Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 15:55:49 +0800
From: bereans@edsamail.com.ph
To: Patrick Kelly <selfsoft@pipeline.com>
Subject: A Letter from The Bereans
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.1
X-ELNK-AV: 0
Dear Ptr. Patrick,
Please visit our The Bereans Public Square Forum and respond to one of our INC (1914) visitor there. He commented about your correspondence with Jose Ventilacion below,
"I read the whole lot of the correspondence. It seems then that even in the letters, they are not coming up into an agreement. In the first few letters, JJV was very cordial in accepting the proposal. However, after Patrick Kelly
responded with sarcastic remarks, I think JJV smells something fishy and evil intention coming from the other side. Patrick Kelly is not the type of person an INC minister should be seriously dealing with. It will be just a waste of time." http://thebereans.net/forum/index.php?topic=4175.45
Please see Reply 51.
Thanks!
Justyn M.
www.thebereans.net
-----------------------------------
8/15/2005
Dear Justyn M.,
Thank you for your post of May 17, 2005. I apologize for taking so long to get back to you.
My personal web page is well documented, in chronological order, and contains all the dates and correspondences with which we are concerned. To this day, Mr. Ventilacion has not accepted any challenge to debate from either myself or Lanning Courtney. He has not even responded to them in writing to me, though he does correspond with others about the matter (http://www.pipeline.com/~selfsoft/emresp1.htm). My web page has been well read by members of the Iglesia Ni Cristo and their opponents alike.
In his letter to me dated April 12, 2002 (http://www.pipeline.com/~selfsoft/incresp1.htm), Mr. Ventilacion said I was a "seemingly intelligent man," but then went on to "name calling." In the last paragraph he said, "The questions that you have sent me to answer will be answered during the debate." Then, in the last sentence of the same he modified the statement saying, ".... you will need plenty of them as your 'inspiration' during the debate (granting there will be one)." He left himself a little wiggle room.
He said, ".... send me your proposals and I'll examine them if they are worthy of my consideration." Well, the proposal from me was sent. Also, the proposal from Lanning Courtney was sent (as it had already been sent in the past from Mr. Courtney). Mr. Ventilacion never answered. If the proposals were not "worthy," the least he could have done was be a gentleman and in a response explain why. Maybe some proposal could have been agreed upon, but he never gave such a chance. Is one side of a discussion obligated to submit solely to the terms of the other's dictates, or should they not be mutually agreed upon?
Simply asserting something does not make it so. Mr. Ventilacion asserted many things in his letter of April 12, 2002 and called many names. Here is an assertion: Felix Manalo was a student of the Restoration Movement. Does any want proof? (http://www.pipeline.com/~selfsoft/coc1933/coc1933.htm)
Mr. Ventilacion said, "One thing that I could be proud of is that with the three times that I sat down and arranged to have a debate with ministers/evangelist of the Church of Christ, alias Restoration Movement where you belong (which you vehemently denied), not one of them materialized! I hope that you are serious this time with your challenge to hold an intellectual debate in public."
Well, have I not been serious? Am I the one who ended the dialogue? Would one of those "three times" include the time Mr. Ventilacion sat at the same restaurant table with Lanning Courtney, or was that a different time? Why did that debate not take place? Why did Mr. Courtney never get a response to his multiple proposals? Why do I not get any? Why was Mr. Ventilacion in Westbrook, Maine bragging over a Lanning Courtney and a Dr. Billy Washington?
So the statement, ".... that with the three times that I sat down and arranged to have a debate .... not one of them materialized ...." remains true. Mr. Ventilacion will keep that statement true by turning down the offers of debate. And he can continue in his pride. As long as he does not respond, he can always say, "not one of them materialized." Now, he can add my name to the list of debates that never materialized.
Here is the post to which you asked me to respond:
"I read the whole lot of the correspondence. It seems then that even in the letters, they are not coming up into an agreement. In the first few letters, JJV was very cordial in accepting the proposal. However, after Patrick Kelly responded with sarcastic remarks, I think JJV smells something fishy and evil intention coming from the other side. Patrick Kelly is not the type of person an INC minister should be seriously dealing with. It will be just a waste of time."
The post agrees with the very points I made above when it states, "they are not coming up into an agreement."
It states, "JJV was very cordial in accepting the proposal." If the author of the post "read the whole lot," then he needs to read it again more carefully. No proposal from me was ever accepted, i.e., ever responded to in the form of a letter to me. There has only been silence. This keeps the debate from "materializing."
(http://www.pipeline.com/~selfsoft/receipts.htm)
I received a letter from Mr. Ventilacion dated March 22, 2002 (http://www.pipeline.com/~selfsoft/incofr1.htm) informing me of the "mechanics of the COMPARATIVE BIBLE STUDY that we have discussed last Saturday there in Westbrook, Maine." What I asked for was a "debate," and I was careful to use only that word. The language "COMPARATIVE BIBLE STUDY" belonged solely to Mr. Ventilacion.
That same letter stated, "After you or the person who shall represent your group have read the rules that shall govern this activity, send me a letter that you agree with the rules stipulated on that paper. If you have some additional modification or suggestion to these rules, send them with these documents that I have sent you." Thus the "rules" were "stipulated" to me. Yet, I was given the opportunity for "modification or suggestion."
I took the opportunity, made modifications and suggestions, and sent them to Mr. Ventilacion in a letter dated April 2, 2002 (http://www.pipeline.com/~selfsoft/resp1.htm). After giving my modifications and suggestions, as I was invited to do, I stated, "A proposition for debate will be sent to you in the near future."
During that time I received a response from Mr. Ventilacion dated April 12, 2002 (http://www.pipeline.com/~selfsoft/incresp1.htm) in which he tried to reply to my first Open Letter dated March 31, 2002.
I responded to this letter in a second Open Letter dated April 25, 2002 (http://www.pipeline.com/~selfsoft/resp2.htm).
Mr. Ventilacion responded to my first open letter, but has never responded to the two debate proposals I sent him, one from myself and the other from Lanning Courtney, though he has had them in possession since June 6, 2002 (http://www.pipeline.com/~selfsoft/receipts.htm).
The post states, "Patrick Kelly is not the type of person an INC minister should be seriously dealing with." Maybe a "seemingly intelligent" person is not the type with which an INC minister wants to deal. Therefore, what type of person do I have to be? The person making the post does not know me. Well, he at least agrees with Mr. Ventilacion and the INC Administration. None of these three think an INC minister should debate myself or Lanning Courtney. I'll leave it to the discerning public as to why. If "seriously dealing with" me would be a "waste of time," then what would not be a waste of time? Who is it they should be dealing with? Let them tell me and we'll see if we can find him.
Sincerely,
Patrick Kelly