Peter writes:
If, say, someone says the latest issue of The Lutheran was terrible, Charles does not respond by saying what he thought was really good about it and leave it at that; he responds by saying how rotten it is that the first poster said that, or that they didn't do their homework, or that they have a bad attitude, or or any number of other things that deflect the topic to the validity of the first poster's post without saying anything at all about the topic.
I muse:
And if, Peter, if the first poster did not do his homework or has a bad attitude, what then? In sensible discussion there are any number of things that affect the validity of a comment. You have before posited this cold, hyper-rational, disconnected-from-human-reality platform for discussion. I find that unrealistic and a little creepy.
You (and some others here) and I "draw the lines" in different places. That is one reason I do not think "high-level" theological (or human) dialogue will work between us. Hence, despite what is alleged, I limit my participation here. I believe I would have no problem sitting down with Steven or Erma or Richard and "going at it" about the situation in our part of the church. With you and some others.... don't think it would be good.
Oh, and if I did not "have my views on the ELCA," the situation here would be quite different.