Wow. I'm flabbergasted by your post, Sam.
What did I say that was so improper?
Yes I accused Dan of "doctrinal carelessness", and also "doctrinal sloppiness". Those are not put-downs, they are my assessment of how he has presented his case scripturally. I have stated what I specifically found to be doctrinally unsound,
and gave clear examples, not all of which he has chosen to respond to so far.
I tried to keep it lighthearted at the end, by telling him to "drink some more Kool-Aid". That was not intended as an insult, and I don't get the impression he took it that way.
I'm more that happy to apologize if he took offense. But the "LOL" and smile at the end was to indicate I'm trying to add some levity to the verbal sparring that's gone on here.
No-one is putting anyone down here. But if Dan thinks I am, let him express it freely.
However, on the serious issue involved here, I do still believe what I said about his
doctrinal carelessness. Facts are facts. He has made several scripture references that have been clearly demonstrated to be inapplicable to the discussion. Should I not call him on it?
If we're all so easily offended, why even discuss doctrinal issues at all, since doctrinal issues tend to be polarizing by their very nature? Let's all just sit around then and bake cookies.
Dan has used non salvation-related scriptures as key supporting scriptures for bible doctrine (bad practice. I pointed that out to him)
He also used the
John 20:22 passage in to support his position while
ignoring other scriptures that clearly contradict his position (also bad practice. I pointed that out to him too).He has had his
incorrect use of these scriptures plainly demonstrated to him (and not just by me),
I have asked him several times to answer several questions directly, and his technique seems to be to avoid the tough questions and take shots at the ones he sees as "easy". (bad practice too, but understandable, perhaps :O) So yes, I have stated that I've found him to be
evasive at times. Am I not allowed to say that?
He has used non-biblical reference material from Jewish philosophers to build a particular point (
extremely bad practice) and then his point still had a huge, glaring inconsistency
which I pointed out... (he still hasn't responded directly to that yet).
Was that wrong too ? No pointing out glaring errors?
Overall, I believe I have been very balanced in my approach in dealing with him on this post. I have found his tone toward me at times to be somewhat mocking in nature, (
I didn't see you criticizing him for that) but I've tried to be a good sport and play it off, by just responding with levity of my own.
And somehow through this whole post you choose
to single me out, as being about "winning an argument or putting one another down"?? Please. I must say I'm disappointed in you, Sam. I thought you were more fair minded than that.
The fact is, Dan's hit-and-run, bob-and-weave debating style doesn't lend itself to a thorough, balanced discussion of the issue, but I did the best I could with it. However, when one repeatedly uses specious arguments (like inappropriately referring to non-biblical texts , and using blatantly inapplicable scripture verses t
hat don't even address the issue at hand) --this is untenable in a truly intellectually honest debate or discussion.
It is for such reasons I stated that he kills his own credibility with some of the things he himself said. I've said more than once that I consider him less and less credible the more I see of flagrantly flawed used of scripture.
Am I not entitled to express that too, or do you consider that another "put down"?
Doctrinal sloppiness is doctrinal sloppiness. It is what it is. If I see doctrinal sloppiness or carelessness,
should I not say it because that's considered "name-calling" now?
Should I not call a spade a spade? Should I not call out-of-context misuse of scripture for what it is? If you cant call error error on a doctrinal thread, then why even have doctrinal discussions then?
Am I not allowed to respectfully but firmly express disagreement If I feel someone is clearly off base? Please show me where I was disrespectful toward him or anyone else on this thread.
After all the things both you and I have seen Dan post, not just on this thread, but others, I'm just flabbergasted at your take on this.
Dan's words have at times been been very harsh against those who hold "the PAJC position". But
I've don't remember seeing you pull his chain even one time.
In the end, Dan's a PCI-er like you, so I guess maybe I shouldn't be surprised that your criticism would be one-sided. I must say again though, honestly, I expected you to be a bit more fair, and balanced.
)
Linear Mode
