Practical Tips on How NOT to Defend SB from Criticism
Copyright © Brian Steel 2003Email: email@example.com
For the sake of this short Note, I will restrict my comments to Defences against detailed criticisms of the claims that SB is the Purna Avatar of the Age (with all the accompanying Omni-paraphernalia).
Defenders are advised that, just as in any other debate, for any attempted Refutation of factual criticism to be taken seriously, it is essential that you present the best factual and relevant counter-evidence at your disposal.
To protect your basic credibility, on NO account should any of the following tactics be employed since they reflect adversely on both the writer and the SB Movement.
1. Not reading the criticism to be refuted because you have been told, or you think (a priori) that it is unfounded, malicious, in bad taste, etc.
2. Not including relevant factual counter-evidence.
3. Stating categorically that SB never claimed to be the Avatar (Omniscient, etc.).
4. Denying, without any counter-evidence, that the criticism is true (whether you have read it or not).
5. Proclaiming (with thanks to SB) that the criticism is merely a deliberate leela of his: a test of devotees' faith.
6. Pointing out, as if it were a valid defence against ANY criticism, SB's use of devotees' donations for educational and social welfare projects.
7. Throwing up a smokescreen of personal anecdotes about SB=s transforming powers.
8. Citing other people's anecdotes and allegations about miracles as indisputable proof of SB's Divinity and Omniscience, etc.
9. Presenting unsupported or erroneous ashram gossip as fact.
10. Denouncing all criticism of SB as a malicious plot engineered by other (envious) religious organisations.
11. Protesting that factual criticisms of SB are attacks on the Hindu faith and, therefore, on Hindus.
12. Employing other reprehensible "ad hominem" tactics against the "messenger": for example, denigrating critics by ascribing to them (without proof) base motives, or attempting to disqualify their FACTUAL criticisms on the alleged (but irrelevant) basis of the critic's lack of spiritual experience or sensitivity.
Please read this note again.
Back to Brian Steel's Home Page
Back to Beginning of this article