Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for October 10th, 2011

GO TO PART II

Point: Presuppositional Apologetics as taught by Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen and John Frame stresses a lot on argumentation that at times, in order for an unbelieving view be taken, one need to presuppose certain truths of Christianity in the first place for it to be intelligible and meaningful.  That concept might be hard to communicate, which all the more means the importance of explaining the argumentation and illustrating it.

Picture 1: There is much news in the fall of 2011 about the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, protesting against the institution of “corporations,” and banks.  The following image is telling:

Question for the listener: Do you think that even to protest against corporations, one has to be dependent upon the benefits that comes from corporations in the first place?

Follow up answer: If pictures are worth a thousand words, the picture above answer the question with a restounding yes!  It’s benefit are around us and unavoidable in what we own, use and do.  In the same way, even to attack Christianity one has to presuppose it, and it’s benefits such as being the worldview which makes human experience intelligible.  It is in the living God that we live, breath, move, do, rest and have our being.

Picture 2: Then there is this new story about the group behind the “Occupy Wall Street” and their relationship to their bankers:

‘Occupy Wall Street’ Blasts Banking Industry — but Apologizes to Its Own Banker

By Jana Winter

Published October 07, 2011 | FoxNews.com

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

The protesters known as Occupy Wall Street may be critical of capitalism, but they still rely on the banking industry to collect and process the donations that they use to feed the troops and keep their rallies going.

So when an account for donations was mysteriously frozen, organizers accused the industry of holding the money hostage — only to issue a public apology hours later when they realized it wasn’t The Man who had brought them down.

The confusion began Friday morning when the Alliance for Global Progress, the nonprofit soliciting online contributions for Occupy Wall Street, sent out an alert to its supporters with the headline: “URGENT! Demand that e-onlinedata Stop Holding Hostage Contributions to ‘Occupy Wall Street’! Release the funds! CALL TODAY!”

The alert listed the phone number for e-onlinedata, the credit card-processing company that had been receiving but not fully processing online contributions.

“Some $60,000 or more in donations to Occupy Wall Street are currently being held back,” the call to arms read. “This company is a sub-contractor to Authorize.net which, in turn, is a division of CyberSource Corporation which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Visa–a New York Stock Exchange traded company.”

The alert went on to say e-onlinedata had suspended the account, “citing the unprecedented large number of contributions.”

“This is an outrage and yet one more attempt by those alligned (sic) with the wealthy one percent in their attacks against this movement and against people’s movements everywhere.”

They also resent an earlier press release: “Alliance for Global Justice Sabotaged over Support for Occupy Wall Street and Anti-War Occupation of Liberty Plaza,” a lengthy rant of conspiratorial claims against capitalist society.

“This is too much of a coincidence to believe it is not intentional,” Chuck Kaufman, AfGJ national coordinator, is quoted as saying in the alert.

“My feeling is that there are people in power who are very worried about Occupy Wall Street and the protests here in DC. They see that these movements are catching on and spreading across the country and they’re playing dirty.”

But after Occupy Wall Street supporters inundated e-onlinedata with complaints, protest organizers discovered the truth: It was their own fault. They issued a public apology and called off the troops, saying the volume of contributions had been more than their account could handle.

“Following extensive conversations with the company today, we are confident that the situation is on its way to a rapid resolution,” the latest alert reads. “Please stop making calls to E-Onlinedata and please forward this alert to any listserves to which you may have forwarded our original alert.”

The apology stressed that the protesters’ beef with the “sins” of the banking industry should not extend to their own banker.

“E-Onlinedata strongly assured us that there was no political motive in freezing our account and holding the funds. … We believe that this is a reasonable explanation and we have no evidence that E-Onlinedata is anything other than a reputable company servicing merchants and the banking industry.”

Question 1 for the listener: Did the Alliance for Global Progress originally communicated their belief that their banks and it’s owner, the New York stock exchange company Visa were wrong in messing with their funds?

Follow up answer: Yes (see what was highlighted in red).  This can be compared to how those who attack the God of the Bible can issue their own self-righteous indignation against God.

Question 2 for the listener: Were the Alliance for Global Progress mistaken in regards to their expressed views?

Follow up answer: Yes (see what was highlighted in blue).  This is the case as well of those who think they have grounds to reject the God of the Bible.

Question 3 for the listener: Since the Alliance for Global Progress were mistaken, what did they do to rectify their false accusation?

Follow up answer: They issued an apology.  In the same way, those who have rejected God on irrational and immoral ground should also repent and owe up to their error.

Rhetorical Question 1 for the listener: Does action speak louder than words, true or not?

Rhetorical Question 2 for the listener: They say your checkbook reveal more of what you believe and trust in more than your hymnbook, true or not?

Question 4 for the listener: Do you think that for the Alliance for Global Progress to even sustain their campaign against New York Stock exchange and accuse them of being evil, they are dependent upon and have to trust in a New York Stock Exchange company in order to fuel their campaign?

Follow up answer: Yes.  They even trust them with their money in a wall street owned bank, to recieve and process funds that are sustaining the protest!  Can one see the same irony occurring with person X in his/her case against God?

Question 5 for the listener: Is there an inconsistency with the group’s protest on the streets and twitter, and the way the group live (that is, sustain itself)?

Follow up answer: Yes.  They even trust them with their money in a wall street owned bank, to recieve and process funds that are sustaining the protest!  Many people who argue against Christianity and it’s moral and social implications does the same thing: they protest one thing but live in their life otherwise.

GO TO PART 4

Advertisements

Read Full Post »