- This topic has 228 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
Hi Mike,
Here's the spin now tell me how it feels; OK?
I asked you: Are you certain that will you be able to prove to someone that you were right and they were wrong; yes or no?
You said: No
I also asked: Is your view correct and whoever disagrees with you can't possibly be proven to be right later in time; yes or no?
You said: No
I also asked: Is there any possibility you could be wrong; yes or no?
You said: Yes
So you admit you can't prove your point, could possibly be wrong, and the other party can prove to be correct;
so why would you want to argue a losing position that you admit could be wrong?This is why some questions cannot be answered yes or no, do you understand now; yes or no?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (seekingtruth @ Sep. 18 2011,14:17) Example of a loaded question – If I state; “everything I say is a lie” am I telling the truth? yes or no From Wikipedia,
A common way out of this argument is not to answer the question (e.g. with a simple 'yes' or 'no'), but to challenge the assumption behind the question. To use an earlier example, a good response to the question "Do you still beat your wife?" would be "I have never beaten my wife".[5] This removes the ambiguity of the expected response, therefore nullifying the tactic. However, the askers of said questions have learned to get around this tactic by accusing the one who answers of dodging the question. A rhetorical question such as "Then please explain, how could I possibly have beaten a wife that I've never had?" can be an effective antidote to this further tactic, placing the burden on the deceptive questioner either to expose their tactic or stop the line of inquiry. In many cases a short answer is important. I neither did nor do I now makes a good example on how to answer the question without letting the asker interrupt and misshape the response.So Mike have you stopped beating your wife??? Yes or No
Hi Wm,Excellent post! …how do you like this thread so far?
Do you have any personal debate tactics that helps get to the truth
that you would like to share with those of us who seek resolution to doctrinal issues.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgEd,
Good thread, there's no doubt that some use different techniques to manipulate their opponents, being more concerned with winning, than with truth. Its good to expose these techniques so others may recognize them for what they are.My "tactic" is I try to never dismiss anything out of hand until given a fair evaluation against scripture. Be open, take what others have argued, look at the whole of scripture and determine who's side fits best, and don't be afraid to look at it again when "new evidence" comes along.
It may sound like you would spend most your time questioning yourself (and I did at first) but I have found nuggets of truth at times with those I tend to disagree with the most. The big advantage now is I know what it is I believe, and why I believe it.
I further believe that more harm than good can be done arguing a point to death. Sometimes its best to put the truth out there and let others decide based on the arguments, rather than "defending the truth" and end up looking like the devil (forgetting our love for one another).
My opinion – Wm
Quote (seekingtruth @ Sep. 17 2011,21:17) So Mike have you stopped beating your wife??? Yes or No
NO Wm, I haven't stopped beating my wife because I never started beating her in the first place. (Besides, I'm not married.
)Come on Wm. Give me a HARD one! Or preferably, give me an example of one of MY "YES or NO" questions that you think couldn't be answered with a YES or a NO. After all, this thread, like your recent one, is apparently designed to point out how many "loaded" questions I ask. So…………..show me one of them.
Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 17 2011,21:47) So you admit you can't prove your point, could possibly be wrong, and the other party can prove to be correct;
so why would you want to argue a losing position that you admit could be wrong?
That's almost accurate, Ed.I admit that I am NOT CERTAIN I will be able to prove my point. (But I will keep trying regardless.)
Yes, I admit that I could possibly be wrong and the other party could be proven to be right. (Recently, Shimmer proved my understanding that Jesus was raised from the dead as a spirit being to be scripturally wrong.)
And who says I'm arguing a "losing position" just because I "COULD BE proven wrong later? That's like saying the Bears beat the Seahawks before the football game has even been played.
At the time I'm arguing a position, you can bet that ever fiber in my soul believes it to be the "winning" position – scripturally speaking.Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 17 2011,21:47) This is why some questions cannot be answered yes or no, do you understand now; yes or no?
YES Ed, I understand that YOU think some of my "YES or NO" questions cannot be answered with a YES or a NO. But NO Ed, I don't agree with you. In fact, not only have I proven to you and Wm that I can answer your questions with a YES or a NO, YOU also proved to me that YOU can do it right here in the first post. And in the second post on the same page, I gave you a GLOWING accolade for doing so.So Ed, do YOU now see that my "YES or NO" questions truly CAN be answered with a YES or a NO?
