Why Argue With Success?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I suspect you are already commissioned to (mis)represent those unaccredited institutions you so stoutly defend ,and I would not wish to further contribute to your apostasy

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

But it pays the car payment, Bill. Sorta like all the RA Ph.D.'s who serve as faculty at non-RA schools--even those institutions which state they are seeking RA.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ah yes, but your analogy is a poor one as in reference to those RA PhDs who share themselves at non RA theological schools, their function is the proclamation of divine truth whereas yours is the proliferation of deceptive trickery Somehow these are not equivalent in nobility regardless of the similarity in remuneration. (just spoofin Russell)



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

But if any theological school which lacks RA is deceptive, fraudulent and unethical (as the perception of some is), would the RA Ph.D.'s not be guilty by association? Would they too not be guilty of deceptive trickery?

That is, if indeed, every non-RA theological institution is guilty of deceptive trickery. Personally, I don't embrace that position.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Russell, Russell, did I say "ANY school which lacks RA"?

The deceptiveness, as you well know , is not the lack of Gov approved accreditation, but the claim of genuine accreditation and utility without that!

Indeed, you do wrong to attempt to justify your argument by pitch forking straw men!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

If a school claims that its non-USDoE/CHEA recognized accreditation has the same utility as USDoE/CHEA recognized accreditation then I agree. This is deception! But, if the school simply states that it is accredited, and also states that the accreditation is not USDoE/CHEA recognized, how is this deceptive?

Does "genuine" accreditation mean only USDoE/CHEA recognized? Or could it mean accreditation as in TRACS--during its pre-USDoE/CHEA recognized status. During that time TRACS provided the same level of academic oversight it does now, the only difference is that it did not have USDoE/CHEA recognition. Does that recognition automatically mean that it is now "genuine," where before it wasn't?

BTW, I do love our banter, Bill.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I love our banter too, Russell.

We know, don't we Russell, that school on which we focus. You are not representing correctly the claims of that school. Trinity does not simply say our accreditation is not Gov approved. It says, by virtue of our relationships with U of L and CC/ we are accepted world wide. That is deception , old friend!

Trinity does not say that their NAPS??(sp) accreditation plus 50 cents will buy a cup of coffee. That is deception. Russell deception is as much a part of what is NOT SAID as what is said!

But you , being confused by your Wesleyan misconception of sin, ie, a willing transgression of a known law, wish to exonerate the guilty by saying, "Oh well, if people misunderstand Trinity, and lose many $ and much time consequently, Triniity didn't puposely confuse nor do they know of any law in Scripture which teaches that the flock should not be fleeced!

We wage our mock jousts, but God weighs and judges ,...and Trinity is found wanting!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


I hope Russell doesn't mind my making an additional comment. He raises valid questions:

1) QUESTION:

How is Trinity deceptive since it says its accreditation is not USDoE/CHEA recognized?

ANSWER:

The deception in this reference to NAPSC (or whatever) is not in what Trinity says but in what Trinity does not say. It does not say that Trinity opted for that accreditor because the school could not then qualify for accreditation by Gov approved accreditors. It does not say that no one in academe takes that accreditation seriously. It does not say that that accreditation will fail to be of utility in most every academic context. Can they legally use that verb "accredited." Sure! Can they morally, not in the manner they do, in my opinion. The issue is not a correct definition but whether it confuses and whether Trinity by that confusion prospers from the tuition of God's hard working saints!! But say that Trinity can both legally and morally claim to be accredited by NAPSC(?, sp), then,

What about the UL/CC claims? Trinity is NOT accredited in the UK sense by these UK "accreditors." Nor is this accreditation in the USA sense. Therefore , if they say they are, this IS misleading and deceptive! Further when trinity officials claim that its UK connections =global acceptance of the Trinity degree this is MORE deception!

2) Does the "gov' approval of an accreditor (as TRACS) make that accreditation "genuine." I think this avoids the issue . Did TRACS genuinely accredit before Gov approval? Yes!

But did that accreditation by TRACS have genuine academic (that is after all the purpose of accreditation, isn't it?) value before Gov approval? Not much! I don't know about the level of "academic insight" pre-post Gov recognition given schools by TRACS. That is not the issue, Russell! The issue is utility. My CJ Jeep has no engine in it! is it a Jeep still? Sure! Will it get me anywhere? Absolutely not!!



