Rebuking A Substitute Apologist And Enabler for Gavin Ortlund's Christianity.

 Today's refutation of utter bullshit
begins here.
In this short video, Dan McClellan sets a matter straight; in his usual eloquent, factually informed, logically rational, and ethical manner.

From there, we move into the comments section. There, we find this sub-thread discussion:

@magepunk2376

2 hours ago

Gavin Ortlund is an apologist. Truth is not his motivation, dogma is.

44

@dechasrisen4783

2 hours ago

No one's motivation is pure and no one is without bias. It's churlish to resort to an ad hominem attack, especially when it's so unnecessary.

6

@magepunk2376

2 hours ago

 @dechasrisen4783 What I said is true though.

11

@sabrinaantonioverita3061

1 hour ago

everyone is an apologist and everyone is a dogmatist. truth is everyone’s motivation.

3

@dechasrisen4783

1 hour ago

 @magepunk2376  it's petty. It misleading implies the same isn't true of everyone. It's arrogant. And given the tribalism it belies in you, it's fairly good evidence that it's just as a true of you as is of Gavin.

1

@magepunk2376

1 hour ago (edited)

 @dechasrisen4783 The same isn’t true of everyone. Some of us let the evidence lead us to our conclusions, rather than force the evidence to conform to our conclusions, like apologists do. It’s unfortunately not petty, it’s just what they do.

5

@ApPersonaNonGrata

1 hour ago

 @dechasrisen4783  Saying "No one's motivation is pure and no one is without bias." is the same as saying "What about other people's impure motives and personal biases?" That fallacy is called "Whataboutism". If you'd like a fun video that explains what that is and how it works, John Oliver has a great video about it.

Show less

4

@ApPersonaNonGrata

1 hour ago

 @dechasrisen4783  Meanwhile, ... What @Magepunk2376 said was: accurate, fair, and relevant. There was no "ad hom" committed there. Nor was he poisoning the well. He made a factual and necessary observation about religious-fundamentalist apologetics.

Show less

3

@joshwatson5561

20 minutes ago

 @magepunk2376 Nope

@joshwatson5561

19 minutes ago

 @ApPersonaNonGrata John Oliver??? Lol

Highlighted reply

@joshwatson5561

18 minutes ago

 @ApPersonaNonGrata Nope, assumes something that he can’t know has nothing to do with facts. Address the facts and let go of motive assumptions.

[Note. My original reply was much longer and more detailed.

However, and very predictably,
Youtube deleted it.

I do have a saved copy of the original reply I posted.
However, rather than go back into it, 
it may be more efficient to move forward from here.
 
To further the discussion,
I offer this:

 @joshwatson5561  First, saying "John Oliver??? Lol" is not an argument. It's nothing but an Ad Hom; -the VERY THING you just got done incorrectly accusing someone else here of doing. It's an Ad Hom because the necessary implication is this: That nobody should consider any point I make which defers to anything John Oliver has ever talked about, since John Oliver is bad and a joke nobody should take seriously... for unspecified reasons. If you wanted to engage honestly and accountably with other people here (with whom you find yourself in disagreement), then: You would have, instead, said something like: "I personally have so little respect for John Oliver that I'm disinterested in considering whatever he might say on any topic. However, in all fairness, I Googled the term, found a neutral academic site about it, and then read up on it. Having done so, I must admit. Your point about this was valid and fair. As such, I will work on being better about this. Thanks for bringing this fair observation to my attention. And thanks for doing so civilly. It's just a good thing I'm not a clinical Narcissist. Because in that case, I probably would have said something ego-defensive and deflecting like ""John Oliver??? Lol"". --- Moving forward from there, ... Nobody here made assumptions about what's happening there.

In a moment, I'll explain how I arrived at that conclusion. Meanwhile, I checked out your YT channel. No streams or uploads of your own. But you do have a playlist called "Christian". I checked out the first song; because it plays automatically.

It has a good vibe to it. And I appreciate the ideas expressed in the lyrics. But just as I knew it would ... it builds upon a lie; the lie that "Christianity" is accurately represented by those positive sentiments, and in its rejection of hate and division. That song pulls the same stunt that MAGA pulls. While their cult seeks to dominate and destroy everyone who refuses to join and conform, ... its performers then posture as 'the adults in the room'. They act confused and worried that their intended-victims won't smile, hug, and validate the "peaceful and loving" voice of a violent authoritarian cult.

