- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 03 2007,00:44) You agreed to a three day time period.
Honestly WorshippingJesus this may be a sin to you and Isaiah, but as I said to Isaiah God doesn't work to man-made timetables and the 3 days should be a guide, not the law. When you book a plane, you don't always leave on time given many variables and life is just like that. Get over it guys.We live in the grace of God, but from both of you all I see is Law and judgement. I feel sorry for both of you, for the Spirit doesn't fit into your timetables, rather he is the one that leads and we should be the ones fitting in.
If you must know why I haven't posted it is because I have the made the post within 3 days but I wish to proof it first until I am sure that what I write is good. I am not a believer in being hasty in fact when I look back at the mistakes I have made in life, many have been because I was hurrying or trying to meet a deadline. In addition to that I tended to family first rather than posting a reply to a Trinitarian. My family comes first and I had an unexpected event over the weekend which is not worth going into.
Anyway I personally do not work to timetables like you guys seem to be advocating and nor does the Spirit.
Honestly all I can see is a bunch of frustrated Trinitarians trying to judge and condemn those who do not follow their Babylonian doctrine. We are free and all you want to do is put shackles on us.
If you are even half decent you would show grace. Life isn't always 1234 sometimes you have to go back to 2 and then you get thrown an 8.
Remember why Jesus condemned the Pharisees, he said that they obey the law but neglected the weighter things, like the spirit of the law and mercy and grace.
Where is your mercy and grace, I know God gives me such, but unlike God you do not. But then what are we to expect from Pharisees?
They even condemned Christ for helping people on the Sabbath.
If you show no mercy and grace, then guess what, it won't be given to you either. That is why I feel sorry for you.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 03 2007,00:44) Quote (t8 @ April 01 2007,22:58) Also, future debates should post the rules in the first post, so others are not confused as to what they can and can't do. If the rules stipulate that only 2 members can participate, then I am not against that per se, even though it will take more effort to police due to the nature of openness in posting. I also agree with david regarding questions that go unanswered, when other people raise completely different issues and the original questions are lost or never attended to. He says that restricting debates between two people would make it much harder to hide behind straw men arguments and make it harder to distract or kidnap the discussion.
So I am in favour of his idea and if 2 people want a debate with participation from 2 members only, then I can't see why not. But if a person only wants one post, and one rebuttal followed by closing the discussion off, then in that case I would prefer that members gave some feedback.
I am looking at this from an accountability view. It's easy to do a drive by post, but when you are accountable for every shot fired, people would most likely post with greater care, knowing that they might have to explain their words.
t8What kind of crap is this?
You agree to certain rules and then change in the middle of the game.
You say…
Quote Before the discussion proceeded I said that I would post, Isaiah would reply, then it was free for all. This is exactly what has happened. So no surprises here. But in fact it was Isaiah who was against the same 2 members rebutting rebuttals for time purposes. So I agreed that other members could have their say as a way to get feedback on the 2 original posts without a commitment to rebutting rebuttals which I was in favour of.
You agreed to a three day time period.You posted and Is 1:18 replied.
Then he posted and about 5 days later you say…
Quote Looks like you won on account of me not turning up. I cannot reply in one day and have just noticed the discussion as you have just PMed me about it now.
But if you win by default it doesn't do any favours for the truth of course, but your pride might be interested in a point.
Do you want to take the point, or will you give a reasonable amount of time for me to reply?
Is 1:18 is willing to give you extra time to reply and then you come back to your proof text rebutting the the rebuttal totally ignoring his proof text and diverting attention back to yours.Then you go on to say…
Quote So I agreed that other members could have their say as a way to get feedback on the 2 original posts without a commitment to rebutting rebuttals which I was in favour of.
I was under the impression as well as others I think, that you were to rebutt Isaiahs proof text. That was what the extended time was about!Was'nt it?
You also say…
Quote So I am in favour of his idea and if 2 people want a debate with participation from 2 members only, then I can't see why not. But if a person only wants one post, and one rebuttal followed by closing the discussion off, then in that case I would prefer that members gave some feedback. I am looking at this from an accountability view. It's easy to do a drive by post, but when you are accountable for every shot fired, people would most likely post with greater care, knowing that they might have to explain their words.
Of course you would like to clutter the debate with lots of discussion, being that this is an Anti-Trinitarian forum and the Numbers are probably 5 to 1 in favour of Anti-Trinitarians.
