- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (francis @ Dec. 11 2010,06:55) And so what I do, is try very hard to look at all the available relevant material… listen to what the majority of respected scholars have to say… pray for wisdom… look at what both sides have to say… weigh the facts… and then come to what i feel is the best and most reasonable inference from the facts and the material before me. And once I have made a determination, I always try and keep an open mind in case someone comes by with new information that might result in having to change my opinion. It's not easy, but I don't know how else to do it.
SO IN CONCLUSION… I feel the evidence points more convincingly towards the Trinity, rather than it pointing away from the Trinity. And i believe that the economic and ontological Trinity (among other approaches) shows that the verses you have brought up does nothing to suggest that Jesus was not Divine.
Hi Francis,Thanks for the response. I agree with much that you posted. Listen, I'm a moderator on this site and am active in many threads. I would enjoy discussing the trinity with you if we can do it one point at a time and keep it to brief, to the point posts.
I've noticed your posts are often very wordy. I would prefer a Q and A, one point or scripture at a time discussion. And we should not move on to another point or scripture until we are both agreed that the previous point or scripture is resolved as best it can be. Even if that resolution is an “Agree to Disagree” position.
I'll set it up as a debate thread so we won't have interuptions. Look for “mikeboll64 vs francis” (Does the Trinity Doctrine Make Sense?)
Let's start with a VERY BRIEF history of the trinity doctrine, okay?
No time limits………post when you can or want and I'll do the same.
peace and love,
mikeP.S. Is it Mr. or Mrs.?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 11 2010,12:37) Quote (francis @ Dec. 11 2010,06:55) And so what I do, is try very hard to look at all the available relevant material… listen to what the majority of respected scholars have to say… pray for wisdom… look at what both sides have to say… weigh the facts… and then come to what i feel is the best and most reasonable inference from the facts and the material before me. And once I have made a determination, I always try and keep an open mind in case someone comes by with new information that might result in having to change my opinion. It's not easy, but I don't know how else to do it.
SO IN CONCLUSION… I feel the evidence points more convincingly towards the Trinity, rather than it pointing away from the Trinity. And i believe that the economic and ontological Trinity (among other approaches) shows that the verses you have brought up does nothing to suggest that Jesus was not Divine.
Hi Francis,Thanks for the response. I agree with much that you posted. Listen, I'm a moderator on this site and am active in many threads. I would enjoy discussing the trinity with you if we can do it one point at a time and keep it to brief, to the point posts.
I've noticed your posts are often very wordy. I would prefer a Q and A, one point or scripture at a time discussion. And we should not move on to another point or scripture until we are both agreed that the previous point or scripture is resolved as best it can be. Even if that resolution is an “Agree to Disagree” position.
I'll set it up as a debate thread so we won't have interuptions. Look for “mikeboll64 vs francis” (Does the Trinity Doctrine Make Sense?)
Let's start with a VERY BRIEF history of the trinity doctrine, okay?
No time limits………post when you can or want and I'll do the same.
peace and love,
mikeP.S. Is it Mr. or Mrs.?
Hi Mike,Francis is a male, the only way he will accept an argument with you is if you first agree on terms and definitions so if you do not accept the trinity at least for the sake of argument you will not have an argument he can accept. So the idea is you have to show him the invalidity of the trinity of God by allowing it to be argued as valid and then showing it to be illogical or incorrect.
This actually can help you as I told him he hemped me by seeing it his way simply because if Jesus is called The son of God and God is a triune being then ultimately the scriptures would be saying that Jesus is the son of a Triune being although Jesus is to be part of the triune being.
And since Jesus cannot be a triune God even if someone were to agree that Jesus was God he certainly couln't be the Triune God himself and therefore not God at all.
Quote Hi Mike, Francis is a male, the only way he will accept an argument with you is if you first agree on terms and definitions so if you do not accept the trinity at least for the sake of argument you will not have an argument he can accept. So the idea is you have to show him the invalidity of the trinity of God by allowing it to be argued as valid and then showing it to be illogical or incorrect.
This actually can help you as I told him he hemped me by seeing it his way simply because if Jesus is called The son of God and God is a triune being then ultimately the scriptures would be saying that Jesus is the son of a Triune being although Jesus is to be part of the triune being.
And since Jesus cannot be a triune God even if someone were to agree that Jesus was God he certainly couln't be the Triune God himself and therefore not God at all.
