Seen Elsewhere – On Comments

A comment on this post I’d like to reply to.

Dave,
I rarely allow comments from adherents to unorthodox positions on one of my teaching posts – especially those comments with content covered by multiple entries in the FAQ, the site rules, or that have been answered elsewhere on the site. We have quite a different conception of the purpose for the comment section than most blogs do. Further, I prefer there be some apologetic benefit to engaging your comment – I saw none in that instance, as it seemed to be an assertion without argument that Reformed theology is wrong for teaching its doctrines as certainly true, more than anything else. We have a significant amount of argumentation concerning assertively asserted assertions in a similar vein all over this site. For those sorts of allegations, free free to contact us via twitter, utilize the chat channel or the contact page. As for our comment section, the purpose is not to provide an outlet for your “objections” to the posts. It is to provide an outlet for us to engage with people who wish to learn the apologetic method we teach. This is primarily a teaching outlet, not an op-ed section. Occasionally we do engage others in the comments, but only when we consider it to be a valuable discussion for other believers. “Why did Jesus eat all that fish,” for instance, seemed especially unappealing for that purpose, as I have no clue what on earth you’re talking about; the rest, we’ve addressed elsewhere. As it was my post, and I didn’t consider engagement on such an odd variety of topics valuable, I’m not interested in the discussion, or in teaching someone who doesn’t want to be taught. I posted this the day before your comment – but it apparently was not read. In any case, I find that most of the time this happens with people who come in on a single post, and want to address it sans the body of work that is on this site. If that’s what happens, I’ll almost guarantee you that your comment will not go through – at least on my posts – because the lack of familiarity with our body of work will be readily apparent. That is why there is the exhortation directly above the comment section to see whether your question has been addressed previously. My desire to explain from scratch, yet again, something I’ve explained to a few dozen people before you on the same subject – with no desire being displayed on your part to hear such information – will be practically zero. It’s even worse for people who have their own blogs – don’t you have your own blog to post these comments on? In any case, I hope that answers your question. I didn’t approve your comment because it didn’t address the post in any meaningful way, and it was addressed by the FAQ, other posts, as well as the site rules. Hopefully that’s helpful to future commenters.

Chris, if this tracks/pings back again, feel free to delete it. It’s not my intention to clutter up your comments with superfluous, off-topic material – that’s why I responded here, and not in your comments – in an attempt to be courteous. The original post had application to your comments, but not this one. Thanks.


Comments are disabled for this post