Btw, I'm answering your questions, addressing your posts, and jumping through all your hoops. When are you going to hold up YOUR end of the deal and post a "YES or NO" question I've ever asked of you that couldn't be answered with a YES or a NO?
peace,
mikeBtw Ed,
There is still a question waiting for you in the Incarnation thread. It is a question that was spawned from your honest YES and NO answers in the post I patted you on the back for.
Please find it and answer it.
Hi Mike,
It appears we are in agreement over the yes/no questions.
You can see that without an explanation of why a no answer
is given to a question that has most if not all of its components
correct, the wording itself can make it sound like another believes
in a way that the other party clearly knows that they don't believe.
So I will try to keep with yes/no answers for you, so you can work with
your words rather than mine. I decided to…1. Answer some some questions with no some with yes.
2. And other questions insert yes into some parts and no into other parts.An answer of "NO" indicates that their a parts in of a question that may not
be agreed upon, depending upon the way one views the word structures.But questions where the components may be correct,
but you are tying things together that (in my humble
opinion) don't belong together, I will have to answer
using my words instead of yours; I hope this is OK.So you can see that this thread is meant for explanations leading toward agreements
of seemingly irreconcilable differences, rather than a discussion on yes/no questions alone.Your friend
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 19 2011,13:28) Btw Ed, There is still a question waiting for you in the Incarnation thread. It is a question that was spawned from your honest YES and NO answers in the post I patted you on the back for.
Please find it and answer it.
Hi Mike,If you mean this question, I answered it in the very next post. (Click on your link)
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 18 2011,13:06) Why do you think John would have described what was really God's glory as the glory, not of God, but of the only begotten OF Him? Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 18 2011,14:26) Because it was to illustrate God's glory becoming flesh. It appears when you re-asked the exact same question without considering my answer,
with a claim that I did not answer. (On page 265, last post of your link)
I hope this thread is being a benefit to all who read it!
I imported my response to you in this thread.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 19 2011,03:26) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 17 2011,21:26,) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 18 2011,13:06) Ed, Why do you think John would have described what was really God's glory as the glory, not of God, but of the only begotten OF Him?
Hi Mike,Thank you; I enjoy discoursing with you too!
Good. Now answer the question, please.
Hi Mike,The answer was in my quote.
It seems you must of accidentally or
intentionally extracted form the quoted post.Here is the full quote, I have enlarged the part that is the answer.
Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 18 2011,14:26) Hi Mike, Thank you; I enjoy discoursing with you too!
May all who read our discussion be blessed!Because it was to illustrate God's glory becoming flesh.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgYou got my answer dated (Ed J @ Sep. 17 2011,21:26) before the question was asked.
Here is the date and TIME that you asked the question… mikeboll64 @ Sep. 18 2011,13:06.
And hear is the date and time I answered it(which was the very next post) … Ed J,Sep. 18 2011,14:26
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgAnd just to be fair, I'll import MY answer to Ed's post into this thread too. That way someone won't get the wrong idea that I was just facetiously re-asking a question I knew had been answered. From the Incarnation thread:
Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 19 2011,09:29) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 19 2011,03:26) Quote (<big>Ed J @ Sep. 17 2011,21:26,</big>) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 18 2011,13:06) Ed, Why do you think John would have described what was really God's glory as the glory, not of God, but of the only begotten OF Him?
Hi Mike,Thank you; I enjoy discoursing with you too!
Good. Now answer the question, please.
Hi Mike,The answer was in my quote.
It seems you must of accidentally or
intentionally extracted form the quoted post.Here is the full quote, I have enlarged the part that is the answer.
Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 18 2011,14:26) Hi Mike, Thank you; I enjoy discoursing with you too!
May all who read our discussion be blessed!Because it was to illustrate God's glory becoming flesh.
God bless
Ed JYou got my answer dated (Ed J @ Sep. 17 2011,21:26) before the question was asked.
Here is the date and TIME that you asked the question… mikeboll64 @ Sep. 18 2011,13:06.
And hear is the date and time I answered it(which was the very next post) … Ed J,Sep. 18 2011,14:26
God bless
Ed J
I thought that sentence was saying OUR DISCUSSION was to illustrate God's glory becoming flesh, and that somehow people would be blessed by this fact. How could I have known that sentence out of the blue was supposed to be an answer to the question I had asked? Ed, "glory" is an abstract thing. "Glory" cannot "become flesh". Nor does that answer why GOD'S glory, after "becoming flesh", was said to be His ONLY BEGOTTEN'S glory, and not HIS OWN glory.