This is exactly the discussion. It's a God-Awful religion which willfully mispresents itself and its public agents. It's full of psychological violence, willful deceptions, and societally corrosive othering. So let's take a closer look at the sociopolitical and religious system you're here doing performative Damage Control for. First, it's racist. Now, to be clear about what I mean by this, ... It doesn't just harbor racism. It IS racism

It's an artificial social demographic wherein the lived experience, wellbeing, and respectability of members are regarded as infinitely more true and valuable than that of all outsiders; except for outsiders' "potential future value" which can only be gained by joining that demographic. Although, your own children don't need to worry about using their alleged "Free Will" to join as adults. Why not? Because your cult brain-washes them "for their own good". They systematically attempt to circumvent and prevent their own children (and anyone else's children they can get sufficient access to) ... from ever gaining the ABILITY to freely evaluate and rationally scrutinize it, to make their own free choice about it. That is, of course, in DIRECT violation of "the principal of Free Will" that you guys claim is sacrosanct to your "God". Additionally, you cult seeks RELENTLESSLY to block the free exercise of WILL for literally everyone else. How so? I can think of many examples for this. But let's just notice one really big example of this. They show up at voting poles, to literally weaponize every society's police agencies against the people. Your political cult, disguised as a religion, disguised as a "relationship with the creator of the fucking universe" ... makes sure your (imaginary) GOD can-and-will VIOLATE his own principal of non-interference; with YOU working as extensions OF "him" to violate his own principals in his name. Meanwhile, the concept of "grace" is built upon a radically unjust and grossly insulting premise; that we aren't worthy of the kindness "on offer". It's also an I.O.U.; from an imaginary Super-Entity your cult has (in its gradual evolution) superimposed over the "god" of deists. That's why your best arguments are specifically FOR deism; which you try to pass off as arguments for your "God". More importantly, it's an I.O.U for fucking KINDNESS; including the kindness to ALLOW us to keep EXISTING, and in good health. Besides the fact that your cult is selling fraudulent afterlife fire insurance, and besides the fact that they're exploiting other people's ignorance and desperacy (in order to do sell them that fraudulent insurance), ... The offer of "salvation" is literally a racketeering scheme. And yet, it's EXEMPT from the same LAWS (forbidding extorsion) which EVERYONE ELSE must abide by. Why? Because: a.) it was "grandfathered in" for legal exemption, b.) your cult infiltrates high positions in societal governments in order to leverage legislation to its own collective advantage, and because c.) if any society makes your cult ABIDE by those laws, you'll all * cry "persecution", * argue for "religious freedom" (to hurt others), and then * resort to forms of retaliation which would radically destabilize society; until you get your way. It also harmonizes people into an ingroup, at the expense of dividing those members from everyone else (and from themselves). You guys don't actually mind that many of the REASONS (the causes) for why our world burns ... are things your religion causes to be EVEN WORSE and even more common. Why not? Because your cult-leaders realize all that division, confusion, and suffering are EXACTLY what perpetuates a society in-which people will be DESPERATE and MANIPULATABLE enough that many can be tricked into joining your "totally not a mind-control cult"; wherein they'll be fleeced for money, other personal resources, and political power. It's a cult-movement which dreams of an "any day now" VIOLENT END of everyone I hold dear' "lest they repent" (of being not-Christians) before Jesus returns to hurt them.

It demonizes people who think, live, and love outside the parameters of your sub-groups interpretations of poorly preserved ancient lore. Most of that, by the way, was stolen from other religions and then rewritten-and-repurposed by extreme racists, sexists, domestic abusers, genocidal maniacs, slavers, child-sex-traffickers, and goat-herders. All the while, your weaponized sheeple are mistaking their subjective feelings and interpretations as "objective reality"; -which you then claim everyone else in the world is beholden to. It makes wildly unfair *ACCUSATIONS* about the moral character and INTENT of everyone who leaves (or refuses to join);

