"I appreciate your invitation to reply to Evangelical, which was seconded by Nell (#25) and, then, mockingly mentioned by Drake (#31). (Drake’s post reminded me of Goliath’s taunt, but I am not trying to compare myself to David.)"
Hi
John,
Don't blame me. Given the build up to your arrival I expected a "Quinn the Eskimo" moment of some sort!
But seriously, the least desirable scenario has unfolded in your post in that the expectations were way overstated and yet were way undelivered.
First, the irony of your post is that you attempt unsuccessfully to apply several fallacies of argumentation to
Evangelical and yet your entire post is the prime example of an ad hominem argument as evidenced by this comment of yours in #78:
"Now, to the substance of Evangelical’s and Drake’s attack, which I will not spend much time on or go into much detail about for the reasons stated above. "
And you have rightly said you wouldn't address substance and you didn't.
Second, I would have advised you to accept the olive branch extended by
Evangelical in Post #70 and find common ground to agree on the things you can and agree to disagree where you can't. Instead, you craft this disingenuous reference of his post as if you did not have it in your possession when you began writing yours and so you continued to build on the ad hominem argument.
"Oh, wait a minute, in some of his later posts, I see that he is actually admitting that Jane could be right regarding the translation in Genesis 3:16 (“turning”). Although he grudgingly acknowledges the possibility of the translation change, he still doesn’t want to admit to more."
Finally, the whole premise of your post is completely
wrong and you could have saved yourself several hours this past weekend writing it:
"Why would Evangelical and Drake engage in such personal attacks against Jane Anderson, even mocking her and her writings? Of course, I can’t know for sure what their motives are..."
... you see
John, you can know for sure. It has already been stated. This has nothing to do with Jane Anderson per se, she has become the spokesperson for this strange doctrine from Bushnell. Had anybody else championed Satanic "lemon" verses the way Jane is doing they would also receive the same treatment from
Evangelical and me. The only reason you can get away with proposing that doctrine unchallenged here is because you share a history in the local churches with ex-members. Had anyone else championed the Satanic lemon verses teaching most of the members in this forum would have jumped all over him/her in the same way as they rightly reacted to Bart Ehrman's doctrines.
If you don't think so you can prove it by posting the Satanic lemon teaching on a more traditional evangelical and bible based forum and see how well it is received. However, you won't be able to ascribe personal motives to those who disagree with Jane's teachings there so you will need to come up with a new defense. Good luck with that.
Drake