As far as the time stamps, it is a problem with the site. Go check some of the posts you've quoted and you'll notice the same thing.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 19 2011,10:05) Quote (seekingtruth @ Sep. 17 2011,21:17) So Mike have you stopped beating your wife??? Yes or No
NO Wm, I haven't stopped beating my wife because I never started beating her in the first place. (Besides, I'm not married. )Come on Wm. Give me a HARD one! Or preferably, give me an example of one of MY "YES or NO" questions that you think couldn't be answered with a YES or a NO. After all, this thread, like your recent one, is apparently designed to point out how many "loaded" questions I ask. So…………..show me one of them.
Mike,
I believe I said I would not continue arguing this with you but after 2 hours of searching I have not found the post where I stated that despite looking at every thread I wrote in this year. But as I mentioned your name above, I at least owe you a response.Your loaded question:
Quote What if Paul had said, "Welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Gabriel himself."? Now would that mean that Gabriel is of "higher status" than "an angel of God"? Would you answer it for me please?
I answered YES but had to "unload it" (as Ed calls it) in that you had asked: What if Paul had said, If Paul had said that then he would have been implying that Gabriel was of a higher status, hence my answer of yes.
However, the status for Gabriel is unknown so (since Paul did not say that) it really does not fit the sentence which is why I originally was going to answer NO, until I re-read the question.
This was an example of one of your questions that could not be answered with a simple 'yes' or 'no', but had to be challenged on the assumption behind the question. just as you did with the "still beating your wife" question.
Hope this response helps, because I will not be responding to you on this topic any further. I believe your questions and techniques are questionable and are better suited for confusing your opponent, rather than bringing clarity to the point.
My opinion – Wm
Quote (seekingtruth @ Sep. 21 2011,00:28) This was an example of one of your questions that could not be answered with a simple 'yes' or 'no', but had to be challenged on the assumption behind the question. just as you did with the "still beating your wife" question.
Hi Wm,I does help me out. I didn't realize that by posting "YES or NO?", you guys were thinking you couldn't even EXPLAIN why you answered YES or NO.
While I want the clear and to the point YES or NO, I never intended that you couldn't EXPLAIN it like I did with the "wife beating" question.
Notice though, you still got your "NO" first and foremost. That's what I'm asking for. After that, explain away to your heart's content.
Quote (seekingtruth @ Sep. 21 2011,00:28) However, the status for Gabriel is unknown so (since Paul did not say that) it really does not fit the sentence which is why I originally was going to answer NO, until I re-read the question.
Wm,If you had answered, "I don't know because I don't really know Gabriel's status", then I would have made my point that the one mentioned after isn't AUTOMATICALLY of a "higher status" THAN the group mentioned, as you seemed to have been claiming. My understaning is STILL that the latter one mentioned is of a high status WITHIN the group mentioned, but not of a higher status THAN the group.
But the question could and still can be answered with a YES, a NO, or an I DON'T KNOW (which is ALWAYS acceptable on any question in any forum).
Anyway, I would not have resented you saying that I asked a loaded question. I resented you jumping on the band wagon of the others, like Ed, who often claim this about me, but then can show no proof of me actually doing it.
The question you just showed can easily be answered with a YES or a NO. And if you remember in your thread, when I asked Keith or Jack to produce proof of what they claimed about me, neither one of them did, did they?
And now look at Ed. He's making the claim just like the rest, but when asked to show proof, he has so far declined.
This is the stuff I resent. If I inadvertently ask you a loaded question, then deal with THAT loaded question. Don't make accusations that I "do it all the time to everyone here" without being able to show a shed of proof to that effect.
peace,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 22 2011,11:54) Quote (seekingtruth @ Sep. 21 2011,00:28) This was an example of one of your questions that could not be answered with a simple 'yes' or 'no', but had to be challenged on the assumption behind the question. just as you did with the "still beating your wife" question.
Hi Wm,I does help me out. I didn't realize that by posting "YES or NO?", you guys were thinking you couldn't even EXPLAIN why you answered YES or NO.
While I want the clear and to the point YES or NO, I never intended that you couldn't EXPLAIN it like I did with the "wife beating" question.
