An Open Challenge to Norman Geisler

[Teluog]

I think I know what it means in this case: you can't get even get Licona to side with you.

Wrong, that is not what peer-review is.

And besides, there are others of greater nobility who side with him: Jesus, Apostle Paul, John Baptist, the OT prophets, etc. He certainly isn't going to side with a nobody like YOU.

[Mountain Man]

James 3
1 Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. 2 We all stumble in many ways. Anyone who is never at fault in what they say is perfect, able to keep their whole body in check.

3 When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. 4 Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. 5 Likewise, the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. 6 The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one’s life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

7 All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and sea creatures are being tamed and have been tamed by mankind, 8 but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

9 With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness. 10 Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be. 11 Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? 12 My brothers and sisters, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.

What's your point?

Or are you under the impression that this passage is somehow a condemnation of challenge/riposte? Well, first of all, that would make Jesus a hypocrite at best since he never pulled any rhetorical punches when publicly defending the gospel. Secondly, "curses" here has a very specific meaning and is a translation of the Greek word kataraomai which means "wishing evil on someone", so when we tell someone like SarahB that she's a "little dumbass", yes, it's deliberately insulting but could hardly be considered a curse.

[Thersites]

What's your point?

Riposte, if it is to be used at all, should be used by people who actually know what they're doing. The tongue is a dangerous thing, as the passage makes quite clear. Even if we were to assume that Mr. Holding has used it properly at all times, it is quite clear that not everyone who uses this excuse is quite so adept as, for the sake of this argument, we assume that JP is, and their improper uses of their tongues can cause actual harm, much like a five-year old with a loaded gun.

Or are you under the impression that this passage is somehow a condemnation of challenge/riposte? Well, first of all, that would make Jesus a hypocrite at best since he never pulled any rhetorical punches when publicly defending the gospel.

Yeah, but He was never a jerk about it. moreover, he was actually capable of reading the hearts of his interlocutors, and he was actually right in his "rhetorical punches" because of that.

Secondly, "curses" here has a very specific meaning and is a translation of the Greek word kataraomai which means "wishing evil on someone", so when we tell someone like SarahB that she's a "little dumbass", yes, it's deliberately insulting but could hardly be considered a curse.

So am I to take it, then, that you wish SarahB well? Or are you indifferent?

[Chaotic Void]

Riposte, if it is to be used at all, should be used by people who actually know what they're doing. The tongue is a dangerous thing, as the passage makes quite clear. Even if we were to assume that Mr. Holding has used it properly at all times, it is quite clear that not everyone who uses this excuse is quite so adept as, for the sake of this argument, we assume that JP is, and their improper uses of their tongues can cause actual harm, much like a five-year old with a loaded gun.

That's true, but the onus is on the one who makes the claim that the person is abusing Challenge/Riposte.

Yeah, but He was never a jerk about it. moreover, he was actually capable of reading the hearts of his interlocutors, and he was actually right in his "rhetorical punches" because of that.

I'm pretty sure calling people "Spawn of Satan/Brood of Vipers" and "Whitewashed Tombs" could hardly be considered 'not being a jerk'. You're bringing this up is highly ironic, I might add, since you've admitted in the SB that you think certain Twebbers are 'idiots'.

So am I to take it, then, that you wish SarahB well? Or are you indifferent?

Um... there's a substantial difference between calling someone a dumbass in an internet argument and seriously (as in, not for rhetorical effect) wishing evil on someone (unless you think Paul is in violation of this when he wishes the Judaizers would go Castrate themselves).

[Thersites]

[QUOTE=Chaotic Void;3368243]That's true, but the onus is on the one who makes the claim that the person is abusing Challenge/Riposte.

What would such proof look like?

I'm pretty sure calling people "Spawn of Satan/Brood of Vipers" and "Whitewashed Tombs" could hardly be considered 'not being a jerk'. You're bringing this up is highly ironic, I might add, since you've admitted in the SB that you think certain Twebbers are 'idiots'.

Venting frustration and wishing ill are two different things.

Um... there's a substantial difference between calling someone a dumbass in an internet argument and seriously (as in, not for rhetorical effect) wishing evil on someone (unless you think Paul is in violation of this when he wishes the Judaizers would go Castrate themselves).

Even so, I think a person in an internet argument can be forgiven for thinking that someone who continually insults them does not in fact have their best interests at heart.

