On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 18:58:17 GMT, Craig Chilton
<xanadu222_@mchsi.com> spake thusly:
Given that Craig has not been able to have one single
conversation in which he doesn't change the words of
others and doesn't insult them, I tried to make a
proposal to him, regarding a Biblical discussion. You
should fully expect him to respond and change my words
around when he does, as he usually does, so you will
need to compare the text he uses in his response, to
my post that you are reading now.
Here are the rules I proposed and below them, you will
see how Craig responded to them...
I have a proposal for you. I will respond to this, in
detail, if you agree to certain rules.
1) There will be no insults. You will be civil and I
will be civil as well.
2) There will be no word substitutions. The original
words must be left intact, whether the other party
likes them or not.
3) Each party will answer to each point specifically
and directly. There will be no ignoring points, nor
trying to change the conversation, because they
cannot answer and then deleting text and pretending
that the other person tried to change the subject.
4) Any rebuttal that one feels one has, will be made
with Scripture, not other peoples' opinions and web
links. If someone can't defend their belief on their
own, then they should ask themselves why you believe
what they do.
5) We must use Scripture and with any Scripture we use,
we must state what we believe it means (as you did with
this one) and how and why it means what we claim it
does, when called upon to do so. Anyone can quote
Scripture. But two people can view the same Scripture
differently and so, just quoting a passage does not
mean that we have proved a thing.
6) If one cannot rebut what the other has said
(provided they have followed #'s 3 & 4), then they must
be honest and concede the point in their next response.
7) Scripture will be the only rule of authority in this
discussion. The opinions of so called prophets and
teachers, are irrelevant and are not an authority here.
Any violation of these rules, allows the other party
to demand a concession of the debate by the offender.
The offender must comply, but even if he doesn't, it
will be noted on public record. The offended person
does have the option to let the debate continue with
a warning.
If you can live with these 7 rules Craig, then I would
be happy to respond, in detail and show you why it is
impossible that this is describing nuclear blasts. I
have even changed my signature. Should you accept, I
will start a new thread with my response in it and
advise you in this thread, as to what I have titled the
new thread. You need to tell me which Christian news
group(s) you are subscribed to, so that I don't leave
you out, when I put in which groups it will be sent to.
I assume that you are at least in alt.bible.prophecy,
correct?
If you cannot live with these rules, then I have no
interest in discussing this issue with you, since the
ONLY reason anyone would refuse to abide by them, is
because they plan on doing the things prohibited within
them. They are fair and reasonable rules that two
adults should have no problem accepting and abiding by.
So what say you. Are we in agreement?
On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 10:52:42 GMT,
Pastor Dave <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
<snip Ezekiel passages, etc.>
I have a proposal for you. I will respond to this, in
detail, if you agree to certain rules.
1) There will be no insults. You will be civil and I will
be civil as well.
I always am, when not dealing with bigotry and abject stupidity.
In other words, you're going to keep insulting me,
claiming I am a bigot and stupid, any time I don't
agree with you, just as you have been doing.
2) There will be no word substitutions. The original
words must be left intact, whether the other party
likes them or not.
If you use HONEST and NETRAL terminology, there's be
no *need* for me to make corrections (in brackets) in MY
posts. I only make bracketed changes to DIShonesty.
In other words, if you don't like the way I write
something, you will change it and then claim you didn't
change it and then admit it and then when it's pointed
out that you admitted it, call me a liar and claim you
didn't do that, after I quoted your own words back to
you, in which you admitted doing it. That is exactly
how it has been going and more than one person
has documented that.
3) Each party will answer to each point specifically
and directly. There will be no ignoring points, nor
trying to change the conversation, because they
cannot answer and then deleting text and pretending
that the other person tried to change the subject.
IOW -- you claim the right to lie like a rug with impunity.
Dream on. If you can't discuss the topic because you have
no answers, why not just be honest enough to SAY so in
the first place?
A rule that states that neither party can ignore the
points made, is not permission for me to lie, Craig.
Nor is it permission for me NOT to discuss the subject,
when the rules specifically states that each point MUST
BE DISCUSSED. It is you who is lying!
You simply wish to have the option to ignore whatever
you can't answer to and then when I point out that you
snipped the text, you will claim that I am changing the
subject, which is what YOU ALWAYS, ALWAYS DO!!!
4) Any rebuttal that one feels one has, will be made
with Scripture, not other peoples' opinions and web links.
Oh? So the considered and well-thought-out opinions of
*other* people are DOG MEAT in *your* opinion, huh? I'd hate to
think just how much regard *they* would have for YOUR opinions.
(LOL!!!!)
