To be fair, I did quote this out of context, but...

[makesends]

Recently, I got this from someone trying to describe reasonable debate, as though this was a worthy standard for assessing what someone says (does, exibits, etc). To be fair, I am quoting it out of context, but the person who wrote it, wrote it as its own paragraph, as, (apparently), a standalone principle:

"Repeating a patented answer without addressing the opposing scripture is evidence of subversion to heresy."

Discuss.

 

[Carbon]

Recently, I got this from someone trying to describe reasonable debate, as though this was a worthy standard for assessing what someone says (does, exibits, etc). To be fair, I am quoting it out of context, but the person who wrote it, wrote it as its own paragraph, as, (apparently), a standalone principle:

"Repeating a patented answer without addressing the opposing scripture is evidence of subversion to heresy."

Discuss.

hhhhmmmmmmmm......................

Thinking. it reminds me of a discussion I just had with someone in another thread.

 

[Two-Edged Sword]

Well, in regards to a forum setting, whatever scripture the thread initiator quotes should definitely be addressed when putting forward an apposing understanding but I would not go so far as to call it "heresy" if not addressed, especially if the answer they provide is a generally accepted belief.
I just think using a canned opposing responses out of dogmatism is just unbeneficial, at least to the person posting it. As in Acts 17:11 we should be searching the scriptures to verify what we believe are truth.
Obviously, we should have the integrity to not avoid opposing scripture just to sell our point of view. I would consider that unethical and as "heresy" in the sense that it goes contrary to Christian standards.