[fm93]

moreover, [Jesus] was actually capable of reading the hearts of his interlocutors, and he was actually right in his "rhetorical punches" because of that.

We can read our opponents' hearts too--people like John Loftus and the trolls on this site essentially wear them on their sleeves. I mean, it's pretty obvious that they're not interested in being reasonable or seeking truth, but rather are intent on tearing apart a faith and whatnot--they've basically admitted as much.

[Thersites]

We can read our opponents' hearts too--people like John Loftus and the trolls on this site essentially wear them on their sleeves. I mean, it's pretty obvious that they're not interested in being reasonable or seeking truth, but rather are intent on tearing apart a faith and whatnot--they've basically admitted as much.

Theoretically, yes, but in practice, how well can you trust yourself to judge a person's heart correctly in every case, especially when you are attempting to do it through such a limited medium as the Internet?

[fm93]

Doesn't matter if it's on the Internet. When those antagonistic skeptics run away from your responses to them and later, to a different group of believers, present the same arguments that you refuted, I can easily see what's in their heart. When those antagonistic skeptics march up to a group of believers and start spewing venom, portraying belief in the worst possible way and aggressively making arguments against it, I can easily see what's in their heart.

I acknowledge, of course, that I can't always read a person's heart correctly, but in those above cases, when they make it so clear, there's not much room for doubt--those antagonistic skeptics are hell-bent on tearing people down. How else would you describe it when Loftus boasts that he's deconverted another believer?

[Mountain Man]

Riposte, if it is to be used at all, should be used by people who actually know what they're doing. The tongue is a dangerous thing, as the passage makes quite clear. Even if we were to assume that Mr. Holding has used it properly at all times, it is quite clear that not everyone who uses this excuse is quite so adept as, for the sake of this argument, we assume that JP is, and their improper uses of their tongues can cause actual harm, much like a five-year old with a loaded gun.

Yeah, but He was never a jerk about it. moreover, he was actually capable of reading the hearts of his interlocutors, and he was actually right in his "rhetorical punches" because of that.

So am I to take it, then, that you wish SarahB well? Or are you indifferent?

Even a kindly word spoken at the wrong time can cause harm. All you've really said is that we should exercise discernment, which is something I readily agree with. Now was Jesus a jerk? I bet the pharisees thought he was. So what? You say that Jesus could read their hearts, but it is not beyond us to discern someone's true intent even if not explicitly stated, so that rationalization goes out the window. As for SarahB, I do not wish evil on her, so I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here.

[Mountain Man]

Theoretically, yes...

Theoretically and in practice. Again, all you're really saying here is that we should use discernment in our dealings with others. There's nothing here that says that riposte is incautious.

By the way, you also haven't owned up to misusing scripture. Riposte is not cursing, and it was terribly unfair of you to imply that it was.

[SarahB]

Theoretically and in practice. Again, all you're really saying here is that we should use discernment in our dealings with others. There's nothing here that says that riposte is incautious.

By the way, you also haven't owned up to misusing scripture. Riposte is not cursing, and it was terribly unfair of you to imply that it was.

Anything incautious about the following?

...(kiss kiss smack smack hiney lip balm etc)...

[Mountain Man]

[Thersites]

Theoretically and in practice. Again, all you're really saying here is that we should use discernment in our dealings with others. There's nothing here that says that riposte is incautious.

Deliberately insulting words should not be used lightly. You say that you discern: perhaps you do. However, there are those on this forum who do not.

By the way, you also haven't owned up to misusing scripture. Riposte is not cursing, and it was terribly unfair of you to imply that it was.

There's a significant difference between a clever retort and a mindless insult. In the latter case, I think it's close enough to what James warned against.

As for SarahB, I do not wish evil on her, so I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here.

What are your intentions, then?

[Manwë Súlimo]

I find this all supremely ironic as you have on multiple occasions called me an idiot, both to my face in the Shoutbox and when you thought I wasn't looking to other people. Get the log out of your eye, Mr. Male SarahB, then talk to us about our sin.

[Thersites]

I find this all supremely ironic as you have on multiple occasions called me an idiot, both to my face in the Shoutbox and when you thought I wasn't looking to other people. Get the log out of your eye, Mr. Male SarahB, then talk to us about our sin.

If you want to talk that issue out, shoot me a PM.