10 September 2006

Blogspottishly: while the Top Cat's away....

by Dan Phillips

Phil is the Jedi Master of blogspotting. Let's just get that clear at the outset.

But when Mr. Big is away, we lesser lights simply must struggle by, the best we can. That having been said, and promising nothing beyond a Best Effort (as we say in the support industry):
  • Phil's post Slice Capades generated a lot of blogbuzz, and it spanned the spectrum of opinion. I thought Phil very clear and even-handed. However, David Carlson disagrees with Phil's continued linking to Slice of Laodicea because of what he sees as Slice of Laodicea's ham-fisted and uneven-handed policy towards commenters. Is that a mixed metaphor? One hand could be uneven, the other made of ham.... (FWIW, my one attempt to comment on Slice was censored, and I only remember being baffled as to why. Closest thing to a guess that I could make was that I used "dispensationalist" not as a polite cussword.) On the other hand, Kubecki agrees with Phil, though he has his own reservations about Slice. Drinking Deeply offers some thoughts, connecting the Slice post with the whole guilt-by-assocation issue. Boyd at the very eclectic Tin Shed Talk (-- my blog may be eclecticer, but not nearly as cool-looking) finds Phil's comments "interesting," and interacts cogently. His favorite version of the NT is J. B. Phillips (no relation). Brad isn't convinced by Phil's arguments; see for yourself whether you're convinced by Brad's. Me, I think they look like an exercise in missing the point. Chris at Fishing the Abyss reels in his lure and poses that question which I know our children ask us at the dinner table: Quis custodiet ipsos custodies? Ah yes; quis indeed? His thoughts are solid and well-expressed. Lindon over at Coffee Trader has a very thoughtful (and funny) post about the Slice issue, reflecting on how very complicated the whole process of communication really is. (Insert thinking emoticon here.) The indispensable Carla Rolfe adds her thoughts as well. Finally, Ingrid herself expresses appreciation for Phil's post -- and then deletes all comments featuring the word "and" (Just kidding about the latter!)
  • In spite of having a French last name, Kevin Pierpont loves Phil's quotation of CHS on books, and notes Frank on the ::cough::treacherous::cough TNIV. Christopher Barnette was so inspired by Frank's "excellent" post that he was moved to write about translations himself. He develops the view (which I share) that a high, "Sola Scriptura" view of Biblical inspiration is better served by a more "formal equivalence" approach to translation. For his part, Brad is clearly shocked by how much he liked Frank's post.
  • Ben Wright liked Phil's post on Iceberg Ecclesiology 101.
  • F. Scott Peterson says kind things about my Slippery post, and mentions Al Mohler and me in the same post, which is cool. (Well, cool for me, anyway.)
  • Jollyblogger David Wayne interacts with Adrian's first response to my long-distance dialogue with him. So yes, it's a response to a response to a response to a response to a post, and it and its comments are worth reading. David shares my affection for Adrian, but has had the additional pleasure of in-person meeting, and writes in a friendly tone. Keith Schooley also makes a substantive contribution to the discussion; I find it to be a frustrating combination of very fair statements and of completely missing the central point. Do form your own view, though. (Non-dispensational cessationist readers will be chagrined at a couple of his remarks.)
  • Byron at the No Kool Aid Zone essentially agreed with Phil's post about Why "the Emerging Conversation" is going nowhere.
  • Antonio had an off-topic comment deleted here (appropriately, IMHO), and I-think-his-name-is Bud at Altitude ("How things look from the heights") comes down from the heights to explain why he disagrees with that decision. Bud (?) explains his view, and as a bonus gives a very ponder-worthy list of rules for bloggers and commenters. He appreciates that Phil posts his list of comment rules, and he did like my post on arguments, but joins the legions of those who have trouble with my name (his version is "Dan Philip"; oh well, Freakishly Tall Todd at Way of the Master Radio quoted the Is Christianity Rational? post, and despaired even of trying). Back to Antonio, homeschooling parent (yay!) H K Flynn also thinks he was ill-used, and actually likens him to brave medical pioneer Joseph Lister, who was scorned by his peers for arguing that unclean surgical instruments hosted germs that led to the death of patients; he championed rigorous cleanliness. Think about that comparison. For my part, it calls to mind the immortal words of Buck Murdock: "Sometimes irony can be pretty ironical." [Frank adds: I'm still surprised the deletion didn't cause Antonio to delete his blog again.]
  • Bud has some very good interaction both with the Slippery post (here I'm Dan Philips; progress!) and the conversation with Adrian in The lazy man’s guide to God’s will? His great conclusion: "Give us the Bible. Then let us approach it reverently, with clean hands. The Spirit will speak to us through what has been written. That is sufficient." Amen.
  • Back to the Is Christianity Rational? post, the Fellowship Bible Class Weblog registers some cautions about the limitations of our use of logic, prompted by my aforementioned post. Similarly, Jeff Noble found the post thought-provoking, but saw the need to stress that "There are many rational things that are simply not Christian," and that "there are still things about God that I will never know." True, both. His commenters' reading of the post and comments left them considerably less happy. (In the process, I get credit for Phil's GBA post. Cool!)
  • Norm Viss Shreef isn't sure whether Frank is famous (he is), or whether he can trust the sincerity of his question (he can -- Frank may be an untame follower of an untame Lion, but he's as candid and honest as squash is disgusting, in my experience of both), but he explains at length why he didn't like a WOTM radio podcast Phil liked. (I liked it, too, for the record; that's why Baskin-Robbins has 31 flavors.)

