Ed Dingess: Evidence of Hypocrisy, Bullying, and Chauvinism

[Manwë Súlimo]

"Do not speak against one another, brethren. He who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge of it.There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destory; but who are you who judge your neighbor." James 4:11-12

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.... But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. -- 1 Corinthians 5:1-13

Your PhD needs work.

[Raphael]

Your PhD needs work.

That's cuase it was a ThD from a questionable source.

[Manwë Súlimo]

Always get those confused. Well, at least I knew he wasn't an MD

[moreta]

No unChristian, ...

I am astounded that he would make this remark, in the midst of all his chest thumping refusal to lower himself to the level of insult. And then to make absolutely no reference to it at all, whether to apologize for making a typo or for an unwarranted attack, or to try to justify it in some way, is, in my view, unconscionable, and hardly appropriate behavior for someone in his position. I wonder what his pastor, elders and church would think of it.

[TolkienFan]

I never said shaming was ipso facto wrong. There is a biblical way to shame, Matt. 18:15-18 and there is a fleshly way to shame. That has always been my point. I never said Jesus did not engage in riposte, what I said was he modified it and his motives were entirely different. Keep up, would ya. I suggest you pay closer attention to my comments.

So you're fine with undermining your entire criticism against JP? Because you've never actually shown that his way of shaming is a "fleshly" way of shaming, you've merely assumed that. If you allow that there is a biblical way to shame, you've just opened yourself to being undercut.

[TolkienFan]

"Do not speak against one another, brethren. He who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge of it.There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destory; but who are you who judge your neighbor." James 4:11-12

Quoted without a hint of irony. Seriously Ed, clean your own house before you start trying to cleaning others (Matthew 7:1-5).

[lilpixieofterror]

"Do not speak against one another, brethren. He who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge of it.There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destory; but who are you who judge your neighbor." James 4:11-12

So perhaps you can explain to everybody why it was ok for you to speak against ukchristian and call him 'unchristian' and then try to cite scripture as an excuse for people not to insult you? Perhaps you might want to re-read that verse since it seems to speak about your behavior far more than anybody else in this thread.

[Mountain Man]

So you're fine with undermining your entire criticism against JP? Because you've never actually shown that his way of shaming is a "fleshly" way of shaming, you've merely assumed that. If you allow that there is a biblical way to shame, you've just opened yourself to being undercut.

Bingo. Of course this is when opponents of riposte start piling on the special pleading by claiming that Jesus (and apparently Paul and others) were able to use insulting rhetoric in some special way that is inexplicably inaccessible to us, usually by pointing to some arbitrary characteristics of Jesus and his opponents.

[Sparko]

Ed sure is posting a lot for someone who keeps promising he won't post here any more.

Methinks he has been caught by the Hotel California.

Welcome to theologyweb, Ed. bwahahahahaha.

[Rayado]

I am astounded that he would make this remark, in the midst of all his chest thumping refusal to lower himself to the level of insult. And then to make absolutely no reference to it at all, whether to apologize for making a typo or for an unwarranted attack, or to try to justify it in some way, is, in my view, unconscionable, and hardly appropriate behavior for someone in his position. I wonder what his pastor, elders and church would think of it.

That's a good point--he's said that he submits everything on his blog to his elders for approval first. Perhaps he should submit his posts here to them first? I do wonder what his elders would think of him calling someone "unchristian."

[Rational Gaze]

Methinks he has been caught by the Hotel California.

Screen shot 2011-10-17 at 15.55.57.png

[ApologiaPhoenix]

So Ed can refer to Licona as a demon, UkChristian as UnChristian, and that's okay, but when JPH calls Ed out on his character, Ed won't just settle for an online debate, but he has to go all the way to JPH's area and debate it personally in front of JPH's church.

The H might not just stand for hypocrite. It could stand for Hubris as well.

Anyway Ed, your ethic isn't a Christian ethic. I'd in fact say it's a modern humanistic one that allows humanists to get Christians to give in constantly to avoid offending anyone. You know where this gets us?

A Christian can't evangelize on the job. He has to tell someone their religious beliefs are wrong, and that could offend someone.

Homosexuality cannot be spoken against, especially so in Canada (As if they didn't have enough wrong up there already). That might offend someone. How close is America to that Ed?

The tolerance movement that tells us not to accept people but to accept every action. The only great crime in this kind of movement is to be intolerant.

Find where the early church fathers taught and showed your ethic. Find where the medievals did. Find where the Reformers did.

Your ethic allows the church to be victimized entirely while not giving us the right to call a spade a spade, which is exactly what JPH and others here do. Get rid of your pride and see that for once.

[jpholding]

Never said Mike Licona was a false convert and never compared him to a demon. JP's leap to a conclusion that was without basis. Sorry, but you are misinformed. I respect and admire Licona's scholarship and work. I simply think he stepped of the beaten path in this area.

Liar. From Amazon:

Geisler is absolutely correct on this account! The Caner controversy is irrelevant to this discussion. Your language betrays a personal hostility toward Dr. Geisler that appears to be somewhat less than charitable. I disagree with Geisler's view on the Caner situation and even on the Calvinism. However, his observations of Licona's method are spot on. I would love to see the two of you debate the inerrancy of Scripture. I am sure you have weaved together what might appear to be sophisticated arguments for your watered-down version. I would enjoy watching Norm Geisler explode them. Why shouldn't men have to sign the inerrancy statement in order to teach at evangelical seminaries? We already have too many false converts teaching in seminaries as it is. The more we can remove, the better we are. I like the Al Moehler model. Talk about cleaning house! Nothing like casting out demons to make one feel good about the SBC again.

