Dan,
The point of bringing it up is because there is a tremendous amount of repeated dishonesty and unethical debate on the part of a few. Most here carry on the conversation with decency, even though it gets heated. There are a couple who, in spite of repeated warnings, have yet to get that. Weren't you the one who started the thread on the fruit of Anti-calvinism? That kind of stuff needs to stop. There is no room for that here from either side. And I am much more lax on the Arminians than the Calvinists. If I saw a Calvinist saying something like that, or if someone pointed it out to me, I would edit it. We can do better, and we should.
I am not particularly interested in winning. I have already done that. But this forum needs to clean itself up and the only way that will happen is to hold people's feet to the fire when they persist in unethical and false argumentation.
I have no problem when someone differs from me. If Mike, in good conscience, comes to a different conclusion than I, he is welcome to do that. He is not welcome to make stuff up. He is not welcome to continue to misrepresent Calvinism. He has been here long enough to know better, and long enough to step up to the plate and handle it in the proper way. I wish with everything inside of me that these few would step up and do right.
The problem with the conversation is that there is no guide to decency. I have been tempted to edit everything that is not obviously Christian and gentlemenly in nature (with respect to Helen and Russell, and whatever other ladies might have braved the forum here). There is no need for the kind of rancor that goes on and somewhere, it needs to stop. When people find out that they won't be able to make false statements and get away with it, perhaps it will change.
Personally, when I charge someone with falsity, I try to make sure it is a clear case; generally not a point of interpretational disagreement, though perhaps I have slipped at times. We need to recognize as well that mistakes and typos aren't dishonesty. I document it when I make that charge, and I invite everyone to document it with me. If you think I have said something false, then document it. If I said something false, I will correct it and apologize just like I have before.
We need to think twice before posting here. I urge you and others to encourage Mike and these few to help lift the conversation rather than drag it down.
This forum can be a lot better than it is, if people would try to understand where the other side is coming from and respond to what they actually believe.
The point of bringing it up is because there is a tremendous amount of repeated dishonesty and unethical debate on the part of a few. Most here carry on the conversation with decency, even though it gets heated. There are a couple who, in spite of repeated warnings, have yet to get that. Weren't you the one who started the thread on the fruit of Anti-calvinism? That kind of stuff needs to stop. There is no room for that here from either side. And I am much more lax on the Arminians than the Calvinists. If I saw a Calvinist saying something like that, or if someone pointed it out to me, I would edit it. We can do better, and we should.
I am not particularly interested in winning. I have already done that. But this forum needs to clean itself up and the only way that will happen is to hold people's feet to the fire when they persist in unethical and false argumentation.
I have no problem when someone differs from me. If Mike, in good conscience, comes to a different conclusion than I, he is welcome to do that. He is not welcome to make stuff up. He is not welcome to continue to misrepresent Calvinism. He has been here long enough to know better, and long enough to step up to the plate and handle it in the proper way. I wish with everything inside of me that these few would step up and do right.
The problem with the conversation is that there is no guide to decency. I have been tempted to edit everything that is not obviously Christian and gentlemenly in nature (with respect to Helen and Russell, and whatever other ladies might have braved the forum here). There is no need for the kind of rancor that goes on and somewhere, it needs to stop. When people find out that they won't be able to make false statements and get away with it, perhaps it will change.
Personally, when I charge someone with falsity, I try to make sure it is a clear case; generally not a point of interpretational disagreement, though perhaps I have slipped at times. We need to recognize as well that mistakes and typos aren't dishonesty. I document it when I make that charge, and I invite everyone to document it with me. If you think I have said something false, then document it. If I said something false, I will correct it and apologize just like I have before.
We need to think twice before posting here. I urge you and others to encourage Mike and these few to help lift the conversation rather than drag it down.
This forum can be a lot better than it is, if people would try to understand where the other side is coming from and respond to what they actually believe.
) but I don't think that makes my arguments any weaker. I just try to quit while I'm ahead.