On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 16:59:19 GMT, Craig Chilton
<xanadu222_@mchsi.com> spake thusly:


I would ask that before anyone judge this as
"just another Craig post", that you please read it.
I think it brings some issues to light and it is not
sent as a means of insulting Craig, just for the sake
of insulting Craig. I believe there are some issues
brought out in this message about usenet practices
and being fair minded to all, that are relevant to
everyone who posts in these news groups and
I would also appreciate some responses, with some
opinions from others, besides those who do nothing
but launch personal attacks, such as "Louise", "sex
kitten", "Chief Instigator", Ken Stahl", etc., etc...

Note that when Craig responds to this message,
he will probably change a lot of what I've written
and delete a lot of what I've written, even though
this is an attempt to discuss the issue, so you will
probably have to refer back to this original, in which
I have NOT changed ONE of his words. Just FYI. :)
He admits to doing it below, so I'm not insulting him,
although he will probably call me a liar for saying
that, while he has just sent a message with that
accusation in it, in which he has quoted himself
admitting it and in which he has changed my words.
This happens often, so again, that's not an attack.
It's a simple historical (even current events)
statement. The proabortionists don't think things
through quite as often as they should. :)

I do promise the point of my words will become clearer
and clearer, as the message progresses, no matter
how bad it seems to start out and you will find, that
what I said was NOT meant as an attack, but as an
attempt to reason with him and that there was just
no other way to get the point that I know that fair
minded Christians will agree with. Of this I am
confident! Honest! :)

Anyway, on with the post and please, don't hold back.

And then when people *respond* to posts
of theirs which contain such mindless inanities,
falsehoods, expressions of bigotry, deceptions,
lies, and propaganda -- then said responders
have JUST as much right to make HONEST
and NEUTRAL substitutions for those words/
expressions of ignorance and hate, when including
the previous poster's comments. As long as the
substitutions are enclosed in brackets, so that
everyone will know that the substitutions have
been honestly provided by a different person.
AND -- as long as the fundamental meaning of
the original writing is not twisted to have a significantly
different meaning than it originally had.

Who told you that?

The fact is, that's not true.

The fact is, you don't give other readers a
notification that says, "I have changed his words
people and the thought he was expressing".

You might put a note in there that goes on for
two paragraphs, explaining why you think you
should be able to insult him, but that isn't the
same thing, now, is it? No, of course it isn't. (:

The fact is, you assume the words of anyone
who disagrees with you to be "mindless inanities,
falsehoods, expressions of bigotry, deceptions,
lies, and propaganda", as you said above.

You assume that you MUST be right about this,
because you are Craig and how could Craig EVER
be wrong? When's the last time you actually
conceded a point to someone who doesn't agree
with you on abortion, Craig? It's okay, you can say
it. We all know. N-E-V-E-R !!! :)

The amount of insults you lay on people who
disagree with you, is staggering to the mind
of the person who actually is fair minded
(they definitely don't change words), which
is a person that YOU do NOT reflect.

You claim not to change the thought of
the message, but you do EXACTLY THAT!

When the discussion is about whether or not the unborn
is a baby, or just some "fetal medical condition that
needs a remedy" as you love to put it and you change
MY words from saying it's a baby, to saying it's a
fetus, you ARE CHANGING THE THOUGHT of
my post, since the whole premise of my post is that
it is A BABY!

You see Craig, you want to intimidate people and make
them afraid to post anything that YOU don't agree with.
The reality is, your just a paper bully. You couldn't
ever get away with this in person and I would guess
that doing this sort of thing probably gives you an
erection. I bet you can just feel the power surging
through your blood stream, making your little willy
stand up almost tall!

The reality is, no one is afraid of you and they just
kill file you eventually and say what they want
anyway, without having to deal with your harassment.

In short -- NO honest and fair-minded person
is EVER obliged or required to REPEAT the
abject stupidity and/or hatefulness of a
clueless/hateful louse/bigot in HIS/HER posts.

Quoting them is NOT "repeating them". No one
is forcing YOU to type them.

Honest and fair minded people leave the words
of the person alone and fairness means that
everyone gets to say what they want. Not what
you want to rewrite it to be. Rewriting what others
have said, to suit YOUR philosophy can never and
is never considered to be, "fair minded".

The fact is, that you elevate yourself above everyone
else in the world. You think that what you want to
say IS correct and that there can be NO doubt of that.
You leave absolutely ZERO room for other opinions
and ideas and then you claim to be FAIR MINDED?
Not by ANY stretch of the imagination!

Just as nobody has the right to assign their name
to the words and ideas of others, a person also does
not have the right to change the words or ideas that
someone else has assigned their name to and that is
what you are doing. You are changing the words that
I have assigned my name to and you are presenting
a false image of what I said, which is the OPPOSITE
of what I did in fact say

How does that qualify as "honest"?

Honest means, by definition, "not deceptive".

How is it "not deceptive" to pretend that I said
the exact opposite of what I actually said?

And how does that qualify as "fair minded"?

"Fair minded" means, by definition, "just and
impartial; not prejudiced".

