Ed Dingess: Evidence of Hypocrisy, Bullying, and Chauvinism

[ApologiaPhoenix]

For Ed crying out about moral turpitude, he seems to have no problem with how Geisler's handled the Licona situation. Interesting.

[jpholding]

For Ed crying out about moral turpitude, he seems to have no problem with how Geisler's handled the Licona situation. Interesting.

Or brushing off the Caner situation as irrelevant, for that matter.

The real problem is most likely that he spells "turpitude" with two Es.

[edingess]

Just finished my survey of ICBI signers. Results:

* At least 45 are dead.
* At least 84 have no scholarly credentials worth mentioning. (including one apostate, Franky Schaffer)
* At least 105 are scholars in field not related to what Licona was doing (mostly in theology, but some OT scholars)
* I can't match 71 of them with known persons (they may have died long ago, or their name is so common -- eg, "John Davis" -- that I can't be sure who to match them with...or they may be nobodies, like Hal Lindsey, who is also on there)
* At least 27 (still living) are some kind of NT scholar who could speak (conceivably) with some authority on what Licona wrote about
* 2 (Yamauchi, Moreland) agreed with Licona

Bottom line: Geisler's appeal to this as a group of "scholars" who he supposes would support him needs a hell of a lot of qualification.

45 are dead. RESPONSE - and you point is?
84 have no scholarly credentials worth mentoning - according to whose standards? Yours?
105 are scholars in a field unrelated to Licona's work - and your point is? They are inept in such matters?
Hal Lindsey is a nobody? That is just ungodly behavior and should be avoided by any true Christian. Wow!
What are your qualifications? Do you have a theology degree - of any kind? What makes you qualified? Just curious.
What are my qualifications? B.Th. Th.M. Th.D. Specialities - biblical languages (50 hrs) (graduate) hermeneutics (adv.)

This will be my last visit to this site, Lord permitting. Is there anyway you can remove me from receiving emails etc? The nature of the dialogue that takes place in this site, in my opinion, does not comport with Scripture. I would encourage you, all of you to step back and think about what your doing and why. Jesus said that all men would know that we are His disciples by the love we have for one another. That is the greatest apologetic the world can ever witness. He did not say the world would recognize Jesus by the sheer power of our intellectual arguments. Even Peter tells us that our apologetic approach should be gentle, not abrasive and unkind: "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence."

Gentleness = the quality of not being overimpressed with one's self-importance. It means to be courteous, meek, and considerate.

Reverence = this word is actually the Greek word for fear. In this context it means "profound respect" as for a deity.

For what it is worth, I believe you have a serious problem with the fruit of the Spirit in your approach. I would encourage you to think this through more thoroughly. Go back to 1 Cor. 13 and look at the texts on love. Rom. 12 and Eph. 4. would be great places to start. Go back a take another look at 1 Peter 3:15.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

45 are dead. RESPONSE - and you point is?
84 have no scholarly credentials worth mentoning - according to whose standards? Yours?
105 are scholars in a field unrelated to Licona's work - and your point is? They are inept in such matters?
Hal Lindsey is a nobody? That is just ungodly behavior and should be avoided by any true Christian. Wow!
What are your qualifications? Do you have a theology degree - of any kind? What makes you qualified? Just curious.
What are my qualifications? B.Th. Th.M. Th.D. Specialities - biblical languages (50 hrs) (graduate) hermeneutics (adv.)

This will be my last visit to this site, Lord permitting. Is there anyway you can remove me from receiving emails etc? The nature of the dialogue that takes place in this site, in my opinion, does not comport with Scripture. I would encourage you, all of you to step back and think about what your doing and why. Jesus said that all men would know that we are His disciples by the love we have for one another. That is the greatest apologetic the world can ever witness. He did not say the world would recognize Jesus by the sheer power of our intellectual arguments. Even Peter tells us that our apologetic approach should be gentle, not abrasive and unkind: "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence."

Gentleness = the quality of not being overimpressed with one's self-importance. It means to be courteous, meek, and considerate.

Reverence = this word is actually the Greek word for fear. In this context it means "profound respect" as for a deity.

For what it is worth, I believe you have a serious problem with the fruit of the Spirit in your approach. I would encourage you to think this through more thoroughly. Go back to 1 Cor. 13 and look at the texts on love. Rom. 12 and Eph. 4. would be great places to start. Go back a take another look at 1 Peter 3:15.

This sure didn't seem to want to stop you when you went after a man for using a different name which you hadn't researched on to see that that was no longer true which implies an accusation of moral turpitude and saying you want your information removed implying you think we're threatening people beyond argumentation.