Hello Asana…
Unfortunately I fear that you've misunderstood what I've said.
1)… Of course two people have to agree on terms and definitions. If you don't, how can someone understand what you say?
If you use the word Muhammad… and someone thinks the word “Muhammad” means sky or red… how could you communicate with that person at all? It's logically impossible. That is why the Law of Identity is iron clad.
So of course people have to know what you mean when you say something, otherwise they won't know what you are talking about. That is what agreeing on terms and definitions mean!!
2)… In our prior conversation… I never said that you HAD to accept my definition of God. What I clearly said was that there are times when, for arguments sake, YOU CAN accept another person's premise and definitions even if you personally disagree with them, and still be able to show that the other persons' argument is logically inconsitent EVEN IF WE ACCEPT HIS PREMISES AND DEFINITIONS. And I listed 3 tactics to do this with.
I even wrote the following:
Quote What you should have done… logically speaking… is one of two things: (1)… make the claim that EVEN IF God was Trinitarian, I would still be wrong to say that Jesus is God.. and then list the reasons why you believe that my belief in a Trinitarian God DOES NOT GET ME OFF THE HOOK in saying that Jesus had a resurrected body which manifests itself differently within an space-time contiumm other than our own.
Or (2)… recognize that we believe in the nature of God differently and start a debate about whether God is Trinitarian or not before we can debate whether Jesus is God.
But you didn't do either of these two.
Now… why did I go to the trouble of listing the 3 tactics which can be used to show an internal logical inconsistency in your opponents argument? Because it was to show that you were incorrect when you said that in logic, you couldn't do what I had said you could do.
Here again is what you ACTUALLY WROTE:
“That is faulty logic because you are saying in effect that I would have to accept an illogical framework and then show inconsistency in that framework when in-fact that would be inconsistent with the entire basis of logic which is to have agreeable premises that are true or at least believed to be true.”
Now… you wrote this, not me. My post was in response to what YOU WROTE!!
Please… look again at what you actually wrote. You SAID that to accept an illogical framework would be…
…”inconsistent with the entire basis of logic which is to have agreeable premises that are true or at least believed to be true.”
See? That is what you ACTUALLY wrote!! I didn't write that. YOU DID!!! YOU WROTE IT!!!
In response… what I did was to show you that this statement of yours was factually and logically incorrect by giving you 3 different logical tactics… used throughout the world… which shows that YOU CAN, FOR ARGUMENTS SAKE, ACCEPT AN ILLOGICAL FRAMEWORK WITHOUT BEING INCONSISTENT WITH THE ENTIRE BASIS OF LOGIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I honestly don't understand how I could have written what I did earlier, any more simply. What more could I have possibly said to make it easier to understand? It's so plain and so simple and so obvious if you just read what I write instead of invent things I never said.
And what was your reaction? You decide to twist what I said into a pretzel so that it is completely unrecognizable.. twist it into a strawman argument… and then you give it to Mike and tell him that this is what I said… when I never said any such thing.
Look Asana… I have to confess that I'm completely dissappointed. When I read your post on page 2.. posted on Dec. 11 2010 at 07:48, I thought we were friends and making a connection. It looks like I was wrong.
In response to your post on Dec. 10 2010 at 12:11, I said that I appreciate your gentle spirit and that I was going to write out my understanding on what you've raised.
I've decided after your post to Mike, it appears to be a lost cause between us. I tried my best, but I've failed.
The answer I was going to write was not going to be all that different from the answer I had given to before, concerning the questions you raised. So if you are interested at all in what I had to say, in how I would have responded to your questions, then I invite you to reread what I had written to you on…
A)… page 7 posted on Sep. 03 2010 at 19:46
B)… page 8 posted on Sep. 07 2010 at 12:49 (where I actually give you definitions from the dictionary and Wikipedia.)
C)… and page 12 posted on Sep. 15 2010 at 09:45
But since it appears to be a lost cause between us, I've decided to enter a debate with Mike and I have already supplied my 1st response to his question.
And guess what Asana… Mike did not and does not have to accept the Trinity.
What you failed to understand is that Mike and I already know what the Trinity is, so we had already agreed on definitions. But what happened between you and I was that you DID NOT define the word “GOD” in your OP. And that is what started our discussion about logic and definitions of terms, etc. Do you see the difference of what happened between us and what happened between Mike and I?
