"His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom 
of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the 
heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose which he 
accomplished in Christ Jesus  our Lord." 
                                                                             Ephesians 3:10-11

 
First Thoughts on The Story of the So-Called Veterans of Truth

Any attempt at stating and defending a paradigm of truth inevitably rests on assumptions. Sometimes, the author states their assumptions upfront, making it easier to follow the flow and development of the argument that they go on to propose. Sometimes the assumptions are not stated and they need first to be deduced before a meaningful analysis of the author’s argument can begin. Further complications ensue when it becomes clear that the author uses contradictory assumptions and competing premises are proposed leaving the reader scratching their head. Often, these assumptions are snuck through the back door as conclusions which are presented as true yet are far from established in fact. To make matters worse, the argument often jumps all over the place lacking any coherent flow or development. Analyses of arguments of this kind usually become exercises in futility. However, sometimes a response just has to be made, and so we look for the more apparent themes and premises and analyse accordingly.

So let’s make some initial remarks about this website and hope that we can understand enough to flesh out a response.

First is Prue’s gratuitous use of the term VOT or Veteran of Truth. Immediately apparent are both sweeping generalizations and clear contradictions. Consider:
  • VOT’s consistently hold liberal views about religion.
  • VOT’s have no consistent opinion.
    • Well, which is it? Are VOTs consistently liberal? Or are VOTs inconsistent? This is the kind of trap the rhetorical writer will fall into. Generalisations are great when preaching to the choir but anyone prepared to test them will usually find they lack substance.
  • VOT's repudiate the themes of the bible.
    • Prue doesn’t claim that some VOTs do this. The generalization as stated says all VOTs do this. And by themes of the Bible, Prue means the themes according to her as becomes evident later in the site. So this statement also assumes that the author’s understanding of biblical themes is true and correct and if anyone should hold a different view than the author, then that VOT must be repudiating a biblical theme. This kind of argumentation may work at high school but it has no place in serious debate.
  • VOT's hate and mock.
    • Hate who or what? Mock who or what? We’re not told but are left to assume. Really, this is just rhetoric. It has no substance, no context, no reference. It is an emotive claim of which I can see no purpose other than to smear anyone who disagrees with the author. This same tactic is liberally used on the 2x2 message boards. It is a version of the ad hominem fallacy.

    These are a few examples presented to initially demonstrate the overall rhetorical nature of the site. So bearing this in mind, let’s attempt to answer some of the claims of the site. I’d also like to point out that it is very easy to make claims of this nature, but harder and more involved is the task of refuting the claims and exposing their falsity. So please be patient with us as we begin a fairly difficult task of trying to make sense of and respond to what is largely incoherent rhetoric.

    - Rob Oxenbridge, May 24 2006


    |back|