Responce to Hector Avalos

RE: Avalos, “Of course, we only have your word that you were just really "testing" Harry.”

Okay, you got me, I was not really testing Hairy, I was playing with him as someone would play with a gullible child by making the nose grabbing gesture and saying “I got your nose!” In fact, it was pretty absurd of you to stick your nose into what I perceive as a personal discussion that turned ugly, and impose your scholarly ethics. Frankly, it is none of your business what I say to Hairy, especially when I am trying to make him look like a fool. Not that he doesn’t do a pretty good job of that on his own.

Hector, wake up! DC is not a scholarly blog, it is a meeting place for egotistical haters. And I am getting just a little tired of your narrow minded accusations about me. You neither know me nor understand me. Maybe you should take some time and find out just who I am before you go accusing me of things. As you already know, I am not a scholar, so why do you hold me to scholarly ethics? Again, as you know, I am not a Jehovah’s Witness, so don’t compare my ethics with their ethics. What you may not know, is that I am not even a Christian, so don’t say my words or actions reflect poorly on the Christian God. Comprende?

Here is an example of your inability to detect the nuances of argumentation.

RE: “You have already PROVEN that YOU did not understand Robertson by the sheer fact that you could not tell me how he would translate John 1:1.”

This is the second or third time you said this now, are you really that naive? Of course I know how Robertson would translate John 1:1, I purposely did not give you an answer because I did not want to play your little game that you were trying to set up.

In this next response, I’ll have to set it up because you clearly have a problem with context.

I said: “It is just too bad that you have been contaminated by the atheists you hang around with, you are picking up some very bad habits.”

You replied with: “Your reply is pure nonsense. I had come to these conclusions about KIT's use of Robertson while in High School, and before I became an atheist.”

Your getting as bad as Hairy, what in the world are you talking about? All I can say is context, context, context. What I said was based on the following.

I said: “First, you are absolutely wrong about Robertson. He mentioned John 1:1b ONLY to show an instance where ton theon = God, for his comparison of the anarthrous theos that equals God he goes to Romans.”

This has nothing to do with the KIT. I was talking about how you, like other atheists, only see what you want to see. Robertson made NO mention or connection to John 1:1c on page 761. However, you are able to see something that is simply not there. Maybe you should work on attaining your own high standard of ethics before you criticize others.