David Ould

Gareth,

>>> I'm trying to understand what actual principle about "rights" you're
>>> appealing to. On the face of it, it seems to be something like this:
>>> | The whole notion of having "rights" is un-Christian.
>>> | Therefore, we should take no notice of laws that purport
>>> | to give people rights.
>>> But that seems awfully extreme (it could be used just as easily to
>>> justify all kinds of lawbreaking that I find it hard to envisage you
>>> approving of), and it's hard to see how to square that with taking
>>> Romans 13 as seriously as I'm sure you do.
>>> So the above probably isn't what you're actually basing your
>>> statements on.
>> right, so why bring it up in the first place? What on earth did it
>> achieve other than to partially associate me with a position that you
>> then acknowledge I don't hold?
>>
> What I hoped it would achieve, and what it might have
> achieved if I'd been talking to someone who was more
> interested in having a reasonable discussion than in
> hurling bogus accusations at me, was to clarify what
> it is I don't understand and how far I'd got with making
> sense of what you wrote.

bugus accusations? Once again, you attribute things to me that I didn't write.
Then, when I complain about it you talk about "bogus accusations".

All over, once again.

Better luck next time. Perhaps you might attempt to not attribute things
to me that I don't say. Then you'll find that I don't get so annoyed. As
always, the ball is firmly in your court.

Shame, really. I had a number of detailed things to write in response to
you. You'll never see them now. And, I expect you'll want to make out it's
all my fault again.

--
David Ould
http://ould.bravehost.com

Gareth McCaughan

David Ould wrote:

>>> right, so why bring it up in the first place? What on earth did it
>>> achieve other than to partially associate me with a position that you
>>> then acknowledge I don't hold?
>>>
>> What I hoped it would achieve, and what it might have
>> achieved if I'd been talking to someone who was more
>> interested in having a reasonable discussion than in
>> hurling bogus accusations at me, was to clarify what
>> it is I don't understand and how far I'd got with making
>> sense of what you wrote.
>
> bugus accusations? Once again, you attribute things to me that I
> didn't write. Then, when I complain about it you talk about "bogus
> accusations".

I never attributed to you the thing you complained that I did.
I made it entirely clear that I wasn't attributing it to you:

| So the above probably isn't what you're actually basing
| your statements on.

If I wanted to attribute something to you then I'd just
*do* it.

> All over, once again.
>
> Better luck next time. Perhaps you might attempt to not attribute
> things to me that I don't say.

I didn't,.

> Then you'll find that I don't get so
> annoyed.

But you did.

> As always, the ball is firmly in your court.

And what can I actually do to return it?

I have tried just saying "I don't understand" or "Please
could you explain that further?". The usual response:
either you just brush me off ("I don't understand." "No,
you don't.") or you tell me I'm pretending not to understand
and really understand perfectly well.

I have tried saying "here's the best I can come up with,
but surely it's wrong because X" and you complain that I'm
attributing things to you falsely. Even though I say explicitly
and clearly "I don't believe this is actually your position."

So what *can* I do when you say something and I don't
understand quite what you mean?

> Shame, really. I had a number of detailed things to write in response
> to you. You'll never see them now. And, I expect you'll want to make
> out it's all my fault again.

I don't really care whose fault it is (except that if it's
mine then I would like to fix it; but the only explanation
you've given of how it's my fault is to say I attributed
something to you that I simply didn't). I would like to
discuss this civilly with you. I can't see how to do so,
since all my efforts are met with snubs or false accusations.
If you have any concrete suggestions, I'm all ears.

--
Gareth McCaughan
..sig under construc

David Ould

Gareth,

> I don't really care whose fault it is (except that if it's mine then I
> would like to fix it; but the only explanation you've given of how
> it's my fault is to say I attributed something to you that I simply
> didn't). I would like to discuss this civilly with you. I can't see
> how to do so, since all my efforts are met with snubs or false
> accusations. If you have any concrete suggestions, I'm all ears.
>

No Gareth, your idea of "civilly" as just demonstrated in the post I'm replying
to is to ignore the actual text that i quoted showing where you *did* ascribe
it to me and, instead, go for one where you claim not to.

