preacher4truth
Active Member
Recently in a thread concerning a woman who was saved out of a lifestyle of sin I commented upon her salvation experience.
Here is her quote:
My comment immediately upon this said:
Of course my quote was met with false assumoptions and accusations masked as 'questions':
First response:
My response:
This was met yet again with false accusations disguised as 'questions' which were actually used as conclusions, putting words in my mouth, and were, in fact straw man arguments:
As it can be readily seen above in the post, there were conclusions made not upon what I stated, but upon what a person says I said. I not one time suggested any of the above conclusions.
I responded with this:
My point is: If you are going to rebut someone, don't assume upon their words. Don't play the game of denial, and don't deny what in all actuality you are saying another person said.
To be frank, doing so is not Christian behavior, and these tactics are simply used to 'win' a pseudo debate made up in the mind of the one using false conclusions and only debating their own accusations which are apparently false.
Don't use false conclusions as fact, which is what was done in responding to my statements. What's the point in doing so? False deception? Failure to face actual facts?
Thirdly there was denial that said was done. Consider the following dialogue in repsonse to what I stated above:
It is apparent that these weren't simply 'questions' being 'asked', since there were instead conclusions being made after the false assumptions, and then these assumptions were used as if factual, and then were attacked.
Nevertheless the response to the above was this at post 13:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=89067&page=2
I appreciate good honest debate, but to argue things that another person never stated IMO is not good. It doesn't reflect facts.
To be honest, I've seen these tactics, denials, and more among too many Baptists, and it is downright wrong and shameful IMO.
Can we argue the facts without the denial and straw man tactics and putting words into another's mouth?
I appreciated the woman's testimony, and saw it as Biblically solid. There is no reason to accuse a person as being Catholic for complimenting a persons salvational experience -- it is was unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why does this happen, and why do some go into accusatory mode and plant assumptions as fact upon another, when the evidence is so clear that the one being accused in no way supports these things? Why are questions which are actually accusatory spun to be 'only' questions when it is a apparent they are not simply questions when they are used as conclusions?
These things should not be.
Concluding thoughts:
I read the OP tied to this OP and was enthused by the woman's understanding of salvation. There was absolutely no intent on my part to make it a Cal/Arm debate, as I said I was simply enthused and I genuiney hope others get it as she did.
But, being enthused that a person grasps Solus Christus brings on an attack because her affiliation didn't have the right 'brand mark', and since that was the case, it was assumed that I then endorse Catholicism.
Why do we treat others this way?
Here is her quote:
My comment immediately upon this said:
Of course my quote was met with false assumoptions and accusations masked as 'questions':
First response:
My response:
This was met yet again with false accusations disguised as 'questions' which were actually used as conclusions, putting words in my mouth, and were, in fact straw man arguments:
As it can be readily seen above in the post, there were conclusions made not upon what I stated, but upon what a person says I said. I not one time suggested any of the above conclusions.
I responded with this:
My point is: If you are going to rebut someone, don't assume upon their words. Don't play the game of denial, and don't deny what in all actuality you are saying another person said.
To be frank, doing so is not Christian behavior, and these tactics are simply used to 'win' a pseudo debate made up in the mind of the one using false conclusions and only debating their own accusations which are apparently false.
Don't use false conclusions as fact, which is what was done in responding to my statements. What's the point in doing so? False deception? Failure to face actual facts?
Thirdly there was denial that said was done. Consider the following dialogue in repsonse to what I stated above:
It is apparent that these weren't simply 'questions' being 'asked', since there were instead conclusions being made after the false assumptions, and then these assumptions were used as if factual, and then were attacked.
Nevertheless the response to the above was this at post 13:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=89067&page=2
I appreciate good honest debate, but to argue things that another person never stated IMO is not good. It doesn't reflect facts.
To be honest, I've seen these tactics, denials, and more among too many Baptists, and it is downright wrong and shameful IMO.
Can we argue the facts without the denial and straw man tactics and putting words into another's mouth?
I appreciated the woman's testimony, and saw it as Biblically solid. There is no reason to accuse a person as being Catholic for complimenting a persons salvational experience -- it is was unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why does this happen, and why do some go into accusatory mode and plant assumptions as fact upon another, when the evidence is so clear that the one being accused in no way supports these things? Why are questions which are actually accusatory spun to be 'only' questions when it is a apparent they are not simply questions when they are used as conclusions?
These things should not be.
Concluding thoughts:
I read the OP tied to this OP and was enthused by the woman's understanding of salvation. There was absolutely no intent on my part to make it a Cal/Arm debate, as I said I was simply enthused and I genuiney hope others get it as she did.
But, being enthused that a person grasps Solus Christus brings on an attack because her affiliation didn't have the right 'brand mark', and since that was the case, it was assumed that I then endorse Catholicism.
Why do we treat others this way?
