Thank you. I replaced it with an archive link.

The link to Christians defending genocide also no longer works.

It is not counter-productive to expose authorities as dishonest. Nor is it childish. It is rather the moral obligation of any adult to acknowledge.

You have now just confessed to agreeing Keller is a liar, and to arguing instead that we should conceal this from those who trust him. In no world does that make sense.

Wrong. I haven’t defended Keller since my third comment, And I challenge you to provide a quotation. The content of this thread has been me telling you that even if you are right that Keller has directly lied, calling someone a “lying snake” and “fucker” is counterproductive and childish. But I will let you have the final word and kindly step out of the conversation now. It should be clear to anyone reading this exchange what has transpired.

You have been arguing from moment one that I have not given enough evidence Keller is a liar and therefore I should not be calling him one. Are you now denying the entire content of this entire comment thread?

And you do it again here, by making claims about what I argue in this series, while still admitting you haven’t read the series. What is asinine is continuing to make assertions without checking the evidence, even after being asked repeatedly to check the evidence first. I do not simply assume Keller is lying because of “selective citation.” I conclude he is lying from a considerable collection of evidence that that is what he is doing. Evidence you keep refusing to consult. Why?

When is the last time I made an assertion about Keller in the face of evidence or without checking it? My third comment in this whole exchange?

If you didn’t notice, I conceded that my first attempt was an argument by false analogy. After I conceded that the analogy was poor and then reworded what I was trying to say, where did I mention Turek? I didn’t, I totally dropped it, instead I said:

“I am sure Lowder deals/ has dealt with people who he feels are con men (This is an assumption obviously). However, his strategy appears to be to always stick to the arguments themselves, whether in debate or while blogging. I don’t think I have ever seen him get nasty. I am asking you why you think your approach is better than his? Unless I am wrong about his approach?”

You responded by asserting that Lowder will never assume someone is a liar, a statement that you ironically provided no evidence to support. And if Lowder’s position can be summarized in the statement “One should avoid assuming the motives of those with whom we disagree” then I agree with that. I think it’s wise. You may be right that Keller has lied directly in the book, but even in this article you equate using selective “scholarship” with lying. That is perfectly asinine, and I guarantee any Christian that catches you being uncharitable in this way will not care what you have to say about any other part of the book. That is why the “lying snake” trope doesn’t work, because if you are unnecessarily uncharitable even once, it gives people an excuse to close their ears. Why not error on the side of being too charitable?

I’ve never said you were lying. You have simply continuously asserted conclusions without checking the evidence. And I’ve continually called you out for it. And you continue to willfully ignore the evidence and keep making assertions without it. Why you would do that escapes me. “But I will check it later” is not an excuse. Don’t make assertions until you’ve consulted the evidence.

As to Lowder, I can’t recall exact locations, but he has multiple times said we should not assume lying of anyone, and he explains away all evidence of lying by various devices. I do not approve that procedure. But that’s moot to your point. You used a false analogy: you selected an example (Turek) of someone I haven’t collected evidence for of lying, and asked me why we would treat them as lying; the answer is I wouldn’t. I treat Keller as a liar solely because we have accumulated abundant evidence of his lying. Which you still haven’t looked at.

Keller and Turek are therefore not analogous. So unless you are taking the Lowder position, that no amount of evidence of lying is ever enough, there can have been no logical reason for you to mention Turek as an argument here. So why did you?

For the thousandth time, I have every intention of reading your series and have not/will not dismiss the evidence as it is presented. Yet you are still accusing me of denying evidence that I haven’t criticized or even read yet. Couldn’t someone uncharitable construe that as “lying” or “misrepresentation”? I won’t, and I’ll just assume we are talking past each other. I made it clear that regardless if you are correct about Keller being a con man, I still don’t think the way you weaponize your tone is effective, and am asking you to consider that observation. And I admitted that the way I had presented the Lowder analogy initially was flawed and did not articulate my intent well, which is why I reworded it. Thank you for clarifying how your views differ from his. Where exactly did he say that he never believes anyone is lying?

Actually Lowder appears to live by a policy I reject: of never believing anyone is a liar. I do not believe that is a valid way to approach the world. When we have enough evidence someone is lying, we have an obligation to say that’s what they are doing. Because it matters when someone claiming to be an authority is being deliberately dishonest with his audience. Look at the Allston quote case and tell me you still think Keller is an honest man. Or why you or anyone should pretend he is after that.