- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ April 15 2007,16:40) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 16 2007,06:07) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 03 2007,19:25) Just wanted to clear a couple of things up…. It's seems that there's a perception that i'm being a bit precious about the debate. It's standard practice to forfeit a debate if you breach the time limit, and for good reasons. It's important to understand that in the format of a formal debate (in contrast to the general chaotic disorder of the message board thread) all things, apart from the skill set of the participants and the apologetic material at their disposal, should be held equal. The rules are there to ensure an unfair advantage is not held by one participant over another. The time limitation is particularly important as it imposes pressure, and has a significant influence on the quality of the each participant's output. In this debate, to a certain extent, I had to rush my post to ensure I made the three day time limit and, of course, soon after submission thought of a few more points I could have made. Had I had longer I could have incorporated them and the post would have been more compelling. T8 had a full 8 days to respond and didn't, so the debate had to end. You could liken it to the time limit of an exam, students who are subjected to limitation of time will generally be outperformed by those that can finish at their own discretion. The rules are there to make it fair for both participants.
With regard to me supposedly “winning” the debate. For the record I have never declared it, nor intimated it. No body “won”, the debate never really got off the ground and even if it did and went to completion the final result would still have been subjective. No matter how one-sided the exchanges might have been, inevitably those whose views are akin to t8's would propbably have sided with him and those who share my views would likely have sided with me. Such is human nature. The real value of debates (conducted properly) is that they provide a great platform to expose both the strengths and weaknesses in both arguments, and the information can be filtered through by the undecideds. That's why I like good debates. Too bad this one didn't work out.
Can someone please explain to t8 what “forfeit” means?
Hi Isaiah and everyone else.A good debate for the purposes of the truth is one where each person or group can state their case without hindrance. I feel after some squabbling that this was accomplished. I gave a good answer although I could have posted a better one (with more research time), but I feel that we both put our best foot forward. In truth I actually only dedicated about 1 hour possibly a bit more, so you probably ended up with more time than I did anyway.
Worldly debates can be useful but they are also designed to let the one with skill win or at least give him an edge and the competition can resort to low standards in order to win too.
I feel that such a design is unbecoming of a Christian and a person who places the truth higher than himself.
If two Christians disagree on something, I feel that they should be allowed to state their case unhindered and when each feels he has given the best answer he can, then others are in a better situation to judge which if any speaks the truth. Is this not better if the real mission is to test things to see if they are written?
You are allowed to forfeit/give up if you want Isaiah, I will not hold you to the other debates because I respect your free will to choose otherwise. But if I wanted to be harsh I could say that you are forfeiting the other 11 proof texts and I win by default if that is what you are proposing to do? But of course I win absolutely nothing as you are aware.
If you feel that you have the right to forfeit it would be with 1 debate only given the times were not strictly adhered to. There is still another 11 to go as originally agreed. If you want more time for the other 11, take as much as you want. I am patient. Also remember that you can add more than one post after the each makes their first post.
So if you feel that more time could have provided you with a more compelling answer then feel free to post the compelling information now.
Will you continue or are you giving up on the other 11? If yes, why?
t8This is seriosly sad.
For you to turn it back on Is 1:18 as if he is the one who forfeited.
You forfeit by breaking the rules of the debate and changing them in the middle and then come back and wanting to play again with rules that havnt even been agreed on.
This is sad.
I dont blame Is 1:18 for not continuing the debate seeing its only going to be on your terms.
Give him a break, Isaiah. Nobody's perfect. He obviously must have been quite busy with other things in his life, and didn't spend hour upon unfair hour researching his response. He did the best he could. I could see saying it's over if he ends up days late for every thread, but this is only the first strike. Lets give him another chance, because I've been looking forward to your response, and I would hate to see things end here. If the rules need to be changed a bit or re-clarified, that's cool. But lets not make this into a bigger deal than it actually is.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 16 2007,12:49) t8 This is seriosly sad.
For you to turn it back on Is 1:18 as if he is the one who forfeited.