That's playing silly games. No thanks. Go be "civil" with someone else who's
fooled.

--
David Ould
http://ould.bravehost.com

Gareth McCaughan

David Ould wrote:

[me:]
>> I don't really care whose fault it is (except that if it's mine then I
>> would like to fix it; but the only explanation you've given of how
>> it's my fault is to say I attributed something to you that I simply
>> didn't). I would like to discuss this civilly with you. I can't see
>> how to do so, since all my efforts are met with snubs or false
>> accusations. If you have any concrete suggestions, I'm all ears.

[David:]
> No Gareth, your idea of "civilly" as just demonstrated in the post I'm
> replying to is to ignore the actual text that i quoted showing where
> you *did* ascribe it to me and, instead, go for one where you claim
> not to.

I have just read through the parent and great-grandparent
of this article twice more, looking for anything of the kind,
and I cannot find it. What actual text did you quote and how
did it show that I did ascribe to you what I say I didn't?

As for "ignoring the actual text", I didn't think I ever did
that but I wanted to check. So I went through the last 7
articles in this thread sentence by sentence. *Everything*
you said got an answer from me, and it was always a serious
answer attempting to engage with your points except
that two brushoffs got brushoffs in return ("It's naive
to think otherwise" -> "So you claim" and "Of course
they're not the same thing in pedant-world. But out here
in the real world we're not so naive" -> "If you have
no arguments to offer other than a reiteration of your
opinion and pseudo-abuse, then I think we're done.").

Whereas *lots* of things I said you completely ignored
or gave dismissive non-engaging replies to, including
things that had nothing to do with your complaints about
my having ascribed to you positions that you don't hold.
(For instance, you said something about Paul's letters
and I asked for more information. You deleted that
paragraph without comment.)

> That's playing silly games. No thanks. Go be "civil" with someone else
> who's fooled.

If you'd let go of your conviction that everything I say
is a lie including "and" and "the", we might be able to
have useful discussions occasionally. I'm playing no games
here.

--
Gareth McCaughan
..sig under construc

Michael J Davis

In message <87ek8ss7b0.fsf@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com>, Gareth McCaughan
<Gareth.McCaughan@pobox.com> writes
>David Ould wrote:
>
>> That's playing silly games. No thanks. Go be "civil" with someone else
>> who's fooled.
>
>If you'd let go of your conviction that everything I say
>is a lie including "and" and "the", we might be able to
>have useful discussions occasionally. I'm playing no games
>here.

I would like to say, David, that I have to add my plea to Gareth's here.
Your comments are always interesting, but you seem to avoid engaging
with Gareth. I don't see Gareth as difficult as you suggest, - pedantic,
yes, but often to the point of helpfulness.

Mike
--
Michael J Davis

<><
"It gets real lonely as a moderate activist, standing there
alone with a sign that reads, 'Reasonable informed discussion
of the issues as soon as feasible!' " -- David Brake
<><

Tony Gillam

Gareth McCaughan wrote:

>..., I'm all ears.

Hello, Dumbo ;-)

--
Tony Gillam
tony.gillam@lineone.net
http://www.bookourvilla.co.uk/spain
Sun, sand and sangria

Gareth McCaughan

Tony Gillam wrote:

> Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>
>> ..., I'm all ears.
>
> Hello, Dumbo ;-)

*sigh* :-)

--
Gareth McCaughan
..sig under construc

Gareth McCaughan

Michael J Davis wrote:

> I would like to say, David, that I have to add my plea to Gareth's
> here. Your comments are always interesting, but you seem to avoid
> engaging with Gareth. I don't see Gareth as difficult as you suggest,
> - pedantic, yes, but often to the point of helpfulness.

