news:bol2s5$1fd79r$1@ID-140581.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Uncle Davey" wrote:
>
> > I had a crack at answering this a few days ago, but I lost it ...
>
> If I were to extrapolate, you seem to have lost it far earlier
> and in far more ways.
I couldn't have lost it before you wrote it.
That just, like, stands to reason.
>
> > ... and I hate
> > redoing things, but at the same time I don't like leaving things
> unanswered
> > knowingly.
> >
> Well, hop back into the cauldron, missionary - there are
> heads to be shrunken and hood ornaments to be made of
> them.
your experiments with an antidote to viagra overdose are nothing to me.
>
> > So let's hope I don't lose it this time...
> >
> As I'd estimated, it's a bit late for that.
>
well, since you answered it's proof it didn't get lost this time.
> > "t_naismith" wrote:
> > > "Uncle Davey" wrote:
> > > > "t_naismith" wrote:
> > > > > "Jason Gastritis" burped up this mess:
> >
> > <snippage of the old stuff which remains unrefuted>
> >
> > > > Your style is quite amusing, I have to admit, even though you're
> > attacking
> > > > my friend.
> > > >
> > > > Sure we want to evangelize you. There has been no attempt to hide
the
> > fact
> > > > that we like to spread the Gospel.
> > > >
> > > Actually, your buddies Jason and Ariaane went to some
> > > superficial lengths to deny that they were here in a.r.w. to
> > > _evangelize_. So, who is lying, you or they?
> >
> > I'm not sure I agree with you. I doubt they would have denied
evangelizing
> > when we are commanded to evangelise.
> >
> Their posts are archived. In their own words. Would you
> like to reconsider your doubt?
instead of me plowing through everything they wrote, could you kindly be a
bit more specific.
>
> > > > We nevertheless like to do it in a reasoned way, dealing with and
> > reacting
> > > > to the points of faith in other people's world views.
> > > >
> > > By and large, few if any here would wish to here your
> > > evangelizing, no matter what form it takes.
> > >
> >
> > I can well imagine that.
>
> By your spin on it below, it would seem that you cannot
> well imagine it, Davey.
>
You have no idea, Trevor. Do you imagine I was born a Christian?
> > "The carnal mind is enmity against God. It is not
> > subject to the laws of God, nor indeed can it be"
>
> Cool! Too bad such pronouncements don't keep
> the missionaries from the stewpots.
>
I'm not a missionary, I'm an accountant. I've got a missionary friend coming
for dinner tonight, but we are ordering a pizza in, I assure you.
> > But if we only took the
> > message to people who have already lost their carnal minds ...
>
> Are you suggesting that you've "lost your carnal mind(s)", or
> merely your mind, Davey?
We've lost our old minds and we've been given new minds.
> > ... and gained new minds ...
>
> I'm taking your run-on sentence apart because you've
> previously conceded the excuse of English as a second
> language, Davey.
It's my first language.
I never said it was anything other than that, Trevor.
Although I do speak mainly Russian at home and Polish and German at work.
> At any rate, the suggestion that you lot
> have " ... gained new minds ... " compares to some sort
> of 'daemonic possession'. Are you taking your daemons
> out for _exorcize_, Davey?
do you think the bible calls the devil 'the prince of the power of the
air....obics'?
> > ... and had their stoney heart taken out and given a new heart ...
>
> I'm not sure that's what the Olmec, Aztec and others had in
> mind before the xtians stole that idea, Davey.
i'm not a fundie, by the way, just noticing your latest amusing munge in the
follow-ups
>
> > ... then what
> > sort of evangelists would we be???
> >
> As a good guess, I'd say very inept evangelists.
That's what we would be, if we only preached to the converted.
>
> > > > By propounding your views as we propounded ours, you had all the
> chance
> > to
> > > > make converts of us, humanly speaking, as we had to make converts of
> > you.
> > > >
> > > Ah, therein lies a difference in paradigms, Davey. Most pagans do
> > > not wish to make "converts" of you lot and mainly would do as they've
> > > done; request that you cease and desist. These requests have ranged
> > > from polite to more, shall we say, direct? All have been disregarded
by
> > > you and your fellow missionaries.
> > >
> >
> > Not true. Ariaan has bid you farewell, Jason seems to be disengaging.
> >
> More accurately, Jason huffed off and whined in your NG while
> Ariaan merely raised a white flag and buggered-off.
> Regardless, evangelizing by other missionaries will be equally
> ineffective. Yours included, Davey.
Well, that's not up to you or me. Maybe you are right, maybe not.
>
> > > > I say 'humanly speaking', because all true conversion is only done
by
> > God
> > > > anyway, and we only plant seeds, we don't make them germinate.
> > > >
> > > Then wheel your "g-d" in here and let 'im try, why does 'he' need
> > > willing missionaries to do 'his' dirty work?
> >
> > Actually, He doesn't.
>
> If you are sure of this theory, test it by ceasing to do
> this dirty-work. Can you, is your 'faith' string enough,
> Davey?