Apparently, you value hypocrisy.

Well the apple doesn't fall far....

[Kenny]

This sure didn't seem to want to stop you when you went after a man for using a different name which you hadn't researched on to see that that was no longer true which implies an accusation of moral turpitude

You don't understand Nick. It's okay to question people's character, their motives, their godliness, etc., as long as you do it ever so politely with enough passive aggressive insinuation so as to bring across what you really think without having to actually say it directly. But coming out directly and saying it, oh no, that’s unchristian.

[princesa]

wow, he had 6 posts here. It sounds like he was just responding to jp's 'fresh meat' tone and "Hal Lindsey is a nobody" comment when he decided to question jp's 'godliness' and 'character' and then it looks like he left b/c he didn't want to have that sort of discussion, probably felt bad that he even resorted to the calling him by his once true name ... oh well, another one lost.

[Kenny]

wow, he had 6 posts here. It sounds like he was just responding to jp's 'fresh meat' tone and "Hal Lindsey is a nobody" comment when he decided to question jp's 'godliness' and 'character' and then it looks like he left b/c he didn't want to have that sort of discussion, probably felt bad that he even resorted to the calling him by his once true name ... oh well, another one lost.

Actually, I had in mind primarily the passive aggressive insinuations that he made about Licona’s motives in his opening and subsequent posts. I don’t always agree with the way in which JPH employs insults (although I’m fine with it in many cases). But one thing it does do is cut through the crap. Notice also the difference between the way that people have responded to ed in this thread and the way they have responded to RBerman. RBerman is directly engaging the issues respectfully without a bunch of passive aggressive insinuation.

[jpholding]

45 are dead. RESPONSE - and you point is?

Uh, stupid -- the point is, unless Geisler wants to call on the witch of Endor, he cant use dead people's opinions.

84 have no scholarly credentials worth mentoning - according to whose standards? Yours?

No, stupid. They don't have a doctorate in other words -- the differentiating degree for a scholar.

105 are scholars in a field unrelated to Licona's work - and your point is? They are inept in such matters?

Yes, stupid, quite posssibly. Or, alternatively, if you want to use their views, it's YOUR burden (or Norm's) to show that they are NOT inept in such matters.

Hal Lindsey is a nobody? That is just ungodly behavior and should be avoided by any true Christian. Wow!

I agree. Being a nobody and speaking out is very ungodly. Lindsey's incompetence as an expositor is monumental. He should keep his mouth shut.

What are your qualifications? Do you have a theology degree - of any kind? What makes you qualified? Just curious.

My name is Robert Turkel. That's good enough. If you're competent to find that out, you can find out my quals too.

What are my qualifications? B.Th. Th.M. Th.D. Specialities - biblical languages (50 hrs) (graduate) hermeneutics (adv.)

In other words, basically useless in this context. And beyond that, a Th. D. who has problems spelling in English ("humorous") sure doesn't impress much.

This will be my last visit to this site, Lord permitting.

God's gonna force you to come back, Ed. It's foreordained. You're The Man Whio Wouldn't Leave III.

Is there anyway you can remove me from receiving emails etc?

I don't own the place, moron. But you can adjust your own settings. You have a Th. D. -- you can figure it out.

The nature of the dialogue that takes place in this site, in my opinion, does not comport with Scripture. I would encourage you, all of you to step back and think about what your doing and why.

Your opinion sucks. It comports fine with Scripture -- you're just ignorant, and reading a sanitized Bible.

Jesus said that all men would know that we are His disciples by the love we have for one another. That is the greatest apologetic the world can ever witness. He did not say the world would recognize Jesus by the sheer power of our intellectual arguments.

No such apologetic was ever made to "love one another" -- that, rather, is a statement of group identity, not a means whereby conversions among non-believers were to be effected. That sort of ignorance is why your Th D is mere toilet paper around here, Ed. As for your head up the backside screed re "intellectual arguments" -- check Acts 2. What did Peter appeal to as a reason for people to become Christians, Ed?

Even Peter tells us that our apologetic approach should be gentle, not abrasive and unkind:

YAWN...that canard? Nice try:

In the ancient world, there was no such thing as "something for nothing". You did a favor to get a favor. So when Christians helped their neighbors, others were inevitably suspicious. "What is it they want in return?" When they professed to want nothing in return for helping the sick, etc., it raised suspicions more: "They must be out for something BIG!" As Carlin Barton observes in Roman Honor (225), in a play by Plautus, the poor man is "not only embarrased but deeply suspicious of the kindly and equal treatment afforded him by his rich neighbor" out of "fear of being patronized" and because it "threatens to make him even more hopelessly in debt to, and so more vulnerable to, an already more powerful man."

