Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
The DCP has many many articles available online that address all familiar concerns in a thoughtful, scriptural, and unoffensive way.
|
And I have read several of those articles and found them, while inoffensive, to be contrived and to generally misuse scripture. They did make reference to scriptures, but they could not be said to support their positions any more than you have managed to do here. They declare verses to have meanings based on the same kinds of work-arounds that you use to insist on one church per city with the "church in [city]" name. It is all based on repeats of the same faulty use of scripture that Nee and Lee did in the first place. I have yet to find anything in them that is new and worthy of serious consideration.
And if you think there is actually something worthy of consideration, then you need to supply it because it has not been done in the past. The DCP hasn't done it. Lee didn't do it before that. Nor did Nee before that.
If they have finally found the silver bullet, then you need to enlighten us. Don't pull a Lee and say that if you read all of scripture you will agree with him. That is a rhetorical trick to overwhelm the reader/listener into not asking for a reason to believe it is true. It seems to remove the burden of proof from the one making the claim and tries to shift it to those who can find no reason to accept it.
But it doesn't work.
It is backwards logic. Provide no real evidence, but when they cannot or will not dig everywhere to find something that clearly refutes it, you just claim to have won. "If you can't find why I am wrong, then I must be right despite no evidence. Why? Because I make the claim and I decided to make everyone else prove me wrong."
It doesn't work that way. If you make a positive claim, you must provide a reason to accept it, otherwise it is rejected due to lack of evidence.
And even if your idea is plausible, it cannot be made to be "THE" answer just because it could be plausible.