As you may know, I have equitably and thoroughly addressed Ed's recent comment piecemeal, though with a third part of the response still awaiting publication, that he made over at his own personal blog page, 'Reformed Reasons' (http://reformedreasons.blogspot.com).
The comment I am talking about is located here: http://reformedreasons.blogspot.com/2011/10/response-to-j-p-holdings-review-of-john.html#comment-form
It may also be found in my first respondent post, visit:
http://exposingeddingess.blogspot.com/2011/10/ed-dingess-false-assumption.html.
I emailed Ed Dingess, his email is ngess@carolina.rr.com, and even constructed comments on his own blog for the purpose of assisting Dingess realize his egregious error and thus do what Christ would have him do: apologize to me for it and recant the comment in question on his own blog post.
But my attempts to make Dingess become aware were fruitless as all my comments have been drained off his posts and yet, that one ignorant comment from him still has not been removed. How farcical.
(If you have not already please peruse my three part response to Ed Dingess titled 'Ed Dingess' Fallacious Assumptions and Awkward Self' over here http://goo.gl/K4L5j and here http://goo.gl/DZodf, the last one however is still pending.)
Ed Dingess Nude
A new blog dedicated to exposing Ed Dingess and his finicky prowlings on the intarwebs.
Dingess' Suppression of the Truth
For someone who claims he stands for the truth and defends the truth, Ed sure is afraid of owing up to his faults and admitting the truth.
Recently I assayed to submit another comment on Ed's blog, but this time, upon finishing up my comment and clicking the "Post Comment" option, I was presented with a surprise: Your comment will be visible after approval.
This is out of the oven.
Now, more than ever, Ed is up in arms - concealing the truth and attacking his enemies almost anywhere feasible. On Blogs, Yahoo, Amazon, you name it.
Ed is unsettled.
Recently I assayed to submit another comment on Ed's blog, but this time, upon finishing up my comment and clicking the "Post Comment" option, I was presented with a surprise: Your comment will be visible after approval.
This is out of the oven.
Now, more than ever, Ed is up in arms - concealing the truth and attacking his enemies almost anywhere feasible. On Blogs, Yahoo, Amazon, you name it.
Ed is unsettled.
Ed Dingess' Fallacious Assumptions and Awkward Self: Part Two
Ed Dingess says,
More will be posted as soon as I find the time to address the rest of Ed's statements.
If any reader or lurker can please be so kind as to comment on my post so that I may know the blog's comment feature is in a working condition for the individual Ed to utilize whenever he finds the courage, it will be greatly appreciated.
The information he posted ranges from inaccurate to outright lies.And elsewhere in the same comment Ed Dingess says,
He would rather set up websites and blogs attacking people rather than enjoying relationship with them.This blog's description reads "A new blog dedicated to exposing Ed Dingess and his finicky prowlings on the intarwebs." So no, this blog is not set up to "attack" anyone; rather, the purpose of this blog is what's indicated in the blog description. As for what I publish being a misrepresentation, as he purported earlier, that's up for debate. And furthermore, if it is erring in any way he can freely evince that by making a remonstrative comment on my blog instead of using cowardly tactics to avoid facing up to the truth, e.g. by deleting all my sincere and relevant comments on his most recent blog post and then responding to them while other readers do not get the chance to read that which he is responding to for themselves. He does not even include my blog address to link them to it! That is dishonesty and trickery at its best. It also betokens insecurity.
More will be posted as soon as I find the time to address the rest of Ed's statements.
If any reader or lurker can please be so kind as to comment on my post so that I may know the blog's comment feature is in a working condition for the individual Ed to utilize whenever he finds the courage, it will be greatly appreciated.
Ed Dingess' Fallacious Assumptions and Awkward Self
After I went to Dingess' blog and called him out on his unfair attack on another scholar, which Dingess is far from being, he deleted all the comments I published and left his own uninformed statements about them.
Ed Dingess said,
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
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
Ed Dingess' rants on Amazon
Yep, that's right folks, he is at it again. This time his target is one of his most hated nemeses.
More posts will be published to counter some of the worthy things Ed has uttered, which as yet is quite minuscule.
More posts will be published to counter some of the worthy things Ed has uttered, which as yet is quite minuscule.
Ed Dingess Lying Again
In his 'A Response to J P Holding's Review of John MacArthur’s “Slave"' Ed Dingess, a self proclaimed Christian, has once again engaged in lying to achieve his own personal goals. And, once more, with pretense to doing "good works unto the praise of God's glory," as if lying is anything approximating "goods works."
He has been exposed as a liar doing other very un-Christian acts, elsewhere.
See the website http://www.tektonics.org/eddingess.html and decide for yourself just how much credence you want to lend into anything he is saying here:
http://reformedreasons.blogspot.com/2011/10/response-to-j-p-holdings-review-of-john.html?showComment=1319261585858#c4162956093750276748
For example, Ed Dingess is misrepresenting JP Holding by stating, "Holding has a strong affinity . . . for . . . scholars who subscribe to sociological interpretation as their primary interpretive model." because JP Holding has stated in another post on his webforum, where Dingess lodged his pesky complaints, ". . . I use social science in an interdisciplinary way . . ." [1]
Ed Dingess: A lover of falsehood.
[1] theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?148145-An-Open-Challenge-to-Norman-Geisler&p=3307098#post3307098 (the sixth quote responded to)
He has been exposed as a liar doing other very un-Christian acts, elsewhere.
See the website http://www.tektonics.org/eddingess.html and decide for yourself just how much credence you want to lend into anything he is saying here:
http://reformedreasons.blogspot.com/2011/10/response-to-j-p-holdings-review-of-john.html?showComment=1319261585858#c4162956093750276748
For example, Ed Dingess is misrepresenting JP Holding by stating, "Holding has a strong affinity . . . for . . . scholars who subscribe to sociological interpretation as their primary interpretive model." because JP Holding has stated in another post on his webforum, where Dingess lodged his pesky complaints, ". . . I use social science in an interdisciplinary way . . ." [1]
Ed Dingess: A lover of falsehood.
[1] theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?148145-An-Open-Challenge-to-Norman-Geisler&p=3307098#post3307098 (the sixth quote responded to)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)