I'm surprised this was even considered worth sharing with Triablogue's readers. But since Paul's post addresses me and he has disallowed comments on his blog, I'll respond here.
In dealing with my comments, Paul misinterpreted a few things, some of which I'll clarify now:
1. Nowhere did I accuse Hays or Manata of lying. One can "know he is defeated" and still fight on in ways that do not entail intentional dishonesty. Many a military commander has recognized his own defeat in the midst of a battle, and still fought on valiantly because he believed in the cause. What Paul took as an accusation could have just as easily been received as a tribute to his great poker playing skills (and no, I'm not implying he's some sort of a godless gambler)
2. Paul took my compliments about his intelligence and philosophical prowess as a criticism against the use of philosophy (in general) and his use of philosophy (in particular). No, my point was that he is savvy enough to form a rational argument supporting any point he wants, but that does not guarantee he will be right. Conformity to the Word of God is the agreed upon standard, and that is where I find his arguments to fall short (and no, I'm not calling him a heretic).
3. Paul took my reference to Hoeksema and Dawkins as a direct comparison to him and Steve Hays. No, they are just two examples proving that intelligence and rigorous use of logic are not sufficient to overthrow presuppositions that are dearly held by the logician, and they don't guarantee Biblical conclusions will be reached. Manata, of course, knows this already (hopefully he won't take that as some sort of assault on his character).
4. Paul doesn't seem to like Phil's use of a pirate analogy or my extension of it. He feels that it is mocking. Well, on this one I really do have to apologize because I thought he really was a pirate with a peg leg. However, this doesn't have to be taken as a negative; I quite like pirates (okay, I'm just being sarcastic now).
Paul says he likes to "bust balls" (his phrase) and wants others to lighten up, but he doesn't seem to take kindly to having his own busted. Still, I'm glad I took his advice and lightened up. As my family heritage is partly unknown, it's possible I'm Italian, like him. Or maybe I'm just what he would call a "funny Calvinist". Either way, Paul, try to "fuggehdaboudit" and get back to doing what you do best: reasoning with Scripture in the service of your fellow Calvinists.
Now, Paul, for the punch line: read your recent post about "Funny Calvinsts" and then re-read the post I've been referring to. You wrote both of them on the same day, and the very same things you excused in yourself you immediately turned around and criticized in others. And that's not funny.
Paul says he likes to "bust balls" (his phrase) and wants others to lighten up, but he doesn't seem to take kindly to having his own busted. Still, I'm glad I took his advice and lightened up. As my family heritage is partly unknown, it's possible I'm Italian, like him. Or maybe I'm just what he would call a "funny Calvinist". Either way, Paul, try to "fuggehdaboudit" and get back to doing what you do best: reasoning with Scripture in the service of your fellow Calvinists.
Don't ge it I see? The point wasn't that *I* was offended or bothered, it's that you constantly preach to us about how to be "nice" and "civil" and "polite" but then have no problem doing almost *identical* things as those who you tell to behave.
Anyway, feel free, since none of your friends want to try, refuting even *one* of my substantive points.
Steve, that's because he "knows" I'm right and is afraid to admit it because it'll conflict with what he believes is "the only logically valid system of Calvinism." ;-)
Get it yet, Derek? If you think the above is just silly, then you have some idea of how we read your comments.
It looks as if my silly, preachy, ball-bustin' comments have hit a nerve. I have actually helped you, but you won't realize it until the swelling goes down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1c7j_tZWRY "Thanks for stopping by, son."
I wasn't aware of all this "constant preaching" I'm doing. Maybe I'm "preaching" without really preaching, just like someone making an "offer" that is not really an offer? Or perhaps I just hit you in a sensitive spot.
You claim that your arguments haven't been answered, but I believe you and Steve have utterly failed to answer Ponter's arguments. I can't imagine you not seeing how doomed your stance is, except that you seem to be missing his point completely. Apparently you see it differently and think you have dealt with the issue (I haven't finished reading your latest post yet, maybe something has changed). So far, I've seen you break a lot of rocks (impressively) without touching the substantive points.
At least you haven't mislabeled Ponter as an "Anti-Calvinist", and I certainly appreciate your willingness to admit your view is not the only one among committed Calvinists. Kudos on that, but you should educate your friends on these matters. Am I preaching again? Sorry.
Despite your inane reaction to my hilarious and harmless "peg leg pirate" comments, you should know I get a lot of benefit from much of what you write and I still consider you a good egg. Just don't get all hard boiled on me now.