Don't lie, Ed. You used those figures of speech specifically, and in direct association with Licona and his assertions. So you can stuff that ugly falsehood right back into that caveman mug of yours and chew on it.

[jpholding]

Social Science Criticism is best viewed as an interdisciplinary approach as opposed to Malina's desire to turn it into a model that even Scripture is subservient to.

What a crock of bovine excrement, Ed. By that reckoning even YOU are making Scripture "subservient to" the Greek and Hebrew language. As usual, what you can't get through your thick, caveman skull is that the text and its contexts GO TOGETHER. What you're trying to do is force your contrived readings of Scripture to be Scripture themselves, and THAT is what you want social science to be subservient to -- your walleyed readings of the text.

SSC as a critical tool is a naturalistic model/discipline built on naturalistic presuppositions.

Greek and Hebrew are manmade languages. So the same criticisms you try to throw at social science scholarship also apply any time you yank a lexicon out of your cavern mouth and try to use it to make a point. In other words, your criticisms are head in sand crapola, and is once again a case of you trying to turn your forced readings of Scripture into Scripture itself.

The most prominent adherents of SSC are not evangelical in theology.

They're also demon possessed. You forgot that. Either way you do nothing to disprove anything they say; all you do is bully, bluster, and threaten, and arbitrarily label their work as a threat.

I would also be willing to guess that Wilson's book is being greatly misunderstood on this thread.

Chances are you're pretty stupid, and will distort and lie about what's actually happening, making yourself out to be some innocent bystander rather than a unconscionable bully you really are.

Caveman, stupid, hypocrite, and bully seem to be his favorite words. Jesus instructed the disciples to be "Wise as serpents and harmless as doves." What a contrast!

Well, there's another decontextualized passage at hand. Been there, done that, Ed, shut your gator:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/ar.../t-130300.html

Quite simply put, the NT writers asserted that God had changed their lives by supernatural means.

No, Ed, they didn't -- not as an evangelistic tool. The only reason that was ever done was as a defense of personal ethos, as when Paul was on trial and accused of malfeasance. There is NEVER a case of such an assertion being used for purely didactic or evangelistic purposes. So your whole whine about "divine-speech act that it is with a prelocutionary intent" is a load of elephant excrement, and it is exactly the sort of emphasis that has reduced Western Christianity to a pathetically weak shell.

He refuses to acknowledge the possibility of a Christianization of the process that comports with the new ethic being disclosed by the God-Man Himself in His life and the NT documents.

And the simple reason for that is that there is zero evidence for such a "new ethic" -- it is purely the product of your vain imagination combined with your modernist bigotry.

He insists that Jesus did not modify the method and that He had the very same arrogant motives of his culture. I find such conclusions highly inconsistent with the corpus of Scripture.

Well, sorry you're so stupid and all, but calling it "arrogant" is itself exceptionally bigoted, judgmental, and ARROGANT, and again, your distorted views of Scripture are not "Scripture".

Ever heard of Bultmann? The resemblance is striking!

No, it isn't. I've read and critiqued Bultmann. He was, like you, a monumental idiot. There's no resemblance at all; the Context Group does no work of that order, and if anything have done work that overturns many of Bultmann's more absurd ideas (which were, like yours, bolstered by Western imperialist arrogance).

Keep piling on the ignorance, Ed -- and keep lying about yourself not coming back here.

[edingess]

Hey ukChristian, I am really sorry. All this time I thought your name was unchristian (never quit got it, but anyways). I NEVER intended to infer that you are not a Christian. I apologize! I kept reading these attacks and wondering what It was I said. Now I know. Ok, perhaps It is okay to call me an idiot for this one. In my mind, you have been more polite than most others even though I admit I don't read what everyone else is saying. Time is too precious to waste it reading rude, obnoxious, and hateful remarks designed only to insult. It seems this crew has honed the skill of insult really well. What I wonder is how are they at praise and compliments and exhortation and edification. How much time do they spend being polite toward others? If one were to listen to this group, they would be tempted to imagine that Jesus and the Apostles went around all day long calling people bigots. Wilson would not endorse such practices. I guarantee you that Mike Licona wouldn't either. It will be fun to see if I can connect with Dr. Licona and get his opinion of Holdings insult paradigm. What a hoot it would be to publish Licona codemning Holding's approach as unchristian and uncharitable on every level and unbecoming for anyone who claims to be in the ministry. I will say this: for Christians to direct their hard earned $$ to a man who sits around on his computer all day long calling people bigots and passes that off as ministry is scandalous! There are good men out there doing the hard work of real ministry who could use those $$ to actually do some good. But that is just my humble opinion.

I also wonder if JPH is a full preterist......that is as much a problem as his insult paradigm. Fellow believers automatically occupy a place of honor in our relations, or at least that is the biblical mandate. I read a long review of Wilson's book by Frame (one of my fav. theologians) and can't wait to get my copy. Even in the review one is able to deduce that Wilson would not be comfortable with Holdings style from a qualitative or quantitative standpoint.

If I am an idiot for rejecting the insult paradigm, then I suppose I am in good company with men like Mohler, MacArthur, Wilson, Geisler, Poythress, and 99.999999999% of the rest of the Christian community. It seems that everyone who rejects the insult paradigm is a bully, bigot, stupid, idiot, blah, blah, blah. Reminds me of grade school all over again. If, after all, I am an idiot like Geisler, or Mohler, or MacArthur, I suppose I can live with that. I wonder if Holding's own church provides financial support for his "ministry." If not, it is probably because, in his mind, his elders are just supid, fundy bullys who don't know a fraction of what he does. If they were smart, they would agree with him about everything he says and support his ministry.