- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Should members be tiled for avoiding a legitimate question?
Yes or no?
This does not include those who do not answer millions of questions that someone might use as a tactic to weigh down his opponent.
It is only for those who do not give an answer because the question proves them wrong or challenges their doctrine in a serious way.
There would have to be proof that the person was deliberately avoiding a question, and if they were tiled and they wondered why, then they could be told why, at which point the member can answer the question and have the tile removed.
BTW, "I don't know", or an admittance of being stumped by the question is a legitimate answer.
What I would like to see is people admit that when they can't answer a question, that they are honest about it, rather than ignore questions that infringe on their doctrine.
To me it is about getting an honest answer and if you are not willing to do that, then it should be exposed for all to see. Otherwise we just end up listening to those who tickle our ears.
I think that is a good idea t8.
The person reporting the other should have to provide proof that another has been asked a question a few times and then pm'd to make sure they have seen the question before making the report with a personal heads up about reporting them if not addressed. Then the person who receives the pm needs to pm the first person with a link to their answer, maybe. The tile should absolutely be taken away when an answer is given.
Are tiles issued on all threads or only hot seat threads?
There's times I go weeks with no time to respond to questions I want to answer, would we be allowed to postpone for extended times?
Personally I think it would work better to change the "group" from member or whatever, to coward or something to denote to others refusal to answer, possibly different level that reflect multiple avoidances.
My opinion – Wm
T8,
I would state no at I believe it would be diffilcult to enforce fairly and effectively.
I personally judge what questions are important and what are not and my judgment would probably not always be equivilent to another.
I believe the best way to handle the lack of answers to dirrect questions is to ask them in the Hot Seat forum and say it is a dirrect question and who for in the subtitle.
I believe it best to use tiles to discourage strife.
I agree with Kerwin. I think tiling someone for not answering a question is not right.
Actually, in Hermas it says this;
"For he who inquires of a false prophet in regard to any action is an idolater, and devoid of the truth, and foolish.
For no spirit given by God requires to be asked; but such a spirit having the power of Divinity speaks all things of itself, for it proceeds from above from the power of the Divine Spirit.
But the spirit which is asked and speaks according to the desires of men is earthly, light, and powerless, and it is altogether silent if it is not questioned."
How then, sir," say I, "will a man know which of them is the prophet, and which the false prophet?"
"I will tell you," says he, "about both the prophets, and then you can try the true and the false prophet according to my directions. Try the man who has the Divine Spirit by his life.
First, he who has the Divine Spirit proceeding from above is meek, and peaceable, and humble, and refrains from, all iniquity and the vain desire of this world, and contents himself with fewer wants than those of other men, and when asked he makes no reply; nor does he speak privately, nor when man wishes the spirit to speak does the Holy Spirit speak, but it speaks only when God wishes it to speak.
Hi All
The problem with this idea is who is going to judge whether someone answered a question or not? For instance I have answered many questions from Mike only for him to ask them again because he doesn't like the answers.
Does answering a question mean you have to agree?
And what about questions like "Are you still beating your wife?" There are many questions that are loaded and require an explanation and not a simple yes or no answer.
Does this mean t8 and Mike gets blocks? If t8 or Mike gets five blocks will they be banned?
I doubt it.
Also in America we have what is called the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution which is part of the Bill of Rights, and it protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. The Fifth Amendment protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves. To "plead the Fifth" is to refuse to answer a question because the response could provide self-incriminating evidence of an illegal conduct punished by fines, penalties or forfeiture.
I realize most here are not from the States nevertheless it is a good moral law, after all when someone starts "MAKING" someone do something through force by intimidation or threat of removal, well that kind of sounds like religious persecution to me.
I am not saying this because I avoid questions but because I personally would not want someone to be "forced" to answer a question they didn't want to answer for fear they may get a tile.
I suspect all this is coming from Mike since he would be the one to decide who gets a tile or not which seems to me to be an abuse of power since Mike himself is heavily involved in asking the questions and the debates.
It seems to me that was the whole idea for the "Hot seat" to create threads where people are put on the Hot Seat and if they don't answer then everyone can see they don't have an answer and that should be enough, IMO.
Otherwise you violate the freedom to speak or not to speak which should be the primary rule on any forum of discussion like this one.
The other thing is "Trinitarians" are out numbered and that would mean they have a lot more to answer.
I think this idea will just create more tension, conflict and division here rather than solve anything.
WJ
Quote (t8 @ April 02 2011,15:40) Should members be tiled for avoiding a legitimate question? Yes or no?
This does not include those who do not answer millions of questions that someone might use as a tactic to weigh down his opponent.
It is only for those who do not give an answer because the question proves them wrong or challenges their doctrine in a serious way.
There would have to be proof that the person was deliberately avoiding a question, and if they were tiled and they wondered why, then they could be told why, at which point the member can answer the question and have the tile removed.
BTW, "I don't know", or an admittance of being stumped by the question is a legitimate answer.