There is safety in numbers right?
In my opinion its Ok to be out numbered in the grandstands, but when they get involved in the game then there will only be confusion and a one sided view getting through in the debate, and that would be yours and all of the apposers.
What kind of debate is that?
I think there should be a seperate thread for discussion on the debates. That way the flow of the debate is not interupted, and it will be clear as to the beliefs each shares.
Is it just me, or does it seem like Is 1:18 just got snowed?
Typical isn't it. Condemnation all the way and not even one response from the posts I made.If you can't beat them, then attack their reputation and character.
But honestly thanks. When I suffer because of Christ I am blessed because he suffered in the same way. He was attacked in the same manner. “You save people on the Sabbath”, “you have a devil”. But “you didn't post in 3 days”? Well that is a new one.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 03 2007,00:44) Is 1:18 is willing to give you extra time
To WorshippingJesus.Isaiah gave me no extra time. I wasn't aware that he posted and when he PMed me, he gave me exactly 3 days from then. You go on as if he was graceful with me. But there is no grace is there?
How can the Spirit of grace be with you or Isaiah? If the Spirit was leading you, you would be graceful and merciful and well as loving those that belong to God.
By your fruits you have demonstrated aptly what manor of men you both are and I hope that those who read here notice your condemning spirit.
Romans 8:1
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,Therefore how can you be in Christ if you condemn those in Christ? I have never condemned either one of you. I have only ever condemned doctrines of demons and men.
Quote We live in the grace of God, but from both of you all I see is Law and judgement. I feel sorry for both of you, for the Spirit doesn't fit into your timetables, rather he is the one that leads and we should be the ones fitting in.
T8,
Yeshua said this:“And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.” (Matthew 5:36-37)
You agreed to the conditions of the debate in the PM you sent me, but then blatantly and repeatedly broke your word. Your yes was evidently not a “yes” at all. Don't blame WJ or anyone else for calling you to account about this.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 03 2007,03:52) T8,
In the vitriolic PM you sent me you said you have basically finished the rebuttal and only needed to put the finishing touches on it before you could submit it. Unfortunately, the debate is dead in the water, but I for one would be interested to see the post that you have written and in particular the answers to my questions I posed. Others, I'm sure, would be likewise curious to read it. So would you please submit it in the locked thread and lets us read and dissect in contents?
Great I will take you up on that.And what do you mean “dead in the water”. Is this how you decide truth?
The debate became dead in the water when you couldn't abide by the simple and immently fair rules. Rules that we both agreed to before it started. If you break the conditions of a debate, t8, it's an automatic forfeit, that's the way these things work.
Looking forward to reading your post. When do you think you will submit it?
Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 03 2007,04:11) Quote We live in the grace of God, but from both of you all I see is Law and judgement. I feel sorry for both of you, for the Spirit doesn't fit into your timetables, rather he is the one that leads and we should be the ones fitting in.
T8,
Yeshua said this:“And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.” (Matthew 5:36-37)
You agreed to the conditions of the debate in the PM you sent me, but then blatantly and repeatedly broke your word. Your yes was evidently not a “yes” at all. Don't blame WJ or anyone else for calling you to account about this.
I agreed to your conditions, but I don't treat the time scale as the law as you do. I have more important priorities sometimes and if you guys were graceful you would show grace.Posting in 3 days or not doesn't decide truth and is not a good reason to attack someone either.
If I post in 5 days then there may be good reason for that.
I think you guys really do not care one bit about the truth. You are only here to condemn. But condemn away, you bless me by hurling insults at me.
Anyway if you want a yes or no, then I will say no.
I cannot guarantee that I will post exactly within a 3 day period. It could be a bit more or could even be less, even a matter of hours.
This is my answer.
Anyway if you have a problem with this, then get your lawyer to ring my lawyer and they can talk about it over lunch.
Quote I cannot guarantee that I will post exactly within a 3 day period. It could be a bit more or could even be less, even a matter of hours.
Then you should not have agreed to the stipulation. Is your word your bond? or not?Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 03 2007,04:18) The debate became dead in the water when you couldn't abide by the simple and immently fair rules. Rules that we both agreed to before it started. If you break the conditions of a debate, t8, it's an automatic forfeit, that's the way these things work. Looking forward to reading your post. When do you think you will submit it?
