circular. It's better to just say you believe something and can't prove it than to say you have evidence that is circular. You can't claim that your position is logical and then go against the rules of logic to prove your position. Intelligent people will call you on it. *************** You've been around here long enough to know that we can get rowdy and blustery and aren't always as civil as we should be. Speaking for myself, tho, I know I'm much more willing to be patient with someone with an open mind than I am with someone who's mind is made up and is openly using a forum such as this internet radio show to win converts rather than to seek the truth. You only have to listen to Gene's disrespectful closing of the first episode to see what I mean. Posted by: SOIL Aug 4 2004, 02:50 PM Hi Tex, It is good to hear your comments! (I don't always agree - but I almost always glad you posted!). QUOTE (TexasFreethinker @ Aug 4 2004, 02:50 PM) I have never listened to Gene before, so I don't know what his "regular" style is. Some of the comments seem to be based on his ongoing approach to debates and not solely a result of these two Zach episodes I haven't listened to Gene before either - so maybe that is why I don't understand the heavy negative slant I picked up? QUOTE (TexasFreethinker @ Aug 4 2004, 02:50 PM) However, even in these two shows I felt that Gene was not open to criticism or investigation of his own beliefs. I didn't think the purpose of the shows were to examine the host's beliefs? QUOTE (TexasFreethinker @ Aug 4 2004, 02:50 PM) Zach was very up front about his beliefs being tentative and subject to correction. Yes, I agree (and I appreciate Zach for that attitude). QUOTE (TexasFreethinker @ Aug 4 2004, 02:50 PM) Gene, on the other hand, did not come into the debates with an open mind - he was there to get his message across and ridiculed Zach about his willingness to change beliefs I remember Gene saying he doesn't consider the talks as "formal debates". As a host of a program, I think it is obvious that the host will want to "get his message across" - otherwise why would anyone host such a program? I don't agree with the adjective "ridiculed" - I would use the word "challenged". When I come to you guys turf (this site) - I don't have a problem with you challenging me about my beliefs (perhaps I have even been ridiculed for them a time or two?)- and I suspect Zach doesn't have a problem with the challenges he received on the program - since he volunteered to speak with Gene on his own turf (program). QUOTE (TexasFreethinker @ Aug 4 2004, 02:50 PM) Gene also opened himself to ridicule by using circular arguments and then admitting that they were circular. It's better to just say you believe something and can't prove it than to say you have evidence that is circular. You can't claim that your position is logical and then go against the rules of logic to prove your position. Intelligent people will call you on it. I understand what you are saying here. I didn't really understand everything about the points Gene was making (along these lines) yesterday evening. I suspect even if I do eventually understand it all - I may not agree. QUOTE (TexasFreethinker @ Aug 4 2004, 02:50 PM) You've been around here long enough to know that we can get rowdy and blustery and aren't always as civil as we should be. Yep. QUOTE (TexasFreethinker @ Aug 4 2004, 02:50 PM) Speaking for myself, tho, I know I'm much more willing to be patient with someone with an open mind than I am with someone who's mind is made up and is openly using a forum such as this internet radio show to win converts rather than to seek the truth. I don't have a problem with someone setting up a forum such as the internet radio show to "win converts rather than to seek the truth" if in fact they represent it that way - and if in fact they say they have already found the truth. I think folks have a right to challenge why they say they have found the truth and that's one reason why I think the programs were a healthy thing. QUOTE (TexasFreethinker @ Aug 4 2004, 02:50 PM) You only have to listen to Gene's disrespectful closing of the first episode to see what I mean. I think the term "condescending" might be more applicable than "disrespectful" concerning those comments. I just reread them - and I suspect that Gene was probably more interested (at that time) with communicating with his target audience rather than with Zach (since I think Zach had already hung up the phone). I can understand about how Gene may perhaps be concerned for his own son and the sons and daughters of his target audience. I suspect Gene may think that the universities are a dangerous place for the faith of young people. I do appreciate that he had his own young son present with him yesterday as he talked again with Zach. He must have known there would be some really serious stuff discussed. I think there is pain involved when one is really interested in finding the TRUTH. I think Gene may have been thinking of the pain that might occur to the members of his (target) audience if they don't take seriously what Zach is saying, and try to help their own children be ready to deal with what they may learn in a university setting. I suspect you can remember how you may have looked at things (before you left Christianity) and maybe you can better understand those closing comments - during the first show - (like I mentioned earlier though - I didn't hear similar things last night). Now that I have brought up the subject of pain - I respect Zach for talking about the pain he personally experienced as he was leaving his faith and also when he recognized the possible