Fellow atheist Huey on the other blog made an observation that I had fled from this debate. Here was my reply:
[citing what someone here had written]
"Also, in watching you never shrink from debate with credentialed Phds and the like..."
Well he did.
Nope. I was going along with Jim Arvo and then he made these comments:
"If you actually have something of substance to offer, then please direct me to it, or recap it here. I honestly don't have the time to sift through all you've written looking for something that may make sense to me.
". . . If you cannot bring yourself to admit that the clear surface meaning of the two Judas accounts are problematic, then it seems to me that you cannot even enter into the debate in a meaningful way IMHO."
That is not me fleeing for the hills in abject terror. It was his decision to become insulting so that it was perfectly reasonable and sensible (given the time limitations that we all have) for me to conclude that good dialogue had come to an end.
If you are having a good conversation, you don't tell the other person "If you actually have something of substance to offer, then please direct me to it" and make a snide remark like "looking for something [in your writing] that may make sense to me". That, of course, implies that much of your opponent's reply lacks substance, which in turn sabotages mutually-respectful dialogue.
The second thing that killed intelligent dialogue is the arrogant claim that if I didn't admit up front that the two accounts of Judas' death were "problematic" then I "cannot even enter into the debate in a meaningful way." That forces me to presuppose the very position that we are arguing about, in which case, no discussion would be possible or necessary, since I would agree with Jim's position by default, before I dare to criticize it.
That is clearly unacceptable. And so the discussion was over. I was actually enjoying it quite a bit until this non sequitur nonsense came in. I think it is a shame whenever a good discussion gets sidetracked by inanities, like this one did.
Jim had gotten mad because I said I thought he was obfuscating because he was picking around the edges of my point of view but not engaging it directly. Perhaps I was too blunt or insulting myself, yet the gist of my observation was undeniably true. he was not interacting with the actual scenarios that I set forth for my position, but talking only in generalities.
Later, Jim made an apology and a more detached re-statement of his views:
http://exchristian.net/2/2007/
09...019769759451849
I replied:
We'll have to agree to disagree, Jim. I have no further arguments on the matter beyond those I have already given. But I appreciate your non-polemical tone, and the apology.
http://exchristian.net/2/2007/
09...772039118212727
And he wrote back:
"Okay then. Take care."
http://exchristian.net/2/2007/
09...629673485346660
Commenting by HaloScan
