WHEN BUZ QUITS THE THREAD

quote:

---

Anyway, I don't much care for Buz's patronizing tone when he talks to Schraf that way - "dear", etc. I can just see him at his keyboard, with a look of annoyed frustration that somebody let their breeder onto the forum.

---

LOL!Aww, I'm touched that you are gallantly coming to my defense. I'd also like to add that you are doing it in the very best way possible; letting me take care of business because you know I can, but objecting to poor manners and disrespect on the part of my opponent.Well, as Percy said, I don't always have the best manners. I am often blunt. Very blunt. Like you are, which is why I have always liked you and your style of posting.Anyway, I am actually amused that buz has resorted to calling me names. It means I must be on the right track. The best revenge is to win the debate, and his having nothing better in his bag of tricks than to start calling me names is part of winning the debate.I don't expect respect from buz because I am a woman who speaks her mind and isn't intimidated by him calling her names.I am very scary because I am a woman who doesn't come pre-shrunk, so to speak, like the Christian women he likes.

Get the bucket out pa-lease! Projectile vomit hits the horse avatar.

I am trying to put this other debate in science to rest and wasn't sure I adequately covered 55. I didn't get that connotation at all. It looked more to me like a diversion on the part of you people into science. It was not the moderators here who I was referring to setting traps, but my counterparts in debate. OK, if it's been my behavior all along, where is all the evidence that my posting behavior over the last year has been so terribly problematic? I don't see a lot of references to this thread or that thread where I've messed up all that much, any more than the rest of you people. Nuts! I gave my opinion and one from a link and double nuts to Paul's silly hypothesis on the Olivet Discourse. Must I repeat that he is bucking all the pros on this and btw, something I get chastized soundly for and the destruction of the temple is mentioned in ALL THREE OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS in their respective accounts, contrary to Paul. It is first event mentioned in all three. But it's your forum, Percy, and you have the same attitude. My supporting link on the falsifyable matter was irrevalent. Remember? Ok, but which is it? Take my time and cover what I feel needs to be covered to do it adequately or hurry up and address the here and now? I said I was going to take posts in order as they come, but I'm so far behind because lack of time to post that it's not easy keeping current. Your opening remark in this post was such that I figured it best I respond to it now or you would think I'm ignoring it.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 09-08-2004 08:44 PM

Nonsense!
1. The desciples asked more than just the temple destruction. They asked concerning everything to happen up until the 2nd advent and the end of the age. Matt 24:3
2. None of the long list of events were given a specific time, but a long list was prophesied, the first being already mentioned, the temple destruction. There was no need for him to repeat that event in the sequence, but the logical implication is that it would be before the gentile occupation of Jerusalem, and did indeed occur before that occupation became an historical reality.
3. In all three gospels he sums up the prophecy by admonishment for vigilance and watchfulness concerning, not the temple destruction, but the time of the end time, gathering up of his elect from earth to heaven and his 2nd advent. Matt24:39....."so shall be the coming of the son of man." And in one of the other accounts, without looking it up, it has it something like "When these things begin to come to pass, look up for you redemption draws near."
4. Again, your hypothesis goes contrary to nearly all of the schooled mainstream pros of eschatology, if that means anything. Since we once went round and round about this subject, I haven't been anxious to mix it up with you. When you try to contend that all of these things in this long list of events are suppose to be stuffed into one generation, imo, you're not debating sensibly or in good faith. Why waste my time? .......And in spite of this, you people have the nerve to criticise my conduct here in town.

CF, I don't recall it ever used as you have it pegged. I looked it up before my last alluding to it, and didn't see in that what you are trying to make it into. Bent to bolster belief about buzzy being a bad boy, aye, Crashy?

I am in the process of a major business move and will be very busy moving stuff for two or three weeks, so posting will be sporadic and hit/miss......not hit n run, though, so bear with me.

I can tell that even after all this discussion it is still your belief that there's nothing wrong with your debating style, and that people give you grief about it because they have no answers for your arguments. I guess the best we can hope for is that some of this will sink into your subconscious so that you contribute more productively somewhere down the road.--Percy

That's the only way I've ever heard it used: "slut", "whore", "loose woman", "Jezebel", etc.If that's not what you meant, then what did you mean? And furthermore, what business did you have even substituting name-calling for debate in the first place?What purpose was served by calling Schraf a "hussie", whatever the hell you meant by it? Well, you're the one who resorts to name-calling when you can't substantiate your positions. You hardly need any actions of mine to draw attention to your bad behavior.

1) We've already covered in past discussion. Mark 13:2-4 has a different version of the question and if that significantly affects the meaning then Mark is wrong

quote:

---

2 And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down."
3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew were questioning Him privately,
4 "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled?"

---

Luke 21:6-7 agrees with Mark

quote:

---

6 "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down."
7 They questioned Him, saying, "Teacher, when therefore will these things happen? And what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?"

---

No second advent, no end of the age. Unless you want to say that Mark and Luke are both wrong.2) You're lying. The first event is:
Mark 13:6

quote:

---

"Many will come in My name, saying, 'I am He!' and will mislead many

---

Matthew 24:6

quote:

---

"For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will mislead many.

---

Luke 21:8

quote:

---

And He said, "See to it that you are not misled; for many will come in My name, saying, '(6) I am He,' and, 'The time is near.' (7) Do not go after them.

