- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,13:48) I like the idea of letting one of them (Mike) pick the resolve and the other (KJ) the format. Otherwise this isn't going to happen. I agree with KJ that there's a potential for the debate to go on ad infinitum if Mike runs with a freestyle format. I wouldn't sign up to that. I imagine KJ, like myself, would like it structured and with strict rebuttal and word limits.
And you'll have a voice in the matter when WE debate. What all of you fail to understand is that it will be short and sweet IF Jack has to account for his claims and IF he has to actually answer to mine. This has not happened for me on HN when debating against ANYONE. Kathi came the closest, and is taking a break, so I exclude her from my comment. EVERYONE else on this sight that I have disagreed with ALWAYS ENDS UP RUNNING from my questions and points.You did it today, Paul. And it wasn't the first time.
mike
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,14:10) Yes, SF, you and I can see the common sense in it. What about you Mike? Are you going to make a concession to make this happen or will you keep posturing and preening to the point where we can only conclude that you're evading a debate you suspect you may be dealt a painful lesson in?
How many times must I say it, Paul?!I'm NOT the one who has quit a debate or failed to answer a question put to me. Didn't I prove that earlier in this thread?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,14:24) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,13:48) I like the idea of letting one of them (Mike) pick the resolve and the other (KJ) the format. Otherwise this isn't going to happen. I agree with KJ that there's a potential for the debate to go on ad infinitum if Mike runs with a freestyle format. I wouldn't sign up to that. I imagine KJ, like myself, would like it structured and with strict rebuttal and word limits.
And you'll have a voice in the matter when WE debate. What all of you fail to understand is that it will be short and sweet IF Jack has to account for his claims and IF he has to actually answer to mine. This has not happened for me on HN when debating against ANYONE. Kathi came the closest, and is taking a break, so I exclude her from my comment. EVERYONE else on this sight that I have disagreed with ALWAYS ENDS UP RUNNING from my questions and points.You did it today, Paul. And it wasn't the first time.
mike
Look at it like this Mike. All discussions have to have a terminus, right? Since you're the type of person who always has to have the last say you'll probably experience others ending discussions with you a lot of the time. No one wants to go around the theological merry-go-round ad infinitum, at some point we get off and move onto something else. Better get used to it.Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,14:30) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,14:10) Yes, SF, you and I can see the common sense in it. What about you Mike? Are you going to make a concession to make this happen or will you keep posturing and preening to the point where we can only conclude that you're evading a debate you suspect you may be dealt a painful lesson in?
How many times must I say it, Paul?!I'm NOT the one who has quit a debate or failed to answer a question put to me. Didn't I prove that earlier in this thread?
Will you not make one concession on the format to make this debate happen?Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,14:44) Look at it like this Mike. All discussions have to have a terminus, right? Since you're the type of person who always has to have the last say you'll probably experience others ending discussions with you a lot of the time. No one wants to go around the theological merry-go-round ad infinitum, at some point we get off and move onto something else. Better get used to it.
Just a fancy way of saying, “When you're scripturally right, and we can't refute it, we run away and claim that you always have to have the last word.”
And as my previous post said, I AM used to it by now. When will you finish something you start? You posted all you thoughts on Heb 1, and I took time out of my life to clearly answer every one of them, just to have you say you're not going to respond. How fair is that, Paul? You just can't refute the points, that's all. What are you going to do when you get locked in the debate cage with just me and scripture and Dennison or the others yelling at you to answer the questions?
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,14:45) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,14:30) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,14:10) Yes, SF, you and I can see the common sense in it. What about you Mike? Are you going to make a concession to make this happen or will you keep posturing and preening to the point where we can only conclude that you're evading a debate you suspect you may be dealt a painful lesson in?
How many times must I say it, Paul?!I'm NOT the one who has quit a debate or failed to answer a question put to me. Didn't I prove that earlier in this thread?
Will you not make one concession on the format to make this debate happen?
I'm conceding to let him quit one debate with me and move on to another topic, even though his end is near in the other debate.He can concede to Q and A.
You're right – I can't refute your points Mike, not to your impossible standards anyway. No body can. You are an authority unto yourself Mike. No quantity or quality of evidence is enough to dissuade you of the Arian presuppositions you cling so tightly to.
“There are none so blind as those who will not see” – John Heywood, 1546.
“If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.” – Yeshua, ~AD 30
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,14:56) I'm conceding to let him quit one debate with me and move on to another topic, even though his end is near in the other debate. He can concede to Q and A.
