tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post8348815642712561842..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Phil on PhreedomRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7644134610331369872011-10-18T01:22:35.566-04:002011-10-18T01:22:35.566-04:00Hi Derek,
Although I'm a Tblogger, I haven...Hi Derek,<br /><br />Although I'm a Tblogger, I haven't been involved in this debate at all. So I don't say this to support Steve or Paul. Rather I think I'm an objective third party. I hope you'll please hear me out.<br /><br />1. I would say it does seem like you haven't quite understood what either Steve or Paul have said, while it does seem like they do understand what you've said. But be that as it may.<br /><br />2. More importantly, despite you saying it isn't about feelings or emotions, I would agree with others that you do seem to be quite emotional about all this. But as Steve has said and I think Paul has intimated, the primary point isn't about their or your feelings or emotions. Perhaps that's a secondary issue (at best). The primary point is simply they don't believe they've sinned against you and they don't believe you've sinned against them. If so, then there's no need for you to apologize and there's no need for you to request they apologize.<br /><br />3. Of course, if you think you should apologize for whatever reason, and you do apologize, that's your prerogative, I guess. However, please take this gently, I'm afraid it doesn't seem becoming of you as a Christian to then follow-up your apology with a request that the other person likewise apologize to you. In other words: "I'm sorry I've wronged you. Please forgive me. Okay, now it's your turn to apologize to me." Please consider this seems to be the attitude you're evincing or the posture you're striking here.<br /><br />4. In any case, I think it'd be better to focus on the specific issues of the debate, to address the claims and counter claims, the arguments and counter arguments, rather than to make this an issue about forgiveness (e.g. who owes who an apology).<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />patrickPatrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-50814933238075872312011-10-17T23:14:07.778-04:002011-10-17T23:14:07.778-04:00Derek, you keep reminding people of how Christ-lik...Derek, you keep reminding people of how Christ-like you are. Christ is God. Ergo, you keep reminding people of how God-like you are. If you simply confessed your sin and left it at that I'd believe you that you had been truly humbled and that'd be all she wrote. But you keep hammering and hammering away at all the supposed wrongs that have been done to you and that no one else seems to see. It's irritating and, as Bnonn said, it makes you look 'emotional and obsessive'.<br /><br />I think that Steve and Paul have been over the top at times. They're men. They need salvation like everyone else. But I don't see anything wrong with the way that they've handled this situation.<br /><br />I'm done with this conversation now.<br /><br />God bless.David J. Houstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11846106292250369261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-84559493939121831472011-10-17T22:52:08.135-04:002011-10-17T22:52:08.135-04:00Okay Derek, perhaps I've misinterpreted. Seems...Okay Derek, perhaps I've misinterpreted. Seems to be a common misinterpretation though, so I guess the lesson to take away from that is that you come across as more emotional and obsessive than you intend.<br /><br /><i>You can't just say, "This is the way Steve is, everyone knows it." That doesn't justify continuous and systematic misrepresentation of an opponent, his behavior, his character, and his position.</i><br /><br />As I said, I wasn't justifying Steve. I was just observing that you must have known what you were getting into, however you see it.<br /><br /><i>But the ones who refuse reproof and go on in their self-justifying folly will find no mercy from Him. Don't let that be you.</i><br /><br />I try not to, though I suspect I have turned self-deception into an art at this stage. For my own part, I'm going to exercise the better part of valor here. See you around.Dominic Bnonn Tennanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03103838704540924679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53233633273356564802011-10-17T22:29:01.222-04:002011-10-17T22:29:01.222-04:00Nice, David. Now you say I've been comparing m...Nice, David. Now you say I've been comparing myself to God. More slander from the Hays/Manata support team. Do you guys ever quit?<br /><br />So, are you saying that confessing one's sin when confronted is practicing one's righteousness before others? What kind of hermeneutic is that? You seem to think doing the wrong thing is wrong, and doing the right thing is also wrong. But slandering a brother is perfectly justifiable? Take an ethics course, my friend.