How is it impartial and unprejudiced for you to replace
the words that express my beliefs, with the words that
express your beliefs and change the thoughts I
expressed, to match the thoughts that you wish
to express?

You see Craig, it is not enough for you, that
you have your own opportunity to express
your thoughts and beliefs. You also want
the other person's turn to express theirs,
all to yourself. That is in no way, ANYWHERE NEAR
honest, nor impartial, nor unprejudiced, which means
that no, you are not being, "honest and fair minded".
Not even close, sir! (:

Think you've GOT that this time? Or will you
choose to REMAIN dumber than dirt, as is
so typical of RRR cult lemmings?

You see what I mean? You are INCAPABLE of
dealing with the points made, HEAD ON, in an
INTELLIGENT manner, which is OBVIOUS TO ALL,
by what you say in return, which has ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING to do with what the person ACTUALLY said!

You did, in essense, say, that I am a sinner...

"In essence" my foot! I made it very CLEAR that
**everyone** is a sinner.

I disagree (see further down). But how do we know
what was said by the other poster Craig? After all,
you have sliced and diced his thoughts so much,
that we don't know what you're responding to. So
how can we tell if what you're saying is, "honest and
fair minded", when we cannot see all of the words
as they were actually written, from which to seek
an assessment of what both parties have said?

That's what you don't see, Craig. When you change
other peoples' words, the readers can't tell if you're
being fair minded. In reality, since you changed his
words, you only end up agreeing with yourself,
because it's really your own post that you're
responding to, not his. (:

You are not allowing people to agree with you,
because you are taking away any opportunity
you had for showing another person to be dishonest,
when it is YOUR WORDS that you falsely claimed
are theirs, that you end up arguing against. How can
I see that your point of view makes more sense than
his, if I never see his?

If you were, pastors would never be able to preach
on sin because they are not sinless.

If the pastors preached only with respect to things
that God and Jesus clearly delineated as being sinful...
*while* ACKNOWLEDGING their *own* (the preachers')
sinfulness, so as not to be hypocrites... that would be
no problem.

What you mean is, "Leave me alone and preachers
should keep their mouths shut if it's something that
I don't want them saying!".

That's what you mean Craig. And let's be honest
about it. You have openly stated that you do not
believe the Bible. You reject anything that disagrees
with your own personal philosophy and yet, wish to
claim that preachers need to stick to preaching about
what the NT actually talks about?

I tried that with you. I showed you where the Bible
says that you shouldn't be bashing Bush, but rather,
subjecting yourself to the authorities as the Bible
says (Romans 13) and what was your response?
To tell me that Paul was, "so far off the deep end"
and that he was, "just as bad as me".

So you see Craig, you are not fooling anyone with
your, "stick to the Bible" diatribe, because we all
know that if Jesus gets in the way of your own
personal beliefs, according to your way of thinking,
which you have verified WITH YOUR OWN WORDS,
Jesus needs to go. (:

And no, I do not exist as a being with "sinfulness".
While I do commit a sin here and there, I am not,
"a sinful being". That is directly against what the
Bible teaches. They Bible teaches that when one
is born again, he is a new creature in Christ and
that the old man has died.

You like to PRETEND to know what the Bible teaches,
but you haven't a clue. The LIE that Christians are
just "vile sinners" is exactly that. A lie from the
pit of Hell, that the modern churches have bought
into and the pastors who are too stupid to realize that
just because their professor says it's so, that doesn't
make it so. The Bible says "and such WERE some
of you". It can't be in the past, as the Bible says,
if it is still in the present.

I used to be a vile sinner, but no more. Why doesn't
someone read 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and actually let
it come alive for them?!?!?!

"There is therefore now no condemnation to those
who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to
the flesh but according to the Spirit." - Romans 8:1

You may claim to know what that means, but you
don't. How can there be no condemnation for those
in Christ, if they are still VILE?!?!?!

So now they preach to the masses that they are born
again. They are a new creature in Christ and yet, they
are vile sinners? I guess God has washed the born
again person, but He couldn't get all the dirt off. (:

I am not desperate for what I already have, my friend.

And please don't bother asking me if I ever commit
a sin. Of course I do. That does not mean that I am
a vile sinner. God has washed me clean and I will
not... "call common what God has cleansed".

I do not identify myself by the occasional action.

I identify myself by my relationship to and with God.

Now since it was obvious to John, that Christians do
commit sins (note the word brother) here and there...

"If any man see his brother sin a sin..." - 1 John 5:16

...then why did he say this first, in the same
letter?...

"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin;
for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin,
because he is born of God." - 1John 3:9

To commit a sin, is not the same as being a sinner.
And I don't know of any place in the NT, where it
teaches that born again believers are "vile sinners"
before God, after being born again.

Now, I would appreciate an answer to this. You have
ignored this message twice already. If you truly are,
"honest and fair minded", then you will respond to
this post, point by point, without changing any of
my words. To do otherwise, is to prove your dihonesty
and your lack of fairness and your fear of these words,
to everyone. Your choice. The ball's in your court.

--

Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ

"If you will not believe,
Surely you will not be established."

- Isaiah 7:9b