You forfeit by breaking the rules of the debate and changing them in the middle and then come back and wanting to play again with rules that havnt even been agreed on.
This is sad.
I dont blame Is 1:18 for not continuing the debate seeing its only going to be on your terms.
To WorshippingJesus.I am talking about the other 11 discussions. No rules have been broken yet with them and anyway I wish to give Isaiah all the time he needs in order to give the best he has.
If he forfeits then that is up to him though.
I would have very much liked the challenge because I know it would have made me a better man. Iron sharpens iron and all that.
But if he gives up, then maybe someone like yourself would be interested in carrying his torch?
If so, I believe it would be in our best interest for both to be able to post the best answers and questions possible. So some grace regarding time should be okay. One post each and then the discussion is open.
Are you interested?
I knew I wouldn't come out of this looking good…..*sigh*
I have three main problems with this debate continuing:-
1. With my work cycle and family life I can't commit myself to a debate of indefinite length.
2. I just can't be bothered being involved in a debate where the rules are obscure, loosely applied and liable to change at the whim of one of the participants – because that would not be a proper debate at all, but something that more or less resembles the disorderly threads here.
3. T8 has already demonstrated that he doesn't intend to directly answer the difficult questions (refer Q2 & 3 in Is 1:18's Proof Text #1). Answering the questions as they are asked is integral to a productive dialogue.
Kyle, since you're interested I'll answer t8's latest proof text, but I'll leave it there for the meantime. I hope you can understand why.
Blessings
Sounds fair. Twelve is quite a large amount for something like this. I was thinking it would take way too long when things first changed from three (six total) to twelve (24 total). I definitely look forward to your post.
Would you be against someone else continuing in your place, Isaiah? Perhaps WJ would be a good candidate if he's got the time. If this continues, let's agree that things should always be as timely as possible for the obvious reasons. But if someone needs more time hear or there, lets be flexible. Three days should just be the general rule of thumb whenever possible. How does that sound?
If t8 would agree to limit the number of proof texts to say 5 or 6, abide by deadline restriction and at least attempt to answer the questions as asked I would be happy to continue….if not WJ or anyone else (maybe Tim2) is welcome to replace me.
We'll see what t8 thinks….
Hi Isaiah.
First thing I want to say is 12 posts isn't much considering that I have made a few thousand posts and you have around 1500 and also considering that I have been here since the beginning (BTW, I am not saying I am God) and you have been here for a number of years.
Secondly and I repeat that we should both have enough time to give our best possible post and I can assure you that I don't intend spending more than 2 hours on a post anyway, (I rarely do), although it may be possible that I could, especially if I do not know the answer.
Finally, 12 posts each are not indefinite it requires exactly 12 posts which is not only finite, but quite small compared to what we have already posted in other discussions. I think this is a fair comment.
However, if you wish to lessen the amount of proof text posts to 6 then I am happy to be swayed this way, even though I would have preferred a more comprehensive look at both sides of the Trinity debate. I feel that 12 posts each in this fashion could accomplish more than 100 posts loosely placed in other big discussions.
The only thing I ask is that you be reasonable given the time to post. My habit of posting here sometimes limits me to not posting for roughly 2 weeks and other times I can post everyday for a week. My number one concern which I believe is justified is not eating into family time because I have to post here. My commitment to my family is they are first. I also do travel from time to time and go to wild places where Internet connections do not exist.
So I am happy to continue with less proof texts if you wish, but I just ask that you respect my wish to not provide a money back guarantee that I will post within 3 days, even though it is very possible that some replies or posts will be within that time.
In the end is it not more important that the quality of our posts be the best they can. Surely that is not only better for both of us, but is better for the readers who are making their minds up regarding this issue. This way we get quality and no one gets an advantage over the other because we both have enough time to proof our proof texts. Lack of time can only result in an incomplete answer anyway, so what is the point?