<br /><br />BTW, the only reason I brought it up was because Bnonn seemed to forget that I had indeed responded to reproof. Now, someone please find an occasion when Steve or Paul has ever admitted to being wrong about anything. I'm all ears.<br /><br />FWIW, David, I'm not looking for praise from you or anyone else here. I don't know or care who reads this besides Steve, Paul, and whoever else happens to decide to join them in their assault. I'm striving to honor God by being faithful to Him and His Word. If you don't like it, just quit reading what I write.<br /><br />Team Hays/Manata just keeps piling on, and still no evidence of self-criticism among the whole bunch. But I'm a hypocrite for confessing my sin!<br /><br />Apparently I've stumbled into a den of sinless perfectionists?THEOparadoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03214982083585956095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-32081130559512366522011-10-17T22:01:29.185-04:002011-10-17T22:01:29.185-04:00Remember that you have been the one confessing sin...Remember that you have been the one confessing sins? How could we forget when you remind us several times daily! You've been ever so humbly making much of yourself and publicly declaring your humility before God and comparing yourself to him.<br /><br />There's a biblical story that applies to the way you've been acting:<br /><br /><i>''"Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.<br /><br /> "Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.'</i> - Mt 6:1-4David J. Houstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11846106292250369261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47972252715150242072011-10-17T21:16:46.266-04:002011-10-17T21:16:46.266-04:00Bnonn,
You've misinterpreted the situation. I...Bnonn,<br /><br />You've misinterpreted the situation. I don't feel injured, and I don't think I'm better than Steve or Paul. Remember, I'm the one who has been confessing sins. Don't forget that I <i>accepted</i> Steve's reproof, in spite of the fact that it was laced with cutting remarks and slander, and I confessed my sin. Reproof, after all, is about confronting SIN. It's a wondrously freeing thing to see where you have been wrong, throw yourself at the feet of Christ, and repent. I will admit I am emotional about that. The bliss of it is beyond compare! O the glories of the free grace of God in Christ! Nothing from Steve or Paul can move me from it. He is so gracious, He even offers His mercy to the non-elect. He even provides for their need, though they in their stubbornness refuse the extended gift. How much more to us, His chosen and beloved from eternity!<br /><br />Don't assume I "feel" what you have "felt" when these men attacked you. I am not bruised, but REJOICING. As for all the debating and wrangling that has gone on, I have left feelings completely out of the equation, while Steve and Paul continue to talk about them. On wonders, Why? By accusing me of being "emotional" (another false accusation, by the way), they perhaps think they can weaken my indictment on their ungodly conduct. But it's clearly a blind.<br /><br />I like robust debate as much as the next guy (maybe more). I even enjoy losing a debate if there is something to learn from it. But insults, slander and character assassinations are beyond the bounds of the conduct prescribed for Christians in the Scriptures. You can say I took Colossians 4:6 out of context, and perhaps I did, but the Holy Spirit used it to good effect in my life. He is so gracious! And what gracious men he makes by His delightful workings.<br /><br />But He makes solid men as well. I don't care if every person on the internet thinks slander is okay for people who profess to be Christians. Let God be true, though every man is a liar! I don't submit to a mob mentality; I submit to Scriptures and God-ordained authority. So gather as many witnesses as you like, I will enjoy pointing to the Word of God all the more. What a privilege to look there for the firm, unyielding Truth that is not subject to human rationalizations but sits in sternest judgment upon them!<br /><br />You can't equate slander with reproof, Bnonn. That's a really big stretch that just won't work. Again, remember that I responded repentantly to the part of Steve's criticism that was accurate. But I'll not abide by the slander and insults. When I did it, it was wrong. When they did it, it was wrong. Now I am asking them to stop lest they deny the Word of God by their conduct.<br /><br />You can't just say, "This is the way Steve is, everyone knows it." That doesn't justify continuous and systematic misrepresentation of an opponent, his behavior, his character, and his position. Again, my appeal is to the Scriptures, and I am elated to bow before their majestic instructions.<br /><br />God is a righteous judge, and He will vindicate those who flee to him for refuge. But the ones who refuse reproof and go on in their self-justifying folly will find no mercy from Him. Don't let that be you.<br /><br />Let them mock my intercessions. Christ makes intercession, too. May His prayers be most effective in changing their stony hearts.