Too Bad

Neil visited here, then decided he wasn't going to anymore. I went there this morning and found that he had taken a comment of mine and was using it as an object lesson in the errors of what still insists on calling a relativistic point of view. He rehashes arguments about "truth claims", and then writes this, showing he just doesn't get the point I have been trying to make:

I’d rather dialogue with someone who acknowledges that on some issues we can’t both be right.

Why not? Why the necessity for there being a right answer? In fact, why the necessity of answers at all? I commented this morning and was astounded to read Neil say that he "let my comment post" even though I apparently violated certain "rules" he has. I have nothing against that; every blog writer has rules - that's what this is all about, after all. It seems to me, however, that his lack of openness bespeaks a certain fear I find astonishing. I am honestly seeking to learn about something I just don't understand - Christian fundamentalism. I refuse to reduce it psychological or sociological categories of fear or ignorance. I am not being condescending, either. I want to learn, but I refuse to silence any criticisms I might have at any point. Dialogue is always dangerous because it poses the threat of change and the possibility of error. Neil, it seems, does not want dialogue, despite his claims to the contrary. He just wants to preach.

I have provided a link to Neil because I refuse to not visit his site just because he won't come to mine. I doubt whether any comments I have will ever appear there again, but he can't stop me from visiting. Yet . . .