---

All three Synoptic Gospels disagree with you, Buz.3) Is irrelevant. You need to show whete the destruction of the Temple comes in the prophecy.4) You have not quoted ONE "pro" who disagrees with me - because no "pro" would accept your opinion of what was said over the reports in Matthew, Mark AND Luke. And I am sure you know that, too. And even if you could find one you would need to show that they had valid reasons.As to the generation issue I can certainly understand why you would want to try to change the subject, but even there you have no argument. I challenged you to actually back up your assertions in the original discussion and you failed there, too. I on the other hand DID debate sensibly and in good faith - for instance offering a list of Roman wars that DID happen in the timescale happened. Any lack of sense or good faith there was on your part, not mine.

1. I've never meant to imply perfection and have made my remarks to the effect that my behaviour is at least as good as the average here in town, including how I end my thread activity. I see precious little mention by others even in hot threads that they are exiting the thread after their last post in a given thread. Those are the charges my op addressed and which specific documentation from my accusers has failed to show and that you have failed to show so far as being the huge problem they and you have blown it up to be.2. As this thead demonstrates, when one is debating a number of active counterparts, it requires a lot of time and work for the one to address all the posts and being limited in time must do some selection as to what is significant enough for a response. It requires much less time for each of the multiple counterparts to subit their respective posts. The majority view posters often fail to understand or think about this and sometimes become rather demanding on the minority poster/posters.3. Minority posters must be ever so careful about how they word and post, with a pack ever ready to attack any flaws, all supportive of the pack view.4. Having said the above, your comments have shown me some areas where I can improve on so as not to give reason for something from those who are prone to criticize.

1. Percy, it's a pity you don't appear to be sensitive enough about your parents that you would defend their honor from such an horrible insult.2. You artfully dodged the other accompanying insult, implying that all fundamentalists have a tendency to bed their mothers.3. Please go back to that thread and see who was the dodger in that exchange of posts with Willotree. His argument was not only soundly refuted in spite of his not so artful dodging, but eventually admitted to in fact himself being a fundamentalist of sorts.4. Contrary to your charge, it had a whole lot to do with the discussion, for the thread was about fundamentalists and his devious, falacious, meanspirited implications were that all fundamentalists were sons of dogs and bedded their mothers.5. I would have assumed and would hope that all members here in town would have reacted to this kind of behavior from a counterpart with emhatic disapproval. I am very surprised and appalled that you, the owner, would stoop to referral of this defensive action on my part as poor behavior, regardless of topic.

1. Paul, if you want to pick and choose only scriptures which best suit you as valid cononical scripture and if my opinion is going to be always regarded by you as lies rather than opinion, I see no point in and have no desire for further debate with you on this.2. Further discussion on this sideline in this topic would not be conducive to the spirit as well as the letter of forum guidelines.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

Buz outa town remainder of day.

One of the issues appears to be whether the destruction of the temple is one of the signs of the end of the age, or is the culmination of the signs and one of the events at the end of the age, along with the 2nd advent.I don't see how this can be answered unambiguously. The apostles ask a couple questions. Buzz refers to this passage: When the disciples ask, "When will this happen," they're asking about the destruction of the temple. When they ask, "What will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age," they're asking about the 2nd advent. Nothing in the questions tell us whether they assumed that the destruction of the temple and the 2nd advent would take place at the same time or not. And nothing in Jesus's answer clarifies the timing of these events. In fact, the only hint we have as to time is when Jesus says that all these events will take place within the listener's lifetime: This is all I wanted to address, because if we pick up this topic as more than just an example then we're in danger of taking this thread off topic. But Buzz does seem to have forthrightly addressed this topic, and now perhaps discussion can resume in the proper thread.But this still highlights two of my concerns:

• Buzz will abandon discussion of the topic first, then sometime in the future will repeat the claim, then when reminded that he had not completed the earlier discussion will argue that he had won the discussion.
  ​
• When Buzz runs out of counterarguments he engages a variety of evasive techniques. He sincerely believes he's correct, he just can't make the case, so rather than concede, or at least say he'll have to seek more evidence, he instead bogs down threads interminably.

My hope is that Buzz can take something constructive away from this thread.--Percy

In reply to your points.1) I assume that your idea of "picking and choosing" is my pointing out that the Disciples' question is given differently in Mark and Luke from the version in Matthew. But that is the opposite of picking and choosing. That is taking *all three* versions into account instead of only one as you wish to do. My point is simply that *IF* the difference in the question makes a significant difference to the interpretation of the answer THEN Mark and Luke made a significant error.
I can't see anything else you could possibly be referring to unless you consider your own words to be "canonical scripture".The question of where hte list of events start is a matter of objective fact. Given your statement in post 50 (quoted below) I find it very hard to believe that you did not bother to check even one Gospel's version of the Olivet Discourse instead relying on repeating an erroneous opinion.

quote:

---

I love truth and try very carefully not to post unless I am posting true stuff which will stand the test

---

If you are prepared to admit that you inadvertantly misrepresented the Bible because you were not prepared to actually read the parts under discussion then I will apologise for mistakenly calling you a liar.2) Given your refusal to support your assertions I find it hard to believe that you really care about forum guidelines. Especially as it is that refusal that has extended this "sideline" as you call it. I would add that your false accusation that I did not debate "sensibly and in good faith" in the original thread is on topic here. Here's the proof to the contrary.A discussion of the "generation" issue starts here:
http://EvC Forum: Prophecy for Buzsaw -->EvC Forum: Prophecy for BuzsawIt ends with post 160.