Aaron,
If “radical” folks use certain arguments, does that make the arguments invalid? Or do the arguments stand or fall on their own merits, regardless of who uses them?
It was I, actually, and not Margaret, who first brought up W&H and their spiritualist activities, so it is me you are asserting is “bigoted” for using this information. The point remains, was it true or not – not who has previously used the same data.
Bigot: “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”
“a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own”
Now, if I have documented my sources, and these sources have no doctrinal axe to grind, and their testimony is corroborated by other unprejudiced observers, and if I am tolerant of those who differ with my views, whence do you drag in the slur “bigot”?
I repeat, the use of facts by persons who – for whatever reasons – are disliked or disreputable, does not of itself render the facts untrue.
As for valuing one manuscript (text-form, actually) over others, to the exclusion of those others, this you say is bigotry? But what if said text-form has qualities which distinguish it from the others, and show it to be more accurate and trustworthy? And
this is the crux of the matter – what are the respective merits and demerits of the various text-forms? Below are examples of arguments on these matters which seek to examine the merits, without throwing around labels having no bases in facts.
I do also examine the evidences of others, and interact with them.
What is the authentic New Testament text? Answering Alan Kurschner of aomin Defending the Lord's Prayer 1
Steve