Consistent Hermeneutics (??)

[Guest]

Paul,

I have recently been informed that you have been banned from other forums for your tactics. Even without knowing this, I have given you a warning about the danger of that happening to you here. Let me explain why:

I am not familiar with other forums. I don't have enough time to devote to posting on the internet, other than here. I interact here because this forum is something of an extension of my radio ministry, and was created to give people an opportunity to ask questions and to disagree with me, as is the case on the program.

As on the radio program, we do welcome the participation of those who want to debate. However (as on the program) we do not have infinite patience with those who only desire to waste our time, who do not wish to listen to nor respond to our points. It is not that you must accept our ideas as valid. However, most of us count it a waste of our valuable time to continually repeat ourselves, and to re-explain statements that were sufficiently clear the first time they were made, to an antagonist who has no interest in weighing arguments and perfecting his knowledge of truth, but who apparently simply likes to badger, and who either does not understand or else seeks to ignore the arguments of those who present cogent challenges to the view to which he is loyal.

Darin has given honest and non-evasive answers to your challenges, as have I. He is not the only one wearying of your misrepresentations of the statements of others. If you really don't understand the arguments you are misquoting, then you may not have the clarity of thought necessary to engage in fruitful debate. On the other hand, if you do understand the arguments, but are merely twisting them, then you do not exhibit the honesty that the rest of us value and attempt to bring to the table. You will find few here who wish to play your game. We do not view this forum as a competition, but as a learning experience for everybody.

I am not banning you from this forum at this point. However, we do try to maintain standards of integrity and civility here (possibly unlike other forums that you participate in). If your posts do not begin to exemplify dialogue at those standards which we wish to maintain, we will have to ask you to take your comments to other forums, where you will be more than welcome (with my blessing) to present any criticisms of us that you wish, behind our backs.

Is the standard of your integrity exemplified by charging one with dishonesty for merely asking a question of clarification? Or perpetuating straw-man arguments? Since engaging in an attempt to ascertain, where as you put it, Darin was going with his question you’ve accused me of acting in bad faith, which would as I believe the record indicates mean that instead of seeking to find the truth, you or your surrogates, when challenged don’t want to logically work through the issue but expect folks to just take your word for it whether or not it makes sense. Your above post is filled with direct assaults against my integrity without warrant; something I’m finding to be the norm with you. Again, as I have previously indicated it is your web-site, you can do what you want, however I find it interesting that when challenged regarding your red herrings, straw man and other logical fallacies you employ rather than dealing with them you attempt to paint your opponent in the light of Ad Hominem.

I was not seeking to become a member of your web-site but was referred to the site by one of your current members. After reviewing some of the out and out misrepresentations on the site and the bias inherent within the site obviously fostered by you I informed the member that I didn’t think I need participate, I didn’t think any good would come of it. However after reassurance of fair play and based on some clear unusual interpretations I gleaned from your tapes on certain subjects I thought I would endeavor to engage.

As the record indicates, upon reading an initial post framed by Darin in light of your recent debate that clearly was worded in such a manner as to suggest the difference in the way you approached the text was due to your “intimate” relationship as opposed to your opponents. Seeking clarification I merely asked a legitimate question yet you jumped in with both feet claiming my question was of a dishonest nature. Clearly you had a purpose in mind when you jumped in with your audacious and unwarranted claim. Had Darin answered my initial question like he did after I pointed out his question was moot because no one today has an intimate relationship with an author who lived 2000 years ago he would have immediately received my answer, but as the record indicates and in contrast to your representation he evaded the question.

Again, it is your web-site, my viewpoint has always been that in the end the truth will win out however, if your standard of integrity precludes the examination of presuppositions brought to the table then clearly your claim of seeking the truth is nothing more than tongue and cheek. You banned me over the weekend apparently without warrant because a few of you own members have indicated they didn’t understand your actions. You do what you feel is necessary, we all are responsible to God, I don’t have a problem looking in the mirror.

PaulT

[Guest]

I don't know what you are referring to in saying I banned you over the weekend. I have not yet banned you. I only wrote and warned you that you were in danger of being banned. You have never been denied access to this site—not last weekend, nor ever—not yet.

I have not attacked your character, though I have certainly raised questions about it. I suggested an alternative, namely, that you simply don't have the clarity of thought to know how to understand a simple argument. If this is the case, then it is not a fault in your character, only in your capacity.

That you need to ask for clarification of a simple statement that was never unclear, and you continue to ask for that clarification in several subsequent posts, even after several explanations have been given, is proof of what I have suggested. If the statement was unclear to you when it was originally made, then you must have read in such haste as to preclude your catching Darin's point. It is no sin to read in haste, but it is irresponsible to reply to a statement that you have not read attentively enough to catch the author's meaning. When you asked for clarification (multiple times) both Darin and I patiently gave clear explanations of what the original statement had meant (a twelve-year-old could easily have done so). That you still misrepresented Darin's meaning after all of that proves that one of my two suggestions must be the case. It is either a question of your capacity or of your integrity. I do not say which it is, since I do not know you. However, I can think of no third option.

