Another Non-Reply . . . And The Victims Are Still Under the Bus
Wilson is a master in cranking out non-replies, that I will cede. And of lousy thinking. And of evasion. I am blessed, though, that this time I didn’t have to read too much of it. Only three points, none of which is relevant to the issue, and none of which answers the problem I posted in my original critique.
It turned out Wilson hasn’t read that article. Ironically, because right before I wrote my reply, I had a small PM exchange with one of Wilson’s fans – or “followers,” if you believe he is a “leader.” The Wilson’s fan asked me if I’d read what Wilson had written, and if I hadn’t, I had no right to criticize him. I responded that Wilson hadn’t even read my article. The fan used those exact words to assure me that they meant he has. The words were rather ambiguous, so I accepted that might be the case. After all, who would imagine that Wilson would speak authoritatively without reading?
So I was right, originally. Wilson hasn’t read that article. He just imagined what my responses would be, without actually making the effort to get informed. Why would he? I mean, it’s not like his purpose is to be an honest church minister. One doesn’t need intellectual integrity to gather a “following,” after all.
I don’t expect that fan of Wilson to apologize. Cultic followers of celebrity-types never do. They never even realize they are using double standard: what their beloved celebrity can get away with, his opponents shouldn’t be allowed to. Over the years, I have been asked the same question over and over again when pointing to false teachings by celebrities: “Have you read all of his stuff?” Wilson’s “followers” have asked me the same question many times. Now, there, their own man says he made a decision without reading. I don’t expect an apology. That’s how the celebrity cult works in the US. Idolatry is always schizophrenic.
But, hey, Wilson has much to say, right? And that without even knowing what he is responding to. Typical. Don’t expect his fans to grill him for his making uninformed judgments; that’s not how the celebrity cult works.
His answer to my point about the rape scenario is such a perfect example of lousy thinking, it deserves full quoting here:
Second, in the rape scenario from Deuteronomy that Bojidar brought up, he did not answer the point I made at all. The case law there has a situation where the man is guilty of a capital crime under either scenario. You believe the woman in that situation because the fact of intercourse is granted by all the parties, but because there were no witnesses there is no basis for charging the woman with complicity. The man is guilty under both scenarios, and the woman is guilty only in one. Once this point is grasped, Bojidar’s whole point falls apart.
My point falls apart? How so? If anything, it proves my point. The case is like murder, according to the Law. The fact of the rape is not contested, just as the fact of a dead body is not contested. The rapist is like the killer. The rapist is considered guilty by default, no matter what; ergo, the killer is considered guilty by default. The girl is the victim, just like the dead man is the victim. The victim is considered innocent by default in both cases, . . . unless . . . one can bring another set of witnesses to testify against the victim.
To repeat it again, for Wilson, may be this time he’ll get it: The perpetrator (killer or rapist) is guilty by default once his identity and the fact of the crime are known. The victim (dead man or raped girl) is innocent by default. The supposed guilt of the victim (aggressive behavior by the dead man or willingness of the girl) is a matter of a separate case and demands its own set of witnesses to be proven.
So, to return to that cop, yes, we can condemn that cop. The fact of the killing is not disputed. The identity of the killer is not disputed. Now, if the dead man asked for it, this is a separate case. Bring your own witnesses, and let’s hear them.
I mean, lousy thinking can be very lousy, but I don’t think it can get any lousier than defeating your own case with your own words.
And third, of course, finally, Wilson does side with the victims. He just often doesn’t know who the victim is. Because the Bible doesn’t clearly define who the victim is, when one person is killed. I can help him. The victim, by default, is the one without a pulse. By default. Unless there is evidence against him. Just like the victim of rape is the one on the receiving side. Unless, of course, there is evidence against her. That’s how simple it is, Biblically.
As if being exposed once for putting words in my mouth was not enough, Wilson goes for it again:
Under Bojidar’s approach, if a man defends himself in a deserted place, and kills his assailant, then he must be tried and executed unless he can come up with witnesses to testify that he was in fact defending himself. His crime? Being waylaid in a deserted place.
Is that my approach, really? Let’s see what I said, in the article that Wilson did indeed read:
So, the three facts that need to be known are these: (1) the fact of the crime, (2) the identity of the killer, (3) the nature of the weapon.
Look at number 2: the identity of the killer. How do we establish the identity of the killer in that situation? If there are no independent witnesses, that second fact is not known for sure. The killer may be guilty, may not be guilty, no one knows. Unfortunately, in this case, the judges will have to let God decide.
Can that compare to murder by a cop where the identity of the killer is known beyond any doubt, and there are witnesses? No. Then why is Wilson using it as an example, and why is he putting words in my mouth?
In the final account, the victims are still under the bus. Wilson’s excuse? “We have to prove first that they are victims.” Not much of a “siding” with them, is it?