[topcat54]

Second, my first post was not a complaint. It was a clarification.

Was that the one removed by the moderator?

There is NO interest in our biblical arguments. Our biblical arguments are dismissed.

Your arguments are dismissed when they are compared to the Bible and found incomplete or contradictory to all that the Bible teaches. Your response is that we must adopt dispensational ways in order to appreciate the truth and complexity of the system. We must see the light, as it were.

Take Chuck Smith for instance. He is ridiculed and painted as a heretic in this article and the corresponding commentary

Is that a use of hyperbole? I do not know how you are using the term "heresy".

Smith was wrong three decades ago. The same methodology that gave him his wrong answer three decades ago is still in place as best as we can tell. That is the sum substance of the beef with Smith in this article. It is the system that is flawed. The system pushes men like Smith and Van Impe (and they are not alone) to make predictions. The system pushes people to claim that Jesus will return almost for sure in the next 100 years.

But we should all take stock in what we are saying and why we are saying it.

There is a difference between attacking ideas and attacking people. The thrust of this article, and the intent of my comments is to attack ideas that do not square with the word of God. Dangerous ideas, IMO. Just as apparently Smith is justified in attacking what he perceives to be a threat from the emergents to his own denomination.

Can we do it in a civil fashion? Absolutely. Sometime I just refuse to respond to people who cannot communicate in a civil fashion, and never seem to be able to articulate a single meaningful thought from the Bible. But I do not use that as an excuse for not responding to hard questions about my ideas. That seems to be what you are doing in this case. I hope I’m wrong.

[Blogger]

Second, my first post was not a complaint. It was a clarification. Was that the one removed by the moderator?
Dont' know why the post was removed. I don't recall saying anything in particular in that post other than that they shouldn't have painted over the "Jesus is coming soon."

Your arguments are dismissed when they are compared to the Bible and found incomplete or contradictory to all that the Bible teaches. Your response is that we must adopt dispensational ways in order to appreciate the truth and complexity of the system. We must see the light, as it were.
This isn't the way it goes, Topcat, and you know it. You do not have one ounce of interest in possibly discerning whether or not dispensationalism contains truth. I have had lonnnnngg discussions with you about it before. I have laid out multiple scriptures and disagree vehemently that they contradict anything. And, truly, I do not see where you get your theology without dismissing the Old Testament promises of God to Israel regarding her land. It just doesn't mesh.

Smith was wrong three decades ago. The same methodology that gave him his wrong answer three decades ago is still in place as best as we can tell. That is the sum substance of the beef with Smith in this article. It is the system that is flawed. The system pushes men like Smith and Van Impe (and they are not alone) to make predictions. The system pushes people to claim that Jesus will return almost for sure in the next 100 years.
A biblical dispensationalist will not set dates. When they do, most dispensationalists shake their heads and say "here we go again." This does not mean that we don't believe in Christ's imminent personal return. And yes, it could be today. It could be 100 years. It could 1000 years. We don't know. That was my point with 100 years. Not setting a date. Yet, you tried to make it out like I was date setting. That is not a good-faith discussion if you ask me.

There is a difference between attacking ideas and attacking people. The thrust of this article, and the intent of my comments is to attack ideas that do not square with the word of God. Dangerous ideas, IMO. Just as apparently Smith is justified in attacking what he perceives to be a threat from the emergents to his own denomination.
Uhhhhh. Reread this thread. Starting with the term "dispies." There has been plenty of people attacking going on.

Can we do it in a civil fashion? Absolutely. Sometime I just refuse to respond to people who cannot communicate in a civil fashion, and never seem to be able to articulate a single meaningful thought from the Bible. But I do not use that as an excuse for not responding to hard questions about my ideas. That seems to be what you are doing in this case. I hope I’m wrong.
I'm only avoiding answering your questions because I know where it got me before. Nowhere. During the last thread we had a conversation about the Rapture, you weren't the slightest interested in discussing anything. Lee N. Field was at least cordial. I did not fall off of a turnip truck. I have a college (and beyond college) education. I know the difference between an exchange of ideas and a catfight. That is why I won't engage you. I've been there before.