Ed Dingess said,
Just so you know, James Patrick Holding left comments here that I deleted because rather than engage in true Christian dialogue, he set up a link to publish lies and misrepresentations of things I have said. His characterization is harsh and unloving. I have reached out to Mr. Holding in an effort to reach an godly place in how he responds to people that disagree with him. So far, he has refused to reciprocate. He would rather set up websites and blogs attacking people rather than enjoying relationship with them. The information he posted ranges from inaccurate to outright lies. Christian brothers ought not behave in this manner. I am ready to engage in a loving relationship with Mr. Holding anytime he is ready to consent.It appears we have a case of Lying for Jesus, here.
Let's start with his first claim:
"Just so you know, James Patrick Holding left comments here" An outright lie. I am not James Patrick Holding, I am Randomuseronthenet from YouTube (go see my channel) and I have my own email I have used since 2006: warrock-net@hotmail.com. Looks like Ed Dingess is so desperate to weaken his opponent's position that he'd even label another person's comments as his opponent's, how sad. I do not consider myself as his opponent by the way; there is nothing I am disagreeing with regarding what he says on his blog, or anywhere else for that matter. I am only exposing his pathetic attempt at being someone who respects the Lord.
". . . I deleted because rather than engage in true Christian dialogue . . ." How bizarre. "True Christian dialogue" doesn't involve censorship and unremitting presumptions about the one who is disagreed with, which in this case is JP Holding. And number two, what he said is bizarre as should one visit tWeb (theologyweb) of which I myself am not a member but do visit for its helpful theological material on occasion, one would witness just how engaged in "Christian dialogue" Mr. Dingess was with his adversary. It was nothing even near that and to see this for yourself check out: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?148145-An-Open-Challenge-to-Norman-Geisler/
". . . he set up a link to publish lies and misrepresentations of things I have said." No, it was me who "set up a link" to expose his lies and misrepresentations of things who those he disagrees with have said, which now is even me... hilarious. And it looks like Ed thinks of himself as too holy to be lying, so even flagrant lies that, even if unconsciously done, still cannot be lies as Ed is tantamount to an angel without blemish. Hilarious.
"His characterization is harsh and unloving." What characterization, the ones I made on my blog in the second post? Or is it the comments he deleted from fear of facing the truth? I'll assume he meant the ones he deleted from his blog for now. That being the case, so what if me saying "Ed Dingess, a self proclaimed Christian, has once again engaged in lying to achieve his own personal goals" is "harsh" and "unloving" when what I am saying is the blatant truth? Why, should I start lying because I feel he is not getting enough love? How absurd.
Dingess' profile on his weblog reads: ". . . good works unto the praise of God's glory . . .". So me saying he has a "pretense to doing good works unto the praise of God's glory" is truthful as it has been demonstrated to be such both in the link summarizing his unconstitutional ways on another website [1], and in one of my subsequent paragraphs in the comment I composed on his blog that he soon after omitted.
Truth hurts.
More will be coming in another separate post to answer the rest of his awkward comment.
[1] http://www.tektonics.org/eddingess.html
No comments:
Post a Comment