In any case, sadly, I think you are correct in your belief that no good is likely to come of your posting here. You don't recognize an honest answer when one is given to you, and you don't seem to know how to provide one when asked. Since I have not banned you, your continued participation here remains at your discretion. However, as with Darin, so with I—my time is too valuable to play your games. If others who have more time on their hands than I have wish to continue dialogue with you, they may do so.

[Guest]

I don't know what you are referring to in saying I banned you over the weekend. I have not yet banned you. I only wrote and warned you that you were in danger of being banned. You have never been denied access to this site—not last weekend, nor ever—not yet.

Well I can assure you I didn’t make this up when I went to log in on Friday to determine if you had enough moxie to admit to your compliance in the fact one of your surrogates misrepresented a quote of Calvin’s,

Here is a copy of the message I received when i just retried to log in.

FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Family Bible Fellowship Forum Index
Critical Information

You have been banned from this forum.
Please contact the webmaster or board administrator for more information.

Evidently you aren’t aware of all actions taken against folks posting on your site, although frankly I wasn’t surprised, it would be perfectly understandable for you after being embarrassed by the fraudulent use of one of Calvin’s quote to want to restrict the source of your embarrassment.

I have not attacked your character, though I have certainly raised questions about it. I suggested an alternative, namely, that you simply don't have the clarity of thought to know how to understand a simple argument. If this is the case, then it is not a fault in your character, only in your capacity.

Granted, I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed but your representation above is a bit disingenuous based on your first inquiry with this subject as seen below,

Paul,
Is there some reason that you cannot give a simple and honest answer without fearing that doing so might support a point you don't want to lend support to?

The implication is that my response was not “honest”, you went on to suggest I was being evasive when in fact all I was doing was seeking clarification. Now you are questioning my capacity to reason, are there no lengths at which you won’t stop. Let me ask you, if my capacity to reason were truly the issue what purpose would it provide in pointing out the obvious, wouldn’t those who have read the interchange quickly come to the opinion that I am off base without you suggesting it?

That you need to ask for clarification of a simple statement that was never unclear, and you continue to ask for that clarification in several subsequent posts, even after several explanations have been given, is proof of what I have suggested. If the statement was unclear to you when it was originally made, then you must have read in such haste as to preclude your catching Darin's point. It is no sin to read in haste, but it is irresponsible to reply to a statement that you have not read attentively enough to catch the author's meaning. When you asked for clarification (multiple times) both Darin and I patiently gave clear explanations of what the original statement had meant (a twelve-year-old could easily have done so). That you still misrepresented Darin's meaning after all of that proves that one of my two suggestions must be the case. It is either a question of your capacity or of your integrity. I do not say which it is, since I do not know you. However, I can think of no third option.

Now you are a mind reader? Hyperbole, asked for clarification after receiving the answer, Sir, if you check the record, you will note that even after your rather lengthy “explanation” which in fact was nothing more that a recapitulation of my 1st comment and question, you were left wondering where Darien was indeed going, which means he hadn’t addressed by question. Mr. Gregg, when I asked the question I also pointed out what I thought he was getting at, which he confirmed in part which lead me to my question. I’ve found it useful, especially in this format to clarify what it is I understand the person to be driving at before I respond, something you claimed was not an honest approach. As played out and evidenced below by Darin’s quote,

I don't think it's moot at all, and I would suggest I am more intimate with Paul and his writings than my pagan English teacher is who hasn't spent the time with his writings as I have

Darien was clearly suggesting, due to the back-drop of the debate between you and White that the difference in the approach was similar between his wife and the grammarian which he later, as can be seen above stated was “Pagan” IOW a non-believer. If not why would he claim his point isn’t moot due to his worldview when contrasted against a pagan’s? Shouldn’t Darien in an effort of seeking the truth have made it clear in his original post that the professional grammarian he was contrasting was indeed pagan?

The record disproves both of your points, just as it disproves the fact you now deny I was banned over the weekend.

In any case, sadly, I think you are correct in your belief that no good is likely to come of your posting here. You don't recognize an honest answer when one is given to you, and you don't seem to know how to provide one when asked. Since I have not banned you, your continued participation here remains at your discretion. However, as with Darin, so with I—my time is too valuable to play your games. If others who have more time on their hands than I have wish to continue dialogue with you, they may do so.

Is this an example of an honest answer according to you,

maybe in some respects -- I'm happy to explain further, but, I would be interested first in your answer without regard to my presupposition -- I'd be happy to discuss my presupposition after we have a basis for agreement or disagreement on this question.

