The American eagle has been drugged

Jan

@Bill_Coley said:
The problem with one poster's refusing to respond to the question(s) of another poster - at least if that refusal comes without identifying the reason(s) for the refusal - is that the questioning poster has no way of understanding the status of his or her discussion with the poster he or she has questioned. There is a BIG difference between a poster's silence that results from being "cornered" in an argument, and one whose roots are in an assertion that the question "is not worth answering for whatever reasons." It seems to me that participants in forum exchanges have a right to know whether those they have questioned intend to respond, and if not, why not.

With that, I agree. It basically determines who has won the argument.

In my experience in these forums, posters never fail to respond to questions they consider easy or simple. In almost every case - and I've been on the questioner end of dozens over the years - the questions posters don't address are the questions whose truthful answers reveal or confess weakness(es) in their arguments. Rather than admit those weaknesses, those questioned remain silent.

Not only in these forums. Admitting to be wrong goes against the human pride. I've seen several YouTube videos with experienced debaters doing that.

Let's look at a few examples.

Mark 11:33. Jesus refuses to answer because the pahrisees didn't answer his question.

"I don't answer you because you don't answer me." Legitimate. response.

Matthew 26:62-63. We don't know the exact questions, but the important thing is that Jesus gave no reason for not answering.

He was in no way cornered.

To me, that makes this a matter of character and accountability. If you ask me a question that shows a weakness in my argument, I display a character flaw if I don't acknowledge your question's power and consequences. I need to stand accountable. I need to own my arguments and respond directly and truthfully to the questions you ask me, even - make that, especially - the hard questions you ask.

The most common form of question evasion I've encountered has been the questioning/judging of the questions asked: "You're not asking the right question." "You display bad intentions in asking that question." "I don't think you really want to know the answer." "You can find the answer to your question yourself." The effect of such expressions of doubt about the questions asked is to evade the question... again, usually because direct, truthful answers to the question imperil the strength of an argument.

Let's look at one more example.

Mark 12:14-17. This was a seemingly very powerful question that was supposed to place Jesus into a dilemma. It was not directly answerable, but required a great amount of thoughtfulness and creativity to address properly.

My point is: a question that's seemingly powerful and supporting a strong argument is not necessarily always as strong as it seems.

And if the addressee does not possess the thoughtfulness or knowledge to uncover the flaw of the question, that would leave him in the dilemma of answering the question directly. However, objectively the flaw remains with the question, even if the addressee is subjectively not able to express that fact.

In such cases, is it a character flaw to refuse to answer? I don't think so.

In my view, refusing to answer questions is surely not a "condemnable" offense, but it is a form of evasion that runs contrary to the idea of Christian brothers and sisters "speaking the truth is love" - both the easy and the hard truths.

I'm convinced that everyone on the forum would appreciate if questions get answered all the time, including the addressees of the questions. But let's be gracious if it doesn't happen 100% of the time.