effects that may have had on his parents. Truth is a valuable thing. It is worth experiencing pain to find it. I can identify with both the types of pain that may have been going through the minds of BOTH Gene and Zach as they spoke yesterday evening. There can be pain involved with folks who walk away from what was once their faith and there can also be pain present for the folks who stay and watch their loved ones walk away. As we have seen so many times in the testimonies of folks on this site - there can also be pain experienced by folks as they/we try to live the Christian life. As for me, I keep coming here, (and ALSO going to church), because I think TRUTH is worth looking for wherever one can find it ... sometimes I look for it in places which various other folks find curiously strange! -Dennis Posted by: TexasFreethinker Aug 4 2004, 03:10 PM QUOTE (SOIL @ Aug 4 2004, 05:50 PM) As for me, I keep coming here, (and ALSO going to church), because I think TRUTH is worth looking for wherever one can find it ... sometimes I look for it in places which various other folks find curiously strange! Dennis, I don't have much time, so I won't respond to all you said, but I do want you to know that I have a great deal of respect for you and for the fact that you continue to listen to us and engage with us. I obviously don't agree with your position on many things, but you seem much more open minded than many, and rarely (if ever) fail to be civil. Thank you. One comment about the topic - I felt like "ridiculed" was the right word since I remember Gene laughing at some of Zach's remarks as though they were stupid. It is on that basis that I chose the word ridiculed. I'd have to listen again to see if I'm right since I made this judement based on one hearing only (and I'm getting old so my memory isn't what it used to be.) Tim Posted by: Bill Johnson Aug 4 2004, 03:37 PM I thought Gene ridiculed Zach when he said, "...but now because of his education and uh, quite frankly his education that came from the university, he has now left his faith." Zach explicitly said that it was more than his education that contributed to him losing his faith. Gene made it out like Zach isn't really searching for the truth and that his loss of faith had to do with poor scholarship. Posted by: Reach Aug 4 2004, 03:48 PM QUOTE (SOIL @ Aug 4 2004, 03:17 PM) I guess I just feel like you guys seem to act like you will be more respected here by each other (peer pressure?) if you make condescending remarks toward the character of the fellow who Zach was talking with? OK - I have my helmet on now - feel free to take aim at me now.... (LOL) I doubt that we are that immature or insecure. Gene Cook is normally pretty respectful to his guest and from what I've seen here, at this site, Zach is always respectful towards us here on this site. He has ALWAYS treated me with the highest regard, including the time I used to be a Christian. I'll add to that. He has been most patient with me too as I struggled to come out of the darkness I was mired in. Thanks to Zach. I have no need to take aim at you whatsoever, Dennis, but be warned; I'm pretty good with my bow. Posted by: Bill Johnson Aug 4 2004, 03:52 PM The debate is now available... http://unchainedradio.com/freedownload/nm080304mono.mp3 Posted by: Reach Aug 4 2004, 04:03 PM QUOTE (SOIL @ Aug 4 2004, 05:50 PM) QUOTE (TexasFreethinker @ Aug 4 2004, 02:50 PM) You only have to listen to Gene's disrespectful closing of the first episode to see what I mean. I think the term "condescending" might be more applicable than "disrespectful" concerning those comments. I just reread them - and I suspect that Gene was probably more interested (at that time) with communicating with his target audience rather than with Zach (since I think Zach had already hung up the phone). Just a personal comment but I do think we reveal our motives and deeper attitudes about people when we go after the larger audience, to the exclusion of the very guest we are to be having a discussion with. The fact that the phone had been hung up was irrelevant. One could make the assumption that the guest might listen to the show again later and catch any closing remarks that could have been missed. The pastor missed an opportunity to be gracious and went after the sale. Posted by: TexasFreethinker Aug 4 2004, 04:43 PM QUOTE (Reach @ Aug 4 2004, 07:03 PM) Just a personal comment but I do think we reveal our motives and deeper attitudes about people when we go after the larger audience, to the exclusion of the very guest we are to be having a discussion with. The fact that the phone had been hung up was irrelevant. One could make the assumption that the guest might listen to the show again later and catch any closing remarks that could have been missed. The pastor missed an opportunity to be gracious and went after the sale. I had this feeling too. I don't think a person has to be a salesperson just because they have an audience. I was hoping to listen to a one-on-one discussion of the topic with a sincere desire on both sides to learn something. Instead, I felt like Gene used Zach as a prop: "Look folks at this poor apostate. Isn't he sad. Don't let this happen to you or your children." Posted by: SOIL Aug 4 2004, 04:59 PM QUOTE (Reach @ Aug 4 2004, 06:03 PM) ... The pastor missed an opportunity to be gracious and went after the sale. I think I understand your good point Reach, Just for clarification purposes here, I was not complimenting the pastor's closing comments (in the first radio program). I don't describe someones comments as "condescending" when I am complimenting what they have said. I guess I was mainly just tr |