Cheryl

You know, I predicted that Diane would be the one to answer for Matt and I was right. Okay, I am not a prophetess, but it is interesting to know that I picked up a long time ago that Matt has Diane fight his battles for him much of the time. It just seems odd that for two who fight for the man to be in charge and the woman to be the follower, they seem to find a comfortable balance with him staying in the background in written debates while she takes on the “enemies” for him. And no, Diane is not Matt’s wife. She is his vice-president of CARM. It is just a thought, but I am thinking they are not as complementarian as they make themselves out to be. It could be a good thing to move towards an egalitarian approach if the ideal is not something that will practically work out in reality. Most complementarians actually live out egalitarian marriages. Okay, so here is Diane’s answer on behalf of Matt from http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=108945

(One thing you should notice is that Diane does not link to the articles that I have written refuting Matt’s “refutation”. 😉 )

Diane’s Sellner’s answer is here and it goes along quite well with the one where she says that I “smell” 🙂

“Oh please WIM! Matt Slick has already written an entire section in refuting all your ridiculous, liberal, feminist arguments that have been posted here by yourself and your liberal “groupies.” You have been addressed in writing, http://www.carm.org/womeninministry.htmand now because you cannot defend your position in a verbal debate while claiming to be an “apologist” you want to pretend Matt has not written to refute you? We will be sure to let everyone know, in fact, maybe I will pin it to the top of this forum, that Cheryl Schatz refuses to defend her position in a formal, verbal debate as challenged, refuses time limits, formal rules of debate and when addressed in writing by Matt with numerous papers already refuting her argument on the CARM homepages, she claims falsely that Matt has not written in debate to refute her. Matt quotes the arguments from the Cherylites on this forum and answers each argument, Cheryl responds to Matt by simply repeating her same arguments, already refuted HERE: http://www.carm.org/womeninministry.htmand then wants Matt to write it all again as she repeats her same “she” and “they” and “deceived wives” for the 100th time?

http://www.carm.org/womeninministry.htm
Cheryl Schatz arguments refuted by Matt, to those reading her blog
you will not find anything new in her responses to Matt, but she simply repeats the same exact thing over and over and over.

Two times Cheryl Schatz has refused a formal verbal debate as she continues to claim “no one has refuted her”…Yes Cheryl, you can make such claims, and that is because you refuse to debate verbally, calls herself an apologist but will only write. :-)Is that how you worked with the JW’s, told them to send you a letter?

I think it is time for “Schatz” to move on from beating this “dead horse” Maybe Cheryl you should take CARM’s “Apologetics” course, it might help you learn how to do apolgetics without a video camera and script in front of you. Take the course and then you can come back and try again with Matt.

__________________ end of Diane Sellner’s response.

For all who are acquainted with logical fallacies, this is a perfect example of ad hominem – an attack on the person. Instead of allowing questions and giving respectful answers, this tactic allows the person to attack and run off. It is one of the favorite tactics of cults. What I usually do with a JW who tries to attack and run is just ignore the attack and keep asking thought-provoking questions. When you show your love and respect to a JW you can disarm them by “heaping coals of fire” on their head. The Lord Jesus told us that the world will know us by our love. This is a requirement for children of God, not an option. For anyone that wants to comment on CARM’s discussion board, just remember these things. One hand can’t clap and a civil answer shows the difference between God’s way and the world’s way.

I am working on a new post that I hope to get up soon. There will be lots to think about on the subject of “scriptural fences” which will be the name of my new post coming shortly.