> and third, since your are "a staunch
> advocate of the theory of evolution", I doubt if you would be an impartial
> judge in this matter.
That is certainly an odd statement, especially coming from someone who
has already proven so presumptuous in his exchanges with me. An ad
hominem attack is a fairly simple thing to define and identify. If in
fact Glenn has made ad hominem attacks, they should be very easy to
point out. Why don't you do so? And while you are at it, perhaps you
could explain the causal link between acceptance of evolution and an
inability to identify ad hominem statements.
> EB>As for his demand that you post your "Christian bona fides" (that
> >was an amusing way to word it, don't you think?)
>
> As a "deist and "a staunch advocate of the theory of evoltuion",
> you presumably do not think that "Christian bona fides" mean very
> much? But if Glenn claims to be a *Christian* and asserts the right
> to destructively criticise leading Christian apologists like Phil Johnson
> and Hugh Ross, then it is relevant that Glenn states where he is coming
> from. If, for example, Glenn does not even go regularly to church, read his
> Bible and pray, then in the eyes of most of the Christians I know, he would
> be regarded as not having the basic Christian spiritual `credentials'
> to do the job.
Could you please point out where Glenn has "destructively criticized"
Phil Johnson or Hugh Ross, and tell me what the distinction is between
"destructive criticism" and "pointing out factual errors"? You seem to
think that "destructive criticism" means "disagreeing with someone I
agree with".
> EB>, I think that Mr. Jones should either support his statement that you have
> >engaged in a "constant stream of ad hominem attacks" or retract it before
> >anyone feels compelled to take his claim of being a Christian seriously. That's
> >what a "bona fide" Christian would do.
>
> Stick around Ed and see for yourself! I will point them out when they occur!
Well, Stephen, you didn't say "Glenn will engage in ad hominem attacks
in the future". You said that he regularly has engaged in ad hominem
attacks on this list in the past. Surely it is not too much to ask that
you support or retract that statement?
> I would have absolutely *no problem whatsoever* stating my Christian "bona fides"!
> And I am not worried in the slightest (for myself) that you a deist, do not take my
> "claim of being a Christian seriously." According to your worldview, claiming
> to be a Christian would not mean all that much factually.
How on earth do you know how I would deal with the question of who is a
Christian "from my worldview"? You really are amazingly presumptuous.
For the record, I do not doubt that you are a Christian, nor would I
think to challenge your claim to be one. But your behavior here is
certainly not Christ-like, either in dealing with Glenn or with me a few
weeks ago. When even your fellow Christians think you've gone too far,
it's time to look in the mirror.
> Indeed, your support of Glenn actually helps my argument. Non-Christians would
> like Glenn's attacking of Christian apologists. What Glenn apparently fails to realise
> is that his desteructive attacks on Christian leaders just confirm non-Christians like
> your in their existing views. No non-Christian would ever become a Christian because
> of Glenn's destructive criticism of leading Christian apologists.
Nonsense. I find far more merit in the behavior of Glenn than I do in
your behavior. If anything is going to give someone a negative view of
Christianity, it is your presumptuous attitude, your willingness to
throw around accusations without bothering to back them up, and your
notion that anyone who criticizes a "christian apologist" is being
destructive.
You can easily dismiss me because I am a deist. But when your fellow
Christians find your attitude embarrassing, isn't it time for a little
self-evaluation? Wait, let me guess...they're not "real Christians"?
Ed