OK Abbadon, it appears that with quite a bit of judicious cutting you have made me try to sound like something I am not. Why? Well again, to keep the newbie in his place. So here is what I have written in context.
2st post on this thread:
14 years as a JW and 3 years at an unnamed "Evangelical" college does not impress me much. Insulting? Since when is it insulting to question someone's credentials? As for your last statement: it only appears that you have found a way to affirm your presupposition, and you obviously think there is no need to challenge it. This is intellectual laziness.
Since when is it "insulting" to question credentials? 14 years as a JW? This only means to me that the poster understands JW doctrine & theology. As an aside I have that particular poster beat by 8 years.
Years of slavery has caused to me be very wary of people that claim education or expertise on a matter. I'm sure if I claimed to have graduated from Bob Jones University, Biola University, Master's College or any conservative Christian university my credentials & credibility would be called into question. Yet I am supposed to accept that 3 years at an unnamed "Evangelical" college is indicative of expertise? I know, I know. I am newbie, I may not call credibility of the "old guard" into question.
I found it interesting that you omitted this:
As for your last statement: it only appears that you have found a way to affirm your presupposition, and you obviously think there is no need to challenge it.
from your post, and labeled my conclusion "rude". Affirming a presupposition is intellectual laziness. Whether or not it is "rude" is simple a red herring. Challenging presuppositions is something that the critical thinker does. Even if it means that his own presuppositions may fall under the weight of evidence. I did this when I left the WT$, and I continue to do this.
4th post on this thread:
Fascinating? No, I would call you boring. Edited to add: Not that you are boring, but your arguements are. They are the same tired arguements that get rehashed and then refuted time and time again.
This appears to be the post that has garnered the most criticism. Perhaps the posters that have attempted to chastise me have failed to read the part where I edited the post. Perhaps you failed to note how the poster I was reponding to wrote his. My crime was that I failed to put the appropriate smiley on my post. For that I beg forgiveness. Being somewhat new to this forum I failed to note where the smileys were to make my intent clear. I have now explained this twice if you or other posters do not get it, then so be it.
5th post on this thread:
There it is, when you have no logical response you begin with the ad hominem attack. Oh, and for your information I don't have any affiliation with Oral Roberts or his University. In fact, I am currently working on a Bachelor's at the University of Southern California, hardly a Bible College. But it's OK, I don't hold it against you, after all what would an arguement with a person like you be without the presumptive ad hominem.
So again, an established poster issues a number of ad hominem attacks, why because he has no logical point. When this gets pointed out, by a newbie of all posters, the good older posters must not allow a newbie to point this out. We had better slap him back in line. So the poster I responded to makes disparaging comments about the education of posters that feel opposite of him, yet this is not ad hominem?
Abbadon talks about "evad[ing] personal responsibility" for my behavior, yet I do not see where I am out of line. I don't see where I attacked the person other than questioning his credentials. That is not ad hominem. After all he placed them out there as a reason we should respect his opinion. My response was, no not until I know more.
Abbadon says that I am "rude" because I called out the intellectual laziness of a poster. Yes, Abbadon, I'll remember from now on to run scared and never challenge a member of the "old guard" ever again.
I don't believe that anything I wrote in response to or questioning posters was ad hominem. If you do show me proof, not opinion, or emotional buzz words such as "insulting" or "rude" then I wil reconsider my view.