It is in this context that Peter advises a gentle and respectful answer. When a Roman said, "Why do you help that man?" they were to answer gently and respectfully by saying, "We do this because of Christ." The passage has nothing to do with confronting ideological opponents.

Like I said Ed...your ThD is just Charmin here.

For what it is worth, I believe you have a serious problem with the fruit of the Spirit in your approach.

Sorry you're so deluded. But for what it's worth, you sure manifest well as a nut in the Spirit.

Go back to 1 Cor. 13 and look at the texts on love. Rom. 12 and Eph. 4. would be great places to start. Go back a take another look at 1 Peter 3:15.

I know each of those texts and their contexts better than you know the back of my hand. Your fundamentalist readings in modern English (or with modern Western contextualization) are monuments to ignorance.

[edingess]

wow, he had 6 posts here. It sounds like he was just responding to jp's 'fresh meat' tone and "Hal Lindsey is a nobody" comment when he decided to question jp's 'godliness' and 'character' and then it looks like he left b/c he didn't want to have that sort of discussion, probably felt bad that he even resorted to the calling him by his once true name ... oh well, another one lost.

I would like for anyone in this forum to biblically defend the manner in which they treat people. It is unloving, discourteous, and nothing like Christ. This website seems to attrack people who simply think that they can make their points and win intellectual discussions by bashing people over the head. They seem to think they have no ethical obligation to polite and respectful. The site has no value. That is why I am leaving. It is filled with venomous and vociferous hate speech. Note that JP didn't even respond to my post. He ignored the posting of 1 Peter 3:15. Moreover, he did not bother to demonstrate how his behavior is in harmony with Romans 12, 1 Cor. 13, and Eph. 4. You have bigger problems on this website than intellectually defending the gospel. This site is a perfect example of what Christianity is NOT! It is not the way of Christ for us to call one another stupid and refer to one's academic accomplishments as toilet paper. Nor is it every proper to refer to any human being, who is created in God's image, as a nobody NO MATTER WHAT their views are. Richard Dawkins is not a nobody. Hal Lindsey is not a nobody. JP Holding isn't a nobody. What a tragedy. God have mercy.

[Sparko]

I would like for anyone in this forum to biblically defend the manner in which they treat people. It is unloving, discourteous, and nothing like Christ. This website seems to attrack people who simply think that they can make their points and win intellectual discussions by bashing people over the head. They seem to think they have no ethical obligation to polite and respectful. The site has no value. That is why I am leaving. It is filled with venomous and vociferous hate speech. Note that JP didn't even respond to my post. He ignored the posting of 1 Peter 3:15. Moreover, he did not bother to demonstrate how his behavior is in harmony with Romans 12, 1 Cor. 13, and Eph. 4. You have bigger problems on this website than intellectually defending the gospel. This site is a perfect example of what Christianity is NOT! It is not the way of Christ for us to call one another stupid and refer to one's academic accomplishments as toilet paper. Nor is it every proper to refer to any human being, who is created in God's image, as a nobody NO MATTER WHAT their views are. Richard Dawkins is not a nobody. Hal Lindsey is not a nobody. JP Holding isn't a nobody. What a tragedy. God have mercy.

There goes another case of irony meters.

[Chaotic Void]

I would like for anyone in this forum to biblically defend the manner in which they treat people. It is unloving, discourteous, and nothing like Christ. This website seems to attrack people who simply think that they can make their points and win intellectual discussions by bashing people over the head. They seem to think they have no ethical obligation to polite and respectful. The site has no value. That is why I am leaving. It is filled with venomous and vociferous hate speech. Note that JP didn't even respond to my post. He ignored the posting of 1 Peter 3:15. Moreover, he did not bother to demonstrate how his behavior is in harmony with Romans 12, 1 Cor. 13, and Eph. 4. You have bigger problems on this website than intellectually defending the gospel. This site is a perfect example of what Christianity is NOT! It is not the way of Christ for us to call one another stupid and refer to one's academic accomplishments as toilet paper. Nor is it every proper to refer to any human being, who is created in God's image, as a nobody NO MATTER WHAT their views are. Richard Dawkins is not a nobody. Hal Lindsey is not a nobody. JP Holding isn't a nobody. What a tragedy. God have mercy.