Thanks. But actually I'm replying because I wanted to say
how much I like your .sig on this occasion:

> "It gets real lonely as a moderate activist, standing there
> alone with a sign that reads, 'Reasonable informed discussion
> of the issues as soon as feasible!' " -- David Brake

--
Gareth McCaughan
..sig under construc

David Ould

Mike
> In message <87ek8ss7b0.fsf@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com>, Gareth McCaughan
> <Gareth.McCaughan@pobox.com> writes
>
>> David Ould wrote:
>>
>>> That's playing silly games. No thanks. Go be "civil" with someone
>>> else who's fooled.
>>>
>> If you'd let go of your conviction that everything I say is a lie
>> including "and" and "the", we might be able to have useful
>> discussions occasionally. I'm playing no games here.
>>
> I would like to say, David, that I have to add my plea to Gareth's
> here. Your comments are always interesting, but you seem to avoid
> engaging with Gareth. I don't see Gareth as difficult as you suggest,
> - pedantic, yes, but often to the point of helpfulness.
>

then you reply to him, Mike. I'm having none of it. I think I'd rather dialogue
with Dudley.

--
David Ould
http://ould.bravehost.com

Paul Roberts

In news:2943a2488da038c7724ae08dc740@news.tpg.com.au,
David Ould roared:
> Mike
>> In message <87ek8ss7b0.fsf@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com>, Gareth
>> McCaughan <Gareth.McCaughan@pobox.com> writes
>>
>>> David Ould wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's playing silly games. No thanks. Go be "civil" with someone
>>>> else who's fooled.
>>>>
>>> If you'd let go of your conviction that everything I say is a lie
>>> including "and" and "the", we might be able to have useful
>>> discussions occasionally. I'm playing no games here.
>>>
>> I would like to say, David, that I have to add my plea to Gareth's
>> here. Your comments are always interesting, but you seem to avoid
>> engaging with Gareth. I don't see Gareth as difficult as you suggest,
>> - pedantic, yes, but often to the point of helpfulness.
>>
>
> then you reply to him, Mike. I'm having none of it. I think I'd
> rather dialogue with Dudley.

I think the problem, David, is that you're looking at Gareth's posts in the
same way as you're looking at RD's. You think RD is simply trying to trap
you, play word games with you, or make you look silly - and I think in his
case, you're right, at least some of the time.

However, I don't think Gareth is doing anything of the kind. It looks to me
like he is genuinely trying to see where you are coming from with some of
your viewpoints, and asking you to clarify. You are sometimes quite brief in
your posts, and it isn't immediately obvious to the reader where your
reasoning has come from.

My guess is that you enjoy a straightforward exchange of opinions, and get
frustrated with Gareth because he doesn't always do that. I think this is
because he likes to be sure exactly what he's arguing with before he
ventures an opinion of his own, which may be irritating for you.

But I honestly feel that, if you were to stop reading all his posts as a
personal attack on you, and just take them at face value and answer his
questions, it would work much better for everyone. Please, give it a try.
--
Paul R.
Remove nospam for valid email address

Gareth McCaughan

Paul Roberts wrote:

> My guess is that you enjoy a straightforward exchange of opinions, and get
> frustrated with Gareth because he doesn't always do that. I think this is
> because he likes to be sure exactly what he's arguing with before he
> ventures an opinion of his own, which may be irritating for you.

Right. To be a little more precise[1], I like to be sure what
someone else's opinion is before commenting *on that opinion*.

[1] Who, me?

--
Gareth McCaughan
..sig under construc

Paul Roberts

In news:87mznfotrr.fsf@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com,
Gareth McCaughan spouted forth:
> Paul Roberts wrote:
>
>> My guess is that you enjoy a straightforward exchange of opinions,
>> and get frustrated with Gareth because he doesn't always do that. I
>> think this is because he likes to be sure exactly what he's arguing
>> with before he ventures an opinion of his own, which may be
>> irritating for you.
>
> Right. To be a little more precise[1], I like to be sure what
> someone else's opinion is before commenting *on that opinion*.
>
> [1] Who, me?


OK - but, contrary to what you might think, people are genuinely interested
in your own opinions as well!
--
Paul R.
Remove nospam for valid email address

Richard Dudley

Paul Roberts wrote:

> > then you reply to him, Mike. I'm having none of it. I think I'd
> > rather dialogue with Dudley.
>
> I think the problem, David, is that you're looking at Gareth's posts in the
> same way as you're looking at RD's. You think RD is simply trying to trap
> you, play word games with you, or make you look silly - and I think in his
> case, you're right, at least some of the time.

