Poor Old "Uncle Billy"

I see snip TCassidy is here today.

Leaving now.

 

A tad bit dramatic here don’t you think.

 

I know the thread subject. You put words in my mouth. Please don't say I said things I did not say. I am not insinuating dishonesty, just assuming things not actually said to be meant.

 

Why?

Because he dares to point out your error and call it by name?

TCassidy and I disagree in some Scripture applications, but his credibility as striving to present truth faithful to the principles of Scriptures is to be esteemed.

That esteem does not conform to blind loyalty, but to challenge and examine his posts to find error. If such error is found, to use Scripture in disclosing and seeking further discussion.

 

Uh no more than one person has now recognized that he and some others change our words and then claim we said them. In other words putting words in our mouths. Simply holding his hands up and saying "how else am I supposed to understand it" does not remove the dishonesty.

 

A basic tool of discussion is the ability to restate to the other person what that other person said in your own words to that person’s agreement

What I see as a failure by more than one one threads is the person’s statement being restated and the discussion dissolving to “I didn’t say that” or “go back and reread”. Rather then pointing out specifically what was wrong in the restatement.

Another error is the thinking by some that unless they are quoted word for word something is inappropriately added. Perhaps such was added, perhaps in the activity of restatement some nuance was left out.

It remains that both the author and the one who restates should address the point with specifics and not glibly posting, “that isn’t what I said,” or, “I didn’t say that.”

It is that kind of response that sheds no light in the conversation and as it is also my fault, I am equally to blame.

 

Which is because the so called restatement is intended to misrepresent what was said so as to have a strawman to bat down. When you are told the restatement is completely in error then you hold on to it anyway and even in later posts continue to claim that is what you said. You guys then further later use your restatement to accuse others of walking back what we said. I see this so called restatement as a debate tactic and not an honest attempt to discuss. There has no evidence of that tactic otherwise.

Um no sir that is not what we should do. What we should do is stop rewording what we say to begin with. It serves no purpose and it will never be acceptable because it is used dishonestly in several ways.

I have no idea what this means. But here is what I believe at this point. There are a number of cals, not all, who are like rabid wild dogs. Their ultimate goal is to make sure that the predominate soteriological view that gets posted and supported on this board is calvinism. They would be willing, I dare say, to compromise their Christianity (if they could) in order to make that happen. They are viscous and they want anyone who is willing to post any soteriological view outside of calvinism destroyed. They pile up on one person and harass and hound them until the can get them to concede or they get the last 10 posts on the subject till they have feel better about it.

It is the reasons so many people have left this board and will no longer take part around here. I don't have a problem with calvinism near as much as I do many of it adherents.

 

There you go again...Where did I say that I couldn't follow the thread? You got a link?

 

Are you admitting that the post was just a chance to demean the character of someone else?

 

If you can't follow the thread it is probably best for you to leave.

 

Wow, putting words in others mouth's--you guys are batting 1.000 today.

I've got no bone to pick with you agedman. Don't start in on me.

 

[Anxiously awaiting the sweet words of Squire Robertson about the 6 hour warning.]