- This topic is empty.
- Posts
That is true SF, but what do you do when they don't follow the debate formats?
What we are proposing is some kind of solution for those who do not comply.Quote (kerwin @ July 31 2010,21:33) T8, Is it only the lack of answers to direct questions that you find objectionable?
If this is so then perhaps we should clearly indicate that a question is a direct question so that the person it is dirrected to knows that we would like an answer to it.
Have you also considered there are questions that are not best to answer directly such as a loaded question or one a questioner wants a yes/no answer to a query that is better answered with an essay answer.
Hi Kerwin,You have mirrored my concerns to a "T"!
God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (kerwin @ Aug. 01 2010,06:27) T8. What you state sounds reasonable.
I attempt to use logical reasoning when posting as I believe it is better for learning. Sadly I am most likely less than perfect in applying the principles which makes it beneficial when others point out my errors though I reserve the power to judge whether I believe they are errors.
I have observed enough that I believe a number of posters are most likely ignorant of the basic practices of logical reasoning though I believe that knowledge should be inborn to all human beings. I therefore attempt to explain my own process of arriving at a specific conclusion at times.
If you see any improvement I may make then please feel free to advise me.
This is true whether or not you choose to make a special area.
Hi Kerwin,You make very Good points.
If a Post were limited to one question:
large Posts could be addressed by others by
separating every point into their Post and requiring
and answer for each and every point they may find objectionable.God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Aug. 02 2010,11:44) Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 01 2010,06:27) T8. What you state sounds reasonable.
I attempt to use logical reasoning when posting as I believe it is better for learning. Sadly I am most likely less than perfect in applying the principles which makes it beneficial when others point out my errors though I reserve the power to judge whether I believe they are errors.
I have observed enough that I believe a number of posters are most likely ignorant of the basic practices of logical reasoning though I believe that knowledge should be inborn to all human beings. I therefore attempt to explain my own process of arriving at a specific conclusion at times.
If you see any improvement I may make then please feel free to advise me.
This is true whether or not you choose to make a special area.
Hi Kerwin,You make very Good points.
If a Post were limited to one question:
large Posts could be addressed by others by
separating every point into their Post and requiring
and answer for each and every point they may find objectionable.God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
To All,When I have done this very thing with WJ and Kang,
they do not respond to these type of Posts entirely!
But then continue to bolster their ideas without addressing
the concerns of others. This is the problem that needs to be addressed; T8!God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (t8 @ Aug. 01 2010,13:39) That is true SF, but what do you do when they don't follow the debate formats?
What we are proposing is some kind of solution for those who do not comply.
T8,
But thats the point of the thread based on debate fallacies, Thats the point of why i made a whole members profile based on Nick whether i should respond to his oneliners as an actual arguement.
How can you define if someone is complying or not?
its to general for such a forum.
The problem is not the forum, nor the formats its actually called disobediance, arrogance, and unbelievers.
I have effectivly proven that actually almost no one wants to follow a direct positive format that actually ends nonsense debates, no one actually wants to have a place to be cornered, nor proven wrong.
We are imperfect and flawed, therefore T8 no matter what you do, they will find a way out of it.
Unless they actually are open minded and willing to change.
Makeing a spot only for the reasonable is based on the judgement of whom?
There are those who are reasonable and unreasonable, but is that consistent?Lets go back to bible, Peter at one point was revealed by the Father of the identity of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the Messiah, and than right after Jesus's speech, Jesus rebukes Peter.
How is it that Peter was used by God and the Devil,
in other words he was reasonably opened minded to the Father and than unreasonaly closed and blinded by the devil.
In other words my brother, with that said how can we judge who is reasonable, when it might only be for that moment, yet say another is unreasonable when even he might change.
Unless we submit ourselves to Gods will, and under direct Prayer and communion with God. who can truely seperate one from another?How can you tell?
All you're going to have is one pointing fingers at another,
Even in a unifromed debate like Kj vs Mike over plural God, is like having children pointing fingers for whatever accusation they could find.
I do not believe having a section specifically for the so called "reasonable" believers will have any differnt effect, because in simple psychology will disagree and say that these people are again human, and the very reason they are in this forum is to be unreasonable,
For if they were reasonable, things would be different.
You would see love more than accusations.
You would see God moving in our very souls,
Yet is God really moving through this forum?
Where we have people like Stu sitting back and laughing at us for our bickering, and who can blame him?
He has spoken more truth in the matter of our behavior towards one another in this forum than any other.
Its humourous and sad, a Paradox understood by few.The point is making a reasonable forum section would only be reasonable if God is included, not as the subject but as our guidance and purpose.
Beacuse
…we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
If we say God is the center of our lives, that we love him, how is it that we are unreasonable?
