You cannot have 200% of anything!

[Ed J]

Quote

Logically, both atheism  and theism cannot be equally true or equally valid because both “truths” make mutually exclusive claims.

Quote

so both sides, realizing that they won't be able to persuade the other side of their “error”… will shake hands and agree to disagree because they are not interested in fighting.

Quote

it seems that there are those who can never agree to disagree.

Hi Francis,

How can you agree to disagree with an 'atheist'? Do you believe the side of the “Theist” to be in 'error'?
How do you square these to opposing views (with each other) in your mind? Do both sides thinking
and opinions have too much of their personal selves invested in their opinions to be The Truth?
So to say to agree to disagree is unfounded and useless (in this case); can you agree now?

Would you rather spend your time discussing useless opinions, or helping to establish “The Truth”?
Will you now, Francis, address the question that I posed to you on the top of the last page?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 13 2011,08:07)

Quote (francis @ Jan. 13 2011,07:56) Ed J… Quote Do you agree that “The Truth” can be different for you, than it is for someone else? Or do you disagree? The Law of non-contradiction says that two mutually exclusive claims/truths cannot both be factually and objectively true/correct at the same time. Respectfully Francis Hi Francis, So to say to agree to disagree is unfounded and useless; you do agree then right? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Hi Francis,

Why are you disagreeing with my attempt to agree with you?

Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[francis]

Hello Ed J…

Quote

Hi Francis, How can you agree to disagree with an 'atheist'? Do you believe the side of the “Theist” to be in 'error'? How do you square these to opposing views (with each other) in your mind?

This is the strangest conversation I've ever encountered. I have absolutely no clue what you are saying.

How on earth does “agreeing to disagree” mean that I believe the theist to be in error?

How on earth does “agreeing to disagree” mean that I am squaring atheism with theism in my mind?

The above comments of yours make absolutely no sense to me at all.  I keep reading what you wrote and yet no matter how often I read your words, I can't for the life of me figure out what you mean.

The only thing I can figure is that the phrase “agreeing to disagree” mean something different to you than to me.  That has to be what is going on in here.

So… what does “agreeing to disagree” mean to you?  Because evidently, it means something different to me.

Quote

Do both sides thinking and opinions have too much of their personal selves invested in their opinions to be The Truth?

And what on earth does this question of yours have anything to do with what I have written?  I don't see the connection at all.  I don't know, maybe I'm just real dense.

I was NOT saying that having too much of a person's selves invested in their opinions means that they don't have the truth or can't have the truth or that their opinion cannot be the truth.  I was VERY DELIBERATELY saying that having too much of a person's emotional selves invested in their opinions makes it extremely difficult to ADMIT that they are wrong.

It's a fact that sometimes the thinking and opinions of a person on both sides of a discussion/debate have too much of their personal selves invested in their opinions to CHANGE their opinion to LINE UP WITH THE TRUTH when confronted with evidence for the Truth that they have been rejecting all their lives.

There is even a name for this phenomena… and it's called the Planck Problem.  In fact, the more intelligent a person is, the LESS LIKELY they will be able to make a paradigm shift in their worldview when confronted with contrary evidence and facts because it is often very difficult for smart people to admit that they are wrong.

Please Ed J… read again what I actually wrote:

SOMETIMES people, being the way they are, cannot agree or cannot be persuaded to make a major paradigm shift in their thinking and opinions because they have too much of their personal selves invested in their opinion/truth.

It SOMETIMES happens between civilized people that a stalemate occurs in a discussion/debate… and so both sides, realizing that they won't be able to persuade the other side of their “error”… will shake hands and agree to disagree because they are not interested in fighting.

Your above question has nothing to do with what I wrote… and that is why I can't understand what you are writing.

Quote

So to say to agree to disagree is unfounded and useless (in this case); can you agree now?

My answer is the same because your response indicates that either you did not understand what I wrote… or that we are using certain phrases and words differently than each other.

Quote

Would you rather spend your time discussing useless opinions, or helping to establish “The Truth”?

What I presented to you was not an opinion, but a fact.

It is a fact thatSOMETIMES people, being the way they are, cannot agree or cannot be persuaded to make a major paradigm shift in their thinking and opinions because they have too much of their personal selves invested in their opinion/truth.

It is a fact that for many people, ESPECIALLY very intelligent people, it is extremely difficult to admit that they are wrong BECAUSE they have heavily invested their emotions and their selves into their opinions.  There is even a name for this fact… it's called the “Planck Problem”.

So what I wrote to you was not a useless opinion, but a fact about the nature of “agreeing to disagree” within a civilized discussion/debate.

Quote

Will you now, Francis, address the question that I posed to you on the top of the last page?

How can we do that when it is abundantly obvious that we aren't able to communicate with each other thus far?

Our inability to communicate with each will not be magically cured by answering another question of yours.  

Not only that, I have answered your question.  I did it in PM and I even repeated my answer in here.  The fact that your question continues to use the 100% number as some form of math equation only shows that you have not read a word I have written, or once again, you are using the English language differently than I am.

I've already explained in detail in PM to you… and even in here… what part of Jesus is FULLY God and what part of Jesus was FULLY human.  What part of the answers I've given to you is causing difficulty for you to understand?

But anyway,  like I said, it is obvious from your last couple of posts that you are not using the English language in the same manner I am because I sincerely do not understand what you are saying.

I really don't.

Ed J… unless you can explain to me why you don't understand my answers… and explain what the phrase “agreeing to disagree” means to you… and explain how this question of yours: “Do both sides thinking and opinions have too much of their personal selves invested in their opinions to be The Truth?” have any connection to what I wrote… unless you can do that for me, then I don't see why we should continue with what is obviously a very, very strange discussion that leaves me clueless about what you are saying.