<br /><br />Blessings,<br />DerekTHEOparadoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03214982083585956095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-39316200117847470122011-10-17T20:39:48.492-04:002011-10-17T20:39:48.492-04:00Two thumbs up for Bnonn's 'End Boss' a...Two thumbs up for Bnonn's 'End Boss' analogy! You nerd! :PDavid J. Houstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11846106292250369261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79294731437022439612011-10-17T19:56:11.177-04:002011-10-17T19:56:11.177-04:00Derek, you mentioned Colossians 4:6 in your "...Derek, you mentioned Colossians 4:6 in your "not recommended" post about Triablogue. But that verse is talking about a principle for evangelism; not apologetics or polemics. So why think that either you or Triablogue have violated it?<br /><br />You can't just assume you've violated biblical standards because you didn't like how the conversation went. Most people in the Western world are nancies—utterly mortified by the merest hint of confrontation. But that's not how Jesus was. You need to look at how discourse actually gets cashed out in the Bible.<br /><br />So Proverbs 15:1 speaks of turning away anger with a soft tongue; but verses 18 and 32 also speak of the hot-head, who will reject reproof and stir up contention.<br /><br />Reproof often offends. Yet the Bible lauds it. Have you created more contention by trying to prove Paul and Steve's wrongdoing, and showing yourself the better party? No doubt you feel injured—but they do not. Neither does it seem they expected you to feel injured. Triablogue maintains an aggressive style of debate, which you must have known going in.<br /><br />I don't mean to pick on you. I'm not defending Paul or Steve. Heck, Steve has ripped me a new one on occasion as well, so I know how you feel. That's why I can say that it seems you're relying on your feelings, rather than real biblical principles, to tell you the appropriate course of action here. When Steve attacked me, I took his comments as reproof; not as a personal affront, even though I was affronted. That's just the way he writes ;P<br /><br />I actually think Steve is good for Christians. He's like the End Boss for debate. He's got +5 to Daze, +6 to Provoke Rage, a +7 Sarcasm Attack, and +10 Logical Discernment Bonus. The only way to defeat him is with Detached Reason. If you try to use any melee weapons, his +8 Thorns will munt you. So if you're having trouble, you probably just need to level up some more :)Dominic Bnonn Tennanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03103838704540924679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-15677497324214173472011-10-17T19:52:06.889-04:002011-10-17T19:52:06.889-04:00In fairness, I'm not sure who deleted it. I am...In fairness, I'm not sure who deleted it. I am sorry for assuming it was you, Paul. Please forgive me for that.THEOparadoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03214982083585956095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-61439860114759267622011-10-17T19:48:09.192-04:002011-10-17T19:48:09.192-04:00Paul,
I agree that it is best to end here. Please...Paul,<br /><br />I agree that it is best to end here. Please refer back to my previous post (the one you deleted twice). Good day.<br /><br />DerekTHEOparadoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03214982083585956095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-57608966833237412362011-10-17T18:18:07.673-04:002011-10-17T18:18:07.673-04:00At this point Derek, I think we'd better move ...At this point Derek, I think we'd better move on. You've chosen to make accusations which you cannot support. You have an a priori that we've sinned, and you cannot establish it. You take your a priori and merely *quote* the sections you think justify your a priori, as if seeing the quotes should automatically lead any rational person to accept your conclusion. When I surmise that you're just grasping at straws and brush you off, you come back with challenges to support the claims with reason and argument. I then, against my better judgment (since I'm dealing with an emotional man), take you up on the offer, fully prepared to debunk all of your claims and force you to admit that you're wrong. When I rise to your challenge, you blow me off and make more mere assertions and announcements about how I've done this or that. I could of course argue the new matter with you, but you've shown that there's no point to that with you. You have your a priori, you're convinced of it, and no one can tell you otherwise. Your behavior and inability to demonstrate your charges here, along with the fact that respected people who agree with me about limited atonement, and some respected people who agree with you about unlimited atonement, nevertheless think your claims are bogus here. Why are there so many people in opposition to your claims, Derek? Why are there so many people who agree with you ideologically, yet disagree with you here, so as to avoid charges of partisanism? The "sin" of the matter must not be as "obvious" and "clear" and "unavoidable" as you suppose. <br /><br />So at this point, we'll just end the conversation. You may continue with your oh so very humble show of piety and "pray for me". Just make sure you announce your innocence and your humbleness and desire to pray for us wayward sinners more loudly. You wouldn't want people to get the wrong impression of you.Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-51222662474208741812011-10-17T16:52:02.291-04:002011-10-17T16:52:02.291-04:00Paul,