I think you're just being implacable on the conditions because you know KJ won't accept yours. You're doing this because you're frightened to have a structured debate where your faulty theology is likely to be found out, exposed.Mikeboll said:
Quote And why can't we finish what we've already started?
For two reasons:1. We have already beaten the topics into the ground. All you have to offer is repetition. Let me ask you: Why not start a new topic?
2. Because there is no such word as “finish” with you. You will continue to compete for the last word until you wear me out again. Then I would quit and you would start beating your chest again. I want a debate that will actually “finish” without my having to quit.
Is this too hard for you to comprehend Mike?
the Roo
Michael, KJ is right, you need to start with a new topic or the debate is going to go stale very quickly. And it needs to have a strictly defined timeline (with rebuttal and word limits) or your psychological disorder is going to kick in and KJ will be trapped on the neverending theological merry-go-round.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,13:18) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,13:11) Mike can you at this point agree to a debate with KJ? You can pick the resolve (a colossal advantage), let him pick the format and lets be done with all this posturing….
Agree to a debate? We HAVE ONE GOING! Jack should agree to let others pipe in on our ongoing debate. No arguments, just some “Answer the flippin' question, Jack” comments.
You know as well as I do that he just wants to avoid the topics HE originally picked because of Eusebius and Ignatius. Another attempt at an end run.
Finish what you started, Jack!
TO ALL:Is Mike mentally present on this board? Is he under the influence of a substance when he is here? He wants to debate protokos and monogenes. We are PRESENTLY doing this in Scripture and Biblical Doctrine.
Mike wants others to pipe in. Duh! That's exactly what's going on in the Protokos thread right now in Scripture and Biblical Doctrine
Mike tells me to finish what I started. WHO STARTED THE PROTOKOS THREAD? ANSWER: MEEEEE!
1. We are dicusiing protokos and begotten now like Mike wants
2. Others are piping in like Mike wants
3. I am continuing with the subject like Mike wantsSo what's Mike's stone walling all about?
the Roo
The onus is on Mike to accept the reasonable conditions you've put forward. I hope the debate will happen because I think it will be a blood bath, but I'm not holding my breath.
Hi all,
I was recently adviced that if i want people to understand the simplicity of this format, and the good results it can produce, i need to be the example or in other words lead by example.
So I have been thinking who would be great to debate.
I have many choices.
I cant debate KJ, or WJ, becuase we havent clashed enough yet. and i think they are old timers too, like mike. (JK have a sense of humor)
I thought about numbers, but he doesnt make any sense, he makes knife comments.
Ed J i cant argue agaisnt numbers or english gamteria, or what not.
Mike is off the list for sure, becuase he doesnt want to debate the format.
Nick doesnt make sense. i might debate me with one line.
Gene and jodi almost fall in that same category.
So im left down to T8, Just Askin, David or Chosenone who many times have made very reasonable points. but the only one i really clashed with was with David and Co more than t8 or Ja. whomever wants to debate is fine.I talk to Rokkaman about being the Judge, because he is willing to argue with me all the time, and we duke it out alot, so its good because i know he is not biased. and is ready to make reasonable actions and validations.
Anyways those are the four people im willing to debate for now.
These are the topics im willing to debate for each individual, first come, first serve.
Under the CF Format. Im AFF for the first three topics.Chosenone- Resolve: “God has given man the choice to choose Him and receive eternal life or reject Him and recieve eternal damnation.”
David or T8- Resolve: “The Jews refered to in John 10, sought to stone Jesus for claiming to be God but not for claiming to be the Son of God, which results that Jesus intended to cliam that the Father and Son are one.”
JA- I cant think of a topic for you……surprise me.
if the topics arnt good enough let me know if you come up with something better.
I think Is/Paul, should debate david by the way.
much love,
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 19 2010,18:52) 2. Because there is no such word as “finish” with you.
thats just funny, hahaIs 1:18, it is not of love to try and force someone to do something they are not sure about. You know that feeling where someone says sign here and you think, hmmm, what is the real meaning if I sign here, and while they are thinking about the consequences the sales rep is putting on the pressure.
It appears to me that Mike just wants every point answered even with a “I don't know the answer” and then they can move to the next point. I think he is just trying to avoid all possible ways that a person can avoid a point.
Mike feel free to come up with a way that you are comfortable with and Roo can stipulate the way he wants it, and then perhaps you can meet in the middle. So long as whatever happens, no one can run away. Each person has to give an answer and if you/they can't, then admit you/they don't have an answer.
