The Bereans Declined Debate on Fellowship

Debate Details

Sep 2nd 2007
Unbeknownst to me (until September 24th), The Berean Ecclesial News, again, decides to publish another magazine with an article addressing issues of fellowship, directed against information made available on my web site.

Sep 10th 2007
I have challenged the Bereans to an online debate of the issues regarding fellowship (the act or state) and Fellowship (a Society of ecclesias or Institution). The Bereans, currently, are saying it will take 7-10 days to decide if they will accept the challenge.

Sep 15th 2007
In doing research for the proposed debate I have come across a number of alterations and misattributions by Berean authors which will be documented on this page. Publishing these issues ahead of time will help my Berean counterparts to better prepare.

Sep 19th 2007
As I predicted to those close to me, the Bereans declined debate on a point of the rules of the debate -- they wanted to string it out over 5 weeks and when I called that "unacceptable" they called a quick end to the "negotiation" process.

Debate Declined by the Bereans

A message posted by someone else who complained the debate would not occur due to a technicality was deleted. A message I posted was deleted and then I was blocked from accessing the Berean Forum. The web site now reports:

My next prediction: They'll delete the entire thread about the debate. Watch and see.

Update: 10 minutes later the thread was somehow marked to not be visible. Another brother has reported that the entire thread was deleted. I verified it was no longer visible by using another IP address. I had also predicted this might happen. You can read the debate thread here: If you have Internet Explorer this is an MHT file of the entire page before I was blocked from accessing the site. Otherwise, here's the HTML.

Update: The thread has now reappeared and is now a "sticky" at the top of of the forum.

Sep 20th 2007
The thread was moved from a Sticky to an open thread again. I posted the following to the Forum this morning:

My posting was deleted and my IP address blocked again. "Pathetic" was not a personal characterization but my characterization of how things were being misrepresented. This is the same forum that has been advertised inviting Christadelphians to "debate the issues"!

Bob wrote, "He was not prepared to defend his [position]. He wished for us to defend everything and himself, virtually nothing."

It is a strange claim for Bob to claim I was not prepared to defend my position. Readers of the thread will notice that I had stated that my opening statement was already prepared (< 700 words) and almost 200 questions were ready!

Bob would in a later posting represent me as saying I refused to debate on Saturdays, "no Saturdays". Readers who were not so anxious to dispose of me saw I said no such thing. Saturdays were fine. I just didn't want to drag it out over five weeks!

Concerning the fact that I had predicted Berean answers Bob wrote,

"In my view, this is a formula for both misrepresentation and false accusation. Armed with this information, who in their right mind would want to enter into debate with such an one who would sink to this level in order to make his points."

The "predicted" answers were only for personal use in preparing the questions. It is therefore a bizarre charge to say, I "s[a]nk to this level in order to make [my] points". If Bereans had not declined the debate, no one would have known what my predictions were. The lack of logic is disappointing — especially when a normal process of debate preparation is turned into an excuse for personal attack. No one enters a debate without making predictions on how the opposing party will answer. If you are not competent to analyze the position the opposing party is likely going to take how do you even conclude you have a basis for debate? This high school level book discusses debate preparation. Furthermore, my questions are questions of historical testimony -- not exactly a good foundation for 'false accusation'.

Brother Roberts wrote The Trial which predicted the answers Bradlaugh would give in court testimony based on previous claims, positions and statements he had made. Was brother Roberts "such an one who would sink to this level" to follow "a formula for both misrepresentation and false accusation"?

To my Berean brothers: indeed I was altogether born in sins, but perhaps you have something to learn. Why did you cast me out?

"You must expect opposition & detraction if you stand for the truth. And the opposition will come from pretended friends of the truth; & under pretense of zeal for the truth, & assumed fear that you will do harm. All sympathizers with the Old Mother & her Daughters, & their innumerable progeny, will cry out against harshness, exclusiveness, & all that sort of thing. Nevermind. Heed them not. You can do no good in trimming your sails to their breeze." (John Thomas to Robert Roberts, March 1865)

Sep 2nd 2007	Unbeknownst to me (until September 24th), The Berean Ecclesial News, again, decides to publish another magazine with an article addressing issues of fellowship, directed against information made available on my web site.
Sep 10th 2007	I have challenged the Bereans to an online debate of the issues regarding fellowship (the act or state) and Fellowship (a Society of ecclesias or Institution). The Bereans, currently, are saying it will take 7-10 days to decide if they will accept the challenge.
Sep 15th 2007	In doing research for the proposed debate I have come across a number of alterations and misattributions by Berean authors which will be documented on this page. Publishing these issues ahead of time will help my Berean counterparts to better prepare.
Sep 19th 2007	As I predicted to those close to me, the Bereans declined debate on a point of the rules of the debate -- they wanted to string it out over 5 weeks and when I called that "unacceptable" they called a quick end to the "negotiation" process. Debate Declined by the Bereans A message posted by someone else who complained the debate would not occur due to a technicality was deleted. A message I posted was deleted and then I was blocked from accessing the Berean Forum. The web site now reports: My next prediction: They'll delete the entire thread about the debate. Watch and see. Update: 10 minutes later the thread was somehow marked to not be visible. Another brother has reported that the entire thread was deleted. I verified it was no longer visible by using another IP address. I had also predicted this might happen. You can read the debate thread here: If you have Internet Explorer this is an MHT file of the entire page before I was blocked from accessing the site. Otherwise, here's the HTML. Update: The thread has now reappeared and is now a "sticky" at the top of of the forum.
Sep 20th 2007	The thread was moved from a Sticky to an open thread again. I posted the following to the Forum this morning: *My posting was deleted and my IP address blocked again.* "Pathetic" was not a personal characterization but my characterization of how things were being misrepresented. This is the same forum that has been advertised inviting Christadelphians to "debate the issues"! Bob wrote, "He was not prepared to defend his [position]. He wished for us to defend everything and himself, virtually nothing." It is a strange claim for Bob to claim I was not prepared to defend my position. Readers of the thread will notice that I had stated that my opening statement was already prepared (< 700 words) and almost 200 questions were ready! Bob would in a later posting represent me as saying I refused to debate on Saturdays, "no Saturdays". Readers who were not so anxious to dispose of me saw I said no such thing. Saturdays were fine. I just didn't want to drag it out over five weeks! Concerning the fact that I had predicted Berean answers Bob wrote, "In my view, this is a formula for both misrepresentation and false accusation. Armed with this information, who in their right mind would want to enter into debate with such an one who would sink to this level in order to make his points." The "predicted" answers were only for personal use in preparing the questions. It is therefore a bizarre charge to say, I "s[a]nk to this level in order to make [my] points". If Bereans had not declined the debate, no one would have known what my predictions were. The lack of logic is disappointing — especially when a normal process of debate preparation is turned into an excuse for personal attack. No one enters a debate without making predictions on how the opposing party will answer. If you are not competent to analyze the position the opposing party is likely going to take how do you even conclude you have a basis for debate? This high school level book discusses debate preparation. Furthermore, my questions are questions of historical testimony -- not exactly a good foundation for 'false accusation'. Brother Roberts wrote The Trial which predicted the answers Bradlaugh would give in court testimony based on previous claims, positions and statements he had made. Was brother Roberts "such an one who would sink to this level" to follow "a formula for both misrepresentation and false accusation"? To my Berean brothers: indeed I was altogether born in sins, but perhaps you have something to learn. Why did you cast me out?