Now, I would like to share a few samples of Mr. Brito's response to what was presented:

"Wow, is that the best theology you can produce?! Poor Ratzlaff's disciples! I tell you that I am not impressed at all"

"As I said, the clear intention of Mr. Koot is to GET RID OF THE SABBATH AT ANY COST"

"Then, we come to the point of analyzing my study, "10 Reasons Why the Sabbath IS NOT a Ceremonial Precept".
Can you refute this study?"

"This "Jesus sloganeering" to get rid of the Sabbath commandment is a mere smokescreen to justify the neglect in obeying a clear commandment of God."

"Then, it is clear, from a grammatical perspective, that we can present this point, that Jesus will address many of these "Jesus sloganeering" folks with these terrible words. They better pay serious attention to this linguistic detail."

"he "linguistic" point that I made is not in the sense that everyone should know their Greek and Hebrew grammar to be approved by God, but that their attitude is an attempt to circumvent a clear neglect in doing God's will."

"As to Mr. Koot's last post, it shows that he has nothing new to present in the field of anti-Sabbatarianism, but to resort to the same old misunderstandings, twisting of texts and arguments from silence."

"And notice that he ostensively IGNORED my 10 reasons why the Sabbath is not a ceremonial precept."

"And Mr. Koot, especially, has nothing to manifest his prejudiced ideas before answering those pending matters. Looks like he is seriously considering throwing the towel, after all."

"Now, let's see if fairness can be established in this discussion. Mr. Koot smartly ignored MY QUESTIONS and imposed HIS QUESTIONS. Everybody can see that I ANSWERED HIS, but how about his answers to mine? My friends, that is what I face in forum after forum of which I participate, in three languages (Portuguese, Spanish and English). Opponents flee from answering objectively my questions, but feel free to address me theirs. This is a clear attempt to MANIPULATE THE DEBATES to impose their argumentative agendas."

"And notice that he ostensively IGNORED my 10 reasons why the Sabbath is not a ceremonial precept."

I am not going to take more of my time to cite more examples. Mr. Brito's approach was argumentative, inflammatory, demeaning and even contemptuous.

In the end, Mr. Brito was unable to answer the points which were raised. I then began receiving PM's from Mr. Brito, which were quite unkind.

May I suggest, Stan, that since you raised question about Mr. Brito, then perhaps you could give him some suggestions about how to be civil, courteous and respectful of others in this kind of format. That would go a long, long way toward addressing concerns.

Dave

Ever been in a situation, where every time you said something, or wrote something, someone picked it apart?

How would you, Stan, characterize Brito's invitation to refute what he said? What would be a reasonable response to that invitation, on a *discussion* forum?

Maybe I should rephrase that sentence.

One of the things that drives people away, is when someone feels it is their calling to chew, spit out, and correct every post.

How would you characterize this invitation?

"If you are able to present to me a full refutation of one by one of my 10 points I promise that I will never mention this Sabbath idea to anyone, either in the Internet or other means.
Agreed?!"

What would be involved in making a 'full refutation of one by one of my 10 points'?

I choose not to be a part of this discussion, but I must agree with Stan's statement...that is the big thing that drives people away

Yes he said that...

and Yes he is tired of having to defend himself everytime he comes on here, that was not told to me but to others..

But THE truth is this,

When people are in a situation where someone tries to correct everything they say or do, they leave. Lots of people say that about their x-spouse as well.

Not everything needs to be corrected.

But we're not talking about 'every post' here, nor are we talking about anyone feeling it is their calling to 'chew, spit out, and correct every post.' None of that is the issue here.

The specific issue here is someone who billed himself as a defender of the faith, who billed the discussion as 'challenging questions for a challenger of the faith,' who INVITED debate, who CALLED it a debate, who specifically challenged others to try to refute his position statement, and who was argumentative, inflammatory and demeaning in carrying forward the discussion.

THAT is the specific issue here. The solution? If Mr. Brito became 'tired' of having his position challenged, then he should not have challenged others to challenge his position! But he did that, there were those who took him up on it, and it did not go well for his position. Then, he started getting abusive, and then he left! Those are issues HE needs to deal with, within himself.

ok, try and find out why he is not coming back... and why he is posting his research elsewhere... I have been wrong before... and I am sure it will happen again...