Well.. Goodbye Asana
Take Care
I wish you well.Respectfully
FrancisYou can't argue logically with trinitarians because logic to them is EVIL
. However logic when applied to the bible is SCRIPTURAL!!!!!!!!Romans 12:1, Romans 10:17, John 1:32, Proverbs 19:15, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, Acts 17:11, Proverbs 2:1-12, Romans 12:2, 1John 4:1, 1 peter 3:15
Quote You can't argue logically with trinitarians because logic to them is EVIL . However logic when applied to the bible is SCRIPTURAL!!!!!!!!Hello betweenchristendomandjws….
Your statement that logic is evil to trinitarians, is the most curious and baffling things i've read so far in this forum. Where on earth would you get that idea from? Certainly not from me. And certainly not from the best and brightest Christian thinkers alive today… who are also trinitarians.
For example, we have William Lane Craig who is a world class philosopher and theologian (a Ph.d in both disciplines). He is so knowledgeable and so logical and so rational that even the best and brightest atheists all agree that he is best Christian debater alive today. Even the most famous of all atheists on earth… Richard Dawkins… won't agree to debate William Lane Craig one-on-one.
We also have Alvin Carl Plantinga, a world renowned analytic philosopher. Plantinga is a Christian and famous around the world for applying the methods of analytic philosophy to defend orthodox Christian beliefs. He is so good that his work started a revolution in American philosophy. When he first came onto the scene, most American philosophers were either atheists or agnostics. Because of his work, most American philosophers are now theists.
There are also many scientists who are Christians or theists… all who use and value logic and do not consider logic evil.
So where you get this notion that trinitarians believe logic is evil, is beyond me. I suppose you might find some trinitarians somewhere that honestly do believe that logic is evil, but they would be in the minority and simply incorrect.
How can logic be evil when God is logical himself and when H gave man logic? Logic did not come from man or from Satan.. but from God Himself.
And my favorite passage is 1Peter 3:15. Look at what this verse says in the Amplified:
But in your hearts set Christ apart as holy [and acknowledge Him] as Lord. Always be ready to give a logical defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully” (Amplified Bible)
Did you know that in the original Greek, the phrase “logical defense” is referring to how lawyers present their case in a courtroom? In the scriptures, we Christians are commanded to give a logical defense… a rational presentation of our case like you would see a lawyer do in a courtroom… full of facts and logic and reason and evidences in support of our faith in Christ and God.
And this logical defense… this “courtroom brief”… is not confined to using scriptures alone in our defense… but it applied to using the whole world of philosophy and science and math, etc in our defense of our faith.
So I… a trinitarian… and the best and brightest and smartest Christian who are also trinitarians… completely reject and disagree with your statement that trinitarians think logic is evil.
You might find some trinitarians who do think logic is evil… but so what? Just because a person is a Christian, it does not mean they are able to think very deeply or are even completely rational. Christ died for all… whether you are thoroughly logical or not. So that might be the reason why you will find Christians who are not always able to think on a completely logical level seen at a philosopher's or scientist's level.
The fact is, there is no evidence that logic is evil. Logic is only a tool given to us by God to use. Sure, logic can be misused and abused…. just as any tool can be used for evil… but that doesn't make the tool itself evil. It is the heart of the person who uses a benign tool for evil, it is the heart that is evil… not the tool.
Anyway… sorry for the long response, but nothing galls me more than the thought that logic and thinking is somehow evil or bad for Christians to use and engage in. The attitude in many parts of the world is that to be a Christian, you must “turn off” your mind. That is the most silly and untrue statement one could ever believe in.
Sorry again for the rant.
God Bless You
FrancisQuote (francis @ Dec. 12 2010,15:27) Quote Hi Mike, Francis is a male, the only way he will accept an argument with you is if you first agree on terms and definitions so if you do not accept the trinity at least for the sake of argument you will not have an argument he can accept. So the idea is you have to show him the invalidity of the trinity of God by allowing it to be argued as valid and then showing it to be illogical or incorrect.
This actually can help you as I told him he hemped me by seeing it his way simply because if Jesus is called The son of God and God is a triune being then ultimately the scriptures would be saying that Jesus is the son of a Triune being although Jesus is to be part of the triune being.
And since Jesus cannot be a triune God even if someone were to agree that Jesus was God he certainly couln't be the Triune God himself and therefore not God at all.
Hello Asana…
Unfortunately I fear that you've misunderstood what I've said.
1)… Of course two people have to agree on terms and definitions. If you don't, how can someone understand what you say?
If you use the word Muhammad… and someone thinks the word “Muhammad” means sky or red… how could you communicate with that person at all? It's logically impossible. That is why the Law of Identity is iron clad.
So of course people have to know what you mean when you say something, otherwise they won't know what you are talking about. That is what agreeing on terms and definitions mean!!
2)… In our prior conversation… I never said that you HAD to accept my definition of God. What I clearly said was that there are times when, for arguments sake, YOU CAN accept another person's premise and definitions even if you personally disagree with them, and still be able to show that the other persons' argument is logically inconsitent EVEN IF WE ACCEPT HIS PREMISES AND DEFINITIONS. And I listed 3 tactics to do this with.
I even wrote the following:
Quote What you should have done… logically speaking… is one of two things: (1)… make the claim that EVEN IF God was Trinitarian, I would still be wrong to say that Jesus is God.. and then list the reasons why you believe that my belief in a Trinitarian God DOES NOT GET ME OFF THE HOOK in saying that Jesus had a resurrected body which manifests itself differently within an space-time contiumm other than our own.
Or (2)… recognize that we believe in the nature of God differently and start a debate about whether God is Trinitarian or not before we can debate whether Jesus is God.
But you didn't do either of these two.
Now… why did I go to the trouble of listing the 3 tactics which can be used to show an internal logical inconsistency in your opponents argument? Because it was to show that you were incorrect when you said that in logic, you couldn't do what I had said you could do.
Here again is what you ACTUALLY WROTE:
“That is faulty logic because you are saying in effect that I would have to accept an illogical framework and then show inconsistency in that framework when in-fact that would be inconsistent with the entire basis of logic which is to have agreeable premises that are true or at least believed to be true.”
Now… you wrote this, not me. My post was in response to what YOU WROTE!!
Please… look again at what you actually wrote. You SAID that to accept an illogical framework would be…
…”inconsistent with the entire basis of logic which is to have agreeable premises that are true or at least believed to be true.”
See? That is what you ACTUALLY wrote!! I didn't write that. YOU DID!!! YOU WROTE IT!!!
In response… what I did was to show you that this statement of yours was factually and logically incorrect by giving you 3 different logical tactics… used throughout the world… which shows that YOU CAN, FOR ARGUMENTS SAKE, ACCEPT AN ILLOGICAL FRAMEWORK WITHOUT BEING INCONSISTENT WITH THE ENTIRE BASIS OF LOGIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I honestly don't understand how I could have written what I did earlier, any more simply. What more could I have possibly said to make it easier to understand? It's so plain and so simple and so obvious if you just read what I write instead of invent things I never said.
And what was your reaction? You decide to twist what I said into a pretzel so that it is completely unrecognizable.. twist it into a strawman argument… and then you give it to Mike and tell him that this is what I said… when I never said any such thing.
Look Asana… I have to confess that I'm completely dissappointed. When I read your post on page 2.. posted on Dec. 11 2010 at 07:48, I thought we were friends and making a connection. It looks like I was wrong.
In response to your post on Dec. 10 2010 at 12:11, I said that I appreciate your gentle spirit and that I was going to write out my understanding on what you've raised.
I've decided after your post to Mike, it appears to be a lost cause between us. I tried my best, but I've failed.
The answer I was going to write was not going to be all that different from the answer I had given to before, concerning the questions you raised. So if you are interested at all in what I had to say, in how I would have responded to your questions, then I invite you to reread what I had written to you on…
A)… page 7 posted on Sep. 03 2010 at 19:46
B)… page 8 posted on Sep. 07 2010 at 12:49 (where I actually give you definitions from the dictionary and Wikipedia.)
C)… and page 12 posted on Sep. 15 2010 at 09:45
But since it appears to be a lost cause between us, I've decided to enter a debate with Mike and I have already supplied my 1st response to his question.
And guess what Asana… Mike did not and does not have to accept the Trinity.
What you failed to understand is that Mike and I already know what the Trinity is, so we had already agreed on definitions. But what happened between you and I was that you DID NOT define the word “GOD” in your OP. And that is what started our discussion about logic and definitions of terms, etc. Do you see the difference of what happened between us and what happened between Mike and I?
Well.. Goodbye Asana
Take Care
I wish you well.Respectfully
Francis
WoW!!! Francis,What's up? I think you totally took my post the wrong way, I was agreeing WITH YOU and explaining(At least trying to) to Mike what you had pointed out to me.
You are my friend and I didn't mean to twist anything(Seriously) Did you not read my previous post?
——————————————–
Posted on Dec. 11 2010,07:48Francis,
Let me just state for the record that you have actually helped me a great deal in my ability to formulate arguments and it really did help when you taught me how I could accept the beliefs of another if my ultimate argument is sound. Thanks so much!God bless!
——————————————————-Maybe you hadn't read that yet, anyway I was saying to Mike that he should remember the law of identity that you spoke about otherwise you guys would have a lot of misunderstandings before you can actually debate. I apologize to you if what I said sounded like some sort of attack because it really wasn't(I had just thanked you right before that)
Notice that I said to Mike “so if you do not accept the trinity at least for the sake of argument ” this is what I said because it was a good point that you made about agreeing on terms and conditions for the sake of argument, this is what I actually thanked you for.
I hope this clarifies things.
God Bless You and Your's
I apologize Asana…
I guess I misread your post. Thanks for clarfifying things. I feel terrible now. Please accept my apologies. Next time I won't be so quick to judge without first making darn sure that I understand what's up.
Thanks for being a gentleman.
God Bless
FrancisQuote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 12 2010,13:11) Hi Mike, Francis is a male, the only way he will accept an argument with you is if you first agree on terms and definitions so if you do not accept the trinity at least for the sake of argument you will not have an argument he can accept. So the idea is you have to show him the invalidity of the trinity of God by allowing it to be argued as valid and then showing it to be illogical or incorrect.
Hi B,Thanks for the tips.
mike
Quote (francis @ Dec. 13 2010,04:26) I apologize Asana… I guess I misread your post. Thanks for clarfifying things. I feel terrible now. Please accept my apologies. Next time I won't be so quick to judge without first making darn sure that I understand what's up.
Thanks for being a gentleman.
God Bless
Francis
Apology accepted(Of course)
I just want us all to be gentleman with each other because I am ceratin that we are all debating for the purpose of the glory of God.God Bless!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 13 2010,05:28) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 12 2010,13:11) Hi Mike, Francis is a male, the only way he will accept an argument with you is if you first agree on terms and definitions so if you do not accept the trinity at least for the sake of argument you will not have an argument he can accept. So the idea is you have to show him the invalidity of the trinity of God by allowing it to be argued as valid and then showing it to be illogical or incorrect.
Hi B,Thanks for the tips.
mike
You are welcome I just made the suggestion because I know alot about your positions and I didn't want you to get frustrated with francis because quite frankly he has invested heavily in his beliefs moreso than most people( May God be pleased with him) You see I don't believe that being “incorrect” about a belief is the main problem because a person can certainly not know anything about God and be the greatest practitioner of what God wants and loves there are people here like Francis who I feel(know) are on the right path regardless of what they know or do not know and you are also one of those people so to me it is more like levels of understanding not condemning what someone understands.
First a cow is just a cow and then it becomes milk and meat and then that milk becomes cream and that meat becomes steak and then those degrees and uses become higher and higher and it reaches a point where some Master chef makes some $5000.00 dish from a cow that was bought for maybe $50.00
The greatest of things are in the smallest of details
Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 13 2010,09:18) The greatest of things are in the smallest of details
You know who else is said to be in the details, right?Thanks for the kind words. I too would prefer to debate differences in understanding with someone who is not into belittling and insulting me.
It seems hard to find someone like that here. I hope Francis will prove to be that guy. And I will have to mind my p's and q's also because I have now grown accustomed to being defensive. Check Paul Cohen's first response to my agreement to discuss whether Jesus is God with him. Right from the jump I have been called “dishonest” and “a coward”.
Wow!I appreciate your respectful way of posting even when you disagree with someone, B.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (francis @ Dec. 12 2010,22:19) Quote You can't argue logically with trinitarians because logic to them is EVIL . However logic when applied to the bible is SCRIPTURAL!!!!!!!!Hello betweenchristendomandjws….
Your statement that logic is evil to trinitarians, is the most curious and baffling things i've read so far in this forum. Where on earth would you get that idea from? Certainly not from me. And certainly not from the best and brightest Christian thinkers alive today… who are also trinitarians.
For example, we have William Lane Craig who is a world class philosopher and theologian (a Ph.d in both disciplines). He is so knowledgeable and so logical and so rational that even the best and brightest atheists all agree that he is best Christian debater alive today. Even the most famous of all atheists on earth… Richard Dawkins… won't agree to debate William Lane Craig one-on-one.
We also have Alvin Carl Plantinga, a world renowned analytic philosopher. Plantinga is a Christian and famous around the world for applying the methods of analytic philosophy to defend orthodox Christian beliefs. He is so good that his work started a revolution in American philosophy. When he first came onto the scene, most American philosophers were either atheists or agnostics. Because of his work, most American philosophers are now theists.
There are also many scientists who are Christians or theists… all who use and value logic and do not consider logic evil.
So where you get this notion that trinitarians believe logic is evil, is beyond me. I suppose you might find some trinitarians somewhere that honestly do believe that logic is evil, but they would be in the minority and simply incorrect.
How can logic be evil when God is logical himself and when H gave man logic? Logic did not come from man or from Satan.. but from God Himself.
And my favorite passage is 1Peter 3:15. Look at what this verse says in the Amplified:
But in your hearts set Christ apart as holy [and acknowledge Him] as Lord. Always be ready to give a logical defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully” (Amplified Bible)
Did you know that in the original Greek, the phrase “logical defense” is referring to how lawyers present their case in a courtroom? In the scriptures, we Christians are commanded to give a logical defense… a rational presentation of our case like you would see a lawyer do in a courtroom… full of facts and logic and reason and evidences in support of our faith in Christ and God.
And this logical defense… this “courtroom brief”… is not confined to using scriptures alone in our defense… but it applied to using the whole world of philosophy and science and math, etc in our defense of our faith.
So I… a trinitarian… and the best and brightest and smartest Christian who are also trinitarians… completely reject and disagree with your statement that trinitarians think logic is evil.
You might find some trinitarians who do think logic is evil… but so what? Just because a person is a Christian, it does not mean they are able to think very deeply or are even completely rational. Christ died for all… whether you are thoroughly logical or not. So that might be the reason why you will find Christians who are not always able to think on a completely logical level seen at a philosopher's or scientist's level.
The fact is, there is no evidence that logic is evil. Logic is only a tool given to us by God to use. Sure, logic can be misused and abused…. just as any tool can be used for evil… but that doesn't make the tool itself evil. It is the heart of the person who uses a benign tool for evil, it is the heart that is evil… not the tool.
Anyway… sorry for the long response, but nothing galls me more than the thought that logic and thinking is somehow evil or bad for Christians to use and engage in. The attitude in many parts of the world is that to be a Christian, you must “turn off” your mind. That is the most silly and untrue statement one could ever believe in.
Sorry again for the rant.
God Bless You
Francis
Srry for the generalization, I shouldn't have done that. Every trinitarian i've talked to in chatrooms always suggests or implies that i'm using logic instead of just believing in the trinity.About philosophies though the bible warns us to stay away from that and most of the scholars you posted are heavily into it.
colossians 2:8 reads 8 Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry YOU off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;
Interestingly this verse appears right before the fullness scripture.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 13 2010,10:14) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 13 2010,09:18) The greatest of things are in the smallest of details
You know who else is said to be in the details, right?Thanks for the kind words. I too would prefer to debate differences in understanding with someone who is not into belittling and insulting me.
It seems hard to find someone like that here. I hope Francis will prove to be that guy. And I will have to mind my p's and q's also because I have now grown accustomed to being defensive. Check Paul Cohen's first response to my agreement to discuss whether Jesus is God with him. Right from the jump I have been called “dishonest” and “a coward”.
Wow!I appreciate your respectful way of posting even when you disagree with someone, B.
peace and love,
mike
Peace and loveQuote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 13 2010,15:05) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 13 2010,10:14) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 13 2010,09:18) The greatest of things are in the smallest of details
You know who else is said to be in the details, right?Thanks for the kind words. I too would prefer to debate differences in understanding with someone who is not into belittling and insulting me.
It seems hard to find someone like that here. I hope Francis will prove to be that guy. And I will have to mind my p's and q's also because I have now grown accustomed to being defensive. Check Paul Cohen's first response to my agreement to discuss whether Jesus is God with him. Right from the jump I have been called “dishonest” and “a coward”.
Wow!I appreciate your respectful way of posting even when you disagree with someone, B.
peace and love,
mike
Peace and love
Hi BD,Yes; I have noticed your respectful approach as well!
YHVH blessings!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
