Gene, two questions:1. No, I'm not one for movies at all. I rarely watch them. I'm familiar with the movie, but I've not watched it.
-- have You watched Fight Club one too many times?
-- who taught You this ungraceful habbit of closing comments on posts that attack people? Haven't You heard of the right to a reply? (Well, ... this AND deleting people's comments).
Perhaps you would do well yourself to lay off the pop culture references given the shoddy level of argumentation for your apologetics positions of late. Seems to me a little less time ordering from Netflix and more time reading the relevant material might help. What, pray tell, new material have you contributed to the discussions between "Jimmy," Steve, Jason, and myself?
2. I'm sorry, but where do I find "Lvka" listed as one of the contributors to this blog? Try as I might I can't find it. Perhaps you can direct me to that place.
3. You don't make the rules here. We do.
4. You wrote:
Haven't You heard of the right to a reply?Beg pardon? Nobody here has a *right* to comment. That's a privilege we can give and take at our discretion. You think you can give yourself that right? I think not. You're screen name is "Lvka" not "Jesus, Miracle Worker From Galilee."
Just to remind you of the rules here which are clearly posted under "Rules of Engagement":
You are here as a houseguest. Behave like one or find yourself back on the curb!5. I've not made a personal attack that has not been warranted. Orthodox has shown himself to be dishonest many times here and on other blogs. Defying your ban is dishonest by definition. Pretending you are someone else in order to defy your ban is doubly dishonest. Further,he constantly and consistently misrepresents our own argumentation,not to mention the material from which he quotes. He's been corrected on his misrepresentation of our rule of faith alone on at least 3 blogs I read.
Again, from the rules;
By the same token, we reserve the right to use harsh, judgmental language where appropriate. Invective is context-dependent. The Bible employs harsh, judgmental language for apostates, false teachers, and other enemies of the faith. The Bible is full of taunt-songs.So, if you think a "personal attack" was unwarranted, you'll need to do more than assert it in order to convince me. I'm not the one, as in Jay Dyer's case, who used anti-Semitism as an apologetic defense. I'm not running about defying a ban on a blog by posting pseudonymously, to cite only one of "Orthodox's" many transgressions.
Remember that, in Scripture, most false teachers are professing believers. So merely calling yourself a Christian doesn’t immunize you from judgmental language where appropriate. It is our Christian duty to analogize from Biblical cases to contemporary cases.
If you don't like the rules that are posted - don't come here. It's really that simple.
Incidentally, I, for one, don't understand why all the whining goes on in the comboxes here, and this isn't just applicable to you. Look, folks, the rules are clearly posted. Steve has explained himself, and I second his explanation. You all know all this already, so the fact of the matter is that, by coming here, you accept those explanations and rules. You can't very well voice your disagreement all the while claiming you have certain "rights" on this blog. That's why we have rules posted. Don't like the rules? Don't post. Don't like the way you're treated when you deal in bad faith? Don't come here. Don't like the "tone?" Don't issue challenges. Call us "hypocrites?" How is it "hypocrisy" to follow our own rules? Finally, we can, do, and have had rational, calm discussions with many people in our comboxes - it's only when they prove themselves impervious to correction or worse yet abusers of those comboxes that we call them out.
Further, sometimes it's because we have to put out little fires all over the place due to this incessant whinging that we can't get to other comments. Sometimes others can do it for us, thankfully - for example, there's a dozen or so long stream in a thread on John 6 that I can't get to right now because of tracking down Orthodox's history, not to mention my commitments in the real world - and as a rule I don't usually pursue comboxes after they drop from the front page. I might get to it by the weekend - maybe. One wonders sometimes if some of what goes on here is part of an effort to keep us from responding.
6. The only time I have ever deleted comments on this blog is:
a. When a banned person defies their ban.
b. When a person double posts the same material, usually when they delete their own comment and then repost. The system leaves a note, and I erase the footprint, not the comment.
c. When Orthodox himself was told that his continued defiance of his ban would be a default admission that his past arguments were worthless and not worth the bandwidth to retain. He continued, we deleted his comments from the archives, only retaining what we had quoted in our own replies. Thus, whenever I see his name, his posts get deleted. That's why he likes to post under other names.
d. Excepting the above,the reason I don't delete comments is this: I've been doing internet apologetics for nearly a decade now. I long ago learned that deletion of comments leads to the accusation that you delete folks' arguments that you don't like or with which you can't deal. I'm well aware of the duplicity involved in saying, "Well, you can delete comments." If I did that, people would then say "He did it because..."