So, what do you say to no strict time limit, which would also ensure that all questions that are asked could be answered adequately, which seems to be another concern of yours? Let's face it, we are both most likely to posting here regardless for some time to come anyway, and I know that I am patient in making my case and do not feel that it needs to be made ASAP.
What is important to me is not being hasty, but patient in order to get a better quality result for both of us. And as I have said before, telling God that he has 3 days to inspire a reply or post seems more than a tad cheeky, unless you think it is a good idea to reply using your own wisdom?
My reasons are not bad Isaiah they are fair and good and they do equally apply to both of us, so neither has an advantage, so our posts will be better too.
So the plan is:
Proof text > Reply > Open discussion.What do you say?
Quote (t8 @ April 15 2007,18:52) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 16 2007,12:49) t8 This is seriosly sad.
For you to turn it back on Is 1:18 as if he is the one who forfeited.
You forfeit by breaking the rules of the debate and changing them in the middle and then come back and wanting to play again with rules that havnt even been agreed on.
This is sad.
I dont blame Is 1:18 for not continuing the debate seeing its only going to be on your terms.
To WorshippingJesus.I am talking about the other 11 discussions. No rules have been broken yet with them and anyway I wish to give Isaiah all the time he needs in order to give the best he has.
If he forfeits then that is up to him though.
I would have very much liked the challenge because I know it would have made me a better man. Iron sharpens iron and all that.
But if he gives up, then maybe someone like yourself would be interested in carrying his torch?
If so, I believe it would be in our best interest for both to be able to post the best answers and questions possible. So some grace regarding time should be okay. One post each and then the discussion is open.
Are you interested?
t8The original rules that were “understood” you changed by saying that you never gave a straight answer to the debate being open after the first response for every Tom, Dick and Harry to muddy the waters with their Henotheistic and Arianistic views.
So its not a matter of just the time. But also of stacking the rules against the players by allowing everyone to get in the game. IMO.
And no I am not interested because I know how you play and want nothing to do with it.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 16 2007,11:54) Quote (t8 @ April 15 2007,18:52) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 16 2007,12:49) t8 This is seriosly sad.
For you to turn it back on Is 1:18 as if he is the one who forfeited.
You forfeit by breaking the rules of the debate and changing them in the middle and then come back and wanting to play again with rules that havnt even been agreed on.
This is sad.
I dont blame Is 1:18 for not continuing the debate seeing its only going to be on your terms.
To WorshippingJesus.I am talking about the other 11 discussions. No rules have been broken yet with them and anyway I wish to give Isaiah all the time he needs in order to give the best he has.
If he forfeits then that is up to him though.
I would have very much liked the challenge because I know it would have made me a better man. Iron sharpens iron and all that.
But if he gives up, then maybe someone like yourself would be interested in carrying his torch?
If so, I believe it would be in our best interest for both to be able to post the best answers and questions possible. So some grace regarding time should be okay. One post each and then the discussion is open.
Are you interested?
t8The original rules that were “understood” you changed by saying that you never gave a straight answer to the debate being open after the first response for every Tom, Dick and Harry to muddy the waters with their Henotheistic and Arianistic views.
So its not a matter of just the time. But also of stacking the rules against the players by allowing everyone to get in the game. IMO.
And no I am not interested because I know how you play and want nothing to do with it.
t8BTW.
This is one of the examples I am talking about.
Is 1:18
Quote
3. T8 has already demonstrated that he doesn't intend to directly answer the difficult questions (refer Q2 & 3 in Is 1:18's Proof Text #1). Answering the questions as they are asked is integral to a productive dialogue.
My personal experience of this is when we had a little debate in which I answered your questions when you said you would answer mine and of course after I answered you, you said you would answer mine when you had time.Still havnt gotten an answer.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,06:54) Quote (t8 @ April 15 2007,18:52) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 16 2007,12:49) t8 This is seriosly sad.
For you to turn it back on Is 1:18 as if he is the one who forfeited.
You forfeit by breaking the rules of the debate and changing them in the middle and then come back and wanting to play again with rules that havnt even been agreed on.
This is sad.
