[xzins]

I think your attitude in your 14 or so points was extremely sarcastic. Have you considered that that would keep people from taking seriously what you say?

[Quix]

I don't mind some and some types of sarcasm . . . particularly that highlighting incongruencies and silliness

in IDEAS
in PERSPECTIVES
in CONSTRUCTS
in INTERPRETATIONS.

Those which seemed deliberately directed below the belt regarding someone's personhood, sanity . . . that quickly begins to be a bit much.

[topcat54]

I think your attitude in your 14 or so points was extremely sarcastic. Have you considered that that would keep people from taking seriously what you say?

I was serious. It was not a joke. Sarcasm is a legitimate tool to poke an an opponent's weaknesses. But "attitude" and "sarcasm" have become excuses for not wishing to deal with the substance. It was there and it was clear. Any well-read dispensationalist could see it.

Would you prefer I go through the books an pull out the actual quotes?

[Alamo-Girl]

Some of the Lurkers might find this thread to be interesting:

Freeper Survey: How it all Ends

The bottom line is that, by far, most responding Freepers are dispensationalist in their view of “how it all ends.”

Another survey which might interest some Lurkers is this one:

Freeper Investigation of what types of “knowledge” exist and how “certain” are the various types

The replies are quite interesting, because understanding ”how a person knows what he knows and how sure he is that he knows it” (epistemology) can be extremely helpful in having a productive dialogue. It gives us a sense of each other’s worldview or concept of “reality” and therefore, a context for assertions made.

As a final point, of course I strongly agree with you about “attitude.” How we say what we say carries as much – if not more – weight than what is actually said.