If we are unreasonable than something must be wrong
And the fact that this thread exists, and that the suggestion is to make a section specfically for the reasonable only means that most of us are already unreasonable, which means we are still flawed, which means we need more of God in our lives,God bless and With lots of Love,
Hmm To add:
If we simply included God more instead of making him the subject than these problems wouldnt exist.
Do we stick to only what we THINK is right, or what God honestly has taught us?
Can we honestly admit to ourselves that we have a chance to be wrong?
Do we really pray for Gods opinion and not our own?Agreement is the Key.
What do we agree on?
Lets make a thread about that!hi T8
in consideration of previous comments and now my own,what if ;in the believers side the rule would be for someone posting constant quotes of what we all know not to be supported by scriptures ,moving this person to the non believers side,
this would be my preferred plan.but …….Pierre
Yes that could be a consideration.
We want to get quality posting in the Believers Area and anything that achieves that can be looked at.
Although "Skeptics Area" would need a name change if that were to happen.Quote (t8 @ Dec. 09 2010,15:59) Yes that could be a consideration.
We want to get quality posting in the Believers Area and anything that achieves that can be looked at.
Although "Skeptics Area" would need a name change if that were to happen.
T8I have no quarrel with that
Pierre
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Aug. 02 2010,19:05) We are imperfect and flawed, therefore T8 no matter what you do, they will find a way out of it.
And when they find their way out of it, they would be in danger of losing the right to debate in that forum.People also dodge the law all the time, but the law punishes them, and after a while they sometimes learn from that.
Quote (Ed J @ July 30 2010,06:35) To All, "Once freedom of speech is impinged, the voice of truth ceases to be heard."
At face value it may appear to be a good idea,
but let me show the flaws with this type of thinking
as censorship will certainly impede on Truth! (Click Here)First: Bias will determine which points are valid and which are not!
putting judgment in the hands of man and taking it away from God.Secondly: L o n g Posts with multiple questions will become a burden.
Thirdly: Questions can be asked in such a way that no answer can arise truth.
Fourthly: Loaded questions demanding a "Yes" or "No" will certainly prey on all here.
A viable Solution
Rather than censorship new categories should be developed.
Because we all see that certain Scriptures don't seem to fit
others overall understanding of the Bible. These Scriptures
should be explained by the person's understanding of God.
Everyone should grill until all our satisfaction is achieved.
For a person to revert back to fallacies, they'll look silly.
If a person chooses to ignore these Posts, it will make
their position appear to be fictitious or weak at best.
The category might be called: "The Hot Seat" for
they will be on the grill for all to openly peruse!This may not achieve agreements but it will certainly
slow down what it is that seems to concern you T8!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Greetings Ed…. This is not an infringement on free speech….just a formal request to submit comments and posts that make sense and could be understood…Quote (t8 @ July 27 2010,17:59) After all it is written that not all should be teachers as teaching incurs a greater judgement, both good and bad and Scripture and Doctrine is really a place for teachers. Whereas in Truth and Tradition for example, that is a great place for opinions and ideas, as well as teaching.
Hi t8So who will manage that and make the descision as to whether someone is ignoring a question or not?
For instance many times the question is answered and the one presenting it refuses to accept the answer as a valid one, so they keep asking the same question which then leaves the opponent to keep going in circles or just abandon the discussion.
As far as ignoring clear scriptures, well as you know there are many that are not clear, and many that fall on both sides depending on how ones own Bias interprets them.
For instance John 1:1, you would have to put all of the Unitarians like Gene, Kerwin, Marty and GM in the skeptics section for they say Jesus did not exist before he came in the flesh, but you would also have to put the Trinitarians there because they believe Jesus is God even though the literral translation of the text says "The Word was God". It doesn't say the Word is divine and the word "theos" is never translated that way.
So if I was a Trinitarian who owned this sight I would be putting all who didn't see John 1:1 as proof that Jesus is God in a skeptics area.
But if I were you I would put all Trinitarians in the skeptics area because they take the text like it reads.
IMO this seems like censorship. There is a difference in someone who believes Jesus is the Son of God who came and died for us and rose again though they believe in every way he is God like the Father, than someone who just flat out doesn't believe in the scritpures as being inspired and or that Jesus is the Son of God who died, was buried and rose again.
But to be honest everyone would end up in the skeptics thread especially people like Mike who wants to refute the Trinity. So it wouldn't make any difference.
You have to admit that a big part of the discussions here and what makes your site popular is the Trinitarians.
Blessings Keith
t8,
It is not to be expected in the open forums that all questions must be answered. That should be required in the debates forums only. Mikeboll has a lot of time and energy in his hands. One would never finish answering all his questions. He keeps a subject going on ad infinitum.
The open forums are for those who wish to reply to what they want when they want.