Most, I believe, would understand “maybe” as evasive this coupled with his reluctance to answer my question as to relevance prior to my response to his question wouldn’t seem to be honest. According to Webster’s “honest” means “free from fraud or deception”. Clearly as we’ve shown Darin’s question wasn’t honest because at the end of the day he was attempting to cast one of the members of the debate, “White” in light of the Pagan grammarian. His question was framed in such a way as to disguise this fact and his reluctance to answer the relevance of his presupposition in the frame-work of the greater discussion about who, whether you or White were using exegesis or eisegesis confirms this conclusion regardless your protestations to the contrary.

In any case, sadly, I think you are correct in your belief that no good is likely to come of your posting here. You don't recognize an honest answer when one is given to you, and you don't seem to know how to provide one when asked. Since I have not banned you, your continued participation here remains at your discretion. However, as with Darin, so with I—my time is too valuable to play your games. If others who have more time on their hands than I have wish to continue dialogue with you, they may do so.

Frankly Sir, the level of integrity you’ve demonstrated in denying what actually occurred, misrepresentation of Calvin and patently unfair criticism, I’m not sure much can be gained. It gives me no pleasure in stating the obvious, but I believe, based upon your propensity to editorialize I must. I will leave it to the readers to decide, but if Darin’s intellectually dishonest handling of your misrepresentation of Calvin’s position is any indicator of the level of integrity you and your surrogates employ, the truth will be the last thing found at this web-site, because with you “truth” seems to be a sliding scale. You wouldn’t happen to offer a refund for your commentary would you?

PaulT

[Guest]

Darien was clearly suggesting, due to the back-drop of the debate between you and White that the difference in the approach was similar between his wife and the grammarian which he later, as can be seen above stated was “Pagan” IOW a non-believer. If not why would he claim his point isn’t moot due to his worldview when contrasted against a pagan’s? Shouldn’t Darien in an effort of seeking the truth have made it clear in his original post that the professional grammarian he was contrasting was indeed pagan?

This is the first rational criticism I've heard from you and it is well taken -- reading it, I see now I did suggest the teacher was a pagan; however, I only made the hypothetical teacher pagan to suggest how far removed he was from my worldview -- that wasn't really important to the point I was intending to make.

Your continuing to suggest that Steve himself failed to understand "where I was going" in his comments does point out that you are more interested in seeing comments that you can "jump on" than you are in getting the larger point being made. I don't want to speak for Steve (as he didn't want to speak for me, thus his comment) but I suspect he had a pretty good idea where I was going with the inquiry. Even if he did not, it did not imply that he didn't understand the question I was asking. He clearly did, and I suspect you did as well.

By the way, I take Steve at his word -- glitches do happen, or web admins do things on their own (on purpose or on accident). I suspect steve would have posted here that he had banned you if he had, in fact, done so.

[Guest]

Paul,

You ask why I would mention it, if you were mentally incapable of following a simple argument? It was not disingenuous or a gratuitous insult on my part. All you need to do is read the context of my statement (it would be good to develop the habit of reading and understanding people's comments to you before lashing out in inappropriate, hyperdefensive responses), and you will have no problem seeing that I gave my reasons, in situ, for the observation. If you missed it there, I will repeat it: If you can't follow an argument any better than you are doing in this thread, it makes no sense for you to participate in dialogue with those wishing to exchange and weigh arguments.

I did not ban you, nor in any way restrict your access. It is possible that someone else did so, though I was not notified of it. I am one of four people who have this power, I believe. If you really were banned, I don't know how it is you are able to post at this time. However, since I am accused of it, I might as well do it (this will rid you of the stigma of being a false accuser). You are now banned.

Just for clarity's sake, I have not been embarrassed by anything you have written or pointed out. I have felt a little embarrassed for you, which is why I have urged you to think more clearly before writing. If I were embarrassed by something you wrote, I would be in the position to delete the embarrassing posts, as well as banning you. I am not interested in removing anything you have written. I let your posts stand as evidence for the rightness of my present decision to deactivate your participation here.

As for refunding the cost of my book, I can't refund money I never received. I never sold a book to you. It is impossible for anyone to purchase a product from me, because I don't sell books or any other merchandise. Since I never received your money, I don't have it to refund to you. (Thomas Nelson did send me about $1.25 in royalties from your purchase, if you purchased the book through a regular book store. If you got it through a discount source, my royalty was less. I have no objection to sending that back to you).

[Guest]

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed either but I understood from the start what Darin was getting at with his illustration of his wife vs. the grammarian.

For what it is worth, I couldn't get the website recently either.

[Guest]

Yeah, I had no problem understanding Steve and Darin. I guess its because I am more familiar with their personality and thinking by reading their posts over time.

[Guest]

I know PaulT is banned, but I thought it was funny that on Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:43 pm he asked Steve:

You wouldn’t happen to offer a refund for your commentary would you? after he told Steve on Mon Apr 07, 2008 4:44 pm here:

"Mr. Gregg, I’m a fan of yours, really enjoy the commentary on Revelation...