1
Is expecting proof too much when someone is "exposing" false teachers/theologies?
Something in chat frustrates me.
I'm wondering if it's just me.
Am I expecting too much?
I see people try to expose a false teacher or theology.
They make these very bold assertions about a teacher's wrongness, but then can't for the life of them provide any easy to find proof to support their bold assertion.
Am I expecting too much, when I'd like someone to provide easy to find proof, of their assertions against said false teachers?
Seriously, at times when I ask for a simple link, or quote, I sense absolute amazement and shock at the concept of providing proof.
I think if someone is going to assert that someone is a false teacher/pastor/prophet/whatever, they should be able to provide easy to find, and easy to follow evidence.
It should follow this format in my opinion.
1. Assertion about said false teacher.
2. Quote from said teacher where they are saying something false. (A quote! Not a 20 page, dense wall of text to climb. Isolate the sentences that are clearly in error and quote them.)
3. Link to said evidence.
Here's an example.
1. Joel Osteen says Mormons are Christians.
2. Asked if a Mormon is a true Christian. Osteen says in his mind they are.
3. Link-->Are Mormons Christians? Joel Osteen says "Yes!" - YouTube
(Around the :46 second part.
See!
Easy to follow.
Easy to find.
Assertion supported.
Is expecting such really an unreasonable thing?
I really don't see why this seems like a foreign concept to some.
If one can't back up their claim that so and so is a false teacher, should they really go around saying it in the first place?
Something in chat frustrates me.
I'm wondering if it's just me.
Am I expecting too much?
I see people try to expose a false teacher or theology.
They make these very bold assertions about a teacher's wrongness, but then can't for the life of them provide any easy to find proof to support their bold assertion.
Am I expecting too much, when I'd like someone to provide easy to find proof, of their assertions against said false teachers?
Seriously, at times when I ask for a simple link, or quote, I sense absolute amazement and shock at the concept of providing proof.
I think if someone is going to assert that someone is a false teacher/pastor/prophet/whatever, they should be able to provide easy to find, and easy to follow evidence.
It should follow this format in my opinion.
1. Assertion about said false teacher.
2. Quote from said teacher where they are saying something false. (A quote! Not a 20 page, dense wall of text to climb. Isolate the sentences that are clearly in error and quote them.)
3. Link to said evidence.
Here's an example.
1. Joel Osteen says Mormons are Christians.
2. Asked if a Mormon is a true Christian. Osteen says in his mind they are.
3. Link-->Are Mormons Christians? Joel Osteen says "Yes!" - YouTube
(Around the :46 second part.
See!
Easy to follow.
Easy to find.
Assertion supported.
Is expecting such really an unreasonable thing?
I really don't see why this seems like a foreign concept to some.
If one can't back up their claim that so and so is a false teacher, should they really go around saying it in the first place?