Trinity &#8211; t8&#39;s proof text #1

Participant

Quote (t8 @ April 16 2007,08:20)

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.

A 12 proof text and rebuttal submission format, with a 3 day interval between postings by my estimation requires a 72 day time frame, and at 1000 words each (a conservative figure) for both submission and rebuttal it's going to be equivalent in written length to a Master's thesis, so yes it is “much”, by any measure. But you want to exponentially extend it out by dropping the deadline clause. I don't think it's unreasonable to object to that.

Quote

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.

Well then 72 hours should be ample for you.

Quote

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.

I wrote “indefinite” not interminable. Obviously it will end at some point, but it's not possible to determine when, that's the problem. Work is quiet at the moment but that's not going to last for long.

Quote

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.

You're right, it would accomplish much, as long as both you and I answer the questions posed in an honest manner. Six posts is a good compromise and maybe we could extend the deadline out by a day? Surely you could work within those conditions.

Quote

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.

Yes, but you must know when you are going to be travelling, right? All you have to do is make sure it's done and dusted before you depart. It's called planning t8.

Quote

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.

What about 6 posts and a 4 day interval? It's reasonable, I think.

Quote

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?

Honestly t8, three days should be plenty for someone who confidently affirms “I don't intend spending more than 2 hours on a post anyway, (I rarely do)”. Four should be more than enough for you.

Quote

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.

In a debate you have to make answering your oppontents questions the highest priority, not an afterthought. Four days easily allows for a well thought out and honest answer.

Quote

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?

Hey t8, in formal debate there is a time restriction. That's just the way it is. If we do it your way and still label it a 'debate', we will be operating under false pretenses. It will be a complete farce. WIT has already pointed out that this forum could clean up it's act in this regard. Don't you think he has a valid point?

Quote

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?

I say that a six submission, four day deadline format is eminently fair and reasonable and will engender a little credibility to the proceedings.

April 16, 2007 at 8:36 am#49206

Participant

Isaiah. I thought you were done with being harsh in your judgement toward me? You said it was forgiven.

Anyway I like the idea of a debate, but for the same reason I have mentioned many times before (to you and WorshippingJesus), I cannot absolutely guarantee that I can stick to a deadline. Do you understand this? I have said this many times now. You know it is not wise to agree to something you cannot guarantee, so why do you need to push me in this way?

I learned from the last time to not get into a contract with you. It's like a contract with a loan shark. One late payment and threats or nasty letters start turning up and the focus of the debate is lost in the frenzy of the attack.

I will say it again, if it is one thing I have learned in the last month Isaiah and that is to not get into a contract because the devil can turn up in the details and then the accusations start flying. Don't you think it is better that we avoid this situation instead of stipulating the same rule but one or extra day or whatever.

So please I ask you to be fair about this. One post followed by another. If someone doesn't post at all, then we can take that as a true forfeit because they didn't answer. The discussion just remains closed and the opening argument appears strong because the other party couldn't reply.

Now the point I make is this. We both have made over 1000 posts and then you go on about how long and hard 24 posts are. But I am not planning on leaving soon, and I assume that you aren't either.

Again I repeat that we do no favours for the truth by stipulating a deadline and being hasty. This is not a game of speed chess or a sport. We are talking about scripture here. Lets show some respect and let each man make his best post with no restrictions or limiting each others ability.

Also yes I travel a lot and the last thing I want is to find that I cannot because it lies within a 3 day period that I am contractually committed to. You know that scripture Isaiah about the wind and how you do not know or predict it. Well the sons of God who are led by the Spirit are like that. I don't think it is wise to make this a contract and be bound by such a ruling. I wisely use the word 'bound' here.

I ask you to be reasonable. Surely letting each person post his best post is very fair. What is wrong with that?

12 posts and 12 rebuttals each. Compare that to the thousands we have already made and it isn't a big commitment unless you are planning on leaving soon.

So again I ask that you respect my wish and the way that I live my life. I often cannot make it here and if you studied my posting patterns over the years you will see that I post in waves. There are plenty of troughs and peaks. Please respect that I may be different to you and others who may regularly come here. My life is different. I usually come here in the weekends and sometimes in the week if my other work is done. Sometimes I cannot turn up for weeks and I have been known to away for months too.

