Re: Pim's Faith.
Joseph Mastropaolo (mastropaolo@net999.com)
Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:19:50 -0700> RE: Pim's Faith (Pim van Meurs , 10:26 AM)
> To:
> "evolution@calvin.edu" <evolution@calvin.edu>, "'mullerd@chplink.CHP.EDU'" <mullerd@chplink.CHP.EDU>
>
> Dan:"In all sincerity, it is not my desire to insult you.
> However, your misrepresentation to me and the others on this list fits perfectly in the definition of "Clinton speak"."
>
> "Clinton speak" = 1. Commit the offense.
> 2. Deflect the question.
> 3. Attack your accuser.>>
>
> There is no offense, there is no reason to answer the question and certainly no reason to attack the accuser. I merely stated that I don't feel this is relevant.
>
> Dan : "You are the one who has been so critical of others'
> credibility. Yet, it is your credibility and honor that has suffered in this exchange."
>
> I can live with your interpretation since I do not believe that personal faith is related to credibility or honor. My faith is between me and my Creator. Any suggestions otherwise are irrelevant to me. Certainly any attempts to bait me into a discussions are very likely to fail when using implicit accusations.
Pim: It is obvious that you do what Dan has documented.
Why aren't you proud of what you are doing?
If you do not believe credibility and honor are required by faith, then
you are not a Christian. Why not be proud of the fact and proclaim, "I
am not a Christian and I am proud of it?" And if you are not proud of
it, and you are a Christian, then reform and make restitution. Isn't
that also what Christianity directs? Scoundrel or Christian, which are
you, Pim? You can't be both without lying to yourself as well.
Joseph Mastropaolo