From an insightful (non-Christian) friend I meet on newsgroups... giving the low-down on how 'Dave' a fundamentalist, argues...

~~~

Dave always follows the same pattern:

1. He makes some assertion and cites scripture.

2. Someone disagrees with him.

3. He demands they post scripture to support their claim.

4. If they can't, then game over. If they do, they're "setting scripture against scripture".

5. After that, it's downhill all the way with accusations of heresy, selective use of scripture, unGodliness, not-being-a-real-christian, etc, level of insult and / or "concern" for the oppo's spiritual well-being dependant on how firmly they stand up to him.

Note that whenever you have two conflicting scriptures, it's always Dave who's got the "right" one, and always the *other* person who's picking-and-choosing, or pitting one text against another.

Note that if there's any pedanting about Strong's, it's always Dave who's got the "right" interpretation.

Note that only Dave is allowed to post commentaries or other material from the Net, and everyone else is told "Scripture only!"

Same old, same old, every time: and it always says more about Dave and his tactics than it ever does about the issue in quesion :(