How is Trinity deceptive??? ANSWER: Trinity says its accreditation WILL get you somewhere!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Go to the NAPNSC website. See Trinity. See Bethany in Dothan. Oh see. See them. See the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality. Look, Dick, look. See Rev McIlvenna from the Institute on the Bill O'Reilly Show. See him. See Rev McIlvenna say "the church has no moral right to tell anybody what to do." Oh oh. Frown, Bill, frown. See Bill O'Reilly quiz Rev McIlvenna about his enthusiastic endorsement of "swinging." Run, Dick, run. See evangelical Trinity and fundamentalist Bethany want to be associated with ultraliberal McIlvenna while turning up their noses at TRACS, DETC, etc. (See Shuemake's posts on another site--ban, site, ban--if you don't believe me.) See Jane blush. Blush, Jane, blush.

'Scuse me while I tip the cow.

 

Um.
Can a Christian theologian really know whether he's successful until he's dead?
Nosborne, JD

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Temporally Sure: $, respect, extent of ministry ,number of folks saying "Amen, amen, amen.' published

Now, Nosborne, you lawyers are not off the eternal hook either you know!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hey Unk

What's in that cow's milk? want to sell some?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Does this mean that for every pro-statement one makes, one must also delineate all possible con-statements as well?

The question is posed, "Do you have medical insurance?"

One answers in the affirmative, "Yes, I am insured."

Does this mean that one must also say:
"I am insured, but not as insured as some."
"My deductable is $5000, while for others its $500."
"My plan pays 40%, but some pay 80%."
"My insurance company is a subsidiary of Liverpool Insurance, but some are underwritten by Blue Cross."

Regardless of what one does not say, one is still insured.

Now, should Trinity advertise in the following manner:

TC&S is accredited by Liverpool, Canterbury and NAPNSC, but please understand that:

1) None of these are USDoE/CHEA recognized.
2) You probably wont be accepted in most graduate programs.
3) You will not land a faculty position.
4) DegreeInfo folk will demean you.
5) NIFI will call you a degree mill grad.
6) You can't take a vacation in Oregon.
7) Walston's Guide says "Shame."
8) Baker's Guide says "Go elsewhere."
9) Some ex-Trinity students will nail your hide to the wall.
10) TC&S really is accredited.

Now, which accredited program are you interested in?

 

Uh, I thought "con statements" were the problem here--delineated or not.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Russell, my good hyperbolic bro,

Your insurance analogy is coincidental and a good one. I on Wed had surgery on my stomach. I was then asked "Do you have insurance?" I said "yes."

But Russell the hospital wanted to see my blue cross card. Because my membership in the Mickey Mouse Medical Insurance Plan would not, as you say, "suffice." I kept telling the hospital (spoofin now), "But maam, my Mickey Mouse card is a real insurance card. Mickey Mouse really endorses it! But Maam, Mickey said this is really a medical card and Disneyland says it is legal for him to say that. What, the card doesn't say it covers no expense, doesn't say that Mickey just has Goofy burn candles during surgery, so what? do you expect them to mention all the finer details?" But did the hospital buy it? Nope! No utility Russell. Now, did Mickey lie as to whether it is a card? No, it is a card. Will it cover surgery? nope! nope! nope!!!

I think you are again resorting to misrepresentation and your beloved hyperbole in your question "but what could poor misunderstood Trinity say?. How should Trinity advertise?? , if I were writing it then it would say:

Accreditation: Our materials , requirements, personnel and programs have been examined and endorsed by two UK universities and by a US non recognized, but sincere (according to Bear), accreditor and we have initiated the process for NCA regional accreditation. We do not as yet have accreditation which will benefit the student very much! We wish prospective applicants to understand the complexities of approved regional and national accreditation and the very limited usefulness of a degree which is not so accredited. Therefore we encourage each prospective applicant to visit these sites by Drs Bear and Baker ---(but instead Russell Dr Frey posted on the T forum that Jason was in it to make money and didn't really know what he was talking about! And this bro, from one who runs "Masters" is truly ironic deceit!!) :

888888888888888
888888888888888

Program: Your learning will be supervised by experienced professors who generally have regionally accredited docs in their fields. Should you wish personal testimonies of the quality of our studies, we have permission from these former students for you to contact them :

* Bill Grover (never said Trinity's program was a joke, only its claim of recognition and utility, Russell. My opinion of Trinity's course requisites is in general that they are appropriate!)!

*xxxxxxxx

*xxxxxxx

In your court,

 

Master's Divinity School

Now here is a magnificent morsel:

6 courses, no dissertation=Doctor of Practical Ministry.

Here is where your energy should be invested, Bill. Imagine what would happen if all this negative energy was spent focusing on MDS? Why, they might even increase the requirement to 7 courses.