From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Free gifts? NOT!
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:56:01 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.

I see that am once again being accused by Greg Skinners of maliciously 
misrepresenting his words and being told by him to shut up:

> I throw my arms up in exasperation.  I cannot state it any more
> clearly than this: Mr. Butler, you and I are not talking about the
> same thing.  Intially, this was not an affront to anyone.  However,
> after my repeated clarifications, your persistence is rude.  Kindly
> leave me out of your postings on this subject.

Truthfully if I could not present the quotes where Gregg actually states
what I have represented, I would at this point be making a penitent apology.
But, as I actually have the quotes which Gregg denies making I will simply 
present them and have done with it.  I will not simply ignore Gregg malignment
as he seems to fervently wish.

The subject I am now accused of misrepresenting is as follows:

>>    the issue I was bringing up.  The problem with this claim is that 
>>    this person's main thesis was that salvation was truly free.
>
> I have repeatedly clarified that this was not my thesis.  Mr. Butler
> apparently doesn't believe me when I say this.  What else can I say?
> This is not my thesis.  I have sent email to explain in detail.
>
>>    His thesis
>>    was not merely centered on the one issue he was actively promoting (ie:
>>    that a free gift was no less free if one must actively accept it).
>
> This is simply false.  I have clarified this more than once for Mr.
> Butler.  

and

>>    and responded with a different and 
>>    valid point against the idea of free salvation: that a gift is not free, 
>>    if something is demanded of those who accept that gift.  I also gave a 
>>    Bible verse showing such demands being made.  It was Red Herring to 
>>    respond to my argument by returning to the now moot argument about 
>>    "accepting a free gift".  One cannot simply ignore a valid issue raised 
>>    against one's main thesis, simply because one isn't interested in it.  If 
>>    one is determined to claim that salvation is a "free gift", then one must 
>>    defend one's thesis against all valid criticism against "free salvation" 
>>     and not merely the criticisms which catch one's interest.
> 
> I throw my arms up in exasperation.  I cannot state it any more
> clearly than this: Mr. Butler, you and I are not talking about the
> same thing.  

This accusation is false.  First, here is a quote from Gregg where he not only
claimed to have evidence the existence of the free gift of Salvation and he
also concludes that he even his god:


> In light of this, we have evidence for the concluding that God, Jesus
> Christ, and this free gift we are discussing exist.  Most (perhaps
> all) of the evidence we have is in the form of testimony.  Much of it
> appears in the Bible, though there are other literary sources.  Some
> of the testimony comes from Christians living today.

Further Gregg did at several points explicitly recognize and defend the point
the Salvation was truly free.  When I reject his thesis that salvation was
truly free he said says unequivocably that salvation is free:

>> The second reason I reject your argument [for free salvation] Greg, is that 
>> mere recognition it is not sufficient for salvation.  Simple recognition 
>> and acceptance of the gift of salvation is not sufficient to gain salvation.
>
> I disagree.  If one must do more, then it is certainly NOT free.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Gregg even clarified:

>> Greg Skinner makes a truly remarkable and incredible statement that one may
>> accept Jesus as your savior without also accepting him as your lord:
> 
> Yes.  Though I wouldn't say it in exactly this way, this is an
> acceptable paraphrase of what I would say.
> 
>> But Gregg, that's the point which both Christian and non-Christian are 
>> arguing: that Christian salvation requires accepting Jesus as your Lord. 
>	    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
> If this is true, then the folks who say the gift isn't free are quite
> correct.  I do not believe this is true.  
	    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So for Gregg to say that he has never argued that salvation is free, or
defended the idea that salvation comes with no price at all, is a gross
mistatement.  I cannot imagine why he would make such a blatantly false
denial.  It seems silly to make such accusations when the evidence is so
easily obtained (or perhaps he thought that his articles expired and I no
longer had access to them).  As this is the third or forth such false denial I
can document, I can only assume that he either cannot keep track of his own
position or is simply changing his position as convenience dictates.  I must
admit that I lose all respect for such tactics and the people who use them. 

Now Gregg admonishes me:

> Mr. Butler, please leave my name and all references to my
> words completely and entirely out of your discussion.  I do not wish
> to participate.

If you do not wish to participate then do not.  I am not holding a gun to your
head, or twisting your arm to make you type on your keyboard.  But do not make
accusation of malicious misrepresentation, accompanied by a load of untruths
and expect me to meekly stand idle and obey your commands to silence.  You did
state that salvation was truly free and defended that thesis until you found
it quite awkward.  At that point you abandoned the position and claimed to
have never held it.  Argue as you wish, but do not lie. 
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler

		I don't mind lying, but I hate inaccuracy.
				Samuel Butler
				"Note Books"

    PS. If I had to guess I would bet that Gregg will once again try to 
    find a way to twist his words so that they don't actually mean what 
    obviously do.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc