- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 03 2011,02:35) 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
What are you saying Mike? I don't spend near the time here as you. Your charge that I don't answer questions is without substance because I RARELY compel others to answer mine.To me this is about presenting my views at my convenience and letting the non-participants who read here decide.
Go watch TV Mike.
Mike said:
Quote As I specifically stated over and over, and even on this thread, you don't have to AGREE with them.
The problem with Mike's statement is after you answer a question he will ASK it again and when you don't answer it again he accuses you of not answering him. Example: I had stated on a thread that Christ is not the reflection of but is the RADIANCE of God's glory like no others. Mike replied saying, "Doesn't all creation radiate God's glory?" I answered "No" saying that the creation DECLARES God's glory. I added that the context indicates that Christ as the radiance of God is distinguished from all others.Mike's reply was this, "Isn't all creation the radiance of God's glory." He simply answered the question again and Keith interjected and posted my reply showing that I had already answered. Mike HABITUALLY does this.
So watch out folks. If Mike doesn't like your answers you'll get tiled for not answering his questions. This is indeed a form of persecution.
Jack is SOOOOOOOO scared by this idea of having to actually ANSWER our questions! I wonder why?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 03 2011,03:16) Jack is SOOOOOOOO scared by this idea of having to actually ANSWER our questions! I wonder why? mike
Grow up Mike!Dude, I just hope and pray that t8 incorporates my "Final Showdown" idea. I have questions just waiting for you and Keith. I'm sure many of us do.
mike
Hi Pierre,
From t8's OP:
Quote 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. So yes, there is redemption. But it will cost you an honest answer.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 02 2011,10:55) 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!
Sure Mr dictator.Have it your way. Force others on this sight to say or not to say what they want.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 02 2011,10:49) [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.
mikeWho are you accusing of lying?
WJ
Quote (terraricca @ April 03 2011,04:26) T8 and mike is there a redemption if you are tiled
Pierre
The whole thing is stupid! If someone doesn't answer a question the whole internet world can see it if it is running and hiding.I don't make demands on people to answer my questions. Who does Mike think he is fooling? Mike has a problem with thinking he is being ignored so he wants to find a way to require that he get the attention he wants like a child throwing a tantrum.
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 03 2011,05:57) Quote (terraricca @ April 03 2011,04:26) T8 and mike is there a redemption if you are tiled
Pierre
The whole thing is stupid! If someone doesn't answer a question the whole internet world can see it if it is running and hiding.I don't make demands on people to answer my questions. Who does Mike think he is fooling? Mike has a problem with thinking he is being ignored so he wants to find a way to require that he get the attention he wants like a child throwing a tantrum.
THIS IS ALL ABOUT MIKE FRIENDS!Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 02 2011,21:14) 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
It does not care whether the person you asked the question of answers it or not since I as an observer will see the question and seek an answer if I determine the question is important enough.t8 I think you first should pray about this. Secondly then use YOUR idea, how YOU see it. You are the owner of this site. I have seen were members avoid questions put to them, or they answer in a sarcastic way….
Peace and Love IreneHi Kerwin,
You are one of the most thoughtful and patient posters on HN. I've rarely seen you in the midst of any really heated battle. So while it might not matter to you………..it does matter to some of us.
Let me give you an example from earlier today in the "Attn wj" thread. Keith and I are discussing this scripture:
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
I asked Keith this very simple question:
Keith, does Paul say our "one God" is Jesus, or any combination of Jesus and others? YES or NO?
Can you guess his answer? Here it is: Yes!
And just for a kicker, Jack piped in with this little tidbit: Uh oh Keith. Mike said you had to answer "honestly" which means you should have answered "No." So if his daddy t8 gives him what he wants you'll get tiled.
Do you see this? First, Keith's answer is a blatant lie, for Paul clearly lists THE FATHER as our one God in that scripture. Secondly, Jack knows Keith's answer is a lie, but instead of rebuking him, he insults t8 and me and laughs about Keith's blatant lie.
