Not being the CU leader, I wasn't party to the dealings with the CWU that brought to an end the back-and-forthing taking place between the two unions. Neither, to my knowledge, was the author of this telling passage of text:

Well, I see the esoteric blogger has labeled me a hypocrite for addressing the error he and his "posse" spreads regarding our union.

That said, I was under the impression that the CWU and CU had reached an agreement to mutually cease sniping at each other. Am I incorrect in this belief?

I might point out two things. First, I am not an esoteric by the normative definition of the word, at least as far as I can tell. Given that I adhere to an orthodox interpretation of the Christian faith that draws upon at least 1800 years of tradition and teaching, and which is shared by upwards of a billion people worldwide, I think it's safe to say that in general, my views are pretty mainstream.

As Christianity goes, that is. To a secularist, I must seem a very strange fellow indeed.

However, I might also point out that I don't have a posse, at least to my knowledge. There do seem to be some people who tend to frequently comment on what I write, but that is because what I write resonates with them on some level, whether because there is some manner of philosophical draw, or because it makes them chuckle.

Sorry, that was tangential of me. Here's the meaty bit:

I have made no commitment to anyone to not address the error and misinformation he spreads, especially when it references our union.It seems that he does not understand the Biblical definition of hypocrite either. I tell you, that esoteric interpretation method will sure place one squarely in the realm of error.

Ah, but see, I have not been talking about me, nor has this person...until now. I've been talking about the commitment which I was under the impression that the leader of the CWU made to the leader of the CU that neither union would snipe at the other. The CU has managed to honour this agreement, limiting references to the CWU to those instances where the CWU has made references to it.

However, the person I've cited evidently didn't get that memo. Here's a recent example of him taking a few choice shots at an anonymous union whose members and topics exactly mirror those of the CU, because he disagreed with the direction a discussion about evolution was going.

What a curious bait-and-switch has happened here. Having come out swinging decrying the CU for attacking his union simply because some of its members, including myself, use our personal, private blogs or the comment forms on other blogs to express disasgreement with CWU "doctrine," and having been exposed not only as being in error (for assuming that my personal blogging, and the blogging of others, has anything to do with formal CU policy) but also as being a hypocrite (since he himself has no problem lambasting the CU when he sees fit, despite the fact that he himself will be the first to protest when a CU member expresses even a minor doubt about something in the CWU), he has instead attempted to pretend that he was talking about me, personally, all along.

Fortunately, Gamespot saves the edit history of forum posts, just in case he attempts to change his initial statements. But let the record show that his initial statements attempted to re-cast my personal comments about the CWU as statements originating from or explicitly reflecting the views of the CU. Having been hoist on his own petard in this regard, he is attempting to backpedal.

Actually, I wish he would not constantly spread the error, misinformation, and false accusations that he intentionally spreads, especially about our union. If he would do that, there would be no need to correct him. See how that works?

Funnily, my attitude is the same. But whereas he has but one blog to respond to, I have a whole Union whose errors I can choose to spotlight.

In addition I wish he would study and learn the doctrine of proper Biblical judgement, especially as it relates to reproof and rebuke.

I minored in theology, am an understudy to a conservative Evangelical professor whose area of theological focus is science and religion (and the topic of origins), and more than familiar with Biblical interpretation and proper exegesis (and then using a proper canon, thanks much). My credentials as an interpreter of Scripture are easily discovered by consulting any of several different blogs and forums I have contributed to over the years.

Then he could remove himself from the error he remains in through his unbiblical judgement, false accusations, and lack of Biblical discernment.

I think I'll plead the good saint's wisdom here: "Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.... Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion"

My debate partner might wish to take this reflection to heart.