We are all different Isaiah. I ask that you respect the fact that we are different. Surely we can cater for both by just keeping it simple. One post each and then open the discussion. What is so bad about that?

April 16, 2007 at 8:41 am#49207

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/debate

Participant

<!–QuoteBegin–Is 1:18+April 17 2007,15:08–>

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 17 2007,15:08)

That is not the only kind of debate.

a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
deliberation; consideration.
Archaic. strife; contention.
–verb (used without object)
to engage in argument or discussion, as in a legislative or public assembly: When we left, the men were still debating.
to participate in a formal debate.
to deliberate; consider: I debated with myself whether to tell them the truth or not.
Obsolete. to fight; quarrel.
–verb (used with object)
to argue or discuss (a question, issue, or the like), as in a legislative or public assembly: They debated the matter of free will.
to dispute or disagree about: The homeowners debated the value of a road on the island.
to engage in formal argumentation or disputation with (another person, group, etc.): Jones will debate Smith. Harvard will debate Princeton.
to deliberate upon; consider: He debated his decision in the matter.
Archaic. to contend for or over.

There are many forms of debate Isaiah and the rules of a debate are not all the same. Surely they can be made to suit everyone. There is no one right way or rules for every debate in the world is there?

Why can't you be happy with a format that suits both of us and not just you. Are you insisting because you feel it gives you an advantage? Just accept that I cannot give my word to something that I may not be able to keep. You have the proof from the first debate. I couldn't make it in 3 days. Let's both be wise and learn from this.

April 16, 2007 at 9:16 am#49208

Participant

here we are again, having a debate about the terms and conditions of the debate….deja vu…

In the interests of ending this unbelievably inane dialogue, what do you say to an eight proof text format, with a four day deadline for each submission, and on the odd occasion if the deadline is not able to be met by either of us then an extension can be requested.

Surely that's agreeable to you?

April 16, 2007 at 9:20 am#49209

Participant

It's simple Is 1:18. I can make it if there is a post and a rebuttal and then opening it up for comment.

It is really simple and we both can follow that without falling into pits and traps.

Are you agreeable?

April 16, 2007 at 9:25 am#49210

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 17 2007,16:16)

here we are again, having a debate about the terms and conditions of the debate….deja vu…

Aha. Here you are using the word debate with no connotation to a strict time period.

Come on lighten up. Life is too short to be grumpy.

April 16, 2007 at 9:28 am#49211

Participant

Okay then, we're getting somewhere now, I take it you agree to my suggestions and since I have never disputed the original format you can take it as given that I agree to yours.

Can you make sure this thread is unlocked tomorrow night so I can post my rebuttal? Thanks.

Blessings

April 16, 2007 at 9:30 am#49212

Participant

Quote (t8 @ April 16 2007,21:25)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 17 2007,16:16)

here we are again, having a debate about the terms and conditions of the debate….deja vu…

Ah ha. Here you are using the word debate with no connotation to a strict time period.

Come on lighten up. Life is to short to be grumpy.

he he….I was just answering your points t8…you are a sensitive soul, aren't you.

:cool:

April 16, 2007 at 9:45 am#49214

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,06:54)

The 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.

Sorry I didn't read this before WorshippingJesus.

I originally wanted only myself and Isaiah to post with a post > rebuttal > rebuttal of the rebuttal > rebuttal of the rebuttal of the rebuttal.

I felt that this would be a good design to force the other person to answer everything including the arguments made against the replies. This would have given a good measure of accountability. If it was one thing I was trying to avoid and that was drive by postings.

But Isaiah was against this idea because he said it would take too long. So I proposed that we open the discussion up and get feedback from others as another way to get some accountability. So it wasn't just something that was done behind anyone's back. It was spoken of beforehand. You can read it yourself if you can find the posts. I couldn't find them just now. I think they were in the Trinity thread.

I still think that just one post and a reply is completely inadequate. A reply could be completely wrong and if it is just left there with no comment whatsoever, then where is the accountability? We should really be there to give an answer as to what we teach.

April 16, 2007 at 9:55 am#49215

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 17 2007,16:28)

Okay then, we're getting somewhere now, I take it you agree to my suggestions and since I have never disputed the original format you can take it as given that I agree to yours.