Anyway, what ever happened to you being a non-cognitivist about humor?
"Just use a little ice, and that'll take care of it."
Labeling moderate Calvinism as "Anti-Calvinism" is not an argument, either, just more of Steve's rhetorical hot dog filler.
Am I to gather that you would rather trade jabs in the combox than admit you were wrong about a blog label?
I'm not looking to get involved in your argument with Ponter. You guys have fun, I'll watch. But as I'm observing the debate I can't help but point out your continual mischaracterization of his position. If you can't even label his position correctly, how can you possibly be trusted to interact fairly with it? You're sabotaging your own credibility.
Stated more formally:
P1 Defining terms is integral to Steve's debate with Ponter P2 Steve equates historic/moderate Calvinism with "anti-Calvinism"
C1 Steve's definitions are full of baloney
-OR-
C2 Steve doesn't understand the meaning of words well enough to engage in this debate in the first place
Derek, you haven't hit a nerve. You put on the "good guy" hat here and tell us all to "behave," and then you go out and make comments ***were we to make them*** would merit your ire. Catching on, yet?
See, you call the "peg leg pirate" comment harmless and funny. Yet when I make the equally harmless and funny comment that Ponter dropped LSD and say purple, spotted unicorns, you came to my blog and read me the riot act.
Got it yet?
As for the rest of your comments, all you're doing, again, is simply *announcing* that my position is doomed and that I have failed, etc. That you don't know how to argue is maybe a sign to you that you're not qualified to judge who's winning this debate between Ponter &co. Just because Ponter asserts conclusions you agree with doesn't mean his *arguments* are any good.
So . . . because I took your advice, lightened up, and joined your ball busting club, I'm some kind of a hypocrite? Next time I'll think twice before taking your advice.
And you think that by criticizing me for doing what you do, you can preserve yourself from the charge of hypocrisy? You should check your logic on this.
I'm surprised this was even considered worth sharing with Triablogue's readers. But since Paul's post addresses me and he has disallowed comments on his blog, I'll respond here.
ReplyDeleteIn dealing with my comments, Paul misinterpreted a few things, some of which I'll clarify now:
1. Nowhere did I accuse Hays or Manata of lying. One can "know he is defeated" and still fight on in ways that do not entail intentional dishonesty. Many a military commander has recognized his own defeat in the midst of a battle, and still fought on valiantly because he believed in the cause. What Paul took as an accusation could have just as easily been received as a tribute to his great poker playing skills (and no, I'm not implying he's some sort of a godless gambler)
2. Paul took my compliments about his intelligence and philosophical prowess as a criticism against the use of philosophy (in general) and his use of philosophy (in particular). No, my point was that he is savvy enough to form a rational argument supporting any point he wants, but that does not guarantee he will be right. Conformity to the Word of God is the agreed upon standard, and that is where I find his arguments to fall short (and no, I'm not calling him a heretic).
3. Paul took my reference to Hoeksema and Dawkins as a direct comparison to him and Steve Hays. No, they are just two examples proving that intelligence and rigorous use of logic are not sufficient to overthrow presuppositions that are dearly held by the logician, and they don't guarantee Biblical conclusions will be reached. Manata, of course, knows this already (hopefully he won't take that as some sort of assault on his character).
4. Paul doesn't seem to like Phil's use of a pirate analogy or my extension of it. He feels that it is mocking. Well, on this one I really do have to apologize because I thought he really was a pirate with a peg leg. However, this doesn't have to be taken as a negative; I quite like pirates (okay, I'm just being sarcastic now).
Paul says he likes to "bust balls" (his phrase) and wants others to lighten up, but he doesn't seem to take kindly to having his own busted. Still, I'm glad I took his advice and lightened up. As my family heritage is partly unknown, it's possible I'm Italian, like him. Or maybe I'm just what he would call a "funny Calvinist". Either way, Paul, try to "fuggehdaboudit" and get back to doing what you do best: reasoning with Scripture in the service of your fellow Calvinists.
Now, Paul, for the punch line: read your recent post about "Funny Calvinsts" and then re-read the post I've been referring to. You wrote both of them on the same day, and the very same things you excused in yourself you immediately turned around and criticized in others. And that's not funny.
Blessings,
Derek
You spend huge amounts of time not interacting with Manata's rebuttals to Ponter.