I dont blame Is 1:18 for not continuing the debate seeing its only going to be on your terms.
To WorshippingJesus.I am talking about the other 11 discussions. No rules have been broken yet with them and anyway I wish to give Isaiah all the time he needs in order to give the best he has.
If he forfeits then that is up to him though.
I would have very much liked the challenge because I know it would have made me a better man. Iron sharpens iron and all that.
But if he gives up, then maybe someone like yourself would be interested in carrying his torch?
If so, I believe it would be in our best interest for both to be able to post the best answers and questions possible. So some grace regarding time should be okay. One post each and then the discussion is open.
Are you interested?
t8The original rules that were “understood” you changed by saying that you never gave a straight answer to the debate being open after the first response for every Tom, Dick and Harry to muddy the waters with their Henotheistic and Arianistic views.
So its not a matter of just the time. But also of stacking the rules against the players by allowing everyone to get in the game. IMO.
And no I am not interested because I know how you play and want nothing to do with it.
To WorshippingJesus.So you are not interested in defending the Trinity doctrine with a post, rebuttal, and open discussion.
For some reason replying strictly within 3 days is a matter for contention. But it would be nice if you guys respected my wishes to be flexible with time. After all I am not spending my time down the pub or in a casino. I only ask that you respect that my family and jobs come first and time leftover can be spent here.
I am not willing to put a debate with a Trinitarian above any of these things. I am sorry but I cannot bend on this. I believe it would be wrong to take time away from these in order to satisfy a 3 day deadline. I have responsibilities and I take them seriously as I think all Christians should.
I also think it is evident to all that this time thing is somewhat of a charade. What should be important is that we have the best opportunity to make our point and then anyone can judge what we have said.
But if this is not good enough for you then that is fine. But I don't think you have any excuse to say in future that I wasn't prepared to answer any of your questions. I offered you a debate that would have allowed me to answer any of your points and you are the one turning it down, not me.
I am happy for nothing else to be said of this, so long as you don't go around saying that we are not willing to give you an answer.
To To WorshippingJesus.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,07:07) My personal experience of this is when we had a little debate in which I answered your questions when you said you would answer mine and of course after I answered you, you said you would answer mine when you had time. Still havnt gotten an answer.
I can reply to any of them if you are willing to debate here with me.We all know that there are many discussions here and one can easily loose track of things. I know for example everytime I log on here, that much history has already been written and given the size an amounts of posts in some discussions not everyone has time to read everything.
If you are that really concerned that I haven't given you a reply, then one way to make sure that I answer your points is to have a debate about it.
I offered and you were the one that refused. So if you complain further, then I am not sure what else I can do for you.
Quote (t8 @ April 16 2007,13:06) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,06:54) Quote (t8 @ April 15 2007,18:52) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 16 2007,12:49) t8 This is seriosly sad.
For you to turn it back on Is 1:18 as if he is the one who forfeited.
You forfeit by breaking the rules of the debate and changing them in the middle and then come back and wanting to play again with rules that havnt even been agreed on.
This is sad.
I dont blame Is 1:18 for not continuing the debate seeing its only going to be on your terms.
To WorshippingJesus.I am talking about the other 11 discussions. No rules have been broken yet with them and anyway I wish to give Isaiah all the time he needs in order to give the best he has.
If he forfeits then that is up to him though.
I would have very much liked the challenge because I know it would have made me a better man. Iron sharpens iron and all that.
But if he gives up, then maybe someone like yourself would be interested in carrying his torch?
If so, I believe it would be in our best interest for both to be able to post the best answers and questions possible. So some grace regarding time should be okay. One post each and then the discussion is open.
Are you interested?
t8The original rules that were “understood” you changed by saying that you never gave a straight answer to the debate being open after the first response for every Tom, Dick and Harry to muddy the waters with their Henotheistic and Arianistic views.
So its not a matter of just the time. But also of stacking the rules against the players by allowing everyone to get in the game. IMO.
And no I am not interested because I know how you play and want nothing to do with it.
