Paula

Yes, Cheryl, it is a two-way street, and we always need to make sure that the demands of one side to be heard are demanded equally of the other. I also notice that no matter what the topic, one side accuses the other of misrepresentation, failure to comprehend, ignorance, poor samples, etc. The assumption is made that anyone who disagrees with them must certainly do so only out of ignorance or deliberate hostility, and that of course is not true, especially for you. You’ve bent over backwards to hear the other side, even though they still refuse to return the favor.

Also, for anyone to demand that we must address every possible flavor of male supremacist teachings is arrogant. I can’t count the number of such debates where I’ve seen this card played, especially long after the person who cries “that isn’t my view” has had multiple opportunities to clarify. And as we’ve seen in this case, it appears that your opponent wants you to keep answering the arguments made by everyone but him. If these others are to be debated instead, then let them watch your DVDs and produce their own rebuttals.

In other words, I think we should only be expected to deal with whoever shows up, and demand they answer questions put to them instead of continually trying to pass them off to people they know will not give us the time of day. If Grudem, Ware, Piper et al have killer rebuttals, then let them argue here themselves.