-For starters, Jesus called the Pharisees "Broods of Vipers" (which some take to be another way of saying "Spawn of Satan") and "Whitewashed Tombs". Paul told his opposition to go castrate themselves. These aren't exactly 'nice' things to say.
-JP said their credentials were irrelevant to the situation. not COMPLETELY irrelevant. A Doctorate in Ministry doesn't do much for credibility in the field of Ancient Greek Literature (though you may be taught some of the basics as part of the curriculum).
-In spite of your holier-than-thou attitude, you're not above insulting people by calling them unethical and uncharitable. And considering you made the infamous name blunder, I'm concerned about your ability to research things properly.

[edingess]

Uh, stupid -- the point is, unless Geisler wants to call on the witch of Endor, he cant use dead people's opinions.

Why can't Geisler use dead men's opinions? Have their opinions died with them? Is the truthfulness of their opinions lessened by their passing? Think about this one before you answer it JP or Robert...whatever your name is.

No, stupid. They don't have a doctorate in other words -- the differentiating degree for a scholar.

Nor do you sir. And I would say that the degree you do possess does nothing to qualify you to even decide who is and is not qualified to comment. Hold your tongue.

Yes, stupid, quite posssibly. Or, alternatively, if you want to use their views, it's YOUR burden (or Norm's) to show that they are NOT inept in such matters.

Why do you feel the need to insult people? Especially Chistians? Do you contend that I am not saved because we disagree over this issue? If I am saved, should you not treat me with respect and kindness? Love your neighbor as yourself? If I am not saved, should you not show me the love of Christ to demonstrate the power of the gospel to change hateful hearts into loving ones?

I agree. Being a nobody and speaking out is very ungodly. Lindsey's incompetence as an expositor is monumental. He should keep his mouth shut.

Where did you learn to exposite the Greek and Hebrew text?

My name is Robert Turkel. That's good enough. If you're competent to find that out, you can find out my quals too.

All I see is a degree that is certainly not in theology or even philosophy. In fact, I see no Bible degree whatever.

In other words, basically useless in this context. And beyond that, a Th. D. who has problems spelling in English ("humorous") sure doesn't impress much.

P-L-E-A-S-E

God's gonna force you to come back, Ed. It's foreordained. You're The Man Whio Wouldn't Leave III.

I have learned not to pretend that I am sovereign.

I don't own the place, moron. But you can adjust your own settings. You have a Th. D. -- you can figure it out.

Yeah....I missed the class on computer navigation when I was doing advanced Hebrew exegesis. Darn! A low self-esteem is the number one reason people insult others. Perhaps you may want to seek pastoral or biblical counseling for this. You can't possibly be this down on yourself.

Your opinion sucks. It comports fine with Scripture -- you're just ignorant, and reading a sanitized Bible.

FINALLY, a scholarly answer. It took you long enough to respond in a way that promotes further intellectual exchange. Nice one! It comports with Scripture merely because you say it does. A sanatized Bible? Have 50 hours of bilbical languages in my portfolio and also having access to numerous texts, I doubt it JP.

No such apologetic was ever made to "love one another" -- that, rather, is a statement of group identity, not a means whereby conversions among non-believers were to be effected. That sort of ignorance is why your Th D is mere toilet paper around here, Ed. As for your head up the backside screed re "intellectual arguments" -- check Acts 2. What did Peter appeal to as a reason for people to become Christians, Ed?

"Around here?" Where is "here?" I do not understand the sentence, "As for your head up the backside screed..." That sentence is unintelligible to me.

YAWN...that canard? Nice try:

In the ancient world, there was no such thing as "something for nothing". You did a favor to get a favor. So when Christians helped their neighbors, others were inevitably suspicious. "What is it they want in return?" When they professed to want nothing in return for helping the sick, etc., it raised suspicions more: "They must be out for something BIG!" As Carlin Barton observes in Roman Honor (225), in a play by Plautus, the poor man is "not only embarrased but deeply suspicious of the kindly and equal treatment afforded him by his rich neighbor" out of "fear of being patronized" and because it "threatens to make him even more hopelessly in debt to, and so more vulnerable to, an already more powerful man."

It is in this context that Peter advises a gentle and respectful answer. When a Roman said, "Why do you help that man?" they were to answer gently and respectfully by saying, "We do this because of Christ." The passage has nothing to do with confronting ideological opponents.

That is actually not the immediate context in which Peter wrote his great apologetic command. The immediate context was imminent persecution. Their lives were being threatened. V. 13 says "who is there to harm you" v. 14 says "But even if you should suffer" v 17 says "For it is better, if God should will it, that you so suffer"

Like I said Ed...your ThD is just Charmin here.

