Ed Dingess: Evidence of Hypocrisy, Bullying, and Chauvinism

[Chrawnus]

It seems this crew has honed the skill of insult really well.

It's because we've played a lot of The Secret of Monkey Island™ when we we're young(er).

[lilpixieofterror]

Here is a challenge for you JPH: provide one credible scholar who will come into this forum and agree that it is Christian to call people you disagree with stupid, idiot, bully, hypocrite, and bigot. Your the one who holds out that your work is of superior scholarship than your detractors. If this is true, you should be able to line up a bunch of scholars who can, in this context, without ambiguity, agree that you are absolutely right in your insult paradigm theory. I already know that Rorhbaugh and Malina do NOT agree with your style at all. I will wait for your riposte and can't wait to meet all these scholars that agree with your theory.

I got a challange for you Ed:

Why is it ok for you to call ukchristian 'unchristian' and to imply that Christians that disagree with you are poessed by demons, but nobody can call you stupid, an idiot, bully, hyprocrite, or a bigot or are you above the rules and standards you claim that others have to hold to?

I'd like to answer to this question please so don't dodge it like you've been doing thus far.

[Manwë Súlimo]

I already know that Rorhbaugh and Malina do NOT agree with your style at all.

That's funny. Dr. Richard Rohrbaugh said that Jesus used "the modern equivalent of a dirty mouth" when he called the Pharisees "snake bastards" in his lecture, "Honor and Shame: Core Values in the Biblical World".

[Chrawnus]

That's funny. Dr. Richard Rohrbaugh said that Jesus used "the modern equivalent of a dirty mouth" when he called the Pharisees "snake bastards" in his lecture, "Honor and Shame: Core Values in the Biblical World".

But Jesus can do it because he's speeshul and you're not.

[ukchristian28]

Hey ukChristian, I am really sorry. All this time I thought your name was unchristian (never quit got it, but anyways).

Ok, not to worry Ed.

[jpholding]

According to deSilva, First, honor can be ascribed to a person on account of accidents of birth or grants bestowed by people of higher status and power. Second, honor can be achieved as well as ascribed.

In other words, Ed -- you were WRONG. Why can't you admit this directly?

Yes, honor was due to some by the status of their birth. How can this be applied to Christians? We are due honor from one another due to our status as sons and daughters of God, the great King. Understanding honor-shame enriches our understanding of who we are in Christ and consequently, how we should relate to one another. Not everyone who disagrees with you JP is a wolf. That is how cults are formed.

Boo game, Ed. None of this is of any direct relevance to the points at hand. I disagree with none of that and never have. However, you in your carelessness and ignorance did NOT know of such things.

I contend that Jesus likely used challenge-riposte as a means to gravitate to the honorable position of being recognized as the King, only to lose (in the eyes of the culture) in the end, suffering crucifixion as a blasphemer just as OT prophecy predicted.

I have no problem with that. I also say it was to shame the Pharisees, who were enemies of the truth. Again, if you weren't such a prideful, arrogant person, you would know this, and you might even know that I'm the creator of an apologetic for the Resurrection that uses the shame of the cross as a central proof for Christianity.

Rather than answer the culminating challenge-riposte at the pinnacle of His trial, he stood silent before His challengers.

Wrong, stupid. As was shown earlier, the silence was itself a riposte response, one that insinuated that his accusers were not worth the time or effort to respond to. Once again, you stick your foot deeply into your mouth, and think moving it around inside is scholarship.

You have made the terrible mistake of attempting to adopt, as your primary interpretive model, a critical method that is based entirely on naturalistic explanations for the existence and sccuess of Christianity.

Actually, Ed, the CG doesn't enter into that arena at all, which just goes to show that you're pulling crap out of the air in frustration again. My own apologetic for the Resurrection uses the social science data to show why the (un)naturalistic Resurrection is the only viable explanation for Christian origins (and by the way -- get rid of the false dichotomy between natural and supernatural, that's humanist thinking).

You have called on men with a low view of Scripture to attempt and prop up your arguments while trying to maintain a high view of Scripture yourself. This has created serious problems for you in maintaining coherence in your apologetic method. You would be better served to relegate SSC to more of an interdisciplinary approach, where at least you can acknowledge and reject some of the naturalistic biases necessary in the SSC model.

