HP: Here are five rules evident to this listener DHK employs in all so-called debates. The one here with BR is certainly no exception at all.
I should allow another moderator to answer (or delete) this, as attacks on moderators are not permitted.
But just for you I will answer your childish post.
1.If a passage is introduced that might even have the possibility of refuting your position, first attack him personally by either calling him a liar or associating the other with blasphemy, heresy, or a cult, even if one of my own making. (the latest manufactured cult being the calling of Church of Christ as a cult)
Do you know what is a cult and what isn't a cult?
Have you ever read a book on cults? On apologetics?
Have you even been to a website that teaches about cults or apologetics?
If not (and it seems that you haven't), I'll do your homework for you:
Here is a sample of some cults:
Here is the source:
http://www.carm.org/cults
It might do you some good some day. Note that both SDA, and Church of Christ are on this list as well as the RCC. Most Baptists have known this for years. We aren't concerned about political correctness as you might be. Rather as Jude commands us, we "contend for the faith." The Bible is our authority. We compare movements with the Word of God. We are not ashamed of what others may say.
So, if you post heresy, that which contradicts the Bible, aberrant theology, etc. I will tell you that it is wrong and why. I will not care if you are offended. The truth often hurts. So be it. I don't care about political correctness. I care about the truth.
2. Control the evidence at all cost. Never allow one to interpret your text by another. Demand that any other text, if it can possibly be seen to refute your position, applies to some other argument but not the one at hand.
The "text" is interpreted by the Bible. The Bible interprets itself. It is our duty to find the Bible's interpretation. We don't rely on the ECF or any other religion. If you are speaking about a "text" then the context often determines the meaning of the "text." So, no, I don't control evidence. I offer it. And because of a prejudicial mind you keep on refusing it. A good example of this is the sin nature of man. No matter how much evidence is presented you will deny that man has an inherent sin nature. If Jesus would come down from heaven and stand in front of you and tell you personally that man has an inherent sin nature you would deny it. Your mind is made up. Nothing can change it. I don't control evidence. I offer it; you reject it.
3. Never fairly examine any evidence that runs contrary to my position. Beg the question whenever possible, always returning to ones favorite proof text alone to beat the drum in favor of my argument. Let absolutely nothing serve to encourage me in any way to a fair examination of any text contrary to my firmly held presuppositions.
As in the argument for man's sin nature. You had nothing to offer. You accused David's mother of sin, and then couldn't point to any evidence. It was a shameful accusation that the Bible doesn't support. Even your link didn't support what it claimed.
4. Use my position as a moderator to cut and chop any remarks which might paint my position in an unfavorable light.
I remember deleting most of one post once.
The reason? I have told you perhaps dozens of times that I am not a Calvinist. The entire post not only asserted that I was a Calvinist, but was falsely asserting so-called beliefs (that I did not hold) based on the false idea that I was a Calvinist. That is all slander. I deleted it.
Label all such negative remarks or anyone willing to challenge my remarks as a personal attack so I can ‘warn them.’ Repeated warning give the sophistic indication that something must be unfair about the others argument, but it might just make an impact on the ability of others to make a fair examination of the warnings, so I do it regardless of whether of not there is any thing to justly warn about or not.
You are not the only one that I warn about personal attacks, but you do have a very thin skin and take things very personally. Then when your feelings get hurt you act like a little child and take your anger out in a post like this. This is not acting like an adult; it is childish.
5. Understand that no one but DHK has any right to determine the context of any passage, and simply and conveniently discard context if it runs counter to DHK's presuppositions.
It is a debate forum. The context is the passage from where the text is taken. If I am wrong, then show me. If I am not, then quit being so childish and hence the false accusations.
