Poor Old "Uncle Billy"

[InTheLight]

I don't. Please pay attention to the subject of the thread and the statements he made concerning that subject.

I don't. Please learn to pay attention.

I see snip TCassidy is here today.

Leaving now.

 

[Use of Time]

Your behavior is getting worse. It is a shame the admin counsel will do nothing about it. The credibility of the board is at stake.

A tad bit dramatic here don’t you think.

 

[Reynolds]

That is what the discussion is about! How/why we come to Christ. Please. Try to pay attention to the subject of the thread.

Because you can't figure out the subject of the thread? You may be right. You fight against biblical soteriology because you don't understand the topic.

I know the thread subject. You put words in my mouth. Please don't say I said things I did not say. I am not insinuating dishonesty, just assuming things not actually said to be meant.

 

[TCassidy]

I know the thread subject. You put words in my mouth. Please don't say I said things I did not say. I am not insinuating dishonesty, just assuming things not actually said to be meant.

The topic is coming to Christ. The standard for coming to Christ on our own merit is total perfection. You say your badly flawed humility is good enough. How else am I to understand that?

 

[TCassidy]

Your behavior is getting worse. It is a shame the admin counsel will do nothing about it. The credibility of the board is at stake.

The only credibility that is at stake is yours, and I think that was surrendered a long time ago.

 

[agedman]

Your behavior is getting worse. It is a shame the admin counsel will do nothing about it. The credibility of the board is at stake.

Why?

Because he dares to point out your error and call it by name?

TCassidy and I disagree in some Scripture applications, but his credibility as striving to present truth faithful to the principles of Scriptures is to be esteemed.

That esteem does not conform to blind loyalty, but to challenge and examine his posts to find error. If such error is found, to use Scripture in disclosing and seeking further discussion.

 

[Revmitchell]

Why?

Because he dares to point out your error and call it by name?

TCassidy and I disagree in some Scripture applications, but his credibility as striving to present truth faithful to the principles of Scriptures is to be esteemed.

That esteem does not conform to blind loyalty, but to challenge and examine his posts to find error. If such error is found, to use Scripture in disclosing and seeking further discussion.

Uh no more than one person has now recognized that he and some others change our words and then claim we said them. In other words putting words in our mouths. Simply holding his hands up and saying "how else am I supposed to understand it" does not remove the dishonesty.

 

[agedman]

Uh no more than one person has now recognized that he and some others change our words and then claim we said them. In other words putting words in our mouths. Simply holding his hands up and saying "how else am I supposed to understand it" does not remove the dishonesty.

A basic tool of discussion is the ability to restate to the other person what that other person said in your own words to that person’s agreement

What I see as a failure by more than one one threads is the person’s statement being restated and the discussion dissolving to “I didn’t say that” or “go back and reread”. Rather then pointing out specifically what was wrong in the restatement.

Another error is the thinking by some that unless they are quoted word for word something is inappropriately added. Perhaps such was added, perhaps in the activity of restatement some nuance was left out.

It remains that both the author and the one who restates should address the point with specifics and not glibly posting, “that isn’t what I said,” or, “I didn’t say that.”

It is that kind of response that sheds no light in the conversation and as it is also my fault, I am equally to blame.

 

[Revmitchell]

A basic tool of discussion is the ability to restate to the other person what that other person said in your own words to that person’s agreement

What I see as a failure by more than one one threads is the person’s statement being restated and the discussion dissolving to “I didn’t say that” or “go back and reread”. Rather then pointing out specifically what was wrong in the restatement.

Which is because the so called restatement is intended to misrepresent what was said so as to have a strawman to bat down. When you are told the restatement is completely in error then you hold on to it anyway and even in later posts continue to claim that is what you said. You guys then further later use your restatement to accuse others of walking back what we said. I see this so called restatement as a debate tactic and not an honest attempt to discuss. There has no evidence of that tactic otherwise.

It remains that both the author and the one who restates should address the point with specifics and not glibly posting, “that isn’t what I said,” or, “I didn’t say that.”

Um no sir that is not what we should do. What we should do is stop rewording what we say to begin with. It serves no purpose and it will never be acceptable because it is used dishonestly in several ways.

