An Open Challenge to Norman Geisler

[Manwë Súlimo]

Nah, I'd rather smear you in the Shoutbox while condemning riposte a few seconds later. It's what God wants me to do

[Thersites]

Nah, I'd rather smear you in the Shoutbox while condemning riposte a few seconds later. It's what God wants me to do

In that case, I'll just have to do it in public:

It was neither right nor fair of me to criticize you behind your back, regardless of how frustrated I was with our interactions. I owe it to you as my brother in Christ to tell you my grievances directly. I therefore offer you my sincere apology and ask for your forgiveness.

[Manwë Súlimo]

If you thought you were guilty of a public offense, you should have publicly apologized to begin with - and way before today. But fine. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept it.

[Thersites]

If you thought you were guilty of a public offense, you should have publicly apologized to begin with - and way before today. But fine. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept it.

Thank you.

I'm not perfect. I'll slip up from time to time, but I'd rather be able to admit it- at least to myself- than defend the indefensible. There are those around here who seem to think they're pretty danged good at knowing when riposte is the proper response, but I see reason enough to doubt their judgment as well as their tactics, especially since they seem unwilling to accept that they are capable of making the wrong call even on rare occasions.

In respond to MM's earlier observation, it is true that a kind word can cause harm, but I am far more comfortable handing out sandwiches to strangers-some of whom might be gluten intolerant- than firing a gun into a crowd in the hopes of hitting an escaping criminal.

[jpholding]

In other words, you have no idea what peer review means in any context.

No, she doesn't. "Peer review" would never be used to describe e.g., Mike Licona reviewing my arguments. The phrase is used of published review of articles in journals by other experts in a relevant field. In other words, it's a formal process.

Basically she picked up the phrase off a bag of Cheetos somewhere and has no idea how to use it.

[jpholding]

Then what is the truth of the text if it is not historical?

That depends on what the text is. A proverb in Proverbs isn't historical. But it tells some moral truth. Revelation isn't historical, for the most part, but it reveals some truth about the future.

And what role does God's inerrancy play or not play in the text?

If a text tells the truth, it is inerrant. However, historical narrative is not the only way to reveal a truth. This is the fact Geisler can't seem to grasp.

[jpholding]

Hmm. The little girl (SarahB) and the slippery eel (Spartacus) in the same thread?

The ignorant force meets the idiotic object.

[Raphael]

What I think some people misunderstand is just because some, myself included, think that that an Irenic style response is better and should be used instead, does not mean that the riposte style is wrong and shouldn't be used by those who think it is better.

Unfortunately some people, perhaps intentionally, fail to understand this and try use the disagreement over which style is preferable as proof that one is wrong, and attempt to cause conflict.

I'm afraid SarahB, your attempts to divide on conquer won't work because you repeatedly have demonstrated an incomplete understanding of these things.

[Chaotic Void]

What would such proof look like?

Being able to show that such remarks were unwarranted.

Venting frustration and wishing ill are two different things.

Since you and Manwe have resolved this, I'll drop the topic.

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.

Perhaps, but I think if people are going to want to debate on the internet they should be ready to grow some thicker skin. People aren't going to be as inhibited as they are IRL when it comes to insults and such, especially on topics where people are strongly opinionated.

[Thersites]

Hmm. The little girl (SarahB) and the slippery eel (Spartacus) in the same thread?

The ignorant force meets the idiotic object.

Do you have any idea how gratifying it is to my ego (and therefore rhetorically ineffective on your end) for me to see you saying something that completely validates my claims about your misuse of that thing which you call riposte?

I didn't think so.

[ukchristian28]

What I think some people misunderstand is just because some, myself included, think that that an Irenic style response is better and should be used instead, does not mean that the riposte style is wrong and shouldn't be used by those who think it is better.

Unfortunately some people, perhaps intentionally, fail to understand this and try use the disagreement over which style is preferable as proof that one is wrong, and attempt to cause conflict.

I'm afraid SarahB, your attempts to divide on conquer won't work because you repeatedly have demonstrated an incomplete understanding of these things.

I see the benefits of both. I used to think that an irenic style was always called for, but after dealing with fundy atheists (and other riposte earning people) for a while I have somewhat changed my mind. I think it depends very much on who you are talking to as even J.P would say. There are some people who present bad arguments and don't know very much but they are still honest seekers trying to have a proper dialogue. People like Sarah don't seem to realise that J.P will often change his attitude towards people if they show they are willing to be open to learning. I have seen examples of him doing this. Closed minded bigots like most of the fundy atheists on Youtube and other places would never be so humble, which is why you don't see J.P changing his attitude towards them very often.

On this issue, I would say I am now somewhere between what I was before (always irenic) and where J.P stands on this. I would also say I am not as good at riposte as some people are.

[Mountain Man]

Do you have any idea how gratifying it is to my ego (and therefore rhetorically ineffective on your end) for me to see you saying something that completely validates my claims about your misuse of that thing which you call riposte?

I didn't think so.

Funny thing about riposte, those on the receiving end never think they deserve it, you included.

[Thersites]

Funny thing about riposte, those on the receiving end never think they deserve it, you included.

So... remind me. Why, in light of that, do you bother with it?

[jpholding]

On this issue, I would say I am now somewhere between what I was before (always irenic) and where J.P stands on this. I would also say I am not as good at riposte as some people are.

Relatedly, it takes a certain type of person -- thick-skinned -- to be able to engage the worst of the fundy atheists and such effectively. Since I have skin as thick as a nuclear blast shield, I'm better equipped to attend to that type, and do so far more often than others might.

YT is rather like a mosquito infested jungle, into which I ride with an industrial sized container of OFF.

[Mountain Man]

So... remind me. Why, in light of that, do you bother with it?

Look at it this way, the pharisees didn't think they deserved it, either.