ReplyDeleteDerek,
ReplyDeletePaul says he likes to "bust balls" (his phrase) and wants others to lighten up, but he doesn't seem to take kindly to having his own busted. Still, I'm glad I took his advice and lightened up. As my family heritage is partly unknown, it's possible I'm Italian, like him. Or maybe I'm just what he would call a "funny Calvinist". Either way, Paul, try to "fuggehdaboudit" and get back to doing what you do best: reasoning with Scripture in the service of your fellow Calvinists.
Don't ge it I see? The point wasn't that *I* was offended or bothered, it's that you constantly preach to us about how to be "nice" and "civil" and "polite" but then have no problem doing almost *identical* things as those who you tell to behave.
Anyway, feel free, since none of your friends want to try, refuting even *one* of my substantive points.
Steve, that's because he "knows" I'm right and is afraid to admit it because it'll conflict with what he believes is "the only logically valid system of Calvinism." ;-)
ReplyDeleteGet it yet, Derek? If you think the above is just silly, then you have some idea of how we read your comments.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteIt looks as if my silly, preachy, ball-bustin' comments have hit a nerve. I have actually helped you, but you won't realize it until the swelling goes down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1c7j_tZWRY "Thanks for stopping by, son."
I wasn't aware of all this "constant preaching" I'm doing. Maybe I'm "preaching" without really preaching, just like someone making an "offer" that is not really an offer? Or perhaps I just hit you in a sensitive spot.
You claim that your arguments haven't been answered, but I believe you and Steve have utterly failed to answer Ponter's arguments. I can't imagine you not seeing how doomed your stance is, except that you seem to be missing his point completely. Apparently you see it differently and think you have dealt with the issue (I haven't finished reading your latest post yet, maybe something has changed). So far, I've seen you break a lot of rocks (impressively) without touching the substantive points.
At least you haven't mislabeled Ponter as an "Anti-Calvinist", and I certainly appreciate your willingness to admit your view is not the only one among committed Calvinists. Kudos on that, but you should educate your friends on these matters. Am I preaching again? Sorry.
Despite your inane reaction to my hilarious and harmless "peg leg pirate" comments, you should know I get a lot of benefit from much of what you write and I still consider you a good egg. Just don't get all hard boiled on me now.
Anyway, what ever happened to you being a non-cognitivist about humor?
"Just use a little ice, and that'll take care of it."
Blessings,
The Preacher
THEOPARADOX SAID:
ReplyDelete"You claim that your arguments haven't been answered, but I believe you and Steve have utterly failed to answer Ponter's arguments."
Which is not, itself, an argument. Just more of Derek's rhetorical cotton candy.
Labeling moderate Calvinism as "Anti-Calvinism" is not an argument, either, just more of Steve's rhetorical hot dog filler.
ReplyDeleteAm I to gather that you would rather trade jabs in the combox than admit you were wrong about a blog label?
I'm not looking to get involved in your argument with Ponter. You guys have fun, I'll watch. But as I'm observing the debate I can't help but point out your continual mischaracterization of his position. If you can't even label his position correctly, how can you possibly be trusted to interact fairly with it? You're sabotaging your own credibility.
Stated more formally:
P1 Defining terms is integral to Steve's debate with Ponter
P2 Steve equates historic/moderate Calvinism with "anti-Calvinism"
C1 Steve's definitions are full of baloney
-OR-
C2 Steve doesn't understand the meaning of words well enough to engage in this debate in the first place
Derek, you haven't hit a nerve. You put on the "good guy" hat here and tell us all to "behave," and then you go out and make comments ***were we to make them*** would merit your ire. Catching on, yet?
ReplyDeleteSee, you call the "peg leg pirate" comment harmless and funny. Yet when I make the equally harmless and funny comment that Ponter dropped LSD and say purple, spotted unicorns, you came to my blog and read me the riot act.
Got it yet?
As for the rest of your comments, all you're doing, again, is simply *announcing* that my position is doomed and that I have failed, etc. That you don't know how to argue is maybe a sign to you that you're not qualified to judge who's winning this debate between Ponter &co. Just because Ponter asserts conclusions you agree with doesn't mean his *arguments* are any good.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteSo . . . because I took your advice, lightened up, and joined your ball busting club, I'm some kind of a hypocrite? Next time I'll think twice before taking your advice.
And you think that by criticizing me for doing what you do, you can preserve yourself from the charge of hypocrisy? You should check your logic on this.