You never replied to my last post in our debate and I think nothing of it. I don't whine about it or beat my chest thinking I won just because you haven't replied.
If Mike had a real life he would not spend so much of his time here posting and making demands of people.
Roo
Keith said to t8:
Quote You have to admit that a big part of the discussions here and what makes your site popular is the Trinitarians.
More importantly is the fact that the trinitarians give the biblical Jesus. Without trinitarians Heaven Net would be all darkness instead of a combination of darkness and light.Roo
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Jan. 25 2011,02:34) Keith said to t8: Quote You have to admit that a big part of the discussions here and what makes your site popular is the Trinitarians.
More importantly is the fact that the trinitarians give the biblical Jesus. Without trinitarians Heaven Net would be all darkness instead of a combination of darkness and light.Roo
t8 these kind of remarks I don't like…and don't belong here…darkness belongs to those who are Anti-Christ and not in the believers section….
IreneQuote (Baker @ Jan. 25 2011,04:56) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Jan. 25 2011,02:34) Keith said to t8: Quote You have to admit that a big part of the discussions here and what makes your site popular is the Trinitarians.
More importantly is the fact that the trinitarians give the biblical Jesus. Without trinitarians Heaven Net would be all darkness instead of a combination of darkness and light.Roo
t8 these kind of remarks I don't like…and don't belong here…darkness belongs to those who are Anti-Christ and not in the believers section….
Irene
Irene,On the "Setting Nick straight" thread in the "Member profiles" forum t8 said that something I said was "antichrist." I said that God was reconciling the world in Christ. Is not reconciliation in Christ?
Yet t8 says that what I said is "antichrist." I was shocked.
KJ
Jack,
You have quickly replaced JA/Istari's role here. You are now the one who feels the need to go thread to thread insulting me even if I haven't posted on that thread.
To both you and Keith I say, ANSWER THE QUESTION and that will be the end of it. But just for an example, even though this is off topic, let me ask you both a simple straightforward question. The answer requires only a YES or a NO. Let's play "CAN THEY DIRECTLY ANSWER MIKE'S QUESTION"? Can they? Or do you all, like me, already expect them to dodge the actual question and instead spout miles of unrelated OPINIONS about how Jesus can still be God and call the Father "my God"? And then they'll probably (Keith especially) post 47 scriptures in red letters that are suppose to "prove" that Jesus is God, even though they have nothing at all to do with the simple DIRECT question I asked of them. And maybe, somewhere in the middle of all the crap, they might actually answer the question, but I don't see it because I gave up looking for the actual answer after reading the first 500 words of their post. So I'll ask again. And instead of just saying "YES" or "NO" – even if it IS the second time they answered it, they'll post another 500 words about how they already answered it, and about how I'm an idiot to keep asking anyway. And in that second 500 words of insults about me asking the same thing over and over, they'll STILL neglect to put a simple "YES" or "NO" to actually ANSWER THE FLIPPIN' QUESTION!
How much you wanna bet they either do what I just said, or ignore this question and post altogether?
Ready? Here goes:
Does God Almighty have a God?
Okay…………GO!
Hey Mike: Answer, NO! But the term God is subject to whatever an individual decides it to be to them. There are billions of people with billions of thoughts and billions of beliefs, which also mean there are billions of beliefs of God. Every person see, hears, and knows a
personal God of some sort, for themselves or no God at all. I believe there is only one source of existence or life. At 0-point energy on the Planck scale, actually minus -0 to the 31st power, all that is, was, and it joined and entangled as ONE living form, in a matrix of living plasmic substance from which everything that exists or will ever exist evolved forth from. All life evolves, there is no death. There is cessation of one form and transformation to another form but no death! Jesus called this life source Love.There was only Love! For those who believe in Jesus he paints a picture of God as a heavenly father/mother watching and experiencing from within their children. If we believe this to be true, which I do, then we can test every statement about God or any action supposedly required by God, in the Bible, with the test of Love. If love doesn't destroy and kill and have enemies and take land and steal spoils etc., then that is not the God of Jesus or me.
Sometimes letting Jesus be your teacher one must refuse to accept beliefs that don't align with his teachings. IMO, TK
Hi Tim,
I believe ALL the words of scripture. Even the ones where God has destroyed. It seems you are making up your own religion as you go along. And if that's the case, why bring Jesus into it at all? The God of the OT, who sometimes destroyed, is the One who spoke through His prophets about Jesus. And Jesus acknowledged that those prophesies were about him.
Tim, do you disregard Revelation – where Jesus comes as a mighty warrior with a sword coming out of his mouth? What do you think Jesus is going to do with that sword?
At any rate, thanks for answering my question. I was proving a point about Jack's prior post. And the point was apparently proved.
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
