(Fwd) Re: Your Christian Duty, Terry
Ian H. Scott ian@absolute-sway.com
Sat, 18 Apr 1998 15:37:20 +0500 (00892917440, 199804181931.NAA14008@maxwell.kumo.com)
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 13:20:20 -0700
To: errancy@infidels.org
From: Farrell Till <jftill@midwest.net>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: Your Christian Duty, Terry
At 02:34 AM 4/18/98 +0500, Ian H. Scott wrote:
>IAN S.
>Here Till, is what you wrote Terry, on the topic of
>misrepresentation.
>If you misrepresented me, intentionally, then, in effect, you have
>lied, and it is your Atheist duty to acknowledge that you did. In
>fact, Till, Jones posted the Mary Magdalene problem on the 13th of
>April. The quote of mine that you took out of context was in fact
>many days prior to this post of Jones. You asserted, Till that I had
> insinuated that you were afraid to respond to Jones' arguement on
>the Mary Magdalene problem. I maintain that that statement is Bull
>shit.
>
>Would you mind please finding a post where I challenged you on the
>Mary Magdalene problem, or ever insinuated you were afraid to
>respond?
>
>You are wrong, Till. You will NOT find any post where I did that.
>Are you going to admit that you took me out of context? Are you
>going to admit that you were wrong? Are you going to admit that in
>fact, you misrepresented me?
>
TILL
In a posting that will go out with this one, I stated that I would
continue the search-and-find mode that found the quotation where you
obviously insinuated that I was afraid to answer Jones's argument. I
am sure that I recall a posting in which you referred specifically to
Jones's Mary Magdalene "solution." If I don't find it, I will, of
course, without hesitation say that I was wrong in thinking that you
had challenged me on this point.
Am I to assume that you do agree that you wrote the paragraph I quoted
in which you insinuated that I was afraid to respond to Jones's
arguments? If so, will you explain to us why you took that position?
Was that the reaction of someone as unbiased and impartial as you have
been trying to present yourself? Or was it the reaction of an
inerrancy sympathizer who thought he had found an opportunity to
discredit a spokesman on the errancy side? All though these tedious
exchanges on this subject, you have completely evaded all that I have
presented to support my contention that you are hiding your real
intentions. Why are you doing that? You have had numerous
opportunities to blast the illogical postings of biblicists, but you
have remained silent about them, while seizing every little excuse to
blast me. How can this be reconciled with your impartiality claim?
At any rate, after I have looked for the other quotation and reported
to you that I either found it or didn't find it, I will see no need to
continue this thread. As I said before, you obviously dislike me
intensely, a feeling that I'm sure is rooted in an ulterior motive
that is contrary to your sincere truth-seeker claim, so nothing I can
say will possibly change your attitude toward me. On the other hand,
I assure you that I will change my attitude toward you as soon as I
see a balanced attitude in your postings. I haven't seen that yet, so
my attacks have been aimed at your misrepresentation of your motives.
I still say that you are a closet inerrantist. If you are, just say
so. If you're not, just give a clear indication of your impartiality.
IAN S.
In my private response to your private post, I have indicated to you
that you will not ever find anywhere, any direct evidence that I
challenged you or made any type of insinuation towards you regarding
your response to Jones' MARY MAGDALENE post. You asserted that I had
done such a thing. I challenged you to produce evidence that I had
challenged you on MARY MAGDALENE, you reiterated that you were sure
that I had done so in a subsequent post, and yet you wish to bring up
an old post, that had no direct connection to the Mary Magdalene
problem, and in fact was impossible to have any as it was posted
prior to the Jones post. That is bizarre, and at the very very best,
would only be accepted as circumstantial evidence, but would be
thrown out of any court in all liklihood if I was being tried on
whether or not I had made insinuations towards you regarding MARY
MAGDALENE.
Chronology and context is all important, Farell.