To WorshippingJesus.So you are not interested in defending the Trinity doctrine with a post, rebuttal, and open discussion.
For some reason replying strictly within 3 days is a matter for contention. But it would be nice if you guys respected my wishes to be flexible with time. After all I am not spending my time down the pub or in a casino. I only ask that you respect that my family and jobs come first and time leftover can be spent here.
I am not willing to put a debate with a Trinitarian above any of these things. I am sorry but I cannot bend on this. I believe it would be wrong to take time away from these in order to satisfy a 3 day deadline. I have responsibilities and I take them seriously as I think all Christians should.
I also think it is evident to all that this time thing is somewhat of a charade. What should be important is that we have the best opportunity to make our point and then anyone can judge what we have said.
But if this is not good enough for you then that is fine. But I don't think you have any excuse to say in future that I wasn't prepared to answer any of your questions. I offered you a debate that would have allowed me to answer any of your points and you are the one turning it down, not me.
I am happy for nothing else to be said of this, so long as you don't go around saying that we are not willing to give you an answer.
t8So I take by this you will answer my previous questions about the Holy Spirit?
Why would I start a debate with you on your word when you havnt fulfilled your previous word.
Why would I have a debate with you on your terms especially the “Open forum and the first response”.
All that would happen is people like David would muddy the water with his 5 page posts and the truth would get lost in chaos.
Just look at this thread what has happend.
That would be an advantage for you would it not? Seeing that the Non-Trintarians out number us 5 to 1.
Not that the numbers matter in the grandstand as I have said.
The truth will always prevail.
But when they all get into the game, then that means a distraction also for the debater having to think of answering their response in defence also.
The right thing is to have a thread where there is open discussion for the spectators after the debate starts.
This way the debate flows without interruption.
Again, I have challenged you to a debate on the Holy Spirit and you have refused to answer
Sorry t8. I just dont trust you.
Quote (t8 @ April 16 2007,13:10) To To WorshippingJesus. Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,07:07) My personal experience of this is when we had a little debate in which I answered your questions when you said you would answer mine and of course after I answered you, you said you would answer mine when you had time. Still havnt gotten an answer.
I can reply to any of them if you are willing to debate here with me.We all know that there are many discussions here and one can easily loose track of things. I know for example everytime I log on here, that much history has already been written and given the size an amounts of posts in some discussions not everyone has time to read everything.
If you are that really concerned that I haven't given you a reply, then one way to make sure that I answer your points is to have a debate about it.
I offered and you were the one that refused. So if you complain further, then I am not sure what else I can do for you.
t8Refer to my previous post.
The answer is no.
You didnt forget about our discussion about the substance of God and the Holy Spirit on this very thread and your promise to answer when you have time.
Sorry I dont believe you.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,08:24) Why would I have a debate with you on your terms especially the “Open forum and the first response”.
What terms would you debate then?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,08:30) Quote (t8 @ April 16 2007,13:10) To To WorshippingJesus. Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,07:07) My personal experience of this is when we had a little debate in which I answered your questions when you said you would answer mine and of course after I answered you, you said you would answer mine when you had time. Still havnt gotten an answer.
I can reply to any of them if you are willing to debate here with me.We all know that there are many discussions here and one can easily loose track of things. I know for example everytime I log on here, that much history has already been written and given the size an amounts of posts in some discussions not everyone has time to read everything.
If you are that really concerned that I haven't given you a reply, then one way to make sure that I answer your points is to have a debate about it.
I offered and you were the one that refused. So if you complain further, then I am not sure what else I can do for you.
t8Refer to my previous post.
The answer is no.
You didnt forget about our discussion about the substance of God and the Holy Spirit on this very thread and your promise to answer when you have time.
Sorry I dont believe you.
OK you say it is in this discussion, so I will look for it.However it would be better if the discussion (about the Holy Spirit) took place in an appropriate discussion. This discussions subject is John 17:3 and the one of the 3 rules here stipulates the following:
“3) No pushing doctrines that are not related to the topic. Pushing them in an appropriate topic is OK.”