I am not the one saying that I am going to change the
other person's words if I don't like them. That was
you.
The fact is, if you can't back up your own belief, then
you should ask yourself why you believe it.
The fact is, you stated a position and called me a
liar, and a looney and all sorts of things, because of
what you claimed Scripture is saying, which you did in
one or two sentences. Now, when it comes time to back
up your claims, you admit to not being able to do it
and demand to be able to have someone else do it for
you, whom I can't even respond to, because he/she is
not here in the discussion!
Not only that, but the fact is, a discussion between
two people is just that. I am not going to allow you
to do ABSOLUTELY ZERO work and just paste in
web links, while you expect me to spend hours
responding, so that you can spend another 30 seconds
pasting in another web link and then claim to be
debating me!
If someone can't defend their belief on their own, then
they should ask themselves why you believe what they do.
CLUE: Being able to defend one's stance BY being able
to cite intelligent writings of others, instead of
simply trying to reinvent the wheel... is a sign
OF intelligence.
When it comes to Scripture, being able to defend ones
own belief, is to be able to do it Scripturally. Since
you are obviously unable to do that, you don't know if
their writings are "intelligent" or not. The Bible
says for YOU TO BE READY!
"...be ready always to give an answer to everyone who
asks you a reason of the hope in you, with meekness
and fear" - 1 Peter 3:15
That means just walking down the street and someone
asking you, Craig. It doesn't mean only when you have
a web browser handy.
5) We must use Scripture and with any Scripture we use,
we must state what we believe it means (as you did
with this one) and how and why it means what we claim
it does, when called upon to do so. Anyone can quote
Scripture. But two people can view the same Scripture
differently and so, just quoting a passage does not mean
that we have proved a thing.
Maybe and maybe not. We'll see.
We won't see, because you didn't agree to the rules.
You want to pretend you did, but you told me flat out
that you're going to be the same old Craig. Now go
ahead and pretend that I ran away. You're good at
that. (:
6) If one cannot rebut what the other has said (provided
they have followed #'s 3 & 4), then they must be honest
and concede the point in their next response.
*That* ALONE would be something to see!
More insults. Thank you for proving my point.
7) Scripture will be the only rule of authority in this
discussion. The opinions of so called prophets and
teachers, are irrelevant and are not an authority here.
Any violation of these rules, allows the other party
to demand a concession of the debate by the offender.
Yeah. Right. Have you EVER seen anyone in Usenet
actually GRANTING such a demand. Are you REALLY that
profoundly naive?
So your point is that because you haven't found anyone
who has done that, you should get to be dishonest too.
That's real nice, "Christian" logic you have there,
Craig!
The offender must comply, but even if he doesn't, it
will be noted on public record.
The only time that a person's writings *don't* become a
public record is when they post with a notation not to be archived.
(And THEN -- funnier than hell !! -- their writings almost always GET
archived anyway, by being *included* in someone's RESPONSE
post. (ROTFL!!!!! Talk about people being **dumb**!)
I was not discussing archiving, which you should know,
since I have Googled your words before and quoted your
lies and perversion back to you, so I wouldn't be
pointing my finger at anyone and calling them "dumb",
if I were you, Craig. (:
The offended person does have the option to let the debate
continue with a warning.
You're KIDDING, right? People can **always** continue
any discussion that they choose to continue.
When you break the rules, you should expect
consequences. But being a proabortionist, I
can see how that idea would be foreign to you.
If you can live with these 7 rules Craig, then I would be
happy to respond, in detail and show you why it is
impossible that this is describing nuclear blasts. I have
even changed my signature. Should you accept, I will
start a new thread with my response in it and advise you
in this thread, as to what I have titled the new thread. You
need to tell me which Christian news group(s) you
are subscribed to, so that I don't leave you out, when I
put in which groups it will be sent to. I assume that you
are at least in alt.bible.prophecy, correct?
If you want to respond, you will, and if you don't, you won't.
And if you are unable to offer a reasonable explanation for why
the above passage doesn't describe the effects of nuclear
detonations (and probably nothing else), I understand. Because
that probably is *exactly* what it DOES describe.
And yes... you can usually find me in alt.abortion and
alt.bible.prophecy, among some others.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
Thank you for proving that given the opportunity to
have an honest, open discussion, that was not good
enough for you. You had to have the option to change
my words and to do absolutely zero work and just sit
there and paste in web links, demanding that I do the
whole load of work.
Never mind Craig. You are not an honest individual and
I have no desire to discuss this issue any further with
you.
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
"Be strong all people of the land. Do not fear."
"If you will not believe, surely you will not be
established." - Jehovah
.
|