Notice though, you still got your "NO" first and foremost. That's what I'm asking for. After that, explain away to your heart's content.
Hi Mike,Thank you for starting to understand what the problem is with such questions.
But it goes farther, because you will also likely use these yes or no answers
detached from their explanations as I demonstrated a few posts earlier.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 22 2011,12:08) Quote (seekingtruth @ Sep. 21 2011,00:28) However, the status for Gabriel is unknown so (since Paul did not say that) it really does not fit the sentence which is why I originally was going to answer NO, until I re-read the question.
Wm,If you had answered, "I don't know because I don't really know Gabriel's status", then I would have made my point that the one mentioned after isn't AUTOMATICALLY of a "higher status" THAN the group mentioned, as you seemed to have been claiming. My understaning is STILL that the latter one mentioned is of a high status WITHIN the group mentioned, but not of a higher status THAN the group.
But the question could and still can be answered with a YES, a NO, or an I DON'T KNOW (which is ALWAYS acceptable on any question in any forum).
Anyway, I would not have resented you saying that I asked a loaded question. I resented you jumping on the band wagon of the others, like Ed, who often claim this about me, but then can show no proof of me actually doing it.
The question you just showed can easily be answered with a YES or a NO. And if you remember in your thread, when I asked Keith or Jack to produce proof of what they claimed about me, neither one of them did, did they?
And now look at Ed. He's making the claim just like the rest, but when asked to show proof, he has so far declined.
This is the stuff I resent. If I inadvertently ask you a loaded question, then deal with THAT loaded question. Don't make accusations that I "do it all the time to everyone here" without being able to show a shed of proof to that effect.
peace,
mike
Hi Mike,My point was that answering a loaded question without
unloading it can lead to trouble; I think now you see why.I did not mean that it was impossible to answer yes or no;
I hope you now understand why I choose not to answer
loaded questions in a way that can be used against me.I further apologize for hurting your feelings in this matter.
Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgEd, it amazes me that you feel certain things you say can be "used against you". How can the TRUTH be "used against" anyone?
On the other hand, if what you are talking is NOT scriptural truth, then I can understand your concern.Now you know why I don't worry about things like that. Feel free to use ANY of the truth I speak "against me" at any time, okay?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 25 2011,03:56) I would like to remind Kathi of the words of her brother Keith: "Isn't that what Francis, D, and Jack and I have been saying………….
Everyone not just I are saying that just because Jesus is called God does not mean he is God."
Kathi, that is also what t8 is trying to tell you. Being called by the title "theos" does not mean you are THE Theos.
Hi Mike,Here is an example how you use words against people.
You as well as I know that Kieth believes Jesus is God.He was attempting to agree with you that being called
by the title of "Theos or Eloheem" was not proof alone.So here is an example of you using words against others!
I will never give you words that you can twist against me!
Because you have proved once again that is what you do.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgLet me get this straight Ed. You think I'M at fault because I was persistent for two years and FINALLY got Keith to ADMIT what was the truth of the scriptures all along?
Yes, Keith believes Jesus IS God Almighty. And Keith used to use any scripture that merely referenced Jesus as "god" as PROOF for his claim. But you and I know that just being called "god" in scripture does NOT mean you actually are God Almighty, right?
So tell me how I'm "twisting his words" by DIRECTLY quoting the words he said when he FINALLY admitted this FACT that we all know to be true?
If Keith hadn't been posting the UNSCRIPTURAL and UNTRUE claim that being called "god" was proof that Jesus IS God in the first place, then this wouldn't have been such a blow to him and his imagined trinity God.
So remember that, Ed. If YOU don't start off posting things that are scripturally untrue, then you won't ever have to worry about someone "twisting your words". Because NO ONE can twist your words in a way that makes you look silly if the words you posted were the scriptural TRUTH in the first place.
Hi Mike,
The words themselves and you coping them seem innocent enough,
however, he was not agreeing to the meaning you were pressing into those words.Which are: this means Jesus cannot be God; Keith clearly disagrees with this conclusion.
And the way in which you present his words, one could easily conclude he believes as you do; Yes or No?This is the point I wish to make.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgHi Mike,
You and I know that being called "Theos or Eloheem"
in scripture is NOT enough to mean you are God; right?One being called God in English is more conclusive
than either "Theos" in Greek or "Eloheem" in Hebrew.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