It is that kind of response that sheds no light in the conversation at as it is also my fault, I am equally to blame.

I have no idea what this means. But here is what I believe at this point. There are a number of cals, not all, who are like rabid wild dogs. Their ultimate goal is to make sure that the predominate soteriological view that gets posted and supported on this board is calvinism. They would be willing, I dare say, to compromise their Christianity (if they could) in order to make that happen. They are viscous and they want anyone who is willing to post any soteriological view outside of calvinism destroyed. They pile up on one person and harass and hound them until the can get them to concede or they get the last 10 posts on the subject till they have feel better about it.

It is the reasons so many people have left this board and will no longer take part around here. I don't have a problem with calvinism near as much as I do many of it adherents.

 

[InTheLight]

If you can't follow the thread it is probably better to leave.

There you go again...Where did I say that I couldn't follow the thread? You got a link?

 

[agedman]

Which is because the so called restatement is intended to misrepresent what was said so as to have a strawman to bat down. When you are told the restatement is completely in error then you hold on to it anyway and even in later posts continue to claim that is what you said. You guys then further later use your restatement to accuse others of walking back what we said. I see this so called restatement as a debate tactic and not an honest attempt to discuss. There has no evidence of that tactic otherwise.[/QUOTE

As I look back, merely telling that the statement is in error without explaining the error in contrast with the statement is a fault of the author of the statement and not the one restating.

Assigning attitude and intent to a restatement without expressing exactly how the restatement is not accurate provides no proof that the restatement is incorrect.

“You guys” gives the impression that this is some kind of school yard brawl in which “honest attempt(s) to discuss” is lost in the shouting.

In an above post, I ask if you agreed to basic questions that pertain to the core of this thread, because as I read and posted, it was evidenced that you presented differently then what the Scriptures presented. I acknowledge that you started well, but departed as the thread continued and you were compelled to defend.

Um no sir that is not what we should do. What we should do is stop rewording what we say to begin with. It serves no purpose and it will never be acceptable because it is used dishonestly in several ways.

You reword every time you present the message from the Scriptures. You reword to not only present understanding, but to disclose the intent, attitude, honesty, ... of the Scriptures.

Therefore, you daily violate your own standard of rewording.

Did not even the Scriptures use rewording?

What you rightly desire is that the rewording be accurate to the original account.
That both the author and the rewording be agreeable. That is very important.

That is a learned skill. It is also a debate tactic that is taught by giving debaters the assignment of defending what they don’t regard as truthful. Example: defense attorneys.

But, because thie members on the B.B. are typically not debaters, nor schooled in counseling or some other form in which rewording is necessary as a tool, it remains that the author of a statem3nt should take extra caution and effort to generate understanding if a statement is called for question.

 

[agedman]

There you go again...Where did I say that I couldn't follow the thread? You got a link?

Are you admitting that the post was just a chance to demean the character of someone else?

 

[InTheLight]

The topic is coming to Christ. The standard for coming to Christ on our own merit is total perfection. You say your badly flawed humility is good enough. How else am I to understand that?

If you can't follow the thread it is probably best for you to leave.

 

[InTheLight]

Are you admitting that the post was just a chance to demean the character of someone else?

Wow, putting words in others mouth's--you guys are batting 1.000 today.

I've got no bone to pick with you agedman. Don't start in on me.

 

[InTheLight]

[Anxiously awaiting the sweet words of Squire Robertson about the 6 hour warning.]

 

[thatbrian]

[Anxiously awaiting the sweet words of Squire Robertson about the 6 hour warning.]

You are aware that you don't win the debate because it hit its post limit, right? Uncle Billy will return.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 9:30 PM Pacific.

 

[TCassidy]

There you go again...Where did I say that I couldn't follow the thread? You got a link?

I thought you said

Leaving now.

 

[TCassidy]

If you can't follow the thread it is probably best for you to leave.

I thought you said "Leaving now."

 

[TCassidy]

Uh no more than one person has now recognized that he and some others change our words and then claim we said them. In other words putting words in our mouths. Simply holding his hands up and saying "how else am I supposed to understand it" does not remove the dishonesty.

Please. Stop back peddling and at least try to tell the truth.