This is not about what you think about my Th.D or even me. It is about your relationship with God JP. That is what this is about. Those who belong to Christ bear fruit. The nucleus of that fruit is love. The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. The absence of Christian love is an indication that darkness prevails in the soul. Where there is darkness, light does not exist. If you will repent and believe the gospel, Christ will pour out His love into your heart as well so that you can know a peace that passes all understanding. No one who thinks your behavior is acceptable has been informed of true Christian love. It is a psuedo love that passes itself off as caring for the truth when all it really cares about is it's own self. Those who fall in love with truth, fall in love with Christ. And those who fall in love with Christ, love the brothers. No love, no Christ.

Your response was irrational, and ad hominem at best. You provided no Scripture to support your view whatever. The scripture that confronted you, you chose to ignore. The one attempt you made to interpret 1 Peter 3:15 was wide of the mark because it chose to falsely introduce general practices around Christian kindness rather than to deal with the specifics of the immediate context.

Sorry you're so deluded. But for what it's worth, you sure manifest well as a nut in the Spirit.

Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you. Eph. 4:32. But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth. Col. 3:8 Let you speech always be seasoned with grace. Col. 4:6 Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith, and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe. 1 Tim 4:12 I know, you know these verses like the back of your hand. Right? But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless. James 1:20 JP, it is not enough to know the Bible like the back of your hand. The devil know Scripture better than any of us. It does him no good whatever. What matters is that we be doers of the word and not hearers or knowers only. The bible was meant to be LIVED, not just known!

I know each of those texts and their contexts better than you know the back of my hand. Your fundamentalist readings in modern English (or with modern Western contextualization) are monuments to ignorance.

I wouldn't know and don't want to know the back of your hand (whatever that means). More ad hominem responses. Having read about you in a variety of sites, you must know by now that your style has discredited you entirely. If you want to be effective, your heart has to be in the right place. Based on how you respond to people, you could care less if you make a difference in their life. You apparently don't seek change in them. You seemingly seek to elevate yourself and you think you look clever because you have mastered the fine art of derision. Moreover, you use the poor folks who don't know any better than to follow you, to prop up your ego and convince yourself that you are somebody as opposed to, in your own words, nobody. You don't have to win arguments or bash people in order to be someboby. You don't even have to have people agree with you.

[Teluog]

I wouldn't know and don't want to know the back of your hand (whatever that means). More ad hominem responses. Having read about you in a variety of sites, you must know by now that your style has discredited you entirely. If you want to be effective, your heart has to be in the right place. Based on how you respond to people, you could care less if you make a difference in their life. You apparently don't seek change in them. You seemingly seek to elevate yourself and you think you look clever because you have mastered the fine art of derision. Moreover, you use the poor folks who don't know any better than to follow you, to prop up your ego and convince yourself that you are somebody as opposed to, in your own words, nobody. You don't have to win arguments or bash people in order to be someboby. You don't even have to have people agree with you.

Do you even know what an ad hominem is? It's when you attack your opponent instead of your opponent's arguments, like you just did in the above-quoted paragraph. JP, however, DID answer your arguments/questions about the credibility of Geisler's scholars.

[Sparko]

Why are you still here Edingess? Didn't you say you were leaving a few posts ago? You seem to be sticking around and tossing out quite a few Ad Homs of your own.

[Andius]

I wouldn't know and don't want to know the back of your hand (whatever that means). More ad hominem responses. Having read about you in a variety of sites, you must know by now that your style has discredited you entirely. If you want to be effective, your heart has to be in the right place. Based on how you respond to people, you could care less if you make a difference in their life. You apparently don't seek change in them. You seemingly seek to elevate yourself and you think you look clever because you have mastered the fine art of derision. Moreover, you use the poor folks who don't know any better than to follow you, to prop up your ego and convince yourself that you are somebody as opposed to, in your own words, nobody. You don't have to win arguments or bash people in order to be someboby. You don't even have to have people agree with you.

Okay, I love how you resorted these things;

"your style has discredited you entirely"

"your heart has to be in the right place"

"You apparently don't seek change in them"

"you use the poor folks who don't know any better than to follow you"

BAHAHAHAHHAHAAH,Shut up already, your killing me here with this comedy. XD HAHAHAHHAA


For someone saying that people bashing is unnecessary, you seem to be doing some bashing yourself Mr. Hey! You! get out of my self-rightous cloud!! (To paraphrase Hades from Disney's Hercules ^^). So is it your agenda to continue losing like the poor sport that you are? Or do you intend to answer his arguments point by point?