Recently, I discussed the issue of transparency. I highlighted a great many examples of where David Thiessen, of Theology Archaeology, failed to give proper credit to me for my writing. It is not without irony that he demands accreditation on his own sites, yet fails to offer it to me, in a staggering display of hypocrisy. In the comments section of Citizen Tom’s site (where David ran to to stir up trouble), he said of me:
There is NO feud except in his mind. As I have repeatedly stated, and no one seems to grasp, is that I use content from other sites from time to time for teaching purposes.
Why is it then, that in his latest ‘response‘ to me, he refers to me as an enemy, and hides behind Biblical definitions to avoid his responsibility as a self-styled educator to provide clear sources?
One of his opening statements is a bold one:
This is not actually a biblical teaching. In the manner in which it is spoken in the everyday world, it is purely a secular concept meant to pry into other people’s business. When it comes to government behavior, they should be transparent as government and what they all do is everyone’s business.
Transparency isn’t about invasion of privacy. Transparency of sources that you are relying upon to form the basis of an argument is allowing your would-be… students (or whatever audience David feels he is targeting) to see that you are an honest educator, that you are not afraid of your sources. Honesty is something I would have thought a good, decent Christian would have no issue with, and being transparent in this instance would be a form of honesty. Refusing to be decent and proper over sources, and over how he uses my words, is yet another demonstration of how David does not respect the very principles he claims to uphold.
But that is ONLY for the people of that nation. There is no call for nations, churches, and other organizations to be transparent to their enemies. The example for this comes from scripture:
Are we enemies now, David? Is that the excuse you hide behind to evade your responsibility to the truth? Or should I say, is that your latest excuse?
I doubt he will address any of this. He never addresses the substance of my posts. However, the truth is out there, I am transparent, and he… he would prefer to snipe from the shadows. Make of that what you will.
2
0
20
This is the same bloke that has a closed ( no comments) blog, yes?
You guessed it!
He’s a nob. I would simply ignore him.
I’d love to, but equally, his constant, cowardly assaults on my character… I feel it’s important to put a counterweight out there, to balance his deceit.
Is anyone reading his blog?
Maybe by you pointing out his banal attacks merely encourages him to write more drivel?
Perhaps, but he misquotes me (without giving me any accreditation) regardless of whether I mention him or not, so in that sense, I can’t win.