Jude wrote:

> IF you'd like to NOT remember, it was YOU who started our discussion
> with a negative type reply.  First blood and all that, bud!  lol

If it was a _reply_ then it could hardly have been first blood.


> The following is your FIRST reply to my post to someone else:
> 
> "No it doesn't.  It means "complete".  Lots of people
> base doctrine upon their own personal connotations of
> words, but lots of people are illogical."
> 
> Inference is that I'm basing doctrine on my own personal connotation
> to the meaning of a single word and that I'm illogical just like lots
> of people. 


You are, certainly, being illogical here.  The "inference" you
make doesn't follow.  


 
> I was TRYING to start all over with you with a bettter tone 

"Tone", as we all know from USENET experience, is mostly
something the reader is responsible for.



> but it was YOU who just wanted to continue in the negative
> direction that the discussion had taken. 

No, I just want to continue _on topic_.  It is you who
has been trying to make this personal.  So why is it that
you can't just answer the question, but instead post 
several paragraphs concerned with nothing but my character?
(That's a rhetorical question, but you can answer if you
want.)


> However, I
> wanted to say "let's start over better" in so many words, okay?   YOUR
> reply, to me, proved my suspicion that you didn't IN THE SLIGHTEST
> want to go along with me toward a more mannerly way of debating....

"Proved"?  Is this more of your logic?  My response was "Answer
the question".   The most mannerly way of debating is to stay
on topic.  So far, your way of debating is to try to move
the discussion on to my character, (no doubt, because you've
been fairly cornered.)

> As far as your side debate concerning "prefect" vs.
"complete," to me,
> it was totally lame as far as explaining any errors in the bible.  I'm
> sorry. 

So no matter what anyone has said to you, it hasn't soaked in
that if a person believes in Biblical inerrancy, then he
contradicts himself by "expalaining an error."  Because if
there is an error to explain, then one has admitted that
there is an error.

You think my explanation of "perfect" was lame?  It cut right
to the quick as to what your logical fallacy is.  You're whole
point was based on your incorrect definition of "perfect".

"Logic proves logic works."

Bart

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 1/9/05 10:39:23 AM