This is the crap that I want to end. I want to put that scripture in my proposed "Final Showdown" topic, and tile Keith if he cannot respond truthfully.
You are more mellow, and don't deal with these two on a daily basis like t8 and I do. You don't see how many times crap like this happens. If you did, you might see things differently.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 03 2011,02:11) 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
True KJ.What happens when you debate someone and they refuse to acknowledge that they are stumped or refuse a question because it proves them wrong?
In the pursuit of truth, it is important that people admit when they are wrong. Yet we see very little of that. It is a shame because being honest helps others immensely.
Quote (terraricca @ April 03 2011,04:26) T8 and mike is there a redemption if you are tiled
Pierre
Yes there is always redemption when you amend that which you were tiled for.Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 03 2011,05:57) The whole thing is stupid! If someone doesn't answer a question the whole internet world can see it if it is running and hiding.
Like here KJ?https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….2;st=50
I mean, you have stopped debating here because it appears that you are stumped.
So yes, you are right when you say that people who do not answer questions are visible to the whole internet world and can see that you are indeed running and hiding.
Of course if you have a rebuttal, then let me know and I will look forward to seeing it.
This is a 'fares and wheat' question.
While they are in competition in only the two persons involved can know if the question has been answered: only the fares and wheat know which they are!
It is only when they reach fullness can they be known by others.Whether a question is answered or not often depends on the ANSWER EXPECTED by the poser of the question – And – the INTENT of the responder.
Politicians are masters at NOT answering questions with redefined questions, twisted word games, deliberate misunderstandings, pure malicious Anti-Claims (I've already answered you – when they have not IN CONTEXT), responses only to only SELECTED parts of a question, and do on.
Who, is to say to the question poser that any of those responses is NOT acceptable as an answer – irrespectively!!
In a small number of cases there is genuine misunderstanding between the concepts and ideas and the point of the question that leads to completely inability to come to agreement of what might be claimed to be legal responses.
And, of course, there is the Pointless question, the impossible question, the deliberately ambiguous question, the question of which the content is foreign to the responder.
There is also legitimate reasoning for NOT answering a question, or for ASKING another question as an answer to the question (I'm sure you all know your favourite examples from Scriptures)Therefore, The Hotseat, or similar, is the best way. The poser can ask a single Explicit question based on the original question and the responder MUST answer directly or concede.
The answer MUST be accepted by the poser so as not to encourage long drawn out debate and turn the Hotseat into just another thread.
The poser should not feel aggrieved at maybe not getting the response he desired – it's life – get used to it!! But, it can be used to help refine the depth and direction of questions for further interactions with the same opponent!Quote (Istari @ April 03 2011,04:17) Therefore, The Hotseat, or similar, is the best way. The poser can ask a single Explicit question based on the original question and the responder MUST answer directly or concede.
The answer MUST be accepted by the poser so as not to encourage long drawn out debate and turn the Hotseat into just another thread.
I agree with the theory you propose, that the Hot Seat be used for an EXPLICITE question that must be directly answered. I believe that's what t8 had in mind when he instituted the Hot Seat in the first place. But that's not the reality of what's happened. The Hot Seat is just another category, and nothing has changed. The question is posed, but all are able to post on that thread, and that one EXPLICITE question gets lost among the diversions and off-topic posts.Heck, I can't think of one thread on HN where we stay on the topic at hand. We're all over the place, discussing bodies of spirits in the pre-existent thread and discussing the pre-existence of Jesus in the John 1:1 thread.
That's why I propose a "Final Showdown" thread. It would be a thread where ONLY the one posing the question and the one the question was asked of can reply. Sort of like a debate thread for only two, but with the exception that this thread cannot be ignored by the person who was asked the question. The question MUST BE addressed, even if the answer is "I don't know". Failure to answer DIRECTLY and HONESTLY would result in a tile. If there is a case where one is insisting he did answer the question honestly and directly, but the asker is not satisfied, it can go to a poll vote, with the majority deciding about the tile. And remember that all tiles can be removed, if the askee decides to finally answer the question appropriately.
I might experiment with both of these ideas today.
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