Your broad, general comments have suddenly...Paul, <br /><br />Your broad, general comments have suddenly become so qualified and detailed. You can move the goal posts and try to trap me all day long, but until you are willing to acknowledge your insults and slander it's going to be an exercise in futility. You wanted examples, I gave them. You still aren't willing to reconcile. That is to your loss, though you may not see it that way. <br /><br />Again, I wish you the best and will be praying for you.THEOparadoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03214982083585956095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38757504064195277892011-10-17T16:14:00.112-04:002011-10-17T16:14:00.112-04:00Wow, Steve, here again your are assuming so much a...Wow, Steve, here again your are assuming so much about me and even assigning feelings to me that you <b>can't possibly have the slightest knowledge of</b>. It is truly amazing how much you and Paul appear to think you know about someone you hardly know, reading my thoughts and emotions from such a great distance. Tell me, what am I going to have for supper tonight? You appear to be engaging in some sort of weird Reformed prophetism. The only problem is your judgments are false. You will have to answer to God for that, and may you find mercy on that day.<br /><br />You apparently haven't been paying attention, either. I have demonstrated that this has nothing to do with feelings and everything to do with violating objective, Biblical standards and remedying that situation Biblically.<br /><br />I can see that you're not willing, but for me it was worth making a sincere offer. I followed the Biblical principles in all good conscience as God enabled, and the rest I will leave in His capable hands.<br /><br />I thank you for your time and wish you the best. If at some time in the future you become willing to reconcile, please get in touch and we can rejoice in the grace of God together.THEOparadoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03214982083585956095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-27971563816653221962011-10-17T16:03:03.209-04:002011-10-17T16:03:03.209-04:00Derek,
So, let's go one-by-ne.
#1 "You ...Derek,<br /><br />So, let's go one-by-ne.<br /><br />#1 "You don't bother to study the matter." The context here is the relevant literature on the metaphysics of freedom. Given your comments and questions, it appears to me that you are unfamiliar with the relevant literature and you make remarks about the field which suggest to me that you don't study the field and are rather ignorant of the important and basic concepts, questions, issues, problems, terms, etc. However, if you wish to press this, we can. Are you saying you study the field of the metaphysics of free will? If you want to push this, we can set up a recorded phone call where I quiz you on what you've read and then ask you questions about the content of the most basic and fundamental books and articles in the field. <br /><br />So, are you going to tell all of us that you "study" the area of discipline relating to the metaphysics of free will, or what I correct?<br /><br />We can #2 next.Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-51770990517763144502011-10-17T15:53:47.772-04:002011-10-17T15:53:47.772-04:00Derek isn't a good listener. I don't think...Derek isn't a good listener. I don't think I wronged him, and I don't think he wronged me. Therefore, forgiveness is a red herring. <br /><br />I don't think calling him a "yes-man" is an insult. Rather, that's how he acts. Therefore, I can't in good conscience retract that charge.<br /><br />Sure, he doesn't agree. That simply means he views himself differently than I do, just as I view myself differently than he does. <br /><br />He keeps insisting that I should feel sinned against. Why am I obligated to feel sinned against?<br /><br />Because he's so emotionally invested in the issue, he assumes that I must be as well. But I'm really pretty aloof about apologetics.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-66655927016786911072011-10-17T14:35:06.782-04:002011-10-17T14:35:06.782-04:00One other note: expressing an opinion about how we...One other note: expressing an opinion about how well someone performs in a debate is called *observation*. Expressing negative opinions about another man's character when you have no firsthand knowledge or ability to back it up is called *slander*. That is a sin. You would do well to learn the difference between observation and slander so you don't keep conflating them.THEOparadoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03214982083585956095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1705236202487255042011-10-17T14:24:05.504-04:002011-10-17T14:24:05.504-04:00So you're going to cast insults at me and not ...So you're going to cast insults at me and not defend them with reason, while at the same time accusing me of not backing my arguments. That's unrepentant H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y with a capital "H", I think.<br /><br /><i>"Yes, Derek, I deny that any of those comments, especially in context, were sinful. I could take time to explain it, but I don't think it'd do any good. You're dead set on your witch hunt. Burn away."</i><br /><br />Such peaceable words.<br /><br />Well then, I wish you the best and will continue to pray for you, sir. Again, as before, I beg your forgiveness and pardon for the way I insulted you and Steve in the prior conversations.<br /><br />BTW, my view of reason is well described by James Anderson in this quote which appears in the sidebar of my blog:<br /><br /><i>"By advocating paradox I don't want to give the impression that I'm giving a carte blanche to not think philosophically, to not think deeply, about these doctrines. Quite the opposite. . . . My position is that with each of these doctrines we reflect on them as hard as we can, we penetrate them as best we can based on the Scriptural data that we do have, but we also recognize that there are going to be limits, and that those limits are actually a positive thing and not a reflection of some inherent problem in the doctrines or in the process of theological reflection. . . . I think we can make progress, we can make considerable progress, in understanding these doctrines and resolving some of the . . . initial difficulties that we have with them, but at the same time recognizing that we're always only going to get so far and when we bump up against the limits of our capacity to formulate them in certain ways or to resolve certain difficulties in them, we<br />shouldn't be too concerned about that. We certainly shouldn't say, 'Okay, we need to admit that Christians are ultimately irrationalists.' No. We don't need to say that at all. . . . It's a Biblically constrained rationality. It's a middle way between rationalism, of which I think [Gordon H.] Clark was a representative, and irrationalism, of which, to take an example I think the Neo-Orthodox - Karl Barth - would be an example, where you're saying that there are actual contradictions in there. So I think it's navigating a Biblical middle way between these two extremes: having too high a view of the human intellect, and perhaps too low a view of the intellect, of our ability to know the things<br />of God."</i> (James Anderson)THEOparadoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03214982083585956095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65372647915298641272011-10-17T14:11:21.480-04:002011-10-17T14:11:21.480-04:00Just to take two examples, I don't think he...Just to take two examples, I don't think he's well-read on the metaphysics of free will, and I think anyone familiar with the literature and reading his comments can see that. Is my saying that "sinful?" Second, I said he scolded me like a child and was talking about his comment left at my other blog, where I took a key from Ponter's post about wanting a purple unicorn and said Ponter was dropping LSD and seeing purple unicorns. Derek came into *that* post and scolded me like a child. I think he is a yes man, and I think he has a low and improper view of reason. That's my considered opinion. Like Derek said, "Aren't I allowed to hold that opinion."Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-50374294607863263702011-10-17T14:02:57.297-04:002011-10-17T14:02:57.297-04:00Yes, Derek, I deny that any of those comments, esp...Yes, Derek, I deny that any of those comments, especially in context, were sinful. I could take time to explain it, but I don't think it'd do any good. You're dead set on your witch hunt. Burn away.Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-13156743692663151832011-10-17T12:47:03.895-04:002011-10-17T12:47:03.895-04:00Here is my previous word of encouragement to Paul ...<i>Here is my previous word of encouragement to Paul that was so offensive it has now been removed TWICE by a blog administrator. If the Triablogue moderators feel the need to block this, you'll need to go back and pull down many of your own comments and posts as well.</i><br /><br /><br /><b>Paul,<br /><br />You continue on the same track without missing a beat - immune to your own criticisms, unwilling to admit any fault and unwilling to reconcile with a brother who appeals to you in kindness. You seem unable (morally, not naturally) to interact with me in a respectful manner.