After all, we are judged by our fruits and honesty is commendable. Deception and dodgy tactics in order to win an argument does nothing for a person and nothing for the truth.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 14 2010,05:10) Okay Dennison, I'll wait for a taker. I've asked katjo, JA and Jack. We'll see what happens.
mike
t8, Mike has already agreed to this….Quote (t8 @ June 19 2010,19:36) Is 1:18, it is not of love to try and force someone to do something they are not sure about. You know that feeling where someone says sign here and you think, hmmm, what is the real meaning if I sign here, and while they are thinking about the consequences the sales rep is putting on the pressure. It appears to me that Mike just wants every point answered even with a “I don't know the answer” and then they can move to the next point. I think he is just trying to avoid all possible ways that a person can avoid a point.
Mike feel free to come up with a way that you are comfortable with and Roo can stipulate the way he wants it, and then perhaps you can meet in the middle. So long as whatever happens, no one can run away. Each person has to give an answer and if you/they can't, then admit you/they don't have an answer.
After all, we are judged by our fruits and honesty is commendable. Deception and dodgy tactics in order to win an argument does nothing for a person and nothing for the truth.
Q and A would be the quickest and best response to that.allowing each have a set number of questions and than an set number of rebuttles.
and than have conclusive points.
in other words,
Each would take turn just asking questions and thats it.
for lets say 10 questions each.One of them makes a summary point and case. and the other negates its,
haveing each two rebuttles,
and than a conclusion.
what do you think?
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 19 2010,19:24) Hi all, I was recently adviced that if i want people to understand the simplicity of this format, and the good results it can produce, i need to be the example or in other words lead by example.
So I have been thinking who would be great to debate.
I have many choices.
I cant debate KJ, or WJ, becuase we havent clashed enough yet. and i think they are old timers too, like mike. (JK have a sense of humor)
I thought about numbers, but he doesnt make any sense, he makes knife comments.
Ed J i cant argue agaisnt numbers or english gamteria, or what not.
Mike is off the list for sure, becuase he doesnt want to debate the format.
Nick doesnt make sense. i might debate me with one line.
Gene and jodi almost fall in that same category.
So im left down to T8, Just Askin, David or Chosenone who many times have made very reasonable points. but the only one i really clashed with was with David and Co more than t8 or Ja. whomever wants to debate is fine.I talk to Rokkaman about being the Judge, because he is willing to argue with me all the time, and we duke it out alot, so its good because i know he is not biased. and is ready to make reasonable actions and validations.
Anyways those are the four people im willing to debate for now.
These are the topics im willing to debate for each individual, first come, first serve.
Under the CF Format. Im AFF for the first three topics.Chosenone- Resolve: “God has given man the choice to choose Him and receive eternal life or reject Him and recieve eternal damnation.”
David or T8- Resolve: “The Jews refered to in John 10, sought to stone Jesus for claiming to be God but not for claiming to be the Son of God, which results that Jesus intended to cliam that the Father and Son are one.”
JA- I cant think of a topic for you……surprise me.
if the topics arnt good enough let me know if you come up with something better.
I think Is/Paul, should debate david by the way.
much love,
For me a debate is not about clashing with someone who is very different to me, I accept people's differences. My wife is different to me. She speaks a different language, is from a different culture, and we have other cultural differences. But I love that. For me, it is about debating truth versus lie.If scripture says one thing and a person says that scripture is saying something different, then I will debate that because truth is important and it needs defenders.
My only motive is for truth to be the winner. Think of it as putting a light on a hill, and not under a blanket. Even if I lose and truth wins, then I take that as a win, because truth should be the winner, and if truth proves me wrong, then I have the opportunity to align to that truth and become a better person which is my desire. After all, I want to stand when I am judged and not cover my face in shame on that day.
This is not about personal kudos, it's about the defense of truth.
“Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Timothy 4:2)
“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15)
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,19:39) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 14 2010,05:10) Okay Dennison, I'll wait for a taker. I've asked katjo, JA and Jack. We'll see what happens.
mike
t8, Mike has already agreed to this….
OK, let it begin.I hope that the people involved will be honest. And remember it is OK,to say, “I don't know”. And in saying that, it doesn't make the other person win the debate either. After all, we do not know all things. We need to be reasonable and look at the whole debate and add up the answers and non-answers and see who if any is in line with scripture.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
