So you did. That thread had dropped out of the Top 25 list and I’d stopped checking it. Thanks.

I’ve now replied to your reply.

Report comment to moderator

the anti-intellectualism thread is at:

http://online.worldmag.com/2008/02/15/anti-intellectualism-is-the-leftsrights-fault/

Report comment to moderator

Buckley was among the best minds I am aware of in the twentieth and early twenty first century. He was insightful, cogent, and his arguments were always (well almost always: his closure on the PBS Intelligent Design show might be argued to have been a bit thin) well supported and thought out.

Further, one could always depend on him to clearly and trenchantly demonstrate the fallacies in the arguments of his opponents.

This was excellent for conservatism: he helped provide a strong well grounded intellectual foundation for conservative ideas.

Interestingly, this was also good for liberalism: his well grounded and effective arugments forced Liberalism to refine its ideas and provide a sounder foundation for these ideas.

Which, perhaps, is the key point: a rigorous debate with both sides energetically supporting their arguments in a sound intellectual, not emotional, manner is good for both sides of the argument.

It is also good for those who are watching: the argument becomes very clearly defined in such a rigorous and honest debate.

Report comment to moderator

“WORLD | On the Web, a sister publication to WORLD magazine, receives funding from donors who grasp the importance of using new media to reach new readers and develop new, young writers. We report from a biblical worldview and provide an open forum for discussion of news that arises at the intersection of religion and culture.

Our comment policy
The free speech goals of World on the Web parallel the view enunciated by Puritan poet John Milton three and a half centuries ago: “Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; who ever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?”

Based on that faith, we hope for a forum within which truth will emerge — but WOW does not endorse the truth or accuracy of any comment posted on this site. The posting of any comment or other statement is not an endorsement or acceptance of the statement by WOW nor by any individual, agent or employee on behalf of WOW. We yearn for a forum in which participants will be tough-minded in their analysis but respectful toward each other.

Debate is a contact sport, so we don’t discourage intellectual blocking and tackling within free and open encounters. But obscene, profane, or racist rhetoric – to cite only some obvious examples – shuts down debate. WOW reserves the right to delete or edit any posting as its editors determine. That WOW reserves this right does not mean that it will exercise such editorial control over the content of this site: Our desire is to let truth and falsehood grapple. Failure of WOW to delete or edit any material does not mean that we are accepting the content of any posting; our staff is small.

Our lawyer puts it this way: “Any individual making a posting to this site agrees (by submitting the posting) to indemnify and hold WOW harmless from any and all liability or injury that WOW may incur by reason of any posting.” What that means is that no one need worry about defending or attacking an idea, but if (for example) you post a personal attack on another blogger and he sues for libel, you’re the one who would be responsible for the legal fees, not us. So, as your mother might say, be polite.”

Where as Peter Leavett has often pointed out:

“Debate is a contact sport, so we don’t discourage intellectual blocking and tackling within free and open encounters.”

And I do suggest that even though this blog is supported by conservative Christians, neither conservative NOR Christian ideas are entitled to get a pass on this point, as is amply demonstrated in the discussions.

Report comment to moderator

Not true, SteveG. I was busy for a couple days, but I replied to you yesterday.

Report comment to moderator

discussion on revelations

Report comment to moderator

now of course there are many kinds Christians, as is noted in the Pew survey material discussed elsewhere on this blog.

This suggests that mommy’s approach of hyphenated Christians is perhaps necessary here.

The one discussed with mommy are those Christians who believe in strict Biblical inerrancy, and those who dont. Parenthetically as I have noted many times, the demographic denominational majority of Christians do nt believe in Biblical inerrancy. We can extend this to other aspects of Christinaity as well.

In short, it is perhpas appropriate, if the definitions are established firmly, to argue that someone may be a specfici hyphenated form of Christian based on objective evidence.

If one is a followerr of Christ, however, no one has demonstrated a valid objective model for determining who is and who is not a Christian and, as victoria has noted, only God knows who is and who is not a Christian.

Report comment to moderator

I do see that there is an interesting proposed syllogism here.

So first:

is 1 + 1 = 2?

I suggest that 1 + 1 = 10.

Second if we accept a base larger than base 2, the equation 1 + 1 = 2 is defintional.

We have asked this many times in thius blog, but since you raise it again, what is the definition of a Christian?

When we do this in this blog we continue to revert to:

A Christian is one who follows Christ

And I note that victoria agrees that only God knows who is and who is not a Christian.

So if you accept this statement, it would seem, based simply on one’s identity, difficult for humans to know who is and who is not a Christian and it would seem inappropriate for humans to suggest that one is or is not Christian so long as an individual self-identifies as a Christian.

Report comment to moderator

well you might look at the anti-intellecutal thread:

anti-intellectualism thread

I suggest that posts 94 – 100 are most interesting here.

This refers to the following discussions:

one of vynette’s arguments

Jesus Geneology Discussion

post 282 is perhaps interesting here

<A HREF=”http://online.worldmag.com/2007/12/01/lord-lunatic-liar-or-product-of-propaganda/” discussion on revelations

There are more cases but these should suffice. I suggest that one may review the material for themselves and draw thier own conclusion.

But lets be clear, I am not concerned with victoria personally.

Rather I am concerned with a general set of behaviors which we see at intervals in these discussions, and I suggest that we should discuss our positions on such models of postings.

Report comment to moderator

After an exhaustive search on my calendar, I have found no available time to answer your many ’so called questions’ or to launch into yet another so called “DEBATE” which you have arranged, and made explicit rules for, under your guidance. However, in the spirit of civil discourse I would like to offer you a “STAND BY APPOINTMENT” which will be “RED FLAGGED” for the occasion, IF and WHEN it should arise.

Don’t hold your breath, don’t stay up late, it could be hours, weeks, months.

Report comment to moderator