I understand you challenged me to "defend what I have written on SG's board." I can only assume you refer to the quote you follow with in the following exchange:
If so, then I don't see what you mean by "defend," though I am happy to discuss further with you on this forum. I merely stated my perception, which comes from having listened to at least major parts of virtually all of your podcasts over the past 6 months or so. If I am wrong, then I freely give you the opportunity to further explain your intentions to the contrary, which to me were indeed disingenuous -- if they were not, then I will gladly accept your explanation otherwise.<DrOakley> Hey Darin...you up to defending what you have written on SG's board?
<DrOakley> I know Steve wouldn't want us to turn this into a "bash James" thread, but I wish James White wouldn't turn so much to sarcasm and negative tone. It's not that big of a deal, but it's fairly typical -- he suggests they reduce the 12 minute sessions to 8 minutes and then after the show he feigns integrity by suggesting he not comment further on the debate but then repeats his complaint
<DrOakley> that there was "SOOOO little time" and that folks "will just have to" do their own research into his points made briefly on the debate.
<DrOakley> Darin there seems to think I was being disingenuous...for no particularly good reason.
I do, however, suggest that you consider standing back and taking an honest appraisal of your attitude and those of others at your forum. I appreciate a degree of well-intended sarcasm and irony, but the discussion in channel (and often on your show) is almost bitter and would be better characterized as sardonic, and has no place in the service of our Lord. If we value debate and theological interchange as internally useful to strengthen our own positions or find truth together instead of mere sport, then we should take care to watch our words and attitudes. I have found myself enjoying your biting criticism of Roman Catholics, but have realized that it reflects a bitter spirit in myself I am trying to eradicate. You are quite good at it, but doing it with a laugh doesn't make it right in my opinion.
I understand the competitive nature of men (including myself), and that we can all get carried away defending our "side" of a position in such a debate - though a degree of sarcasm is hard to avoid before and between rounds, and we all regrettably fall into this mode from time to time, there is a limit to which Christians should not go in this regard.
I choose to discuss these things with you on this forum rather than your own channel for two reasons -- first, there is a record of the conversation, which should at least provide pause in the exchange; second, the spirit for such a discussion is more edifying here in my opinion (as Steve has indicated, your audience is more than welcome here and will not be mistreated at least with tolerance or encouragement from the rest of the group). I will post an example from yesterday's channel discussion.
Beginning with your own comments, I would ask that you explain how you would know enough about me (or that you took care to read my actual exchange on your channel) to suggest I personally am a "future Mormon." The characterization of our earlier conversation by yourself and parkerstdy was likewise disingenuous (or at least selectively wrong). But, I would expect you to know more about my position and the discussion before suggesting I was a "future Mormon." If you had taken the care to review the entire exchange, you would have realized that the "time machine" reference was only an approach to avoid the "reality" concerns your folks had with a hypothetical I was asking to help them understand my view of the canon. They were having trouble having a discussion without a socratic exchange because they required definition of terms they themselves introduced to the subject, so I began a progressive Socratic dialogue to elucidate my point without reference to such "loaded" terms. To suggest that I was some "nut job" using time machine logic is to completely misrepresent the exchange. In any event, AOMin's response was not appropriate in any forum.
(By the way, I did not state I disagreed with the canonicity of Jude, but used it as an example of a book to which there has been some question raised -- if we cannot address the history of the canon, then there's no point in having a discussion on the canon)<DrOakley> AOMin was telling me Darin has some pretty unorthodox views of Scripture.
<DrOakley> Questioning the "relevance" or Jude, for example....looking for new books of Scripture, etc.
<parkerstdy> yea he was arguing all these hypotheticals for a soft canon
<parkerstdy> like what if we found another copy of the sermon on the mount
<parkerstdy> not particularly logical imho
<DrOakley> Well, I will agree to this: my arguments won't be overly relevant to those who are not orthodox in their view of Scripture to begin with.
<parkerstdy> <darin> Of course not -- I'm suggesting, the text of Scripture is not the complete story -- it is sufficient, but not enough. I want to live according to all that Christ taught, whether in our canon or not.
<klet> Im hoping we uncover Paul's systematic theology
<DrOakley> Wow.
<DrOakley> There's a future Mormon there...
<DrOakley> I surely don't expect anything I have to say to have an impact on someone with views like that parkerstdy nods
<klet> the gnostic gospels might hold a special appeal for Darin, they try to fill in some gaps
<parkerstdy> yea when he started appealing to "what if we have a time machine to visit the first century" I pretty much stopped paying attention and AOM stepped forward
The following is a portion of that actual exchange, which your "friends" must have forgotten to relay to you --- I most certainly didn't quit participating because someone "called me" on my unorthodox views of Scripture -- defending my position was in fact what they had asked me to do (after having elicited my opinion in the first place, which I did not raise in the first instance).
What caused me to discontinue my participation was being called on my "Christianity" by your moderator, AOMin, as follows:
I have heard you use this approach with others with whom you have disagreed, but do you honestly support such an approach? I would ask you to consider who in fact needs to repent.[regarding additional apostolic teachings beyond NT]
<Floggy> would those letters or oral presentation contain different teachings?
* AOMwrkg takes charge
<AOMwrkg> sir.......
* Floggy bows out and takes a seat
> different? probably so -- but not contradictory. if contradictory, then yes we would have to evaluate which was more credible/
<AOMwrkg> you are not a bible believing christian and you need to repent
> say what?!
<AOMwrkg> I think I am clear
<AOMwrkg> you have stated it yourself
> is there a moderator, here? Did someone just tell me I am not a Christian?
<AOMwrkg> note the @ in front of my nick
> (new to irc)
<AOMwrkg> you are not a "bible believing" christian and you need to repent
> If so, then I must dismiss myself.
<slamreadw> darin: just answer my question
<AOMwrkg> you sit in judgement of God's word
<AOMwrkg> that is arrogance beyond what I can see belonging to someone who holds it dear
<AOMwrkg> therefore you are not a bible believer
<slamreadw> darin: AOMin is charging you with holding the canon open, and that's not orthodoxy; it denis the sufficiency of Scripture.
