I strongly disagree with your assessment. The day before Glenn published
his objection to Jim's characterization, I myself half-wrote a post
to complain about the style of argument that Jim was using (and then
decided to stay out of it at that time).
Jim is resorting to forms of argument that I feel are quite improper.
On Sept 27th Jim wrote:
> To believe this special revelation came to other cultures is unfounded,
> and calls into question the exclusivity of the Bible as divine
> revelation (and THAT is what puts you in the same ballpark as the LDS
> church, and against Christian orthodoxy).
1) dismissing Glenn (not even just Glenn's argument) as being
a being `in the same ballpark as the LDS church' is a poor argument.
2) accusing Glenn as being `against Christian orthodoxy' is slander.
[BTW: slander is defined as: The utterance of defamatory statements
injurious to the reputation or well-being of a person.]
Jim (apparently) wrote in response to Glenn's protests:
>I do feel your views here skirt dangerously close to "un-orthodoxy", and
>not unfairly (see below). So I say so. But I don't question your sincerity,
>just your interpretations. Nothing personal. Relax. Aren't Texans supposed to
>be easy?
Besides being somewhat patronizing, these remarks seems to deny that
Jim's original comment was not stated solely as a characterization
of a particular view that Glenn advocated, but on Glenn himself:
> (and THAT is what puts you in the same ballpark as the LDS
> church, and against Christian orthodoxy).
I think Glenn was understandably upset, and an apology was in order.
***
But the problem is more than just Jim's choice of words. The argument
he makes is itself poor. The beliefs of the LDS church have no bearing
on Glenn's argument. And smearing Glenn with the label `unorthodox'
is also the wrong way for Jim to argue his point.
Argue based on reasonable evidence, not slogans.
***
The other thing that is ironic about Jim's dispute is that his narrow
position on special revelation is abundantly contradicted by the Scripture,
as Glenn attempted to show. 2,000 years of theological interpretation must
still pass the tests of Scripture. Jim has already had to backpedal, and
by the time he is done revising his contention I expect that it will be
irrelevant to what was at issue.
It is unfortunate that Jim had to interject the forms of argument that
he did. I hope that he will withdraw them and next time engage the
issues themselves.
As to whether Gordie was unreasonable in stating that he might `find it
necessary to reevaluate my participation in the reflector'. His
sentiments are understandable. It is no fun watching somebody slandered
as a substitute for good argument.
In the end I doubt that the One who matters is going to ask us if we
were right or not. It is how we conduct ourselves, right or wrong, that
will matter.
--Dave