What I would like to see is people admit that when they can't answer a question, that they are honest about it, rather than ignore questions that infringe on their doctrine.
To me it is about getting an honest answer and if you are not willing to do that, then it should be exposed for all to see. Otherwise we just end up listening to those who tickle our ears.
NO because we are under no contract here and we may come and go as we please unless it is a formal debate inwhich parties agreed upon set terms.KJ
WJ said:
Quote I suspect all this is coming from Mike since he would be the one to decide who gets a tile or not which seems to me to be an abuse of power since Mike himself is heavily involved in asking the questions and the debates.
Exactly!KJ
I think it is a grand idea for DIRECT questions. I would also include adding a tile for LYING. In fact, the Hot Seat hasn't had the desired effect, from what I can see. I think we should add just one more category called "Final Showdown" or something like that. (More on that later.)
I posted the words of three undeniable Greek experts saying that "a god" was a grammatically possible translation of John 1:1. And two of them are hardcore Trinitarians who absolutely don't PREFER the "a god" translation, but still acknowledged that it is a possibility based on the Greek grammar alone.
Below the words of these scholars, I asked a simple question:
ACCORDING TO THESE SCHOLARS, is "a god" a GRAMMATICAL POSSIBILITY?
I had to go back and forth with Keith and Jack and Dennison and Mark for WEEKS trying to get an HONEST answer to this question. I got an honest answer from Kathi immediately. And she also does not PREFER the "a god" translation, but at least was honest enough to answer, "Yes, according to these scholars, it IS grammatically possible". Dennison FINALLY answered the question, but as of yet, Jack, Keith and Mark have refused to answer it HONESTLY. I've gone through miles of diversions and much frustration just to keep getting an answer of "NO", when the words of the scholars are right there in the question, and those words are saying "YES".
I wasn't asking if they AGREED with those words, or even if these scholars were legitimite. Only if their words said "Yes". And those words DID say "Yes", so an answer of "NO" is a flat out LIE.
Dennison summed up their diversion game quite nicely in the "God among gods" thread:
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 23 2011 @ 00:14)
we just don’t trust you because you’re bound to use those loaded questions somehow to your advantage by misquoting our intent.If one has to LIE to defend their doctrine, then what does that really say about them and their doctrine? If you can HONESTLY answer any question thrown at you, and still end up defending your truth with HONEST answers, then you know you are really defending the scriptural truth of the matter, and not some flawed man-made doctrine.
If Kathi posted the words of some early church father who wrote that Jesus had always existed inside of God, and then asked me, "According to these words, did Jesus always exist inside of God?", I would have no choice but to answer "YES". I could then explain how I don't AGREE with those words, and begin to scripturally refute those words, but not until I answered "YES" to her direct question.
I'm tired of the diversions and lies. And I've noticed that tiles DO actually serve the purpose of curbing bad behaviors. If someone refuses to answer a question honestly, we could post that question to them in the "Final Showdown" category, which would be for only the one asking the question, and the one avoiding the answer. Like a debate thread, but only for the purpose of that one question, and without the option of the "askee" not responding.
For example, I could post, "A question for Keith………", and Keith must:
1. Actually address the post.
2. Answer the question.
3. Answer it DIRECTLY.
4. Answer it HONESTLY.Failure to do ALL of these things would result in a tile.
mike
Quote (t8 @ April 02 2011,21:28) Maybe it should be in the Debates and Hot Seat forums only.
ONLY WHEN PARTIES HAVE AGREED UPON SET TERMS. Open forums are exactly that…OPEN forums. People can come and go as they please and put their two cents in and that's it.If this is alll coming from Mike as WJ suspects it must be taken into consideration that Mike does not have a life outside this board. I once asked him if he ever takes a break and he replied, "It's either this or TV."
What does that tell you? Not all of us have the time to spend here as Mike because we have lives that are more fulfilling than his.
Again, if this requirement is coming from Mike as WJ suspects, then it shows him to be nothing more than an idle person with nothing else to do and a trouble maker.
I am too busy to think about whether or not people answer my points. Sometimes I do but mostly I do not because I have a life outside of here. For me it's not just "This or TV."
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 02 2011,08:55)
Does answering a question mean you have to agree?
NO.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 02 2011,08:55)
And what about questions like "Are you still beating your wife?" There are many questions that are loaded and require an explanation and not a simple yes or no answer.
"No, I am NOT still beating my wife, nor have I ever beaten her." What's so hard about that?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 02 2011,08:55)
Does this mean t8 and Mike gets blocks?
Absolutely, if we refuse to HONESTLY answer a DIRECT question with a DIRECT answer.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 02 2011,08:55)
The Fifth Amendment protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves.
If a DIRECT and HONEST answer would incriminate you or your doctrine, then you're batting for the wrong side of truth in the first place. If you've done nothing wrong, there is no chance that you can incriminate yourself.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 02 2011,08:55)
I personally would not want someone to be "forced" to answer a question they didn't want to answer for fear they may get a tile.