As if you have the slightest idea what I've actually done with any of it beyond this thread. I use social science in an interdisciplinary way, you moron. It's you who falsely characterizes the way I use it, for no other reason than that it suits your rhetoric to do so, and you have no answers to the actual arguments.

I've written over 2000 articles since 1996, Ed. How many have you read?

Otherwise, you are going to continue to have to deal with outright contradictions in your system and end up playing exegetical hool-a-hoop when challenged.

First, learn to frinkin' spell, Ed, it's HULA hoop, not "hool-a-hoop". Second, I haven't had any contradictions in my system; you manufacture them out of your ignorance.

Carrier was mostly right in that you may have read Malina and Neyrey but you surely failed to understand the basic assumptions of their worldview.

COUGH....Ed is trusting an atheist again.... I answered Carrier on that point and all the others he made. Why don't you try calling me Turkel again? It'll make you feel better.

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from calling me a hypocrite and a bigot.

I'll stop calling you that when you stop being that, bigot. Hypocrite.

Here is a challenge for you JPH: provide one credible scholar who will come into this forum and agree that it is Christian to call people you disagree with stupid, idiot, bully, hypocrite, and bigot.

Here's a challenge to you, Ed: Answer the arguments being presented here by all the users on this thread without resorting to bullying tactics, appeals to authority, and hypocrisy.

NOTE: THese scholars must be recently published or currently employed at an academic institution. In other words, they must have skin in the game son. They must have something to lose.

Unlike a guy with a fake doctorate from Tyndale Theological Seminary, you mean?

[Kenny]

In fairness to Ed when it comes to the Amazon comment, upon reading it again, I think there is a plausible enough interpretation of what he says that doesn’t involve his even insinuating that Licona is a false convert. There is plausibly a context shift in mid paragraph from his talking about the issue of Licona specifically to the issue of his talking about whether individuals should be required to sign a statement saying that they agree with the doctrine inerrancy (appropriately defined), this being a means of filtering out false converts (along with some genuine but excessively liberal ones perhaps). I think the comment was, at best, carelessly worded, but we all word things carelessly from time to time.

None of this, however, negates all the other passive aggressive insinuations that Ed has been making about Licona (e.g. that he values his “trophies” of scholarship more than he values respecting the authority of Scripture) and about others here. Ed seems to think that it is okay to passively aggressively insinuate all sorts of nasty things about people, as long as one doesn’t come right out and say it (and as long as one maintains a sufficient degree of plausible deniability).

[Sparko]

God killed people for lying, smote them with blindness, etc. Can we do that? We do NOT possess the same rights as God does! It is amazing that one would even have to point that out. When was the last time you killed someone for lying? When was the last time you took a whip and emptied a church? When was the last time you pronounced a curse on someone for not obeying your commands? God has absolute right to do as He pleases, we do not! God fully expects to be obeyed in all matters...do we? As God, He can do things without sinning that we cannot do. God's motives are based entirely on his pefectly righteous character. Tell me about your perfectly righteous character. You are one of US! You have no authority over me or anyone else to do as you please. When God calls men vipors, it is because He knows perfectly that they are vipors. WE DO NOT! The best we can do is refer to God's remarks. God calls religious hypocrites vipors. If you are a religious hypocrite, then you are a vipor. But can we really know, I mean really know if someone is a religious hypocrite? And even if we might, the best we can do is refer them to what Jesus said about such people. Jesus called the religious hypocrites vipors....is that what you want Jesus to say about you? Of course not. There is a vast difference between God calling someone a vipor and me calling them a vipor. if you can't see that, when then, I can't do anything for you. Jesus died for our sins....can you do that? Jesus worked miracles....can you do that? You are not Jesus! Your not God. Your not even a prophet! You are not even an apostle. You can't even do what the apostles were authorized to do. Paul said if anyone does not do as I say, note that person and have nothing to do with him. Can you do that? So there are a LOT a things that Jesus, Paul, Moses, the apostles and prophets did that we cannot do.

wow, did I call it or what?

