Leaderboard

Hi Mike, I sincerely wish you the best and a speedy recovery from eye surgeries. It’s unnecessary for you to trudge through the points of my long-and-drawn-out-posts – I do apologize for the length of my posts – I’m still learning how to make my point…and it’s also tough when I want to cover a lot of ground – but I appreciate all you’ve said here. Maybe one of my problems is I tend to talk AT you instead of dialoging WITH you. I may be having a miraculous and hilarious moment of clarity as to the recurring issues I have with trying to get my point across to you - . So, instead of rehashing what’s gone before maybe we can try a simpler approach going forward…In my opinion – I think these points might help make for more productive discussions – and I’m just as guilty as anyone else in violating or disregarding these points: 1. Grease Spot is a bunch of discussion forums. just bear that in mind when you promote something or run an idea up the flagpole. other folks may not feel the same way you do about a particular point or your “promotional”. I have no problem with you or anyone else promoting PFAL. But remember a particular point may have sold you on PFAL, but it might mean little or nothing to others. Speaking just for myself, at its best discussions / debates are a chance to unpack our beliefs/opinions and those of others through questions and challenges. If others acknowledge you’ve made a valid point, bask in the glow of success. If on the other hand others shoot a bunch of holes in your argument – accept that and move on to explore other items. 2. Let’s shoot for a real dialog instead of talking past each other. It’s not a discussion when two or more people talk about different subjects, while believing that they are talking about the same thing. Someone may bring up a valid point about an error in logic or doctrine in PFAL. It makes no sense to try and counter that by saying “you folks don’t see the greatness of PFAL because you focus on the shortcomings of the messenger.” 3. Let’s find common ground - opinions or interests shared by all involved in the discussion. That may be a tall order – but instead of going all over the map – let’s try to limit it to only one or two things. If there’s a thread that asked what good things you got out of PFAL, I would mention several things: PFAL demystified the Bible for me, turned me on to Bullinger’s works (especially where he focused on the more technical stuff of the biblical languages, textual criticism, and literary correspondence – I’m not really a fan of his dispensationalism, and dubious theories like the supposed 4 crucified with Jesus Christ) , and PFAL also got me interested in the philosophy of religion. Now it’s been some 48 years since I first took PFAL and there’s been an evolution in my belief system – but those things still hold my interest even though they’ve developed into more complex studies. I will usually give credit where credit is due – but nothing is perfect – so when a poster’s argument is based on PFAL being the gold standard, I feel compelled to challenge that too besides whatever point they’re trying to make. 4. Avoid hidden agendas. Even if one doesn’t have a hidden agenda – it can seem like there is one if a person keeps bringing the discussion back to the same thing. (like my example in # 2 , someone points out an actual error in PFAL and someone else counters with “you folks don’t see the greatness of PFAL because you focus on the shortcomings of the messenger”). One-track-mindedness is often a telltale sign of a hidden agenda. When someone cycles through different tactics with the same end in mind, it tends to give me the feeling they’re trying to sell me something or sway my thinking. If something a person says doesn’t ring true – I tend to feel they’re being disingenuous and are trying to manipulate me. Shields go up and I’m preparing to launch countermeasures.