Can you make sure this thread is unlocked tomorrow night so I can post my rebuttal? Thanks.

Blessings

Hi Is 1:18 .

I don't want to come across too serious about this, but I think I need to dot all the i's before starting. Can I get a summary of how this will work or your agreement to how I assume this is to take place which I have listed below:

I take it that one person posts, the other replies and then it is opened up for anyone to comment.
In total there are 6 discussions that we each start and 6 that we reply to.
We are also free to take whatever time is necessary to make our best post
We can opt to forfeit a discussion if we do not know or have the answer. I added this in because it is very possible that this could be an outcome for one or more of the discussions. (Just trying to think of every possible thing that can happen that is all.)
So far I have started 2 discussions and you have started one, so this means that I have another 4 proof texts and you have 5 to go.
Once each discussion is opened up, we can comment ourselves if we want, but we are not obligated to.
Is this the format?
I need to be sure about everything this time. I don't want this to be akin to taking out a loan with a loan shark complete with heavies who try and rough you up a bit. Let's be graceful generous toward each other please.

April 16, 2007 at 3:13 pm#49227

Participant

Quote (t8 @ April 16 2007,19:56)

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?

With 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.

There you go, more patronizing.

If you consider me not trusting you an attack on your character, well then there is nothing I can do about that.

I have given my reasons and you dont like them, so patronize me if you want.

Also I do have an answer for your twisted response to Is 1:18s proof text.

But I am still praying about my answer.

April 17, 2007 at 7:13 am#49339

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,22:13)

Also I do have an answer for your twisted response to Is 1:18s proof text.

But I am still praying about my answer.

WorshippingJesus, you should be careful.

If God inspired my writing then guess who you are calling twisted?

You should be careful with your words.

Life and death are in the tongue.

It is not wise to let your emotions take control my friend.

April 17, 2007 at 7:31 am#49346

Participant

Did God inspire your writing? How do you know that?

April 17, 2007 at 9:24 am#49357

Participant

Quote (t8 @ April 16 2007,21:55)

Hi Is 1:18 .

I take it that one person posts, the other replies and then it is opened up for anyone to comment.

In total there are 6 discussions that we each start and 6 that we reply to.

We are also free to take whatever time is necessary to make our best post

We can opt to forfeit a discussion if we do not know or have the answer. I added this in because it is very possible that this could be an outcome for one or more of the discussions. (Just trying to think of every possible thing that can happen that is all.)

So far I have started 2 discussions and you have started one, so this means that I have another 4 proof texts and you have 5 to go.

Once each discussion is opened up, we can comment ourselves if we want, but we are not obligated to.

Is this the format?

I need to be sure about everything this time. I don't want this to be akin to taking out a loan with a loan shark complete with heavies who try and rough you up a bit. Let's be graceful generous toward each other please.

Yes I agree with most of those.

I don't like this one:

Quote

We are also free to take whatever time is necessary to make our best post

Can we not just have a 4 day time limitation and seek extensions if need be? That way I can guage the time frame I am committing myself to and time pressure is a good thing in debates. Four days allows plenty of time for a submission, I don't see why you would objection to this.

With regard to this point:

Quote

I don't think we need to forfeit an entire duscussion on account of one question that has one of us stumped. It's perfectly acceptable to just write “I don't have an answer for that question”. It's more commendable to do that than to blatantly equivocate, don't you think?

Blessings

April 17, 2007 at 3:40 pm#49370

Participant

Quote (t8 @ April 17 2007,19:13)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,22:13)

Also I do have an answer for your twisted response to Is 1:18s proof text.

But I am still praying about my answer.

WorshippingJesus, you should be careful.

If God inspired my writing then guess who you are calling twisted?

You should be careful with your words.

Life and death are in the tongue.

It is not wise to let your emotions take control my friend.

So if God inspired your writtings then Is 1:18s is not.

Do you make that judgment?

In my opinion you should be careful claiming that your writings are inspired because you may be calling God a liar.

April 17, 2007 at 4:01 pm#49372

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 18 2007,03:40)

Quote (t8 @ April 17 2007,19:13)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,22:13)

Also I do have an answer for your twisted response to Is 1:18s proof text.

But I am still praying about my answer.