Sure people don't always stick to it, but it would be better to discuss the Holy Spirit in a more appropriate discussion for the sake of others who read here.
An existing or new discussion specifically about this would be better. A debate where you pose the question or scripture to me, would force me to reply and would also be in agreement to the rules of these forums. i.e., discuss the topic and not deviate completely. This way you get what you want and it is in keeping with the organisation of discussions here.
What do you say? A debate where I answer your question.
You post first, I will reply. Simple. No time restraints and we can both put our best foot forward.If not, then I can only conclude that you are not really interested in the first place.
Quote (t8 @ April 16 2007,13:31) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,08:24) Why would I have a debate with you on your terms especially the “Open forum and the first response”.
What terms would you debate then?
t8With you there is none.
I dont trust you.
Is 1:18 has obviously more trust in you than I do.
Sorry maybe later, when I see how you handle other debates like the one you have with Is:18.
At the moment I am to emotionally involved with the way I have seen you do, to be focussed the way I should without emotion.
Yes I am emotional, and this is one of my weaknesses.
And you know how to exploit this. So lets just say I concede and you are the better man.
Maybe later I will be up to it.
Quote (t8 @ April 16 2007,13:42) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,08:30) Quote (t8 @ April 16 2007,13:10) To To WorshippingJesus. Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,07:07) My personal experience of this is when we had a little debate in which I answered your questions when you said you would answer mine and of course after I answered you, you said you would answer mine when you had time. Still havnt gotten an answer.
I can reply to any of them if you are willing to debate here with me.We all know that there are many discussions here and one can easily loose track of things. I know for example everytime I log on here, that much history has already been written and given the size an amounts of posts in some discussions not everyone has time to read everything.
If you are that really concerned that I haven't given you a reply, then one way to make sure that I answer your points is to have a debate about it.
I offered and you were the one that refused. So if you complain further, then I am not sure what else I can do for you.
t8Refer to my previous post.
The answer is no.
You didnt forget about our discussion about the substance of God and the Holy Spirit on this very thread and your promise to answer when you have time.
Sorry I dont believe you.
OK you say it is in this discussion, so I will look for it.However it would be better if the discussion (about the Holy Spirit) took place in an appropriate discussion. This discussions subject is John 17:3 and the one of the 3 rules here stipulates the following:
“3) No pushing doctrines that are not related to the topic. Pushing them in an appropriate topic is OK.”
Sure people don't always stick to it, but it would be better to discuss the Holy Spirit in a more appropriate discussion for the sake of others who read here.
An existing or new discussion specifically about this would be better. A debate where you pose the question or scripture to me, would force me to reply and would also be in agreement to the rules of these forums. i.e., discuss the topic and not deviate completely. This way you get what you want and it is in keeping with the organisation of discussions here.
What do you say? A debate where I answer your question.
You post first, I will reply. Simple. No time restraints and we can both put our best foot forward.If not, then I can only conclude that you are not really interested in the first place.
t8I thought the catogory for debates was for any topic?
So I see the debate is only about your proof text John 17:3?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 16 2007,13:45) Quote (t8 @ April 16 2007,13:42) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,08:30) Quote (t8 @ April 16 2007,13:10) To To WorshippingJesus. Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,07:07) My personal experience of this is when we had a little debate in which I answered your questions when you said you would answer mine and of course after I answered you, you said you would answer mine when you had time. Still havnt gotten an answer.
I can reply to any of them if you are willing to debate here with me.We all know that there are many discussions here and one can easily loose track of things. I know for example everytime I log on here, that much history has already been written and given the size an amounts of posts in some discussions not everyone has time to read everything.
If you are that really concerned that I haven't given you a reply, then one way to make sure that I answer your points is to have a debate about it.
I offered and you were the one that refused. So if you complain further, then I am not sure what else I can do for you.
t8Refer to my previous post.
The answer is no.
You didnt forget about our discussion about the substance of God and the Holy Spirit on this very thread and your promise to answer when you have time.