If I have sinned against you Isaiah then I am sorry and I ask for forgiveness.Do you forgive me for not posting within the 3 day time limit?
Just so we can avoid this in future, I want to stress that I cannot always post within a 3 day time limit. Please accept that it may take longer sometimes.
Can you accept this?
Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 03 2007,04:24) Quote I cannot guarantee that I will post exactly within a 3 day period. It could be a bit more or could even be less, even a matter of hours.
Then you should not have agreed to the stipulation. Is your word your bond? or not?
To be honest with you, I didn't understand it that way. I didn't think that it was going to be 3 days or game over. I took it as posting about every three days. I should have known better.The devil was in the details, so to speak.
I cannot promise that I will post exactly within a 3 day period, but I can promise to post about that time more or less, unless due to unforeseen circumstances which could include a trip to hospital, natural disaster, family commitments and the like.
I have to many commitments to say that I can without a doubt post within 3 days every time.
Can you accept that?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 30 2007,01:32) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 29 2007,06:23) I haven't seen a reasonable argument for the Trinity.
When the facts are known, that argument doesn't stack up.I use to believe that doctrine but after a time I knew deep down in my heart something wasn't right with it.
From that time God has shown me scripture after scripture that pulls that doctrine apart.
Even the scriptures that Trinitarians use are often used incorrectly and if the scripture can be interpreted their way, you can bet your bottom dollar it can also be interpreted other ways.
After years of looking into this, my personal conclusion is this.
- If we believe as Paul instructed that there is one God the Father, then there is no contradiction in scripture.
- If we believe in the Trinity, then you can make 10 to 20 scriptures work, but you break hundreds of others.
Try these links for in depth studies on what I am saying.
t8Words with no scriptural proof to refute the scriptural truths set before you.
100 verses not enough then?Look t8, I don't feel like you have committed a grievous sin against me. I was just pointing out the pragmatic reality of debates in their truest form (and godly standards of committment keeping). If you breach the rules, you lose. That's the reality. Maybe you were nieve about it from the get go, and that's why you used a loose time keeping policy. That's understandable. I can't change the rules of the debate after it's commencement though, so it had to end. Rules are rules, so to speak. I hope we do it again and next time we'll impose a more flexible time table to accomodate you.
Blessings
Quote (david @ April 02 2007,15:25) One thing that bothers me so much is that when having a discussion, you ask some questions, they go unanswered, other people raise a completely different issue and the orgininal questions go unasnwered forever. With only two people, it would be much harder to hide behind straw men arguments and other ways to distract or kidnap the discussion.
david, I have been here since 1999 and I have seen many scriptures and good arguments being avoided from that time.When that happens time and time again, it is usually because they don't have an answer. It's their way of saying, “I am stumped”.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 03 2007,04:41) Look t8, I don't feel like you have committed a grievous sin against me. I was just pointing out the pragmatic reality of debates in their truest form (and godly standards of committment keeping). If you breach the rules, you lose. That's the reality. Maybe you were nieve about it from the get go, and that's why you used a loose time keeping policy. That's understandable. I can't change the rules of the debate after it's commencement though, so it had to end. Rules are rules, so to speak. I hope we do it again and next time we'll impose a more flexible time table to accomodate you. Blessings
OK so you win. Congratulations on a fine effort.So if there is a next time please understand that I cannot always make it exactly within 3 days. I say it now because it will be true in the future.
So I take it that you forgive me for not posting within 3 days as stipulated by you?
If so, can I make a rebuttal to your post soon? I want to keep away from exact times and deadlines for reasons I have already pointed out. I also cannot expect the Spirit to work within a timetable that I agree to.
Sure, for what it's worth I forgive you….I never really saw it as you sinning against me though. It just meant the debate ended prematurely, and that was disappointing from my perspective. T8 feel free to take all the time you need to post you rebuttal. I'll be watching out for it.
Quote If you breach the rules, you lose. That's the reality. –Is 1:18
I don't really understand this. T8 loses what exactly? Does this mean that you think that you have “proven” anything?
