If I cant understand something and I ask questions, I am not being dogmatic. I am being inquisitive. I am searching. If no one provides an answer, I reject that something. Again, that is not being dogmatic. That is being reasonable. On the other hand if you cant explain what you are asserting, I’d say you are the dogmatic one. You are suggesting I am not being open to new things. Maybe. If however that “new thing” simply doesnt make sense and no one can plausibly explain it to me, maybe you are the one who is not being open. Maybe you are not open to the possibility that the reason you cant explain is that you are wrong.

If someone continues to claim he heals and that healing took place but I ask why the supposedly healed person continues to be sick, I am not being dogmatic. I am being sensible. If you claim a person has been healed in spite of his continued state of being sick, You are not being open. you are being dogmatic. You are being in fact and quite frankly, stupid. If you claim that supposedly healed person is sick now because he ceased believing and that it was a an issue with his faith, you are even being cruel. That person wants nothing more than to be healed. To say he has no faith is to cast an indictment on him (how dare you) which is cruel simply because you are being dogmatic about your claim that healing took place.

If you explain that to me I will cease questioning and I will cease, in your words, being dogmatic. I will start, in your lingo, to be open.

I dont think God meant for us to be blind and stupid. That to me sums up why I think the signs and wonders movement has a huge hole. Plug that hole and I’m all yours.

Related Articles

• Laufer – New Rhetoric’s Empire: Pragmatism, Dogmatism, and Sophism (631rhetoric.wordpress.com)
• Word #4 (amusedbrit.wordpress.com)
• Clarifying The Relationships Between Dogmatism, Skepticism, And Properly Proportioned Belief (camelswithhammers.com)
• Healing Ourselves (mediumsworld.wordpress.com)