You're wrong, unless what you mean by 'trap' is expose a contradiction
in his thinking, in which case you'd be right. David's only using
'dialogue with Dudley' as a position, he doesn't really mean it, unless
he's changed from the last time he used this line. Its been quite a
long time, a few years I think since David did actually dialogue with
me, and those exchanges I found valuable, so he is capable of it.

> However, I don't think Gareth is doing anything of the kind. It looks to me
> like he is genuinely trying to see where you are coming from with some of
> your viewpoints, and asking you to clarify. You are sometimes quite brief in
> your posts, and it isn't immediately obvious to the reader where your
> reasoning has come from.

Both Gareth and I are genuinely seeking to understand - Gareth's
approach is generally much less terse than my own - I think he's much
much faster at composing posts than I am ;-) Both of us run up against
David's tendency to see the person he's discussing with as dishonest.
That's not something anyone but David is going to be able to deal with.

> But I honestly feel that, if you were to stop reading all his posts as a
> personal attack on you, and just take them at face value and answer his
> questions, it would work much better for everyone. Please, give it a try.

If everyone did this, we'd get rid of all adhominem comments at a
stroke and no-one would ever get defensive. I don't think its likely
since its the very nature of conservatism to be defensive. If no-one
took anything personally, they'd all be liberals and then would agree
on practically everything ! So I venture its impossible for David to
both hold the views that he does, and not to take at least some
arguments personally.

Richard

David Ould

Paul,


> My guess is that you enjoy a straightforward exchange of opinions, and
> get frustrated with Gareth because he doesn't always do that. I think
> this is because he likes to be sure exactly what he's arguing with
> before he ventures an opinion of his own, which may be irritating for
> you.
>
> But I honestly feel that, if you were to stop reading all his posts as
> a personal attack on you, and just take them at face value and answer
> his questions, it would work much better for everyone. Please, give it
> a try.
>

I don't think he's personally attacking me. I don't think he can even help
what he does. But I'm tired of the constant way that I get stuff attributed
to me that I don't say. For a pedant, who prides himself on being very particular,
he suffers from strange lapses of exactness.

I'm done with it.

--
David Ould
http://ould.bravehost.com

Paul Roberts

In news:2943a248901078c772d9616397f0@news.tpg.com.au,
David Ould roared:
> Paul,

[snip]
>> But I honestly feel that, if you were to stop reading all his posts
>> as a personal attack on you, and just take them at face value and
>> answer his questions, it would work much better for everyone.
>> Please, give it a try.
>>
>
> I don't think he's personally attacking me. I don't think he can even
> help what he does. But I'm tired of the constant way that I get stuff
> attributed to me that I don't say. For a pedant, who prides himself on
> being
> very particular, he suffers from strange lapses of exactness.

Well, I've made the same mistake with you, as have others. As I've said,
this may be because you can be a little brief in the points you make
(perhaps you think that your views are so obvious that they don't need
further clarification). But it's worth considering that if people are
misunderstanding you, the problem may be yours, not theirs.

> I'm done with it.

Well, that's a pity, because it means that the current unpleasantness can
only continue - which isn't good for any of us.
--
Paul R.
Remove nospam for valid email address

David Ould

> In news:2943a248901078c772d9616397f0@news.tpg.com.au, David Ould
> roared:
>
>> Paul,
>>
> [snip]
>
>>> But I honestly feel that, if you were to stop reading all his posts
>>> as a personal attack on you, and just take them at face value and
>>> answer his questions, it would work much better for everyone.
>>> Please, give it a try.
>>>
>> I don't think he's personally attacking me. I don't think he can even
>> help what he does. But I'm tired of the constant way that I get stuff
>> attributed to me that I don't say. For a pedant, who prides himself
>> on
>> being
>> very particular, he suffers from strange lapses of exactness.
> Well, I've made the same mistake with you, as have others. As I've
> said, this may be because you can be a little brief in the points you
> make (perhaps you think that your views are so obvious that they don't
> need further clarification). But it's worth considering that if people
> are misunderstanding you, the problem may be yours, not theirs.
>

Yes. But when someone says "I'm not saying you say this" and then in the
same post *does* present you as holding that view; well, then I've had enough.

