Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Grade Me!

If you're bored, and if you like debates...

Have I lost you yet?  :-)

Good.  There's a short (so far) debate going on between me and aservantofJehovah in the comments of the Luke in Hell post on my other blog regarding Hell, and Mark's version of it in particular..

I am trying to be reasonably respectful, yet firm.  I don't mind throwing a jab or two as well, but I don't want to cross the line into being a jerk.  So feel free to check it out if you've got the time and the will to do so, and let me know here how you think I've handled it.

But, please, don't feel obligated to do so.  Debates aren't everyone's cup of tea, and I get that.  Believe me, I get that.  :-)


  1. Okay, I'll grade you: F. And "aservantofJehovah" (a handle he should *not* have been using) gets an F as well. I'm sure you both made valid points, but the animosity and ad hominem attacks so pervade every comment that they render the entire debate worthless to me. It's too unpleasant to read, and too obfuscated to follow. That's unfortunate, because I very much respect your logic and Biblical expertise, and I think I liked your opponent's perspective on the subject of hell. It could have been an educational and interesting conversation, and *enjoyable* to read.

    That debate is an example of what I call "a debate to the death." Both parties are *permanently* entrenched in their positions; and both will do whatever it takes to make it look like he has the winning argument.

    In your defense, *he* started the hostility. Also in your defense, *he* should know better, as a self-proclaimed "defender of Jehovah," while you, as an atheist, have no moral compass to guide you. (That's a joke.)

    I'll be the first to point out my hypocrisy here. I've engaged in debates that are similarly mean-spirited--or at least a far cry from what (in my opinion) a good debate should be like. Looking at this verbal fight was a reminder to me that hostile debates are remarkably unpleasant to read, and if nobody wants to read them, why bother debating?

    The original post, BTW, was well-written, clearly stated, and enjoyable to read. I disagree with it completely, as you would expect, but it was good. ;-) I wanted to comment on it, but did not want to get involved in the ongoing debate.

  2. I would have to agree with that grade, Ollie. I thought I had started it off reasonably, but I definitely got too snarky.

    This guy had debated before, in a debate where I think I handled him better, that one about Jesus at Martha's house. Jehovah-dude was a bit less snarky there as well. This time, as you note, he came in swinging.

    What I found most interesting was that it seemed to me that he was so angry or frustrated that he was making blatant mistakes that he may have otherwise would have caught, had he not been enraged.

    Thanks for the kind words on the original post.