DialecticSkeptic
Junior
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2023
- Messages
- 369
- Reaction score
- 373
- Points
- 63
- Age
- 46
- Location
- Canada
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital status
- Married
- Politics
- Classical Liberal
I think it is abundantly clear by now that @Manfred is not addressing me and my views in good faith. As you, the reader, may have also observed, there have been instances where I needed to clarify my position and, regrettably, these clarifications have not been addressed accurately, or even acknowledged in most cases. Despite my attempts to correct the misunderstandings that have arisen, Manfred neither retracts nor corrects them. To me, it looks like Manfred tries to float these misrepresentations and, when caught out, simply drops them and moves on to the next point in his agenda.
I wish there had been an open, honest, and genuine dialogue where Manfred acknowledges my viewpoint and highlights in a constructive manner any relevant concerns. He could have said at any point, "The way I see it, even this more accurate statement of your belief has problems, such as ..." He has also refused to acknowledge any valid points, even when I express clearly orthodox theology lifted straight from scripture. He has not demonstrated any interest in arriving at a properly accurate understanding of any view that isn't his own.
What I am looking for is an environment where Christian views are respectfully considered and an honest, sincere effort is made to understand each position accurately.
This is confusing to me, for I haven't felt any anger. While I am disappointed with Manfred's disingenuous engagement, it has not risen to the level of anger. My emotional investment in dialogue is minimal, at best. My primary focus is on the logical pursuit of truth, which isn't personal.
I have no idea how Manfred can make a statement like this after all the things I have said about Adam and Eve, or the federal headship of Adam and Christ, or God's covenant relationship with mankind, or ...
Perhaps in his experience these sort of things are normally featured in an evolutionist worldview. If that is the case, I would want him to cite sources to that effect—
—or admit that I did make clear how my view differs from that of evolutionists.
And this is a completely groundless claim. Manfred, unsurprisingly, doesn't know the first thing about my view on the imago Dei (which aligns closely with that of J. Richard Middleton, The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1 [2005]). I would love to hear Manfred explain how Middleton's view makes a mockery of the image of God in man. (But I will not be holding my breath.)
What I actually did was cite scripture to that effect. I said (July 18, 2023), "I have never seen a gorilla worship the living God. (In fact, I've never seen a gorilla, period.) But it would not surprise me if it does, in its own way unrecognizable to us: ‘Let everything that has breath praise the LORD’ (Ps 150:6; cf. Rev 5:13)." In other words, it was something God said, not something I said.
What Manfred said here is false. What I denied is her being the mother of all the living in a biological sense. She is the mother of all the living theologically, not biologically (which should be made clear enough by the fact that I keep referring to Genesis 3:15 and the protoevangelium). As I have made clear repeatedly, I approach scripture with the redemptive-historical hermeneutic.
But I did provide that clarification. It was one of the many things that Manfred pretended did not exist.
I accept your apology, Manfred. However, I don't understand why you are carrying on as if the corrections that I provided don't exist. If you are really, genuinely sorry for misrepresenting my views, why have you left all the corrections unacknowledged and unaddressed? That is inconsistent with an apologetic stance.
And what you need to acknowledge and understand is that your suspicion is based on that very ignorance. If you did study evolutionary creationism—or even just address my view as presented, instead of consistently misrepresenting it—you would quickly and easily see how forcefully antithetical it is to godless views. I can recommend a number of resources, if you're serious (but I have my doubts that you are).
—a statement that flatly contradicts what I have actually said.
See what I mean?
I wish there had been an open, honest, and genuine dialogue where Manfred acknowledges my viewpoint and highlights in a constructive manner any relevant concerns. He could have said at any point, "The way I see it, even this more accurate statement of your belief has problems, such as ..." He has also refused to acknowledge any valid points, even when I express clearly orthodox theology lifted straight from scripture. He has not demonstrated any interest in arriving at a properly accurate understanding of any view that isn't his own.
What I am looking for is an environment where Christian views are respectfully considered and an honest, sincere effort is made to understand each position accurately.
This is confusing to me, for I haven't felt any anger. While I am disappointed with Manfred's disingenuous engagement, it has not risen to the level of anger. My emotional investment in dialogue is minimal, at best. My primary focus is on the logical pursuit of truth, which isn't personal.
I have no idea how Manfred can make a statement like this after all the things I have said about Adam and Eve, or the federal headship of Adam and Christ, or God's covenant relationship with mankind, or ...
Perhaps in his experience these sort of things are normally featured in an evolutionist worldview. If that is the case, I would want him to cite sources to that effect—
—or admit that I did make clear how my view differs from that of evolutionists.
And this is a completely groundless claim. Manfred, unsurprisingly, doesn't know the first thing about my view on the imago Dei (which aligns closely with that of J. Richard Middleton, The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1 [2005]). I would love to hear Manfred explain how Middleton's view makes a mockery of the image of God in man. (But I will not be holding my breath.)
What I actually did was cite scripture to that effect. I said (July 18, 2023), "I have never seen a gorilla worship the living God. (In fact, I've never seen a gorilla, period.) But it would not surprise me if it does, in its own way unrecognizable to us: ‘Let everything that has breath praise the LORD’ (Ps 150:6; cf. Rev 5:13)." In other words, it was something God said, not something I said.
What Manfred said here is false. What I denied is her being the mother of all the living in a biological sense. She is the mother of all the living theologically, not biologically (which should be made clear enough by the fact that I keep referring to Genesis 3:15 and the protoevangelium). As I have made clear repeatedly, I approach scripture with the redemptive-historical hermeneutic.
But I did provide that clarification. It was one of the many things that Manfred pretended did not exist.
I accept your apology, Manfred. However, I don't understand why you are carrying on as if the corrections that I provided don't exist. If you are really, genuinely sorry for misrepresenting my views, why have you left all the corrections unacknowledged and unaddressed? That is inconsistent with an apologetic stance.
And what you need to acknowledge and understand is that your suspicion is based on that very ignorance. If you did study evolutionary creationism—or even just address my view as presented, instead of consistently misrepresenting it—you would quickly and easily see how forcefully antithetical it is to godless views. I can recommend a number of resources, if you're serious (but I have my doubts that you are).
—a statement that flatly contradicts what I have actually said.
See what I mean?
