QUESTION: Why do you and Rando pretend to be other people and ask and answer your own criticisms regarding Holland? It weird. You make yourselves look way worse than what you say about Holland svAnyone can see it, so why do you do it? Legit question.
ANSWER: Problem with your question is that I don't really know who is asking.
The only thing that I can go by is the assumed name of the questioner - like you Cris.
There's no email or the known name to go by.
So like you Chris - how do I know that you're not Holland?
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: Well, I know that I read on this site several times that an "expert" can see where the question originates from. True? I am sure you have received enough responses from Holland to know that his questions do NOT come from the same location as mine do. I have asked many questions on this forum in the past for you to know mine always come from the same place. So I know that you know this is NOT Holland. Nice try though. So,I would really like to know the answer to my original question, "why do you ask and Rando orchestrate your own q & a,s to discredit Holland? Legit question.
Sure we can see where the question originates but that too is not a good indicator if it's the same person asking/posting. For instance I received a question from someone that originated in UK. Then a few weeks later it says Australia, then later it says Japan. So the location doesn't really tell you if it's the same person with the same screen name.
As for orchestration, nice try though.
But hmmm, where did you get this idea Chris?
Maybe I can use it to discredit Holland.
Nah, DHolland does that on his own already.
So no need for it.
In fact, here. Tell me who is lying?
DHolland sends me this post, stating:
<>"Oh, and by the way, why did you LIE, and claim that I “challenged you to a debate” on Hell? Eddie, with every writing you post, you show extreme ignorance and a complete inability to get ANYTHING factually correct."
Yet this is what he said in another letter to me: a challenge to debate hell.
<<>>"Now, I will be happy to debate you on the Scriptural nature on the doctrine of Hell, if you would like. I don’t think you will do it, though. Not if you’re smart, anyway.
So who is discrediting whom here? Can you tell me if you're honest, who is lying?
Isn't' it obvious?
Now, he comes back with this:
So, I merely told you that you needed to answer MY questions and stop diverting, and that if you were just wanting a discussion on Hell (since you brought it up), <b>then we could debate
that topic “if you wanted to”. I believe that was my exact words, was it not? “If you would like” ….again, because you were intent on changing the subject to Hell, and ignoring my questions."</b>
“If you would like”
Really? This is not a call to debate? An invitation, a challenge to debate his Hellfire doctrine?
Note again the complete words, followed by sarcasm "Not if you’re smart, anyway".
"if you would like. I don’t think you will do it, though. Not if you’re smart, anyway."
This is just the latest. I have more if you're interested. You can follow up and I'll give you some more.
In any case, my antennae are up, who are you Chris? Legit question.
1de·bate noun \di-ˈbāt, dē-\
: a discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something