- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Pierre,
You told Dennsion that he didn't have a righteous spirit, or something to that effect. Perhaps you could apologize to him, since I've noticed you are both getting along quite well these days.
Maybe t8 would accept a public apology as atonement, and remove your "sin"?
mike
Quote 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.
Mike,
Why are you quoting me?
You see!!!! does anybody see this!!!Your using my quote to prove a point thats has nothing to do with Lying!!!
oh gosh!
this is why we cannot trust you with simple YES or NO anwers.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2011,01:38) Pierre, You told Dennsion that he didn't have a righteous spirit, or something to that effect. Perhaps you could apologize to him, since I've noticed you are both getting along quite well these days.
Maybe t8 would accept a public apology as atonement, and remove your "sin"?
mike
Mike,Might as well Remove the tile, i implore (is that a even a word?) that you do.
I dont need an apology, nor did I expect a Tile nor did i report it. I just wanted to give him a scare when i threaten that i woudl report it so he can act more humble when he is speaking to me.
It was a lesson that i expected him to learn from.
Also,
None are righteous according to the bible, than so be it.To All,
Im 21 years old, I have a legititament excuse to be immature, misbehave, or even get extra emotional because of my age.
But most of you guys are old, supposuly my elders, and you act no different from myself.Is that wise?
An example?I think notttttttt,
Grow up a little bit guys.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2011,04:46) 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
Sounds like a good idea.
However I think we need to restructure the Hot Seat or something if we were to implement that idea. Otherwise I think that there are too many similar forums that could cause confusion.So from a debate or other topic, a refusal to answer could be taken to the Final Showdown forum. Or we could add that rule to the Hot Seat and perhaps change it to the Final Showdown.
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 03 2011,15:17) Quote 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.
Mike,
Why are you quoting me?
You see!!!! does anybody see this!!!Your using my quote to prove a point thats has nothing to do with Lying!!!
oh gosh!
this is why we cannot trust you with simple YES or NO anwers.
I quoted your exact words from a post where you were explaining to me why it is so hard to get honest and direct answers from you guys to my questions. What have I done wrong here? mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2011,14:38) Pierre, You told Dennsion that he didn't have a righteous spirit, or something to that effect. Perhaps you could apologize to him, since I've noticed you are both getting along quite well these days.
Maybe t8 would accept a public apology as atonement, and remove your "sin"?
mike
Mikei already made a public apology T8 told me it was good ,,
and like you see i have change my behavior
Pierre
Ah, I didn't know about the apology. Well then, I suppose in time t8 will remove the tile he gave you. He alone has that power………not me.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2011,17:48) Ah, I didn't know about the apology. Well then, I suppose in time t8 will remove the tile he gave you. He alone has that power………not me. mike
Mikethanks
Pierre
I think what I said about the one explicit question that must be answered and that answer must be accepted ideally supposedly meant that only the two debaters were involved.
It has become a feature that I do not support where threads get off topic and that was what Moderators were supposed to manage (Amongst other duties)
At one time a gentle word would send an errant poster flying but not now.I proposed that the creator of the thread should police his own thread and call upon the services of the moderator should the errant poster not concede. EDJ asked me to do so when I was Mod and it was successful without tiling anyone… At other times I simPly posted a polite word adding [Moderator] as a signature and achieved the desired result.. Seems simple enough to me.
Separate posting as Mod from everyday posts with a [Mod] signatureQuote (Istari @ April 03 2011,19:27)
I think what I said about the one explicit question that must be answered and that answer must be accepted ideally supposedly meant that only the two debaters were involved.
Very well then, we're in agreement.Quote (Istari @ April 03 2011,19:27)
It has become a feature that I do not support where threads get off topic and that was what Moderators were supposed to manage (Amongst other duties)
A closed mouth doesn't get fed. If and when someone ever reports an off topic post, I'm quite sure the current mods can handle it. But thanks for your input about it.mike
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 04 2011,08:23) To All, Im 21 years old, I have a legititament excuse to be immature, misbehave, or even get extra emotional because of my age.
But most of you guys are old, supposuly my elders, and you act no different from myself.Is that wise?
An example?I think notttttttt,
Grow up a little bit guys.
Sometimes when you get old, you feel young again, and then answer that way……..Young man…..and that is OK to do. Especially when one is right in what is being said……
Peace and Love to you young man, Old Gal IreneQuote (mikeboll64 @ April 03 2011,07:27) Hi 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
Mike,I apreciate the complimate but it only by faith in Jesus that God has changed me to be as thoughtful and patient as I am.
Kangaroo Jack's remark was out of line as well as disrespectful of authority. Even Paul apologized for calling the High Priest a hypocrite even though his accusation was correct. He should learn to lvie at peace with all men as much as possible and so his remark shows him immaturity in Christ.
Keith was to abrubt in his answer since the question you asked was not a yes and no question from your point of view. His answer was most likely sincere though, I like you, believed he came from him being deceived by the Devil. That is a type of dishonest but it is a type in lover must be suffered in the hopes that God opens the inbdividuals eyes that is being deceived.
So in short I believe Kangaroo Jack needs a gentle rebuke about respecting authority while Keith should be asked to explain his interpretation of how saying that there is one God, the Father equates to saying there is one God, The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Some posters he are sincere in their believes even if we believe they are also deceived. Telling them they lie is therefore took as an insult as they believe they are telling the truth.
Quote (Istari @ April 04 2011,12:27) I think what I said about the one explicit question that must be answered and that answer must be accepted ideally supposedly meant that only the two debaters were involved. It has become a feature that I do not support where threads get off topic and that was what Moderators were supposed to manage (Amongst other duties)
At one time a gentle word would send an errant poster flying but not now.I proposed that the creator of the thread should police his own thread and call upon the services of the moderator should the errant poster not concede. EDJ asked me to do so when I was Mod and it was successful without tiling anyone… At other times I simPly posted a polite word adding [Moderator] as a signature and achieved the desired result.. Seems simple enough to me.
Separate posting as Mod from everyday posts with a [Mod] signature
I think that is a good idea, that the creator of the thread is also responsible for policing it. Moderators can also help, but they do not post in every thread. That way all threads are policed.Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 04 2011,08:23) To All, Im 21 years old, I have a legititament excuse to be immature, misbehave, or even get extra emotional because of my age.
But most of you guys are old, supposuly my elders, and you act no different from myself.Is that wise?
An example?I think notttttttt,
Grow up a little bit guys.
LOL. Priceless.SF,
You show far greater wisdom then I had at your age (don't let it go to your head though that's not saying much).
Wm
Quote (t8 @ April 06 2011,21:49) So that explains your posts SF. They are a product of your age.
t8,Your so called 'moderator' sets the negative tone here. You need to check other discussion boards and see how good moderators act and expect it of ALL your moderators. Mike is the ONLY moderator I have ever seen anywhere that is so caught up in making accusations. Moderators on other boards don't even allow accusations.
It is disgraceful!
KJ
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 03 2011,16:23) To All, Im 21 years old, I have a legititament excuse to be immature, misbehave, or even get extra emotional because of my age.
But most of you guys are old, supposuly my elders, and you act no different from myself.Is that wise?
An example?I think notttttttt,
Grow up a little bit guys.
DennisonI don't think age has anything to do with someone defending themselves from false accusations.
But I agree there is a lot of immaturity flying around here.
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
