Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "Piorokrat" <piorokrat@autograf.pl>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: I Rescind My Offer
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 01:13:21 +0100
Organization: Tadex Niejadex
Lines: 260
Sender: piorokrat@autograf.pl@pl165.warszawa.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl
Message-ID: <bomlgq$11$1@news.onet.pl>
References: <QM1qb.26099$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$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl> <Mcyrb.18643$Oo4.17634@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pl165.warszawa.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl
X-Trace: news.onet.pl 1068423514 33 213.76.107.165 (10 Nov 2003 00:18:34 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@onet.pl
NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Nov 2003 00:18:34 GMT
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:368
Uzytkownik "Zsarnok" <zsar@nok.earth.link.net> napisal w wiadomosci
news:Mcyrb.18643$Oo4.17634@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Uncle Davey wrote:
<snip>
> >
> > 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.
Sure you've got a right not to agree with me.
I'll even agree you've got a right to sling me out, if you take a vote and
the majority say I should leave, then I'll leave.
I'm a big fan of democracy.
> >>>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.
I know. I do try to be the David Niven type courteous English gentleman, but
when I see people hurtling into the pit it seems a bit tough not to put my
hand out just because we haven't been properly introduced.
> >
> >>>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 never said I was leaving. My first indication of leaving has been my offer
to leave if voted off by a majority.
In this very handicrafted poste.
Please show me where I said I was leaving before that.
> >
> >>>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.
That's called 'preaching to the converted' and is the religious equivalent
of tilting at windmills.
> >
> >>>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.
I'll be my own judge of that, since I hope to meet him.
I won't say on usenet anyway whatever I find out by meeting him, as I
consider that the number one unethical thing you can do on Usenet.
This is the whole background to why I left soc.singles last January and my
group got set up for me by those who wanted to keep reading my stuff.
In that group, betrayal of hospitality is seen as a cardinal virtue by the
ruling militia.
> >
> >>>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.
All I can repeat is that netiquette is not my obsession. I think there are
important ethical concerns where usenet borders on real life, but other than
that I have to say that this is primarily an entertainment medium.
> >
> >
> >>>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.
Well, unless voted off by a majority, I will stay in all likelihood.
> >
> >>>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.
That's up to you.
No one can force you into accepting Christ as your personal saviour.
> >
> >>>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.
>
I can't save anybody, but we did have three newcomers who were catholics in
Church today.
> Zsarnok
I looked up your name in a Hungarian dictionary but I couldn't find it as a
word.
I am curious as to the origin. It sounds like either the Slavic root for
'grain' or the root for 'heat', but the spelling is rather Hungarian, than
Slavic...
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 |
|