Call that my fault if it helps.

>> I'm done with it.
>>
> Well, that's a pity, because it means that the current unpleasantness
> can only continue - which isn't good for any of us.
>

No, this will stop the unpleasantness. Sadly Gareth joins Richard D in the
"deliberately difficult" file who I don't respond to. I take no pleasure
in that.

--
David Ould
http://ould.bravehost.com

Paul Roberts

In news:2943a2489163b8c77303308e0590@news.tpg.com.au,
David Ould spouted forth:

[snip]
[me]
>> Well, I've made the same mistake with you, as have others. As I've
>> said, this may be because you can be a little brief in the points you
>> make (perhaps you think that your views are so obvious that they
>> don't need further clarification). But it's worth considering that
>> if people are misunderstanding you, the problem may be yours, not
>> theirs.
>>
>
> Yes. But when someone says "I'm not saying you say this" and then in
> the
> same post *does* present you as holding that view; well, then I've
> had enough.
>
> Call that my fault if it helps.

Now then. You know what you just said about Gareth? Well, re-read my
paragraph above. Did I call it "your fault"? No. I suggested you consider
it. It's up to you to draw your own conclusions.

I say this just to illustrate how easy it is to misunderstand someone.

[snip]
>> Well, that's a pity, because it means that the current unpleasantness
>> can only continue - which isn't good for any of us.
>>
>
> No, this will stop the unpleasantness. Sadly Gareth joins Richard D
> in the "deliberately difficult" file who I don't respond to. I take
> no pleasure
> in that.

Well, don't do it, then. Instead why not just try to be friendly and
communicative? And if you do feel that you're being misrepresented, then let
it go over your head and simply clarify.

The difference between Gareth and Richard is that, unfortunately, lots of
people seem to have a problem talking to Richard. The same is clearly not
true of Gareth.
--
Paul R.
Remove nospam for valid email address

Paul Roberts

In news:1124415448.748024.99790@g43g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com,
Richard Dudley spouted forth:
> Paul Roberts wrote:

[snip]
>> But I honestly feel that, if you were to stop reading all his posts
>> as a personal attack on you, and just take them at face value and
>> answer his questions, it would work much better for everyone.
>> Please, give it a try.
>
> If everyone did this, we'd get rid of all adhominem comments at a
> stroke and no-one would ever get defensive. I don't think its likely
> since its the very nature of conservatism to be defensive. If no-one
> took anything personally, they'd all be liberals and then would agree
> on practically everything ! So I venture its impossible for David to
> both hold the views that he does, and not to take at least some
> arguments personally.

Sorry, I don't agree with that at all. I don't think the tendency to take
arguments personally is anything to do with the conservative/liberal divide.
I can think of "conservative" posters who are happy to consider and respond
to points made to them, and I can think of "liberals" who get quite
defensive if they are challenged.
--
Paul R.
Remove nospam for valid email address

Paul Roberts

In news:2943a248934e68c773880fafe190@news.tpg.com.au,
David Ould spouted forth:

[snip]
> Come on, now, Paul. When you write "if people are misunderstanding
> you, the problem may be yours, not theirs" then I understand
> perfectly well what you are saying.

Actually, I don't think you do. I'm not in the business of judging people -
and in any case, if I jump into a thread and start accusing you of being to
blame for the unpleasantness therein, frankly I'm not going to achieve very
much.

What I was trying to do was to ask you to think about it. If you were to
arrive at the conclusion that maybe it *was* your problem, you're far more
likely to do something about it. If, OTOH, you reject my suggestion then
there's not really any more I can say.

>> I say this just to illustrate how easy it is to misunderstand
>> someone.
>>
>
> No, I think i understood you just fine. You, in a polite way,
> suggested that it was my problem. I am pointing out why I don't think
> so.

Fair enough - but you haven't addressed my suggestion (which may be
pertinent) that people might misunderstand you because you can be quite
brief.

[snip]
>> The difference between Gareth and Richard is that, unfortunately,
>> lots of people seem to have a problem talking to Richard. The same is
>> clearly not true of Gareth.
>>
>
> Well then lots of people have more patience than I do.