and extra-especially anyone who dares to call that project fairly into question or ridicule. Meanwhile, EVERY SINGLE civil rights battle that has NEEDED to be fought and won in America (and many other countries) ... needed to be fought AGAINST your Conservative White churches. Seriously. There wasn't anyone else to fight about it. And every time your political cult LOST another battle, they'd HOP ON OVER to the victor's circle, and then point to the EMPTY SPACE where they fought-and-lost just moments before. And then they'd smile and say "We sure did kick their asses. See, we told you. God is good". Meanwhile, your global conglomerate of religious-mafia families are the nearly exclusive peddlers of dangerously unhinged conspiracy theories about Global Climate Change, "gay agenda", "trans agenda", DEI conspiracies, secular mental-health care, etc.. Because, of course, other people just EXISTING is inconvenient for you; except as something to be strategically weaponized about; [as explained here:]

You guys go around picking fights with the whole of humanity. And then you cry out as victims any time anyone pushes back. You all posture and condescend on "principles" about how to BE and how to DISCUSS ... while you yourselves do not live by the same principals you falsely accuse others of failing. Your entire religion is an ATTACK on humanity, and upon everything everyone else holds dear. And yet, its agents do not hesitate to prop each other up as victims; whenever people get wise to it and call it out (for exactly what's really happening). Meanwhile, a lie is a lie. You can say "maybe Gavin doesn't realize he keeps boldly speaking absolutely untrue things". But your overlooking the fact that he's not NEW to the scene. He's not some rookie upstart who joined the arena for a battle he hadn't trained for. Plus, he's committing a violation of ethics by failing to fact-check himself before writing, narrating, and then publishing public statements in defense of factually-incorrect apologetics. Plus, he is not in the habit of admitting when he spoke untrue things. Instead, ... He doubles-down where he thinks he can afford to. And then he waits for his followers to FORGET about the factual-untruths and logical fallacies he never followed up on; after far-better-informed (and far more ethical) scholars have corrected him. Meanwhile, even when Gavin (or any other apologist) speaks accidentally untrue thing, ... it BECOMES an intentional lie when they CHOOSE not to publish the needed corrections and concessions. Thus, nobody needs to guess about what he's doing. We only need to notice it, and then he honest with ourselves (and each other) about it; -which is clearly something you aren't prepared to do. ------- Post edit. Follow up. Posted to that same sub-threat, this comment has now appeared [my reply follows]:

@sabrinaantonioverita3061

 

@ what a ridiculously bigoted statement. an apologist is just someone who defends a position. anyone who has an opinion (i.e. everyone) and who would be willing to defend it is an apologist by definition. you’re doing apologetics right now. all scholars are apologists, though not all apologists are scholars

Show less

@ApPersonaNonGrata

0 seconds ago

​ @sabrinaantonioverita3061  If we employ the generic meaning of the term, then zero bigotry is even possible. And yet, If we recognize this thread's specific contextually-provided meaning for the term, then the generic meaning (which you cited) becomes completely irrelevant to anything said here before you chimed in. You can't have it both ways. Meanwhile, "bigotry" still wouldn't apply to the actual context we find ourselves discussing. Because the meaning of that term refers to opinions that are not based on facts, reason, ethics, or actual experience. It refers to dislike, hostility, or unjust behavior deriving from unfounded opinions. That's why we can't say that it's bigotry to categorically denounce the Charles Manson Cult, or serial killers, or serial "S.A"ers. --- Earn a rep = get the rep earned. --- I'd also direct you to Karl Popper's 'Paradox of Tolerance". Truly tolerant society must retain the right to deny tolerance to those who promote intolerance. That applies here because you're defending a religious movement which super-aggressively does exactly what you're saying nobody should ever do. To further clarify this point, Popper posited that if intolerant ideologies are allowed unchecked expression, they could exploit open society values to erode or destroy tolerance itself through authoritarian or oppressive practices. The paradox has been widely discussed within ethics and political philosophy. John Rawls, for instance, argued that a just society should generally tolerate the intolerant, reserving self-preservation actions only when intolerance poses a concrete threat to liberty and stability. However, that's exactly the threat Ortlund's religion directly poses, and exactly the sort of damage it causes. So if we're looking for carefully attenuated exceptions to the Popper's sage and timeless advice, Ortlund's version of "Christianity" wouldn't qualify for that exemption.

Note: This is what's seen at Sabrina's Youtube page: