Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Zsarnok <zsar@nok.earth.link.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: I Rescind My Offer
References: <QM1qb.26099$CZ5.12382@twister.socal.rr.com> <boae1j$1c7a4d$1@ID-140581.news.uni-berlin.de> <boano2$qq9$2@nemesis.news.tpi.pl> <boap3o$1bnqq3$1@ID-140581.news.uni-berlin.de> <bojgkn$qqd$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl>
In-Reply-To: <bojgkn$qqd$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 220
Message-ID: <Mcyrb.18643$Oo4.17634@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 21:20:44 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.135.139.172
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net 1068412844 65.135.139.172 (Sun, 09 Nov 2003 13:20:44 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 13:20:44 PST
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:365
Uncle Davey wrote:
> I had a crack at answering this a few days ago, but I lost it, and I hate
> redoing things, but at the same time I don't like leaving things unanswered
> knowingly.
>
> So let's hope I don't lose it this time...
>
>
> news:boap3o$1bnqq3$1@ID-140581.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>>"Uncle Davey" wrote:
>>
>>>"t_naismith" wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Jason Gastritis" burped up this mess:
>
>
> <snippage of the old stuff>
>
>>>Your style is quite amusing, I have to admit, even though you're
>
> attacking
>
>>>my friend.
>>>
>>>Sure we want to evangelise 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 evangelising
> when we are commanded to evangelise.
>
The commands you follow do not override other people's rights. Once
your offer is rejected the courteous thing would be to leave. Again.
>
>>>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. "The carnal mind is enmity against God. It is not
> subject to the laws of God, nor indeed can it be" But if we only took the
> message to people who have already lost their carnal minds and gained new
> minds and had their stoney heart taken out and given a new heart, then what
> sort of evangelists would we be???
>
Saving people when they don't want it may be following your God's law.
It is however soliciting against peoples wishes and against the law.
It's also rude.
>
>>>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 parsdigms, 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 disregared by
>>you and your fellow missionaries.
>>
>
>
> Not true. Ariaan has bid you farewell, Jason seems to be disengaging.
>
Well he said he was leaving and is still posting here. So did you. Is
it ok with your God to lie to us because we have "carnal mind(s)"?
Since we don't follow your God we are less than human, eh?
>
>>>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. But we are priveledged to be offered a small role in
> God's calling in His kingdom.
>
Then please, stay within his kingdom and only travel amoung those who
welcome you.
>
>>>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-gaged 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. If you disregard for one moment
> your distaste for his credo, 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.
>
We've had personal contact. Prepared and carefully chosen presentations
may look good, but in direct contact he's not that impressive.
>
>>>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. Between you and me I'm not a great big fan of
> netiquette, actually.
>
The overly formalized little hangups of people who got here first can be
irritating. Courtesy, however, is not picky or tacky or that hard to show.
>
>
>>>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.
>
You offered, we rejected. You can stay and play. If you feel too
strongly about it to contain yourself, then find a more receptive audience.
>
>>>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.
> There's still a risk in my mind that you don't know what you're rejecting.
>
Perfect understanding is not required for a thoughtful rejection.
That's assuming of course that your offer is all that complicated, which
to me it isn't. It's just awful is all.
>
>>>3. Is your first name Timothy and do you come from the UK?
>>>
>>
>>No, the first name is Trevor and I come from another land.
>>Are you actually posting from Warsaw, Davey?
>
>
> I am, Trevor.
> Right from the heart of Warsaw.
>
> Uncle Davey, with a good Polish beer in hand.
>
Can't you save the Catholics, Davey? There's already common ground.
Zsarnok
|
| 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 |
|