Question, isn't the truth more important than the actual debate, or the rules of the debate. This all seems sort of childish. I know there were rules. But isn't coming to the actual truth of the matter far more important than breaking the rules you've established? I would think that someone who has the truth would want to discuss this and wouldn't want a forfeit.david
David,
I didn't want a forfeit, as I've pointed out numerous times. However, it's important that these debates have integrity for anything useful to come out of them. Rules help provide the framework for a meaningful dialogue in a debate. To this end, read what Whatistrue wrote In this thread, he put it very well:Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 26 2007,23:51) In light of the debate between T8 and Is 1:18, I wonder if there would be a benefit to adding a “Biblical Debates” category in the “Scripture and Doctrine” section of the site. It would be an area limited to formal debates about various doctrines, and there would be strict rules as to how that debate should be conducted. The debates could either be open to a number of people, or between only two people, but that would be declared up front. I suggest this possibility because I find that there are many people who come to this forum who practice what I like to call “drive by” theology. They rapidly fire off all of their favorite doctrines, with the requisite proof texts, but they never really answer any serious questions about the views that they espouse. Additionally, many of the discussions go wildly off topic, or get spammed by someone who continues to repeat the same two or three points over and over again.
For example, if I wanted to get a serious assessment of the case for and against the trinity doctrine, I would have to read, (as of this date), 600+ pages of an extremely unfocused discussion, making it nearly impossible for me to get a handle on the various strengths and weaknesses of the different sides of the debate. However, if there were a couple of focused Trinity debates that I could reference, like the one that has started between T8 and Is 1:18, I could quickly figure out the merits of each point of view.
For this to work, however, there would have to be an agreed upon set of rules for the “Biblical Debates” section of the forum. I would propose the following:
1. The parties involved in the debate, and the question being debated, will need to be defined up front in the very first post, and all posts that do not adhere to this restriction will be subject to deletion.
2. Each participant in the debate will respond within a certain amount of time – mutually agreed upon and spelled out in the first post of the debate – and will only be allowed one post at a time.
3. If you have editing rights, any edits that you make to a post must be annotated.
4. Questions in each post will be limited to a mutually agreed upon number, (defined in the first post), but all questions asked must be answered by the opponent(s) in the debate. If a question is not answered, it must be noted, and an explicit reason given for not answering a question. (e.g. The question has a false premise. The question is unrelated to the debate. etc.)
5. A clear method for bringing the debate to a conclusion must be spelled out in the first post. (e.g. top five reasons, top ten scriptures, etc.)
6. In cases of dispute between the parties in the debate about adherence to the agreed upon rules, a third party should be named to resolve the issue. Whatever that person decides will be the final answer on the dispute.
7. The debate will be locked after it is formally concluded. Any discussions that are generated from the debate will be handled in the discussion areas of the forum.Certainly, not everyone would want to participate in a debate, as not everyone is comfortable with that kind of direct doctrinal confrontation, but for those who believe strongly enough that they understand a doctrinal truth well enough to put that doctrine under scrutiny, it will provide a fair and reasonable way to convey that to others, not just the opponent in the debate.
Understand?
Quote (t8 @ April 02 2007,08:54) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 03 2007,00:44) You agreed to a three day time period.
Honestly WorshippingJesus this may be a sin to you and Isaiah, but as I said to Isaiah God doesn't work to man-made timetables and the 3 days should be a guide, not the law. When you book a plane, you don't always leave on time given many variables and life is just like that. Get over it guys.We live in the grace of God, but from both of you all I see is Law and judgement. I feel sorry for both of you, for the Spirit doesn't fit into your timetables, rather he is the one that leads and we should be the ones fitting in.
If you must know why I haven't posted it is because I have the made the post within 3 days but I wish to proof it first until I am sure that what I write is good. I am not a believer in being hasty in fact when I look back at the mistakes I have made in life, many have been because I was hurrying or trying to meet a deadline. In addition to that I tended to family first rather than posting a reply to a Trinitarian. My family comes first and I had an unexpected event over the weekend which is not worth going into.
Anyway I personally do not work to timetables like you guys seem to be advocating and nor does the Spirit.
Honestly all I can see is a bunch of frustrated Trinitarians trying to judge and condemn those who do not follow their Babylonian doctrine. We are free and all you want to do is put shackles on us.
If you are even half decent you would show grace. Life isn't always 1234 sometimes you have to go back to 2 and then you get thrown an 8.
Remember why Jesus condemned the Pharisees, he said that they obey the law but neglected the weighter things, like the spirit of the law and mercy and grace.
