Curious human nature

[BobRyan]

There is an odd tendency showing up repeatedly on this board lately.

#1. ON the "Christians misquoting Evolutionists" thread I provide sample quotes "of mine" where believers in atheist darwinism whine and complain about my use of atheist darwinist sources and ask for "details" in how that is "misquoting" - the only answer given is that the evolutionists are "inferring details" into my quote that I have not stated - then they admit to taking their own "inserted information" and accusing me of "misquoting" only because of their OWN added information inserted by them into my quote!

When I point out that innexplicable lack of logic in doing that - they seem to be taking their toys and going home.

#2. On the Sabbath thread - I point out that one poster has posted (and I gave a direct link and the exact post) that the Sabbath is only for "unsaved jews". I then point out God's Words about "all mankind" in Mark 2:27 and Isaiah 66 regarding the Sabbath and contrast that to the "JUST for unsaved Jews" comment of the poster.

They virtually go through the ceiling that they are being asked to account for such a gap between their statement and scripture. And I think those who agree with them are simply falling apart on that point as well - as if pointing out that "gap" they are embracing is "my fault"?

#3. Then on the Annanias and Saphira thread - DHK and HP spin off into a side topic on whether the DEBT OWED by sinful man was actually paid by Christ. I provide an insightful review of HP's argument showing WHERE the the salient point is -- and THEN I provide a solution that combines BOTH the "Christ PAID the debt that we owe" and the "How can one INFINITE being do it" problem in ONE solution.

To which innexplicably DHK says he don't want no stinking solution to the debate that HE and HP ARE HAVING - posted on that thread if it is MINE.

Now - I have to ask -- what in the world is going on with this board?? Is it just that certain compelling arguments are no longer tolerated?? Where has the objective ability to study and reason gone in those cases?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[donnA]

I haven't read a single onne of these threads you mention, so I am not on anyone's side. But just from what you've said in this thread, it looks to me like the real problem is people disagree with you, and you don't like it. Like I said I don't know your argument or theirs, but they disagreed and you put them down for it,

Where has the objective ability to study and reason gone in those cases?

Just to let you know, I usually disagree with DHK, so I am certainly not taking his side, becasue basically, I don't know what he said either. I think if your going to start a complaint thread you might not ought to use names.

 

[BobRyan]

I haven't read a single onne of these threads you mention, so I am not on anyone's side. But just from what you've said in this thread, it looks to me like the real problem is people disagree with you, and you don't like it. Like I said I don't know your argument or theirs, but they disagreed and you put them down for it,

Just to let you know, I usually disagree with DHK, so I am certainly not taking his side, becasue basically, I don't know what he said either. I think if your going to start a complaint thread you might not ought to use names.

As far as I know - I never put people down because their opinion differs from mine.

But if you would respond to the "details" I listed above it would be helpful.

For example - is it your opinion from what I listed above that "I TOO" should be "hitting the ceiling" when someone provides a link to one of my posts and quotes me - as I show JJ doing in my #2. above? You are sayaing that the fact that I note "them hitting the ceiling" that they are quoted is "me hitting the ceiling"??

In the case of a debate between DHK and HP - where they differ with each other - are you saying this is "my fault" for daring to offer a solution or for my observing that while DHK claims my solution to the debate is "off topic" HP admits that my solution is central to the ponit being made? My point is that I often differ with DHK on "something" but when you say "off topic" there needs to be some logic for that.

In the case of the evolutionists - THEY are the ones that admit that they are merely "inferring" text into what I have posted and then admit that they level charges of "dishonest" and "misquote" NOT based on what I actually post - but what they ADMIT they are "inferring INTO the post". They are then the ones that having no logical answer to this - "take their toys and leave". You are saying this is "me being unhappy"??? Is the "taking toys and leaving if my point's flaw is exposed" the "preferred method" you would suggest on this board?

And your claiming what? That I TOO should do that? That this is such a wonderfully logical way to pursue a point that I should learn to adopt the same methods being displayed in ANY of these three cases instead of showing my surprise that such methods are used?

I don't notice you using those methods - why would you think those methods are something I should adopt or accept as "normal"?

As I said - before - something unnusual is going on with the board lately.

As I have said on other threads - simply claiming something without 'showing your work" in the details - is not as hepful in substance as being willing to "show the point" in fact.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I have probably differred in my POV with every single person on this board at one time or another, on one subject or another. That is to be expected - we do not all agree on everything. But what I do notice is that the weaker an argument becomes the more unfounded accusation you will find in each post.

The old rule applies "Where substance fails ah hominem prevails".

Eventually it reaches a point where there is no substance at all in the posts any more and almost every quote I provide from the opposing argument has me ending the quote with the phrase "obligatory rant deleted" in my responses.

How much better to be logical, objective and yet still passionate about our approach to the Bible and supporting our doctrines "sola scriptura".

Hard to do - but still a good model to follow rather than simply emotionaly complaining that our view is not comparing well to scripture on close review.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[drfuss]

There is an old adage: "The weaker the augument, the stronger the words."

I haven't followed the threads you are talking about. However, I have noticed that when people have a weak or no answer to a point being made, they tend to return to their points only with stronger words rather than answer the point.

I suppose it is just human nature at work.

 

[BobRyan]

I agree and you always see this on one thread or another - but it is a little surprising to see it creep up on multiple threads at the same time with different posters as the source.

 

[Hope of Glory]

I agree and you always see this on one thread or another - but it is a little surprising to see it creep up on multiple threads at the same time with different posters as the source.

Ironically, all with one person (you) at the center.

But, I'm sure it's all everyone's fault but yours.