Whew! that's hard work, but fun. You'll judge its success. At least, I'm sure this will make folks all the happier when The Real Phil next returns to blogspotting.

UPDATE: Adrian Warnock has his second installment in his response to my response to his response to my post. He also has been doing occasional Proverbs studies, such as his most recent Are Bloggers Scoffers?


Dan Phillips's signature


17 comments:

mxu said...

wahoo!

I'm glad we have such a capable fill in. (and extra happy that I got a blogspot =p)

Carla said...

Thanks Dan :o)

Lindon said...

Me three! This almost takes away the hurt from not being picked for the dodgeball team in middle school.

candleman said...

Way to pinch hit on the blog spotting Dan.

{{{Candleman}}}

David said...

far better than Phils efforts.

Andrew said...

hey - thats funny about slice but it seems that they are now more "liberal" about comments than they used to be.

for the record, my comments at slice were often ignored - probably because they were too doctrinal correct for a "pro-emergent blogger" [whatever that means] and didnt meet the vile profile.

but then i started using cocomment.com and keeping a record of all my comments for my own use - hate to waste all those good thoughts just because someone decided not to allow them

and since then, either because of cocomment or because the Slicers are starting to warm up to me [no . . maybe not . . ] ALL my comments at Slice see the light of day.

now to hit publish . .

what? only blogspot.com users? no . . not again. are you guys on commission from Google?

how about letting us sign in with our real names and blogs rather than the blogs from our first baby steps with blogger?

Christopher said...

Thanks yet again for the positive press. I can't get enough of TeamPyro and it makes my day when you guys knock a few readers my way.

DJP said...

mxu, candleman -- thanks for the encouragement.

Carla -- anytime, eh?

Lindon -- I feel your pain, from experience.

David -- a world of "no."

donsands said...

Phil may be a 'Yoda', but you're a difinte Jedi; maybe a 'Obiwon Kenobi' or a Luke.

DJP said...

I'd be more than happy with that, Don. It isn't as easy as Phil makes it look. (Like Eric Clapton makes guitar-playing look easy.)

étrangère said...

Ah Dan. "In spite of having a French last name, Kevin Pierpont..." I'm really not making headway in attacking your anti-francophonie slant, am I? Tant pis, I'll go drown out your anglophile squeals with a good dose of Monsieur Jean Calvin ;-D

DJP said...

"Tant pis" just sounds wrong. Something about an aunt with urinary-tract issues?

Phil may delete it when he gets back.

(c;

Libbie said...

eclecticer?

Hmmmmmm.

DJP said...

...more eclecticer?

étrangère said...

Haha, pis means worse. (Or udder. Here it means worse.) Tant pis is almost literally 'so much the worse' and more accurately 'too bad' / 'never mind'. Tant mieux, on the other hand, is 'so much the better' or 'good'. But I'm sorry to hear about the aunt with urinary-tract issues.

centuri0n said...

The only french I know is "chance ce plus", and that's because it's in the lyrics of a Rush song.

H K Flynn said...

I'll stand by the Lister/Antonio pairing as those who buck grand establishment assumptions with the simple "surgical" application of evidence.