Me, previously:

Yeah I love that one. Someone says "A christian shouldn't do that (example: insult others)" so you say "uh well Jesus did it... aren't we supposed to emulate Jesus?"

"er, uh, well, yeah but You AREN'T JESUS! So while Jesus could insult people he knew their heart and was God, you aren't!!!"

[RumTumTugger]

The horny doofus sees not the irony of saying this while disrespecting the Name...

More seriously....Ed's "Christian ethic" rambling is a classic example of having failed to see that the real Christian ethic isn't a one size fits all paradigm. The approach he advocates is an utter failure when it comes to dealing with wolves like jimbo, Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.

As it happens, I make it my business to spend a lot of time engaging that category of atheist. So I use the riposte tactics more than might otherwise be done. Let's face it: Not all of us are equipped to take on such people. I frequently get messages asking me how I put up with it, and some here have asked the same.

The answer: I was blessed with a thick skin. And a BigHead. So like Batman, I can take it.

It's too bad jimbo is overseas...it'd be fun to watch Ed take him on.

And those of us who aren't capable of handling the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Jimbo and understand what why you do it in such a way thank you for putting yourself in the line of fire to do so. Keep up the Good work Holding

[jpholding]

In fairness to Ed when it comes to the Amazon comment, upon reading it again, I think there is a plausible enough interpretation of what he says that doesn’t involve his even insinuating that Licona is a false convert. There is plausibly a context shift in mid paragraph from his talking about the issue of Licona specifically to the issue of his talking about whether individuals should be required to sign a statement saying that they agree with the doctrine inerrancy (appropriately defined), this being a means of filtering out false converts (along with some genuine but excessively liberal ones perhaps).

I see what you mean. However, such shifts are frequently used in rhetoric to establish associations in the minds of people they're trying to convince; much the way it used to be one could hoist the word "liberal" and immediately turn off the whole congregation, or the way Mormons have been taught to shut their ears once they hear the word "cult" (no matter the context). Put another way, it is a plausibly deniable way to associate the idea of demons and false teachers with Licona while also not calling him one directly.

As an indication of this, Ed's comments bear little direct relation to anything beforehand other than this in Geisler's original commentary:

Sadly, many names on Licona's list of scholars are members of ETS (some of whom are on the faculties of evangelical seminaries that require their faculty to sign the ICBI view of inerrancy). What is more, their approval of Licona's view reveals they are not signing the doctrinal statement in good conscience according to intention expressed by the framers.

Now Ed's comment:

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.

No one beforehand had said anything to the effect that no one should have to sign such statements to teach at seminaries, so it is hard to see why Ed would even bring this up in the first place other than to make the sort of association I am describing. It answers nothing anyone said beforehand. However, it does indicate that such statements are a way to filter out "false teachers" and "demons" and by implication, given what Geisler says about people not signing such statements in good conscience, leads directly to the conclusion that a false signer is of the category of false teacher/demon -- and in turn, since they support Licona, that he justly goes into the same category.

Ed would have to be more careless than most, indeed, to have missed this. If his train of thought is followed to a logical conclusion, it leads inescapably to demonizing those people such as Licona and those who support him. That said, his bull in china shop approach to exegesis and scholarship does mark a point in favor of carelessness, as well as the fact that he doesn't pay close attention to what others say if it does not interest him. At the very least he owes Licona and the others a public apology for the careless association.

And he should also stop writing blog entries and public statements until he learns to take better care with his words.

[Chrawnus]

You are not Jesus! Your not God. Your not even a prophet!

Gingers don't have souls.

[Sparko]

You are not Jesus! Your not God. Your not even a prophet!

Gingers don't have souls.

I wonder how he got that atrocious grammar past his Elders??

[Mountain Man]

I'm starting to wonder if Ed Dinkus is just an elaborate troll persona sent to tWeb to annoy us.

[Kenny]

At the very least he owes Licona and the others a public apology for the careless association.

Yes. At the very least (if he has an ounce of integrity) he’ll publically retract the association on Amazon.

[Teluog]

I'm starting to wonder if Ed Dinkus is just an elaborate troll persona sent to tWeb to annoy us.

I already mentioned that he appears to be the Christian version of Loftus . . . .