WorshippingJesus, you should be careful.

If God inspired my writing then guess who you are calling twisted?

You should be careful with your words.

Life and death are in the tongue.

It is not wise to let your emotions take control my friend.

So if God inspired your writtings then Is 1:18s is not.

Do you make that judgment?

In my opinion you should be careful claiming that your writings are inspired because you may be calling God a liar.

If you are so sure your writtings are inspired then why would you write this in yoiur rebuttal…

Quote

He in the above verse must be God, or possibly the author. (I don't have time to check this as my reply is delayed enough as it is.)

I base this rebuttal on the translations as they were presented to me. I didn't have the time to look deeply into the Greek and so there is also a possibility that a translation issue could add, edit, or correct what I have said above.

OK I have given my rebuttal. Now even though I took my time in replying I would have liked more time to check out the original language to see if what I am saying is so. I do not claim that all I say is true, but that I am a human who struggles with his sinful nature who desires to be perfect and so to that end, I am open to learning what others have to say and of course I am open to changing my mind.

This dosnt seem like confidence that your writtings were inspired to me.

April 22, 2007 at 9:41 am#50128

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 18 2007,22:40)

Quote (t8 @ April 17 2007,19:13)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,22:13)

Also I do have an answer for your twisted response to Is 1:18s proof text.

But I am still praying about my answer.

WorshippingJesus, you should be careful.

If God inspired my writing then guess who you are calling twisted?

You should be careful with your words.

Life and death are in the tongue.

It is not wise to let your emotions take control my friend.

So if God inspired your writtings then Is 1:18s is not.

Do you make that judgment?

In my opinion you should be careful claiming that your writings are inspired because you may be calling God a liar.

If you look at what I wrote. I said that “if God inspired my writing”. It wasn't a statement to say that he absolutely did.

Then you say if God inspired me do I think the opposite for Isaiah.

Well we know that truth comes from God and lies come from the Father of lies and there is no truth in him.

Now men can be inspired by either and in a lifetime both at different times. Peter is a good example of this.

I claim to speak the truth yes, but I do not claim to be perfect, all knowing, and beyond making mistakes. I have made plenty of mistakes in my life. I also do not believe that Isaiah (the member not the biblical writer) speaks the truth, rather he speaks the words of men. Rarely have I heard him speak the truth. Quoting a scripture is not what I am talking about. I am talking about his conclusions.

I use scripture to prove my words and he uses a mixture of scripture and creeds/philosophy as any cult does . He also likes big words as philosophers often do, I am not against them per se, but feel that the truth is important enough to make it as clear as possible to all and that using them for prides sake is not a good reason.

I believe that those who try and preserve the traditions of men do so because of pride. But a person who loves the truth will except truth even if the whole world is against it. And we know that the whole world is under the sway of the evil one.

I am not interested in trying to prove that I am better than Isaiah or he is better than me because that would be foolish pride talking. But you asked for my opinion, I gave it. It is what I believe. It has nothing to do with reputations or pride.

I believe that Isaiah doesn't speak the truth and pride is what stops him from seeing the simple truth from scripture.

God reveals things to the innocent/children and we should accept the Kingdom of God like an innocent child. But not all do that, especially Pharisees.

However, Paul was once a Pharisee and a persecutor of the Church, so I do see that it is possible that someone like Isaiah could be made blind in order for him to see. So I respect him for his potential.

April 22, 2007 at 9:50 am#50129

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 18 2007,23:01)

If you are so sure your writtings are inspired then why would you write this in yoiur rebuttal…

To WorshippingJesus.

I spoke the truth when I said that.

Given more time I know that God could have shown me. It wouldn't have been hard, I just needed to read it with more time. God speaks to us when we read his truth. But you still need to give God the space to speak in our lives.

I gave the answer before allowing God to show me due to the pressure of men and their traditions. I gave the answer quicker than I would have liked to stop you guys from whining. That is the truth.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

That seems to be the case with you guys. Whatever I do, it is not good enough. But what you do to me was already done to Christ the Lord.

Your fruit shows what manor of man you are. You love to accuse and you are harsh with your judgement toward me. All this because I have rightly rejected a doctrine that was developed hundreds of years after the last book in the bible was written.

April 23, 2007 at 5:56 am#50177