PR commented on his blog:
Antithesis,
I do not need to "run from anything". Anyone who know even a bit of logic will know you are just blowing smoke. Besides strawman, ad-hominem, non-sequitur etc, what else can you come up with?
With regards to the Critical Text, you obviously do not know what I was talking about. Even THE Critical Text published by WH and later by UBS etc do give the varient readings among the manuscripts, so your point is moot.
If you continue to misrepresent my position clearly even after being constantly refuted, there is nothing more to add to this conversation. May God have mercy upon you and save you from the gutter of irrationality you are in.
Just btw, if anyone really wants to know, I can do a sentence by sentence deconstruction of Antithesis' posts which shows the many logical fallacies he has committed in them.
I replied with the following comment. Instead of replying to my rebuttal, Daniel Chew the Puritan-Reformed fellow from Singapore simply DELETED my reply, claiming that, “you are in violation of rule number 1. Your nonsensical comment would be hereby deleted.”
What a GREAT debating tactic it is! When you can’t answer the arguments, delete them.
Let's see what "nonsensical" comment I wrote. Daniel Chew has no integrity when it comes to debating.
This is what I wrote. (My comments follow the arrows)
PR:
I do not need to "run from anything". Anyone who know even a bit of logic will know you are just blowing smoke.
>Look who's "blowing" smoke? Anyone reading the posts you made will know you are simply self-deluded in believing that I'm "blowing smoke".
Besides strawman, ad-hominem, non-sequitur etc, what else can you come up with?
>Simple. Read my replies to you on my blog.
With regards to the Critical Text, you obviously do not know what I was talking about.
>Wow. You are a good liar. Well, the readers of your blog CAN read YOUR words on my blog where I expose your inanity. I'm sure they have brains to think with.
Even THE Critical Text published by WH and later by UBS etc do give the varient readings among the manuscripts, so your point is moot.
>Really? You sure you know what I'm talking about? YOU (yes, you) confused "critical text" with the minority family of texts e.g. A, B etc, and you are still insisting that you are right? See my expose of your confusion:
http://god-antithesis.blogspot.com/2008/10/someone-who-claims-to-understand.html
If you continue to misrepresent my position clearly even after being constantly refuted, there is nothing more to add to this conversation.
>I DID NOT "misrepresent" your position; I merely REFUTED your position (see my replies on my blog). Since when did you "refute" my position? Were you dreaming in Lalaland? Unless all the readers of your blog are like you, I'm sure they can think for themselves and see the kind of deluded liar you are.
May God have mercy upon you and save you from the gutter of irrationality you are in.
>Like you called Barth a heretic, now you want to pronounce judgment on me? How prideful can one gets?
Just btw, if anyone really wants to know, I can do a sentence by sentence deconstruction of Antithesis' posts which shows the many logical fallacies he has committed in them.
>Try it then; I'll ensure you'll make a fool of yourself. You need a little shakin' up, you know, kiddo? Too much pride and self-confidence in yourself, mate. Want to see how silly your "logic" is when you tried to "deconstruct" my position?
Read this:
http://god-antithesis.blogspot.com/2008/10/clarkians-lie-just-to-look-good.html
Hope your readers are willing to read my replies instead of parroting your points. And BTW, your subject-verb agreement needs brushing up.
And since Daniel Chew couldn’t deal with the arguments I presented, he now hides behind his fellow bloggers.
Daniel Chew wrote, “Oh, FYI, I have taken the liberty to post this on an online Christian ministry blog of which I am a contributor to. You can be rest assured that the heresy you are advocating will be exposed before the wider Christian community and they will not be misled by false teachers like you.”
He calls my position heresy. Suddenly, various Evangelicals in Christendom who disagree with him, and who do not believe that language can convey propositions PERFECTLY are condemned as heretics.
Daniel Chew, do you want to burn me to death?
No comments:
Post a Comment