>Now, you may resent my having poked my nose into this, but I really think
>this issue is unbecoming of a list full of learned academics. Let's cease
>the character attacks, both explicit and insinuated, and switch instead to
>an emphasis on the issues in question. To use this as a case in point, if
>you believe Glenn Morton's criticisms of Ross and Johnson's positions are
>incorrect, then why not deal with that? Why not point out where his
>arguments have failed? Surely, even with matters of logic set aside, that
>is a more worthy topic than prying into the details of his private worship.
Well although I am not an active member of this list I believe that what Mr.
Hardie has proposed above would be the best course of action. It is sad
that so much time has been spent on such insignificant issues. Mr. Morton's
personal religious convictions are none of our business even if he had
"destructively criticized" Phil Johnson or Hugh Ross, which, IMO, he hasn't.
I also want to extend my support to Glenn. Unfortunately he has had to
endure this for a while now. I think it is a good decision on his part to
finally leave this be.
As for Mr. Jones I think that it would be best if he just dropped this
subject, and moved on to more relevant things. For example answering the
questions posted above by Mr. Hardie. One more thing you say that your
questions to Glenn weren't demands, let me just say that when you repeatedly
insist in asking them I believe they are demands.
Best Regards,
J.D.
"God is constant, not immutable."