Are you serious, or playing the martyr?
--
Paul R.
Remove nospam for valid email address

David Ould

> In news:2943a248934e68c773880fafe190@news.tpg.com.au, David Ould
> spouted forth:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Come on, now, Paul. When you write "if people are misunderstanding
>> you, the problem may be yours, not theirs" then I understand
>> perfectly well what you are saying.
>>
> Actually, I don't think you do. I'm not in the business of judging
> people - and in any case, if I jump into a thread and start accusing
> you of being to blame for the unpleasantness therein, frankly I'm not
> going to achieve very much.
>
> What I was trying to do was to ask you to think about it. If you were
> to arrive at the conclusion that maybe it *was* your problem, you're
> far more likely to do something about it. If, OTOH, you reject my
> suggestion then there's not really any more I can say.
>
>>> I say this just to illustrate how easy it is to misunderstand
>>> someone.
>>>
>> No, I think i understood you just fine. You, in a polite way,
>> suggested that it was my problem. I am pointing out why I don't think
>> so.
>>
> Fair enough - but you haven't addressed my suggestion (which may be
> pertinent) that people might misunderstand you because you can be
> quite brief.
>


I don't have a problem with that. It's when they jump to assumptions that
are ridiculous that I have a problem, see (for example) Peter Lear's recent
"I understand evangelicals: you think that God dictated the Bible word for
word". That sort of nonsense shows a contempt for the evangelical position
that is very upsetting.

> [snip]
>
>>> The difference between Gareth and Richard is that, unfortunately,
>>> lots of people seem to have a problem talking to Richard. The same
>>> is clearly not true of Gareth.
>>>
>> Well then lots of people have more patience than I do.
>>
> Are you serious, or playing the martyr?
>

no, I'm very serious.

--
David Ould
http://ould.bravehost.com

Paul Roberts

In news:2943a248983ac8c7743c641a47a0@news.tpg.com.au,
David Ould spouted forth:

[snip]
>> Fair enough - but you haven't addressed my suggestion (which may be
>> pertinent) that people might misunderstand you because you can be
>> quite brief.
>>
>
>
> I don't have a problem with that. It's when they jump to assumptions
> that are ridiculous that I have a problem, see (for example) Peter
> Lear's recent "I understand evangelicals: you think that God dictated
> the Bible word for word". That sort of nonsense shows a contempt for
> the evangelical position that is very upsetting.

I agree up to a point. But Peter did correctly highlight that there is a
spectrum of evangelical positions (the one he suggested being one of them),
and it would have been good if you would have clarified yours.

[snip]

>>> Well then lots of people have more patience than I do.
>>>
>> Are you serious, or playing the martyr?
>>
>
> no, I'm very serious.

Well, you can always work at it :-)
--
Paul R.
Remove nospam for valid email address

David Ould

> In news:2943a248983ac8c7743c641a47a0@news.tpg.com.au, David Ould
> spouted forth:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Fair enough - but you haven't addressed my suggestion (which may be
>>> pertinent) that people might misunderstand you because you can be
>>> quite brief.
>>>
>> I don't have a problem with that. It's when they jump to assumptions
>> that are ridiculous that I have a problem, see (for example) Peter
>> Lear's recent "I understand evangelicals: you think that God dictated
>> the Bible word for word". That sort of nonsense shows a contempt for
>> the evangelical position that is very upsetting.
>>
> I agree up to a point. But Peter did correctly highlight that there is
> a spectrum of evangelical positions (the one he suggested being one of
> them), and it would have been good if you would have clarified yours.
>

even within the "spectrum" there isn't a single one that is "God dictated
the Bible word for word". That sort of thing doesn't need "clarification".

