Svendsen-Pacwa debate review

Re: Svendsen-Pacwa debate review

feeds@yuku.com (Rhology) — Wed, 23 May 2007 13:37:57 GMT

Answerman,

Send me an email to:

rhology at gmail dot com

Re: Svendsen-Pacwa debate review

feeds@yuku.com (Answerman1) — Wed, 23 May 2007 04:44:20 GMT

Rhology,

Could you please redo that MP3 dowload for me.

Thank you,
David Morrow

Re: Svendsen-Pacwa debate review

feeds@yuku.com (Rhology) — Tue, 22 May 2007 07:10:10 GMT

I see, thanks for the clarification.

I apologise for my part in that.

Re: Svendsen-Pacwa debate review

feeds@yuku.com (DTKing) — Mon, 21 May 2007 13:34:35 GMT

I should not need to say this, but it never entered my mind that anything was "amiss." I'm sure he probably cleaned it up. The fact is that this is not his to distribute or make available in any way. You had permission, but he didn't. And your having permission does not grant him the same permission. That is my point.

Thanks,
DTK

Salvian the Presbyter (5th century): But I am afraid that we...

Re: Svendsen-Pacwa debate review

feeds@yuku.com (Rhology) — Mon, 21 May 2007 13:27:13 GMT

Pastor King,

I just listened to it and found nothing amiss.
He had contacted me before the debate and I sent him the raw file afterwards. He did indeed clean up what he said, as far as I can tell.

You are welcome to check the differences between the 2 - see my original post w/ the yousendit.com file and his later. His sounds better; you can listen for anything substantially modified. It sounds good to me, though.

My apologies if I did something untoward. I lack the...

Re: Svendsen-Pacwa debate review

feeds@yuku.com (DTKing) — Mon, 21 May 2007 13:21:01 GMT

...the point Eric. I hope that it will cause some present at the debate to consider the counter claims of the Roman communion.

I hate it that you did not get to use your PPT presentation. But the fact that you recovered without it is, in itself, a testimony to your abilities in this area.

Thanks for your defense of God's truth.

Blessings,
DTK

Re: Svendsen-Pacwa debate review

feeds@yuku.com (NTRMin) — Mon, 21 May 2007 13:09:17 GMT

By the way, David, I used a point of yours in the debate regarding "the question of the tempter." You included this in a post some time ago, and thought it made the point quite well. It appears close to the end of the closing statement. I think you'll recognize it when you hear it.

ES

Re: Svendsen-Pacwa debate review

feeds@yuku.com (DTKing) — Mon, 21 May 2007 08:51:35 GMT

This man had no permission to do anything with this recording.

Have a blessed day,
DTK

Re: Svendsen-Pacwa debate review

feeds@yuku.com (Rhology) — Mon, 21 May 2007 07:25:13 GMT

Found here:

rhoblogy.blogspot.com/200...eview.html

You could've improved in hindsight, Dr. Svendsen, but keep in mind that you could've been as bad as Fr. Pacwa.

I thoroughly enjoyed all of it.

Many thanks to PhilVaz for cleaning up my rough recording and re-posting it.

I'd also like to ask PhilVaz - whenever you've...

Re: Svendsen-Pacwa debate review

feeds@yuku.com (Ray Aviles) — Sun, 20 May 2007 14:57:52 GMT

I'm happy Alan recorded the interview and posted it, Eric. From someone who knows you to be more then just an "okay" apologist and debator (it's been awhile since you've been in the field ), I really wanted to hear it. I think I'll load it into my iPod and listen to it during breaks tomorrow. Regardless of how you may think you did, I always learn from you,...

Re: Svendsen-Pacwa debate review

feeds@yuku.com (Rhology) — Sun, 20 May 2007 12:29:55 GMT

Exactly, Dr. S.
My exact question was written down but was too long; the moderator read "Given the magisterial authority of Rome, what is the infallible list of the infallible teachings of the RCC?"

My reasoning was that, since RCs are always harping on Prots for not having an infallible Canon of Scr (which would be a list of infallible teachings), then Rome should be able to present one. But not just Scr is infallible for Rome; also certain RC teachings are infallible...

Re: Svendsen-Pacwa debate review

feeds@yuku.com (NTRMin) — Sun, 20 May 2007 05:23:57 GMT

One other point I wish I had stated more clearly: When I asked for a list of infallible teachings, I did not clarify (as I should have) that the list itself needed to be infallible. Obviously, anyone can refer to the catechism, or Ott, or the list on the Vatican site. But none of these is infallible, and they are not exact matches of each other. Rhology did in fact ask for an infallible list during the Q&A, and Pacwa danced there as well, stating that the list could be found on the...

Re: Svendsen-Pacwa debate review

feeds@yuku.com (NTRMin) — Sun, 20 May 2007 03:44:52 GMT

I agree with Rhology, there were no "aha"sin the debate. In fact, though it is not about me (God's grace excels in my weaknesses), I would give my own performance / presentation a mediocre rating at best. It wasn't horrible; but on reflection evidenced a lot of rust. I was disappointed that Pacwa danced around so many issues, particularly during cross exam, which ate up far too much of my questioning time. On reflection I...

Re: Svendsen-Pacwa debate review

feeds@yuku.com (Rhology) — Sat, 19 May 2007 17:48:01 GMT

Here it is.

Available until 26 May or 100 dnlds. After that I'll just redo it if anyone wants it.

It's around 37 MB.

Enjoy.

Svendsen-Pacwa debate review

feeds@yuku.com (Rhology) — Fri, 18 May 2007 19:51:22 GMT

Congrats Dr S on a job well done at the debate w/ Fr Pacwa tonight.

'Twas a mostly RC audience and I estimate that Fr Pacwa spoke at least 55% of the time during the cross-ex sessions and during the audience Qs.

Fr Pacwa did a jig on several issues, including my own question, but overall it was a good debate. There were no "Ah HA!!!!!!!!!!" moments in there; it was a tight and level exchange. And friendly.

More later.
Post here if you want the audio. I...