I believe I have strongly delivered my points through my presentation, my cross-examination, my answer to his cross-examination and to my rebuttals on why God’s mandate on 10% cannot be done in today’s time specifically in church governance, if it is being done in today’s time, that is not the God’s mandate in regards to 10% rather, a counterfeit tithe cleverly designed by men to rob people of their money without them being aware to a point that they will even defend it. I would even say, the cleverest religious scam of all time! See here
Click here on debate links:
What I would like to press on was the attitude he showed in the debate.
Let me recap what actually happened.
First– He challenges me for debate.
Second – He was the one who tagged and picked the moderator who actually has the same stand as him on tithing.
Third– On our first propose debate, he failed to vet the rules of the debate which was draft by the moderator herself before agreeing to it. In the moderator’s rule, it says there that the reference to be used was bible only apparently, his presentation had references that cannot be found in the bible. He eventually conceded for the reason of technicality but actually, it was because he failed to vet the rules of the debate.
Fourth: A rematch was proposed and this time, he composed the topic of the debate and adjusted the rules as according to his preference. Here, I was under the impression that he already vetted the rules of the debate carefully before agreeing to it. The rules were neither made by us but were agreed by both us in the beginning.
Fifth: The debate started, presentations were presented and I started to cross-examine his presentation. He keeps complaining that my questioning was not in the context of his presentation and demanding me to ask a simple question but, the rules did not say that question should be asked in the context of the presentation nor it says to ask a simple and easy question. It only says to ask found in the presentation not necessarily within the context of it. The moderator ruled to follow the stipulated rules which I did.
Sixth: The first violation he commits was during my Q4 when I asked a verse on to WHOM the tithe was commanded to collect. He quoted Matt 23:23 apparently, the verse did not say on to WHOM the Pharisee shall give their tithe. So, the moderator requested him to rephrase his answer but he refuses, telling the audience that he rather take the violation than lose dignity. This was the first sight of Pharisee syndrome which he displayed often during his cross-examination.
A Pharisee syndrome is when a suppose spiritual leader who obtains a degree in theological study finds himself to be always correct especially if the one correcting him may it either by the moderator or his opponent did not study what he had studied in theological school. He feels like he cannot be wrong and should not be corrected by someone academically lower than him in the same manner that Pharisee feels insulted when Jesus who was merely a carpenter corrected them.
Seventh: I also complained about the way he answers as he was explaining things and answering my question that I did not ask but, the moderator ruled against me and said that, I cannot questions the way he answers as long as it answers the question. Moreover, this was seconded by Mr. Carl telling the audience I should not complain and demands for satisfaction to answers. See below
I followed the moderator judgment without argument.
Eighth: My cross-examination was completed noting the moderator judgment as I planned to just do in the rebuttal part. He proceeded to cross-examine my presentation. Here, he complained about my answer in his Q5 and demanded that I rephrased it. The moderator ruled his objection fairly the same on what he told me during my cross-examination which was, should he feel like I did not satisfy his question, he can do it in the rebuttal part. But, he did not accept the moderator ruling. Here, he quarreled with the moderator telling her how she should understand the rules of the debate which she wrote herself and which he accepted in the beginning.
Their argument goes back and forth but blaming me of what happened to a point where he appealed to other Admin regarding Ms. Christine decision.
When the appeal came out through Ms. Christine, his appeal was denied and the decision was still the same – to do it in the rebuttal.
Yet, he still did to accept their verdict. Here, the Pharisee syndrome was on display. He cannot seem to accept that someone who did not obtain theological study as him was denying him, he must feel that the moderator was not seeing what he was seeing because why should she, she did not study what he studied. This was the same manner shown by the Pharisees when they cannot seem to accept that someone lower than them – a mere carpenter was correcting them on what suppose to be their forte
Ninth: This time around he was showing disrespect to the moderator purposely not tagging her and even when he had an objection, he was already directly addressing me seemingly like acting as the moderator telling me that I should do this and that and what rules I violated.
Tenth– Because of his act of being disrespectful to the current moderator which he picks himself and him requesting to change the moderator. The moderator decided to be inactive to give way to the other 2 admin to moderate on his request.
Eleventh– The Moderators he requested to which one of them- Ms. Glomen showed bias early on leaning towards him did not respond and, after repeated attempt for them to cater Mr. Carl request, there was still no response. It was becoming clear that they were not at all interested to moderate. So, rather than the debate not to move forward as it reached an impasse, I decided to post my rebuttals since he does not want to proceed with his questioning as he waits for the new moderator who, actually has no interest to moderate. He was also prideful not to request back again the one who moderated us since the beginning.
Twelfth– Here, where there was no more moderator, he was like freed to accused me that I violate this and that with no other witness but himself.
Thirteenth– He accused me of being afraid to be questioned so, I told him that no one is stopping him to continue his questioning unless he finds my presentation solid that he cannot find questions to examine it. To test this notion, I even asked him to add +5 more questions. Only then, he proceeded with his 8th question. But, every time I answer, since there was no more moderator, he seems to enjoy the free buffet of accusation that I violate this and that as if it was his right to impose a violation. On the other hand, below were his violations which the moderator imposed on him.
The rules that he violated were the following;
As you can see, the violations were about his manner. Ironically, he calls himself a pastor who suppose to teach good manner to people. Yet, he displayed a manner that reflects a Pharisee. At some point, he even selectively accused the moderator of tailoring story, take note he picks the moderator himself not to mention that they have the same stand on tithing. He even called the moderator “Good” in the beginning up to the point where she fairly applied the rules to both of us, at that point, he started to disrespect her.
At one point also, he told me that I failed him in terms of comprehension as if the debate was done for him to be satisfied. It’s like he called me out for debate in a hope that I don’t fail him. This attitude is self centrism or narcissism.
Even name called me and judge me to be stupid, uneducated, did not finish college and high-school.
Perhaps, he resorted to this act for me to lose composure on raising my arguments but I know better as the saying goes;
Thinking is difficult, that’s why most people judge.” – Carl Jung
Overall, based on the way he acts in handling his arguments, it’s clear that he is a disgrace to the title pastor which he attached to himself. This guy is obviously a counterfeit one the same as tithing being taught and practiced by him.
He obviously did not show the fruit of the spirit
“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,” Galatians 5:22 NIV
Thus, if you ever encounter this guy, do not hesitate to confront him about his wrongful belief because in Ephesians 5:11, we ought to expose the work of darkness. You have nothing to worry about especially when he imposes the verse that says “touch not the anointed”, I am pretty sure that he is not one of them so, you can touch the teachings of this guy since he is doing more harm spiritually than good.
Post comment by Carl after posting my conclusion.
This guy really is confirmed narcissistic- having or showing an excessive interest in or admiration of oneself.
His rebuttals are taking so long and conclusion does not require that I rebut again his rebuttals to my answers therefore, it can be done even if his rebuttals are still in progress. Actually, the moment she argued with the moderator and lose her since she chooses to inactive when my opponent disrespected her, at that point, I already have enough information to make my conclusion.
He seems to also have the habit of not being honest. In his rebuttal 7, he denied and push it to me that it was not him who implied that the term “mandate” should not be linked to God when it was him who said the below;
The below is a screenshot of what he said in his rebuttal 7, look how he denied the above.