Spoken like a man who prefers NOT to answer the questions that prove his doctrine to be comically flawed.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 02 2011,08:55)
I suspect all this is coming from Mike since he would be the one to decide who gets a tile or not which seems to me to be an abuse of power since Mike himself is heavily involved in asking the questions and the debates. No, t8 didn't "run this by me", nor have we ever discussed it. I just logged on to see this thread, the same as you. Why are you afraid of my questions, Keith? 
And what is wrong with giving HONEST and DIRECT answers to them? Unless maybe you've got something to hide. Are you afraid that if you answer HONESTLY, your triune Godhead will slowly and scripturally go bye-bye? Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 02 2011,08:55)
The other thing is "Trinitarians" are out numbered and that would mean they have a lot more to answer.
That's why I suggested the "Final Showdown" category. It would only be ONE question that must be answered. Surely you have the time to answer ONE question?Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 02 2011,09:24) Quote (t8 @ April 02 2011,21:28) Maybe it should be in the Debates and Hot Seat forums only.
ONLY WHEN PARTIES HAVE AGREED UPON SET TERMS. Open forums are exactly that…OPEN forums. People can come and go as they please and put their two cents in and that's it.If this is alll coming from Mike as WJ suspects it must be taken into consideration that Mike does not have a life outside this board. I once asked him if he ever takes a break and he replied, "It's either this or TV."
What does that tell you? Not all of us have the time to spend here as Mike because we have lives that are more fulfilling than his.
Again, if this requirement is coming from Mike as WJ suspects, then it shows him to be nothing more than an idle person with nothing else to do and a trouble maker.
I am too busy to think about whether or not people answer my points. Sometimes I do but mostly I do not because I have a life outside of here. For me it's not just "This or TV."
Jack, you seem to have plenty of time to load up our threads with your nonsense, and the lengthy quotes from trinitarians that make no sense whatsoever.Is it that you really don't have the TIME to answer a simple direct question? Or possibly that you don't want to answer our questions because you know what those honest answers will do to your comically flawed man-made doctrine?
I suspect the latter. For even you, with your "full life", have the time to answer ONE simple question on occasion, right?
Boy t8, you sure have these trinni's circling the wagons with this one!
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 02 2011,10:26) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 02 2011,08:55)
Does answering a question mean you have to agree?
NO.
MikeGood, then why do you try and force us to agree with your scholar with your question?
You see that is a good example of what I am talking about.
WJ
Religous persecution and the desire to silence certain posters and force them to speak or not to is all this is.
Do what you want I can follow your stupid rules.
WJ
T8, please, please, please do the "Final Showdown" thing. Because the "Forum for people who do not run away" and the "Hot Seat" have not worked.
Please consider this category where ONE person could ask ONE question, and if the other doesn't answer it HONESTLY and DIRECTLY, they will get a tile.
Then maybe after a couple of tiles, we'll finally start getting some questions answered around here. And once that happens, certain flawed man-made doctrines will be shown to be what they are.
If nothing else, do it just because of the fear it has immediately raised in Jack and Keith!
I've never seen these guys this scared before. And why, because they'll have to answer our questions? What does that tell you about how they've been doing things all along?mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 02 2011,10:43)
If nothing else, do it just because of the fear it has immediately raised in Jack and Keith! I've never seen these guys this scared before. And why, because they'll have to answer our questions? What does that tell you about how they've been doing things all along?
Scared?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 02 2011,09:38) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 02 2011,10:26) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 02 2011,08:55)
Does answering a question mean you have to agree?
NO.
MikeGood, then why do you try and force us to agree with your scholar with your question?
You see that is a good example of what I am talking about.
WJ
No Keith,As I specifically stated over and over, and even on this thread, you don't have to AGREE with them. But if I post THEIR words that say "YES", and then ask you if THEIR words say "YES", then your honest answer can be nothing but "YES".
THEN, AFTER YOU'VE HONESTLY ANSWERED THE QUESTION, you can voice your opinion about how you don't agree with them. And you can show your contrary evidence, or what not. And then the discussion begins as to which translation follows more closely to the rest of scripture.
With the "a god" discussion, you may have had a million times more information to support YOUR preferred translation, but you were cutting my legs out from under me before the discssion even began………….WITH A LIE.
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 02 2011,09:43) Religous persecution and the desire to silence certain posters and force them to speak or not to is all this is. Do what you want I can follow your stupid rules.
WJ
Why would you even think a scriptural discussion could go anywhere when one of the parties doesn't have to answer the hard questions?Anyway, thanks for your "YES" vote!
I feel good about this! Things are about to get accomplished around here.
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 02 2011,09:46) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 02 2011,10:43)
If nothing else, do it just because of the fear it has immediately raised in Jack and Keith! I've never seen these guys this scared before. And why, because they'll have to answer our questions? What does that tell you about how they've been doing things all along?
Scared?
You're the one who was trying to hide behind the 5th Amendment!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