> [snip]
>
>>>> Well then lots of people have more patience than I do.
>>>>
>>> Are you serious, or playing the martyr?
>>>
>> no, I'm very serious.
>>
> Well, you can always work at it :-)
>

I could do. The optimum thing, of course, is to no longer reply.
--
David Ould
http://ould.bravehost.com

Richard Dudley

Paul Roberts wrote:

> >> But I honestly feel that, if you were to stop reading all his posts
> >> as a personal attack on you, and just take them at face value and
> >> answer his questions, it would work much better for everyone.
> >> Please, give it a try.
> >
> > If everyone did this, we'd get rid of all adhominem comments at a
> > stroke and no-one would ever get defensive. I don't think its likely
> > since its the very nature of conservatism to be defensive. If no-one
> > took anything personally, they'd all be liberals and then would agree
> > on practically everything ! So I venture its impossible for David to
> > both hold the views that he does, and not to take at least some
> > arguments personally.
>
> Sorry, I don't agree with that at all. I don't think the tendency to take
> arguments personally is anything to do with the conservative/liberal divide.

Ah, I wasn't using 'conservatism' just to refer to conservative
theology, I was thinking of the wish to retain aspects of the past in
general. I don't see there's a conservative/liberal divide myself,
there's more a continuum. Although I consider myself to be a liberal,
to me being a 'liberal' in the theological context means recognising
the primacy of reason over 'revelation'.

> I can think of "conservative" posters who are happy to consider and respond
> to points made to them, and I can think of "liberals" who get quite
> defensive if they are challenged.

Yeah, I don't disagree with that. It crucially depends on the area
which they're being challenged on. For example there are 'liberals' in
the theological sense who are keen to deny miracles - that's a form of
conservatism in my estimation. So press them on this, and they're quite
likely to get defensive. Likewise conservatives, when not arguing based
on matters of dogma can indeed behave very reasonably.

I don't see how you get from your own experience to a statement that
you don't agree with what I've said _at all_.

Richard

Richard Dudley

David Ould wrote:

> I don't have a problem with that. It's when they jump to assumptions that
> are ridiculous that I have a problem, see (for example) Peter Lear's recent
> "I understand evangelicals: you think that God dictated the Bible word for
> word". That sort of nonsense shows a contempt for the evangelical position
> that is very upsetting.

That sort of nonsense is indeed the problem - the nonsense that what
you've said bears any resemblance to what Peter Lear actually meant. If
you stopped reacting and responding based on what you _think_ people
say, and instead replied to what people actually meant, then the
problem would dissolve.

The irony is that this is the advice you yourself have given to Gareth.
So David, why don't you follow your own advice ? Perhaps, victim that
you consider yourself to be, you don't consider it to be worth
following ;-)

Richard

Mark Goodge

On 21 Aug 2005 11:59:26 +1000, David Ould put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>> I agree up to a point. But Peter did correctly highlight that there is
>> a spectrum of evangelical positions (the one he suggested being one of
>> them), and it would have been good if you would have clarified yours.
>>
>
>even within the "spectrum" there isn't a single one that is "God dictated
>the Bible word for word".

Actually, there is. It's a common position at the more fundamentalist
end of the spectrum.

Mark
--
http://www.FridayFun.net - jokes, lyrics and ringtones!
"Illusion never changed into something real"

David Ould

> On 21 Aug 2005 11:59:26 +1000, David Ould put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>>> I agree up to a point. But Peter did correctly highlight that there
>>> is a spectrum of evangelical positions (the one he suggested being
>>> one of them), and it would have been good if you would have
>>> clarified yours.
>>>
>> even within the "spectrum" there isn't a single one that is "God
>> dictated the Bible word for word".
>>
> Actually, there is. It's a common position at the more fundamentalist
> end of the spectrum.

extreme fundamentalist, maybe - evangelical, no. And certainly not a position
that I've ever given any indication of holding.

--
David Ould
http://ould.bravehost.com

David Ould

>> On 21 Aug 2005 11:59:26 +1000, David Ould put finger to keyboard and
>> typed:
>>
>>>> I agree up to a point. But Peter did correctly highlight that there
>>>> is a spectrum of evangelical positions (the one he suggested being
>>>> one of them), and it would have been good if you would have
>>>> clarified yours.
>>>>
>>> even within the "spectrum" there isn't a single one that is "God
>>> dictated the Bible word for word".
>>>
>> Actually, there is. It's a common position at the more fundamentalist
>> end of the spectrum.
>>
> extreme fundamentalist, maybe - evangelical, no. And certainly not a
> position that I've ever given any indication of holding.
>

In fact, come to think of it, the only people that I've ever heard of holding
that view are Mormons and Muslims. Who are these people on the more fundamentalist
end of the spectrum who hold this view? Got some examples of this "common
position"?

