Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Why does "Mat" run?

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50 <rlbaty@webtv.net>
    ... My comments: Methinks my alleged misunderstanding is not so much as you suppose as your further explanation is all the more problematic as to having any
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 28, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      "mathewmaury", you wrote:

      >I apologize for your misunderstanding.

      >My intent was to indicate that if a fool
      >does not attend to the clear words
      >of the greater (God), then he would hardly
      >listen to such an obscure plebeian as myself.

      My comments:

      Methinks my alleged "misunderstanding" is not so much as you suppose
      as your further explanation is all the more problematic as to having
      any relevance to the topic under consideration and any apology due
      from you need not be for anything I have done but rather your own
      missteps.

      "mathewmaury", you wrote:

      >I see that our discussion has awakened
      >another member of this list. His repeated
      >charge that I am a liar violates the rules
      >of honorable controversy. I find his presumptive
      <and arrogant post to be quite acrid. I will not
      >indulge his personal reflections on my private
      >character.

      My comments:

      Sometimes I wonder if Todd ever "sleeps"! I am glad to see his
      attention to your post on the topic here.

      We haven't established any "rules of honorable controversy" as may be
      applicable to this list and I find that Todd's approach, perceptions
      and analysis to be quite acceptable and honorable. My experience has
      been he's quick to correct any errors he makes when they are pointed
      out to him.

      Certainly, you are free to deal with the specifics of his analysis or
      not. Certainly, you are free to deal with the specifics of
      the "antiquity" issue without regard to the "personal reflections".
      However, I would not try to trump up any "private character" you may
      or may not possess under the circumstances of your presence here.

      It has nothing to do with whether any "fool" is attending to the
      words of God. You simply have to "earn" that honor (i.e.
      credibility) you seem so desirous of.

      I think there may be no better way to do that than to openly,
      honestly address the "antiquity" issue which Todd has laid before you.

      I would like to further consider Todd's post a bit, for my own
      interests and in response to your "exit strategy" concerning the
      issues of "antiquity".

      Todd wrote:

      >The Bible says that the earth does not
      >move and the Bible says that the sun moves
      >and goes around the earth. The dispute
      >over geocentrism seems to be whether the
      >Bible means what it says!

      My comments:

      If you, "mathewmaury", are not going to address how your own comments
      mislead and misrepresented the issue, that's fine, but don't try to
      present your exit of the issue as something required to preserve
      your "honor" among us fools.

      "mathewmaury", you wrote, in part:

      >Those who argue that creation took more
      >than six days do not believe God.

      My comments:

      OK, that's where it gets interesting. Todd responded:

      >Come on, Mat. This is a false argument.

      >In fact, this is a blatant lie on your part,
      >since you know better. Is Hugh Ross an atheist?
      >No, he isn't, so you're lying. Is Davis A.
      >Young an atheist? No, he isn't, so you're
      >lying. Is Kenneth R. Miller an atheist?
      >No, he isn't, so you're lying. Is Gleason
      >Archer an atheist? No, he isn't, so you're lying.
      >Is Clarence Menninga an atheist? No, he isn't,
      >so you're lying.

      >I'm wondering what motivates you to state
      >blatant a falsehood about this matter as
      >you have done here.

      My comments:

      The ungetoverable fact does seem to be that your
      statement, "mathewmaury", is a blatant falsehood. Personally,
      whether you be charged with lying is a small matter to me; I think I
      understand why Todd would characterize it as such. You may are may
      not want to address the charge and its personal indications.

      However, you would do well, should you wish to work on your personal
      image here, to deal with the fact that the claim is false.

      And Todd concluded with:

      >Since it is the truth that the world has
      >been in existence far longer than just
      >6,000 or 10,000 years, why do you destroy
      >your credibility by running away from the
      >truth?

      My comments:

      Now, I think that is a legitimate question considering the issue(s)
      you have raised and now appear to be running from.

      I think perhaps my impressions that you were, scientifically
      speaking, a "Last Thursday" type and possibly a bit "geocentric" may
      not have been far off.

      In any case, I would appreciate you dealing with the specifics of the
      issue(s) and engaging the details of Todd's effort to engage you on
      the matters. You are welcome to decline Todd's invitation, but I
      would prefer you not try to do so with any suggestion that while
      doing so you somehow are taking some preferable moral high ground.
      Indications are that such efforts as you have already made simply put
      you deeper into that "Last Thursday / Geocentric" hole that you fail
      to perceive. We're looking down in that hole and trying to get you
      to climb out, but you seem to be at the bottom and digging even
      deeper!

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.