PART TWO
RULES OF DEBATE
　
What we do not want to do here is jump around all over the place, winding up confluent and incoherent. It is my blog, so we will be credible and with biblical references, taking it slow, hashing out a specific stance. In other words, those of you on the opposing side might state Jesus’ encounter with the rich man in Mark 10, (underscoring the debate for and against redistribution of wealth). In the middle of laying out one’s perspective on that story, let’s not allow another participant to change the subject to charity that could be found in say, Matt. 22:37-39, or Mark 12:29-31. I’m just saying at the very least that we will agree to disagree before moving on to highlight another event, sermon, or parable in the life of Jesus. When I said above, “take it slow”, hey! I have some responsibilities in life! There are going to be times that I will not be able to rebut comments immediately. So don’t go talking on top of yourself, we won’t solve the problems of the world this or next week. Let us reason together.

I am not inviting you all to my blog in an attempt to make someone look bad and will carefully with an open mind consider your viewpoints. I have not exaggerated my claim of the desire to alleviate the suffering of the poor and afflicted. The ultimate end to this debate is to further my attempt to do so, that is, to alleviate suffering where it is possible, and to ask you who appose my methods to join me. That is to say, we, all of you who will visit my bog and make comments over the next several months, and myself, will together come to a conclusion and then take systematic and curative action. I hope you will join me to that end.

And you thought I was going to suggest a lengthy (common to any Crosby list) compilation of subjective decrees in an attempt to stifle dissent.

Tomorrow, The Start of Debate. I hope you all will allow me a bit of editorializing as I initiate debate in the morning. Thanks, BC