EVERYBODY SAYS THIS, INCLUDING SATANISTS. Given that, why should anyone believe you?
There’s a reason major journals of record don’t let the actors in, or directors of, a movie review their own film. You’ve just demonstrated why, @ajshep.
Also, correction: When told by AToday, “Your critics have charged that you are a ‘preterist who wears the hat of a historicist and the cloak of a futurist,’” Ford coolly said, “I do not belong to any of these categories because while each has a measure of truth, they also have a corresponding measure of error.” @gford1, of course, is correct.
With all due and appropriate respect, @ajshep, you write like this: As though you want people to see the hair on your theological chest.
In fact, no one cares about how sure your declarations are, or how muscle-bound they appear when one reads them. More on this below….
Thanks for the question.
This may shock you, but those who believe me should do so because what I say has the patina of credibility; i.e., it should correspond with their experience, or it should reflect mine in such an authentic way that it hits them with the force of truth.
They shouldn’t believe me because I say it’s true. They definitely shouldn’t believe me because I make the theological equivalent of a lion’s roar:
“There is no better way, or better theology than ours.”
Not only is this bad, lazy writing, but it takes up the space you could be using to write something that makes that very point.
Put another way: No man believes a woman is sexy because she says so. In fact, the sexiest ones have rarely considered how sexy they are.
@kevindpaulson, I’ve not read the book, though I expect to buy it. You say you’ve read it, or parts of it, but glaze over the subtext: What should happen when a professor feels he disagrees with the theology of the institution that employs him, and why?
You deride the comparisons of Gladson to Graham or Ellsberg, but how come? In other words, what does an SDA whistleblower actually look like, what do they do, and how do we know?
The answer, @CliffordGoldstein, is probably that he believed the church’s position when he was hired, but then came to disagree with it over time. Reflective people do this, often.
A question, in kind: What is the correct protocol for SDA whistleblowing, and how do we know this?
@gford1, I adore the way that, in situations like these, you bring your pen and say exactly what you saw, with clarity and authority.
You do it, not to defend or to protect Des, but for the written record: Not only does he have a duck’s back, but when you look at it, he’s got more ducks on it, and those ducks have ducks on their backs, too.
“How can you be mad at people for not studying?”, says Des. Love that guy. Fearless. Tearless. Peerless.