Debate Log

[Admin]

This is a log for the Debates forum.

Winners of a debate can post a summary here once the debate is closed.

This topic keeps a record of closed debates and gives a summary of the outcome, i.e., who won/lost the debate. Failure to argue the subject of the debate by either not posting due to being stumped, or avoiding the subject/question posed in the debate, results in losing the debate.

The winning argument for a debate is considered a solid argument and anyone who teaches the losing position in the debate hence forth should be shown this log and asked to answer the outstanding question or provide a reasonable rebuttal in order to continue teaching their point. Members who appose someone who is teaching a losing argument in a debate should post a link to this log as proof that they are required to give further evidence as to why they think they can teach a losing position in a debate.

Debates in the log so far:

[Admin]

Scripture teaches monotheism, not trinity
Paladin vs Kangaroo Jack.
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=4139

Outcome:
Kangaroo Jack abstained from this debate because he wasn't comfortable with the subject of the debate. Kangaroo Jack said:

Quote

Paladin, Your terms are unacceptable. I do not negate that Monotheism is taught in Scripture. Your assertion that I take the side of negating Monotheism as being taught in Scripture is a misrepresentation right off the bat. What I negate is that God is a numeric one. And what I affirm is that He is a unified one. I will not take the side of negating Monotheism. So you must rewrite the terms. This is about Arain Monotheism versus Trinitarian Monotheism and which is one is Scriptural. I noticed also that you as the affirmer enjoy the benefit of using a total of 1,000 more words than I the negater. So I get an additional negative rebuttal  up to 1,000 words. This gives us the option of using 12,000 words each.

Paladin replied with:

Quote

t8; Please lock the thread, as thethinker has capitulated. First he accepted my theme as stated, https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….=175001

Debate location:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=2483

NOTE:
The members could not agree to the terms of the debate, so no one won or lost this debate.

[Admin]

The dragon and the serpent of rev/gen
SimplyForgiven vs Jodi Lee

Outcome:
SimplyForgiven wins this debate due to Jodi Lee not participating.

Debate location:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=3579

NOTE:
Non-participation in a debate results in losing the debate.
Losing a debate does not mean that the winner is right, but that the opponent couldn't/didn't refute the oppositions view.

[Admin]

Kangaroo Jack versus t8 on christ's divinity
Kangaroo Jack versus t8
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=2982

Outcome:
Kangaroo Jack lost this debate. He couldn't refute t8's view that 1 John 5:20 is not saying that Jesus is the true God. Instead of admitting that he was stumped, he simply stopped posting in this debate.

Evidence:
The scripture being debated was 1 John 5:20:
20 We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

The killer blow to Kangaroo Jack's argument was this post from t8:

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 10 2011,18:42)

First off Roo, your interpretation completely ignores the Father. He is not mentioned at all this verse according to your view. Yet I can prove very easily that the Father is indeed mentioned and that he is the one who is true. Read this part slowly KJ. “And we are in him who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ.” Who ever is the true one mentioned in this verse, he has to be the father of the son because it clearly says, We are in HIM who is true, by being in HIS son. Who is the son mentioned here? We both know it is Jesus Christ. Who is the one who is true that has a son? We both know deep down that this is the Father and not the son, because Jesus never had a son did he? So by this very simple, clear, and reasonable reading of the text, we can see that the Father is the one who is true and we are in the Father because we are in HIS son. So all your Greek justification for your view just flew out the window once you see that the one who is true has a son. Do I hear an amen KJ?

Debate location:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….2;st=50

NOTE:
If anyone in the forums from hence forth teach 1 John 5:20 as a Trinity proof verse, (i.e., that according to this verse, Jesus is the true God), then they should be reminded of the outcome of this debate and given a link to this log. If they want to continue to teach that 1 John 5:20 teaches that Jesus is the true God, they first need to provide further evidence that was not contained in this debate and have the new evidence tested in a debate. Upon successfully debating their point, they can freely use that verse as a proof verse.

As it stands now, 1 John 5:20 is not a Trinity proof verse. Rather, it is proof that the Father is the true God.

[mikeangel]

I think God will decide all debates, with perfect discerment. I can't wait.. IMVHO. Peace-Mark

[Lightenup]

Heaven,
How do you justify closing a debate that two people are having when one person asks another person several questions and then before they have a chance of answering and defending their position, you close the debate 'by request.' Shouldn't the person being asked the questions have an opportunity to answer those questions? Shouldn't both participants be in agreement to close the debate? I request that the debate between Irene and I be re-opened so that I can give a closing remark. If Irene doesn't want to respond then she doesn't need to but you have taken away my chance for a rebuttal and freedom of speech by closing the debate without my agreement.

To all,
Does anyone think that it is fair for a moderator to close a debate just because of one of the two members requested it? In their last post, they ask me questions and then ask to close the debate without offering me an opportunity to answer. Why not just stop debating or responding? It seems cowardly to not give me a chance to answer the questions asked of me in their last post but instead ask me questions and then run to the moderator to close the debate so that I can't respond.

Here is the debate:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….7;st=10

Kathi

[Admin]

Quite easy.

When one member or group of a debate wants the debate closed, I close it. It is called free will. I have been closing debates for this reason since the beginning.

You can't have a debate if one party stops posting can you.

[Admin]

Although, I think it is fair to allow a closing post from yourself to address questions that have been left floating in the air.

If you want, I can open it for one more post from yourself for the purpose of addressing any questions or statements that were made. As long as you do not in turn create new questions for Irene to answer because her wish is to have this closed.

[Lightenup]

Yes, heaven, please open it for a closing post. Thanks!
Kathi

[Proclaimer]

2 Corinthians 4:42
t8  versus Kangaroo Jack

Outcome:
Kangaroo Jack lost this debate. He couldn't refute that 2 Corinthians 4:42 which speaks of the god of this age is Satan. He needed it to refer to the Almighty God in order to demonstrate that the word, 'theos' can only legitimately be used for the Trinity. He left the debate likely because he had no evidence.

Evidence:
It is believed by most, even Trinitarians that 2 Corinthians 4:42 is speaking of the Devil. He is also called the Prince of this world in another scripture and it talks about his fall in that context. Clearly not YHWH as KJ would have us believe.

[Author]

Posts