I have no difficulty at all in not evangelising. Being, by nature, a lazy
bastard. It's the telling of the truth to people that don't appreciate it,
that demands a bit of an effort.
I still certainly believe that God will surely call in his elect whether I
am here or not.
> > But we are priveledged to be offered a small role in
> > God's calling in His kingdom.
> >
> Uh-huh. As cannon fodder.
No job too small.
> > > > Nevertheless, it has disturbed some of my brethren, (not myself I
have
> > to
> > > > say, as I am so wicked by nature I am past being shocked by
anything),
> > > that
> > > > there has been a stream of blasphemy and crudity from some
> participants,
> > > and
> > > > this wasn't what they had in mind when they came here.
> > > >
> > > The responses have been precisely-gauged to suit specific
> > > instances.
> > >
> > > > You are saying you didn't want to be evangelised, and at the same
time
> > you
> > > > are calling Jason chicken for announcing a retirement from the
debate,
> a
> > > > sure fire way of making someone go the distance.
> > > >
> > > No, you fail to comprehend what was stated, Davey.
> > > Jason was berated for starting a cross-posted incursion
> > > into a.r.w. and then a 'brave exit speech' which equates
> > > to buggering-off after he didn't like the response to this.
> > > At no point in the past has he indicated that he is able to
> > > participate in a "debate", (which is not demonstrated by
> > > his various announced claims but, by participating in them).
> > >
> >
> > Nevertheless, he is a very fine debater.
>
> No, he is/was not anything of the sort. Proclamations which
> are contrary to his failure to demonstrate such a claim are empty.
>
> > If you disregard for one moment
> > your distaste for his credo...
>
> It is he that cannot disregard it, momentarily or not.
> Since such a "credo" of dogma is so irrevocably tied
> in with his evangelistic agenda, actual "debate" remains
> as elusive as what you guys put your blind faith into.
>
You may say that, but if you look you will see that there are debates on
Usenet where he is making short work of some acclaimed skeptics.
{Jason, if you're reading this, where was that link to that debating website
again?}
> > ... look at the website and assess the high quality
> > of some of the debating in their. there are even publicised phone
debates
> he
> > has had.
> >
> If he wants to _debate_, let him do so here. I'm not going
> looking for his evangelizing nonsense elsewhere.
Okay, it's really up to you.
>
> > > > So I have a couple of questions for you:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Do you want us to stay or go? (Because you gave a mixed message
> > above)
> > > >
> > > Stay if wished. Do not attempt to dictate posting parameters
> > > to an unmoderated NG to which you lot are cross-posting _To_.
> > > Additionally, whining about the nature of the replies received to
> > > various nonsense you post merely makes you look petulant.
> >
> > Well, I haven't done it.
>
> Haven't done what; cross-posted here from your puddle or,
> whined?
I haven't complained about the lack of adherence to our groups charter by
you when we initiated the cross posts.
It seemed to me to lack logic, and I do try to be fair.
> > Between you and me I'm not a great big fan of
> > netiquette, actually.
> >
> In what way?
I happen to believe that etiquette is confused with ethics, because they
have a similar sound at the front and because there is some overlap. But
ethics comes from a very different root in Greek to 'etiquette', which is
from the French word for a 'label'. Etiquette is a question of manners, and
certainly it is considered almost universally bad etiquette to evangelise
anyone anywhere. If we get bogged down in various forms of etiquette we will
never get the job done. Ethics, however, is quite another matter. We ought
to be ethical, and therefore also adhere to that part of etiquette which
agrees to the requirements of ethics. For instance, top-posting is bad
netiquette, but posting someone's name and address that you received in
confidence is bad nethically. Both are no-nos in our group's code, but I for
one consider the second a serious matter, the first a simple minor nuisance.
So questions of ethics take precedence over questions of etiquette,
questions of nethics over netiquette.
> > > > 2. Are you aware of what the message is that we are preaching?
> > >
> > > Yes, and there is no need for its repetition - by either you or I.
> >
> > Hmmmmmn.
> >
> > >
> > > > Could you put
> > > > the Christian gospel in your own words for me, so that I can see
> whether
> > > you
> > > > are rejecting what we are actually trying to say or only what you
> think
> > we
> > > > are trying to say.
> > > >
> > > As I iterate above, there is no need. Your "message" is
> > > summarily rejected by this poster. Is that clear enough, Davey?
> >
> > It's clear that when I asked you to summarise what our message was, you
> > didn't do it.
>
> No, you asked me whether I _could_ do it, (or not, implicitly).
> I'm choosing not to do it in order to 'evangelize for you. You
> aren't as subtle as you believe you are, Davey.
>
> > There's still a risk in my mind that you don't know what you're
rejecting.
> >
> Assume I do know what and why and give it up. You are not
> going to appear in a positive 'light' should you persist, Davey.
Do I write like that bothers me greatly?
I would have preferred you to have answered the question, but I'm not gonna
try and bully you into it, Trevor.
> > Right from the heart of Warsaw.
>
> Born and raised in Poland? Parents too?
>
No. I was born and raised in the UK.
How about yourself, Trevor?
Best,
Uncle Davey
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 |
|