You still think that you get mileage over throwing the word “lying” around recklessly and imposing burdens of proof (BTW, who bears the burden of proof in a legal matter is ultimately a matter of convention. Moreover, those burdens shift back and forth between parties according to conventions). Because you like to use judicial imagery, I would point out that judges take judicial notice of easily ascertainable facts.
Although it is irritating to have to say it again, my criticism of Mohler is not, and never has been, that he is “lying” but that he is showing poor judgment. Other than these issues I have never had any particular disagreement with his views or actions.
If you watch the video, you will find that Mohler immediately acknowledges Lumpkins’ points and then turns to implicitly knocking down a strawman. Mohler is very good from the platform and knew the question was coming, but, analytically speaking, Lumpkins’ point stuck, though very few will realize it.
I viewed the video. I deeply appreciate the way in which Peter Lumpkin addressed the mic. He was civil, articulate, and concise.
I was able to view the video once. I’m glad to hear that Dr. Mohler didn’t skate around the question, and confirmed that he stated what Merritt had written. It is clear that there was a time limit on both those asking questions, and Dr. Mohler’s time to respond. I wished Dr. Mohler could have elaborated on what he meant when he used the word, “lie”. If he should respond to my inquiry, I will ask him to clarity his point.
Dr. Mohler addressed the questions Lumpkin’s asked. He explained why he made the statements in that interview, and his comments do not contradict what Dr. Mohler had printed (as Dr. Mohler stated, he’s written over 200 articles on the subject).
I won’t beat a dead horse. I quoted your statement in accusing him of lying. You and I disagree on this, and other points.
Until I hear from Dr. Mohler, we will have to agree to disagree.