--
David Ould
http://ould.bravehost.com

Kim Tame

On 21 Aug 2005 22:39:06 +1000, David Ould
<davidould@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:

>>> On 21 Aug 2005 11:59:26 +1000, David Ould put finger to keyboard and
>>> typed:
>>>
>>>>> I agree up to a point. But Peter did correctly highlight that there
>>>>> is a spectrum of evangelical positions (the one he suggested being
>>>>> one of them), and it would have been good if you would have
>>>>> clarified yours.
>>>>>
>>>> even within the "spectrum" there isn't a single one that is "God
>>>> dictated the Bible word for word".
>>>>
>>> Actually, there is. It's a common position at the more fundamentalist
>>> end of the spectrum.
>>>
>> extreme fundamentalist, maybe - evangelical, no. And certainly not a
>> position that I've ever given any indication of holding.
>>
>
>In fact, come to think of it, the only people that I've ever heard of holding
>that view are Mormons and Muslims. Who are these people on the more fundamentalist
>end of the spectrum who hold this view? Got some examples of this "common
>position"?


I tried to enter this thread a couple of messages up and it didn't get
there. Apologies if the same point appears twice.

There were a few American chaps posting on the now defunct christnet
hierarchy a couple of years ago, who definitely thought the Bible was
dictated. God dicated to Moses the account of his own death, and no
writer could possibly have used historical records. Even the begat
passages were dictated, not researched.

One of the chaps was involved with a KJV-only church, don't remember
which church the other chap went to.
--

Kim

Mark Goodge

On 21 Aug 2005 20:14:21 +1000, David Ould put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>> On 21 Aug 2005 11:59:26 +1000, David Ould put finger to keyboard and
>> typed:
>>
>>>> I agree up to a point. But Peter did correctly highlight that there
>>>> is a spectrum of evangelical positions (the one he suggested being
>>>> one of them), and it would have been good if you would have
>>>> clarified yours.
>>>>
>>> even within the "spectrum" there isn't a single one that is "God
>>> dictated the Bible word for word".
>>>
>> Actually, there is. It's a common position at the more fundamentalist
>> end of the spectrum.
>
>extreme fundamentalist, maybe - evangelical, no.

That's a bit of a "no true Scotsman" argument - you're defining
"evangelical" in a way which excludes a position you disagree with. I
think that's unreasonable. Evangelicalism is very broad; it contains
many different understandings of the authorship and inspiration of the
Bible. Probably the only thing which all evangelicals agree on is that
the Bible (as opposed to Tradition and/or Reason) is the primary
written source of doctrine and truth. But there is a lot of
disagreement, not only over the interpretation of the Bible, but on
how the Bible came into being.

> And certainly not a position
>that I've ever given any indication of holding.

But you did: you said that the Bible has a "single author". That's the
kind of terminology I would expect from someone who holds the literal
dictation position; it's not a phrase that I would expect to hear from
someone who holds a position closer to my own (I'd use the term
"single inspiration" rather than "single author", in this context). So
I think it's entirely reasonable for someone reading your statement to
query your use of it and ask if you do, in fact, believe in literal
dictation.

As it happens, you have subsequently clarified that this is not your
position (and this is consistent with your previous statements on the
inspiration of the Bible), so there isn't any major issue here. But I
don't think it's unreasonable to ask you what you do actually believe
about the origin and inspiration of the Bible.

Mark
--
http://www.FridayFun.net - jokes, lyrics and ringtones!
"I feel these four walls closing in"

Mark Goodge

On 21 Aug 2005 22:39:06 +1000, David Ould put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>>> On 21 Aug 2005 11:59:26 +1000, David Ould put finger to keyboard and
>>> typed:
>>>
>>>>> I agree up to a point. But Peter did correctly highlight that there
>>>>> is a spectrum of evangelical positions (the one he suggested being
>>>>> one of them), and it would have been good if you would have
>>>>> clarified yours.
>>>>>
>>>> even within the "spectrum" there isn't a single one that is "God
>>>> dictated the Bible word for word".
>>>>