Where is your mercy and grace, I know God gives me such, but unlike God you do not. But then what are we to expect from Pharisees?
They even condemned Christ for helping people on the Sabbath.
If you show no mercy and grace, then guess what, it won't be given to you either. That is why I feel sorry for you.
t8Condemnation? LOL!
I simply point out the truth about the debate and now you cry “Condemnation” and suddenly become the righteous persecuted saint.
You miss lead and thien accuse me and Is 1:18 of sin.
Thats condemnation!
Quote (t8 @ April 02 2007,09:00) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 03 2007,00:44) Quote (t8 @ April 01 2007,22:58) Also, future debates should post the rules in the first post, so others are not confused as to what they can and can't do. If the rules stipulate that only 2 members can participate, then I am not against that per se, even though it will take more effort to police due to the nature of openness in posting. I also agree with david regarding questions that go unanswered, when other people raise completely different issues and the original questions are lost or never attended to. He says that restricting debates between two people would make it much harder to hide behind straw men arguments and make it harder to distract or kidnap the discussion.
So I am in favour of his idea and if 2 people want a debate with participation from 2 members only, then I can't see why not. But if a person only wants one post, and one rebuttal followed by closing the discussion off, then in that case I would prefer that members gave some feedback.
I am looking at this from an accountability view. It's easy to do a drive by post, but when you are accountable for every shot fired, people would most likely post with greater care, knowing that they might have to explain their words.
t8What kind of crap is this?
You agree to certain rules and then change in the middle of the game.
You say…
Quote Before the discussion proceeded I said that I would post, Isaiah would reply, then it was free for all. This is exactly what has happened. So no surprises here. But in fact it was Isaiah who was against the same 2 members rebutting rebuttals for time purposes. So I agreed that other members could have their say as a way to get feedback on the 2 original posts without a commitment to rebutting rebuttals which I was in favour of.
You agreed to a three day time period.You posted and Is 1:18 replied.
Then he posted and about 5 days later you say…
Quote Looks like you won on account of me not turning up. I cannot reply in one day and have just noticed the discussion as you have just PMed me about it now.
But if you win by default it doesn't do any favours for the truth of course, but your pride might be interested in a point.
Do you want to take the point, or will you give a reasonable amount of time for me to reply?
Is 1:18 is willing to give you extra time to reply and then you come back to your proof text rebutting the the rebuttal totally ignoring his proof text and diverting attention back to yours.Then you go on to say…
Quote So I agreed that other members could have their say as a way to get feedback on the 2 original posts without a commitment to rebutting rebuttals which I was in favour of.
I was under the impression as well as others I think, that you were to rebutt Isaiahs proof text. That was what the extended time was about!Was'nt it?
You also say…
Quote So I am in favour of his idea and if 2 people want a debate with participation from 2 members only, then I can't see why not. But if a person only wants one post, and one rebuttal followed by closing the discussion off, then in that case I would prefer that members gave some feedback. I am looking at this from an accountability view. It's easy to do a drive by post, but when you are accountable for every shot fired, people would most likely post with greater care, knowing that they might have to explain their words.
Of course you would like to clutter the debate with lots of discussion, being that this is an Anti-Trinitarian forum and the Numbers are probably 5 to 1 in favour of Anti-Trinitarians.
There is safety in numbers right?
In my opinion its Ok to be out numbered in the grandstands, but when they get involved in the game then there will only be confusion and a one sided view getting through in the debate, and that would be yours and all of the apposers.
What kind of debate is that?
I think there should be a seperate thread for discussion on the debates. That way the flow of the debate is not interupted, and it will be clear as to the beliefs each shares.
Is it just me, or does it seem like Is 1:18 just got snowed?
Typical isn't it. Condemnation all the way and not even one response from the posts I made.If you can't beat them, then attack their reputation and character.
But honestly thanks. When I suffer because of Christ I am blessed because he suffered in the same way. He was attacked in the same manner. “You save people on the Sabbath”, “you have a devil”. But “you didn't post in 3 days”? Well that is a new one.
t8The debate was between you and Is 1:18.
I would respond and debate with you, but I see how you play.
Just like when I asked you some questions recently and you pressed me that if I answered your quetions then you would answer mine.
So I answered you, and what did you do.
Nothing, except say when you get time you will answer.
How do you sleep at night?
I hope and pray people can see through this mess.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
