Yes, one could say that.
In your post to Petronski you raise a bunch of questions. I believe that the article Ken wrote answers them all. Have you read it all? When I first read it I found myself taking a fine-toothed scalpel approach in examining it. Much of what he said I had already known, but he added some finishing touches to what I discovered. I'm thankful that articles like this exist, and that they can be shared.
>In your post to Petronski you raise a bunch of questions.
Actually I didn’t. I was using the form of argument where the answers to the proposed questions negate the claims of the opposing party, or if not negate, at least raise problems witch must be explained/reconciled.
>I believe that the article Ken wrote answers them all.
I don’t. As I said, it’s a form of argument wherein the questions are such that they point out possible fallacies and/or possible false-assumptions.
>Have you read it all?
I read four or five pages. Then I got bored.
>When I first read it I found myself taking a fine-toothed scalpel approach in examining it.
As did I. But like I said before, the whole argument enters the realm of “how many angles can dance on the head of a pin?”, being either ridiculous and/or unimportant. (”Where then is your sting, oh Death?” as Paul would say, it doesn’t matter if the soul is mortal or immortal if God is going to Resurrect me, right?)
>Much of what he said I had already known, but he added some finishing touches to what I discovered.
Really? Like I said, I quickly classified this as unimportant. Besides, it could be argued that the portions of scripture he cited were talking about other subjects than the supposed misinformation of the human soul’s mortality: specifically the portion on hearing and not being able to hear. It is obvious to me that Jesus is speaking of Himself as the Savior; the people who hear about Him and Who He is yet will not believe are whom he is refering to... not some sort of willful ‘dumb following’ of the flock toward incorrect “orthodox christian” teachings.
>I’m thankful that articles like this exist, and that they can be shared.
1st amendment. But I think that the author makes too many bad assumptions... and there is the meta-argumential point, where you step back and ask “does this matter? Why or why not?”
I did skip to that in the previous post saying why it does not matter whether or not the author is correct or not. Also, his misuse of the scriptures (miscontextualization)is not conducive to a clean or compelling argument.