e. Another reason I don't delete is because I am a firm believer that there's a certain amount of damage only the opposition can do to itself. I'm quite willing to give my opponents freedom if I know it will expose them.
f. The only other time I would consider deleting comments would be if I had an Anti-Evangelist show up in a discussion. For example, this would happen if David Waltz showed up here in a discussion on Islam, as he recently did over @ Beggars All, in an effort to try to score points for Catholicism at the expense of Protestantism during an evangelistic encounter with an infidel - not because of the conflict between Rome and Geneva, but because that directly imperils the soul of the Muslim. In short, it would be (a) a demonstration that for all their bluster about us being "separated brothers" our Catholic friends are committed to ecclesiolatry, not faith in Christ alone, and (b) that therefore imperils the soul of an unbeliever. I don't have time for that. That's no different than rising up during a sermon in a church and contradicting the teaching. If I can attend Mass at the Vatican while it's been presided over by the Pope (and I have, in fact done so) and be silent, so can Mr. Waltz when I'm trying to evangelize an infidel.
7. The reason that the post to which you are referring has no combox open is because Orthodox has been banned. He doesn't get the *right* to reply. It's also a means to keep you out, as I've come to regard you as little more than a second rate troll who does little more that repeat himself. You long ago ran out of steam here.
8. The fact that you defend the dishonest says a great deal. It speaks to your low standards. You and your Orthodox compatriots reject what "Christ rejecting Jews" say, but you defend each other even when that party is dishonest. You'll even cite Origen, accounted a heretic, in your defense. Apparently, your ethical standards are quite elastic.
9. Finally, I wouldn't suggest you pursue this line of engagement further. Again, from the rules:
Triablogue reserves the right to make exceptions or change its rules on the fly, without advance notice, although we will make every effort to be as arbitrary, inscrutable, and flagrantly unfair as is humanly possible.10. So, I really could care less about your perceived "right" to comment here, simply because it's nonexistent. I've told you before that if you don't like a post - ignore it. If you don't like the content of this blog, nobody is forcing you to read it. So, there's the door, don't let it hit you on the way out.
This is not the Talmud. We’re not going to lay down case law for every conceivable situation.
This is not the court of appeals. We’re not going to explain ourselves beyond the above.
This is how it works: you get to exercise your discretion, then we get to exercise our discretion.
Oh, and one more thing, the combox here is closed too. Why? As they say, "This one's for you, kid."
Moving on...
Jason has already noticed some similarities between Jimmy and Orthodox...
I've done some quick examination of the archives, where we've quoted Orthodox, our long since banned yet dishonest Orthodox E-pologist visitor who keeps turning up under new names. There are some striking similarities.
1. On his own blog, he has an article in which he summarizes things he's learned from McDonald. It's about a month old. Take a careful look at orthodox-thoughts.blogspot.com. You'll find in that article some of the same things "Jimmy" has stated here in recent history. It's worth noting how familar "Jimmy" is with McDonald. One might think he'd just recently read the book...
2. Jimmy, like Orthodox, has answered our questions with questions to change the subject; for example, changing the subject from Josephus' use of Esther to his use of the 'deuteros.'
3. Speaking of which, "deuteros" is one of Orthodox's favorite terms of the DC's.
4. And "Bzzt," which Jimmy has used here is another favorite reply; as are the words, "assuming (here) what you need to prove," and "leading of the Holy Spirit," and references to "the true people of God."
5. Orthodox never was one of the brightest candles in the sanctuary. It's very, very likely, in my opinion, that Jimmy is Orthodox. I would suggest (a)if he is Orthodox he just come right out and say so; (b) regardless of whether or not he is, he be given a deadline to improve his argumentation or else be banned like Orthodox. That said, I have kept an eye on Orthodox in comboxes elsewhere, and he has begun to show some improvement with respect to his skills at argumentation, if not the content thereof. That is to be commended.
That said, Jimmy and Orthodox may not be one and the same. However, I think there's good reason to think that the correspondence between them is very like that between Robert and Henry, if you get my drift.
And the worst thing is this: If Jimmy the Orthodox is one and the same person, he would do well to just admit it. That might go some distance in getting his ban lifted. It was his failure to deal in good faith that earned him a ban, and it is is perpetual lack of integrity that keeps him banned. Instead, he persists, and because he persists he only digs himself a deeper hole.