Sorry I dont believe you.
OK you say it is in this discussion, so I will look for it.However it would be better if the discussion (about the Holy Spirit) took place in an appropriate discussion. This discussions subject is John 17:3 and the one of the 3 rules here stipulates the following:
“3) No pushing doctrines that are not related to the topic. Pushing them in an appropriate topic is OK.”
Sure people don't always stick to it, but it would be better to discuss the Holy Spirit in a more appropriate discussion for the sake of others who read here.
An existing or new discussion specifically about this would be better. A debate where you pose the question or scripture to me, would force me to reply and would also be in agreement to the rules of these forums. i.e., discuss the topic and not deviate completely. This way you get what you want and it is in keeping with the organisation of discussions here.
What do you say? A debate where I answer your question.
You post first, I will reply. Simple. No time restraints and we can both put our best foot forward.If not, then I can only conclude that you are not really interested in the first place.
t8I thought the catogory for debates was for any topic?
So I see the debate is only about your proof text John 17:3?
OKNever mind I see what you mean about this thread!
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,08:42) Quote (t8 @ April 16 2007,13:31) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,08:24) Why would I have a debate with you on your terms especially the “Open forum and the first response”.
What terms would you debate then?
t8With you there is none.
I dont trust you.
Is 1:18 has obviously more trust in you than I do.
Sorry maybe later, when I see how you handle other debates like the one you have with Is:18.
At the moment I am to emotionally involved with the way I have seen you do, to be focussed the way I should without emotion.
Yes I am emotional, and this is one of my weaknesses.
And you know how to exploit this. So lets just say I concede and you are the better man.
Maybe later I will be up to it.
WorshippingJesus if you do not trust me then expose me for all to see. I am sure you would love to get such dirt on me. But I ask you, what can I do that would be unfair if one person posts followed by the other guy?Also your judgement of me that I am not trustworthy because I was late in posting is quite harsh. As I mentioned to you before, how can you complain if that measure is what God judges you by. E.g., Would you understand if God said to you that you are untrustworthy because you were late to work due to family related issues? Well that is how you judged me and the proof is in your posts.
Anyway, I proposed to you that you make a post and I reply followed by opening the discussion up. Then in a new discussion I make a post then you reply, followed by open discussion for all.
WorshippingJesus, in that model, what can I honestly do that would be considered untrustworthy? Really the worse thing that could happen is that I do not reply to your post at all. However, in that instance, it would be taken by the other readers that I truly forfeited and that would be seen as a strength in your argument would it not? Sometimes no answer is the same as I don't have one in reply to your question. How bad is that? If you were able to do that, then that would be good from a debating point of view. I also think you would love this to happen.
However I personally think the real reason for not debating is that you are not confident enough in your understanding of your doctrine to have it put under the spotlight.
I think you are more comfortable posting in other discussions because a good answer given against you can be hard to find and therefore it can be ignored, and you have the ability to not answer good questions asked of you because you don't have to and you have the option of ignoring it.
In a debate, there is no hiding. One of us makes a post, then the other follows. It's simple and there is no hiding anything. It is out in the light for all to see. Do you understand this?
I think that anyone who comes here and teaches a doctrine, as zealously as you do, should be able to back it up and it should be brought out into the light to see if it is written. If a man doesn't want to do that, then I think he shouldn't be teaching in these forums in the first place.
Anyway, so far all I have seen from you in the debate section is you attacking my character and no or little reply to the original post and rebuttal.
The idea of participating in this debate is that the Trinity doctrine is suppose to be on trial. It is not meant as a place where we can attack people for their misgivings and human frailty. Such attacks to me look like a “if you can't beat them, then accuse them” attitude. Jesus faced this kind of thing all the time. So that is why I am not really surprised.
The offer is still there for a debate. If you want someone to answer these questions you say you ask and no one answers, then please do not ever say that I didn't offer.
This is my final offer to answer your questions that we are supposedly ignoring.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