<br /><br />Whatever this is, it's not godly behavior. At this point I don't even care who wins the argument. I'm concerned about you. Please repent.<br /><br />If you choose to answer with another volley of the same type, just refer back to this comment again for my response.<br /><br />If you want to represent Christ on a public forum like the internet, please (for His sake) do it humbly and charitably. Do it prayerfully, and when you fall short of the standard, admit your wrongdoing and turn back. Don't go forward into the jaws of unrighteousness. Don't excuse yourself with appeals to your ethnicity or some other factor. For all your love of the Owenic model of limited atonement, please show some regard to his pleadings about mortification of sin. Show the world that it's not just about arguments; it's about God conquering the human heart (and mind) by His great mercy. Speak the truth, but speak it in love. Adorn your doctrine with grace. Let your gentleness be evident to all.<br /><br />Please, brother, take this exhortation to heart.</b>THEOparadoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03214982083585956095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-8804273483289026272011-10-17T12:37:36.036-04:002011-10-17T12:37:36.036-04:00Paul,
Am I correct in understanding you do not ac...Paul,<br /><br />Am I correct in understanding you do not accept any blame for the lies, false accusations and insults you have directed at me RIGHT HERE ON THIS THREAD, let alone anything previous?<br /><br />I will quote you:<br /><br />#1. <i><b>"Yet you don't bother to study the matter ..."</b></i> You don't know what I study, so how can you make such a sweeping assertion?<br />#2. <i><b>"... your temper tantrum of telling people not to read Steve or my stuff ..."</b></i> There was neither temper nor tantrum in what I wrote. Why would you say there was?<br />#3. <i><b>"Lastly, your post was a hit piece. You cited nothing wrong on my end, and the only thing you pulled out as justification was that I ignored your apology letter."</b></i> You apparently didn't read carefully enough. I clearly stated why I am no longer recommending your work, so you have misrepresented me again.<br />#4. <i><b>"your constant yes-man attitude and your naked assertions about how bad Steve and I have done in the debate, especially when you've never once seriously analyzed the exchange, instead you've moved your pom-poms around and simply cheered your side."</b></i> How do you know if I have a constant yes-man attitude? How do you know what I've analyzed? You seem to think you can get into my brain. I don't own or use any pom poms, btw, and I really haven't taken a "side" as far as I can recall.<br />#5. <i><b>"Your disrespect for reason and argument ..."</b></i> What is this? Another ungrounded and slanderous remark. Do you deny it? Or are you going to try to prove all of these baseless accusations?<br />#6. <i><b>"Derek's here to refute us and confound the errors of the unorthodox."</b></i> No, I came here to learn from you and ask a few questions, hoping for some change in your demeanor. Don't presume on my motives, please.<br />#7. <i><b>"... he's clearly unfamiliar with the relevant literature and terms in the topic we're discussing."</b></i> You don't know what I read or what terms I am familiar with. Your statement here is awfully presumptuous unless you are clairvoyant, all-knowing, or think you have a special word of knowledge.<br />#8. <i><b>"You came to my blog and scolded me like a child ..."</b></i> You didn't even publish the comment, Paul. Go ahead and post it here and let the readers decide if I scolded you like a child (I don't have a copy thanks to your not posting it).<br />#9. <i><b>"You were then found on other blogs engaging in the same sort of sarcasm and rhetoric you comlained was present in Hays and me."</b></i> No, it was not the same sort of rhetoric. You uncharitably read it that way, again assuming my motives. When you make an accusation, that in itself doesn't cause the accusation to be true.<br />#10. <i><b>"You then, like a cheerleader, ran around the internet and merely announced that Ponter was an gentleman and was working us."</b></i> Care to show where I ran around the internet saying this? I did observe on my own blog that he has been much more fair in his critique of your posts than you and Hays have been in critiquing his posts. Am I not allowed to hold that opinion?<br /><br />I could go on, but do I need to?<br /><br />Should we reconcile, or keep wrangling? You decide. I have made my offer. Please accept my overtures of peace, brother.THEOparadoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03214982083585956095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63512782649101331612011-10-17T11:38:04.756-04:002011-10-17T11:38:04.756-04:00So that's two times now I've asked for spe...So that's two times now I've asked for specifics and apparently that answer is: "It's just so obvious that you've sinned that all a reasonable person needs to do is go back and read the comments and see for themselves"???<br /><br />And Derek, by the way, there's nothing inherently sinful with calling you a "Yes-man,' if that's what you *are*. It means you simply affirm whatever Ponter says and nay say whatever we say, and do so absent actual *arguments* of your own, or even substantive analyses of the de/merits which supposedly characterize the arguments.<br /><br />Moreover, I believe that sometimes people deserve stern and strong language, especialy when they're being obtuse and are running around telling the side they disagree with to behave while at the same time glad-handing and gufawing with the side they agree with. When you berate and lecture people and treat them like children, absent argument and while doing the thing you oppose when in good company, that can ern strong words in response. You may want to keep that in mind next time.<br /><br />This is meant to be honest, not mean-spirited.Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-23970296034055707072011-10-17T02:00:40.078-04:002011-10-17T02:00:40.078-04:00Steve and Paul,
I was going to leave this alone, ...Steve and Paul,<br /><br />I was going to leave this alone, but when it came to my attention that someone as astute as Bnonn had gotten the wrong impression from my silence, I decided to make one last go at it.<br /><br />Here it is, plain and simple:<br /><br />We insulted each other. I insulted you, you insulted me (for example, Steve, you groundlessly slandered my character by calling me a "yes-man" - in fact you wrote an entire post about this and then didn't offer a single word of justification when I politely asked you for the reasons behind your judgment). Paul and I similarly exchanged insulting remarks (I presume I don't have to quote them, since anyone can go back and read the comment threads). Whether we felt insulted is not the issue. Launching the insults was objectively sinful and therefore it needs to be confessed and forgiven.<br /><br />Bottom line: we didn't follow Biblical principles of communication. Our speech was not full of grace. We were not gentle or kind in our remarks. We treated one another in a way that did not properly represent the God we serve.<br /><br />Can we confess to the wrongs we committed and forgive one another as instructed by our Lord?<br /><br />If you agree, I would propose that we add editor's notes to all of the relevant posts, saying we recognized our failure, forgave one another, and were Biblically reconciled as brothers in Christ. <br /><br />If you agree, I will post such a note at my "Don't Try Triablogue" post and ask that you post it at your "yes-men" and "Insincere Offers" posts. I would also ask Philip Comer to post a similar editor's note at several of his posts where this was discussed in the comments. If for some reason Phil is not willing to do that, I would at least attempt to leave the editor's note as a comment at his posts. I'm confident Phil will oblige us.<br /><br />In essence, I'm proposing that every place containing even a hint of our insulting exchanges gets a note of correction regarding our conduct and an announcement of the peace we have made in Christ.<br /><br />This agreement would not necessarily mean I recommend your work again (any more than I would expect you to recommend my work).<br /><br />If there are any other conditions you would like to discuss, I am listening.<br /><br />Are we ready to move forward?<br /><br />Derek<br /><br />PS - here is my proposed "Editor's Note": By God's grace, Derek, Steve and Paul recognized that the thoughts they shared in this post or a related one (including the comment threads) employed insulting or uncharitable language. Through the mercy of Christ, they have forgiven one another for these offenses and reconciled as brothers.<br /><br />You can probably improve on that, but it's a start at least. Let me know if this is acceptable to you. Soli Deo Gloria.THEOparadoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03214982083585956095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-31227516440700337732011-10-14T14:13:58.589-04:002011-10-14T14:13:58.589-04:00Theoparadox,
As someone who has just watched fro...Theoparadox, <br /><br />As someone who has just watched from the sidelines through most of this let me say that I think Paul's assessment here is correct. <br /><br />I got a chance to read your post before it was removed and it did look like the pious bully tactic. <br /><br />And Paul and Steve asking why they should guilty/sinned against seems like a perfectly legitimate question. And if you're going to bother making the accusation why not also support it?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05690738239872948496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67244053721889016862011-10-14T12:26:53.416-04:002011-10-14T12:26:53.416-04:00Put another way, you need to learn to put yourself...Put another way, you need to learn to put yourself in someone else's shoes rather than putting someone else in your shoes.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.com