Quote

Why are you disagreeing with my attempt to agree with you?

Because I don't agree that to “agree to disagree” is unfounded and useless.  I had just given you a reason as to why I don't agree that it is unfounded and useless in a previous post, and yet it appears that you did not either read what I wrote, or you did not understand what I wrote (there is that communication problem we are having).

What I wrote was this:

It sometimes happens between civilized people that a stalemate occurs in a discussion/debate… and so both sides, realizing that they won't be able to persuade the other side of their “error”… will shake hands and
agree to disagree because they are not interested in fighting.

To agree to disagree is a useful and healthy alternative to fighting.  That is what I wrote to you.. and that is why I disagree with you that to “agree to disagree” is unfounded and useless.

Wow… this is really strange. But hey, maybe I'm must completely dense.  That is always a possibility.

Respectfully
Francis.

P.S…. it looks like Mike has responded to my latest post, and so I'm going to be involved in that. So I probably will not be back for awhile.

[Ed J]

Hi Francis,

Quote

I was VERY DELIBERATELY saying that having too much of a person's emotional selves invested in their opinions makes it extremely difficult to ADMIT that they are wrong.

      Thank you, this is the point that I'm trying to establish!

Quote

what does “agreeing to disagree” mean to you?

      It means to agree to 'a lie'!

Quote

It SOMETIMES happens between civilized people that a stalemate occurs in a discussion/debate… and so both sides, realizing that they won't be able to persuade the other side of their “error”… will shake hands and agree to disagree because they are not interested in fighting.

      (I will address 'your words' using the words in T8's signature)…  
      “An honest but mistaken man, once shown the truth, either ceases to be mistaken or ceases to be honest. ”   …T8

Quote

What I presented to you was not an opinion, but a fact.

      What makes you believe your last quote is a “FACT” rather than just 'your opinion'? FACT: People can believe lies!

Quote

Quote Will you now, Francis, address the question that I posed to you on the top of the last page? How can we do that when it is abundantly obvious that we aren't able to communicate with each other thus far?

      It would be nice if you would seek to agree to “The Truth” with me, instead of discussing opinions; don't you think?

Quote

I have answered your question.

      I have posed a different question to you; which you seem to be working hard to dodge; no?

Quote

The fact that your question continues to use the 100% number

      This is 'a lie', there is no mention of any percentage in my new question!

Quote

there is that communication problem we are having

      I have been attempting to break down this barrier! Your willingness to want to agree to “The Truth” will help!

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[francis]

Hello Ed J…

Quote

Francis what does “agreeing to disagree” mean to you? Ed J     It means to agree to 'a lie'!

Therein lies the problem between you and I.  You ARE using the English language differently than I am. Here is how Wikipedia defines the phrase “agreeing to disagree”:

Agree to disagree or “agreeing to disagree” is a phrase in English referring to the resolution of a conflict (usually a debate or quarrel) whereby all parties tolerate but do not accept the opposing position(s). It generally occurs when all sides recognise that further conflict is unnecessary, ineffective or otherwise undesirable. They may also remain on amicable terms while continuing to disagree.

As you can see, “agreeing to disagree” is NOT agreeing to a lie.  And as you can see from the above, “agreeing to disagree” is NOT unfounded and useless (in this case) as you have been contending.   It helps both sides to part ways on amicable terms.

It's for this reason that I sometimes find it difficult to communicate with you.  You appear to “hear” something different than what is spoken to you.

—————————————

Quote

Francis I was VERY DELIBERATELY saying that having too much of a person's emotional selves invested in their opinions makes it extremely difficult to ADMIT that they are wrong.       Ed J Thank you, this is the point that I'm trying to establish!

And that is what I've been saying ALL ALONG!!

————————————

Quote

Francis   It SOMETIMES happens between civilized people that a stalemate occurs in a discussion/debate… and so both sides, realizing that they won't be able to persuade the other side of their “error”… will shake hands and agree to disagree because they are not interested in fighting.       Ed J (I will address 'your words' using the words in T8's signature)…        “An honest but mistaken man, once shown the truth, either ceases to be mistaken or ceases to be honest. ”   …T8

The problem with T8's quote is that it is far too simple and doesn't take into consideration a 3rd option.  and thus this quote is a kind of like a “false dilemma”… or “on the horns of a dilemma”  in a way.   A false dilemma is where a person says that there are only two options open.  But if it can be shown that a 3rd option is available, then the argument is false because the argument was assuming that there was no 3rd option.

So… if we look at T8's quote again,  I immediately see a 3rd option which the quote doesn't take into consideration.  T8's quote is assuming that an honest but mistaken man, once shown the truth, will automatically and immediately see that what he is shown IS THE TRUTH.

But If an honest man doesn't know that he is mistaken in the first place… and if he HONESTLY AND SINCERELY can't or doesn't recognize the truth in front of him, then how can he cease to be honest?

Indeed, in such a case he is STILL mistaken!!  So, if an honest but mistaken man is shown the truth, but he sincerely and honestly doesn't recognize that it is the truth, then he is STILL mistaken and he is STILL honest.

Can you see that?

—————————————-

Quote

Francis   What I presented to you was not an opinion, but a fact.   Ed J What makes you believe your last quote is a “FACT” rather than just 'your opinion'? FACT: People can believe lies!

What quote are you talking about?

The last quote I made to you was the following:

“It sometimes happens between civilized people that a stalemate occurs in a discussion/debate… and so both sides, realizing that they won't be able to persuade the other side of their “error”… will shake hands and agree to disagree because they are not interested in fighting.”

This is not an opinion but a fact, and Wikipedia backs me up.

——————————————-

Quote

Francis   I have answered your question. Ed J   I have posed a different question to you; which you seem to be working hard to dodge; no?

No.  The only question I could find which you are referring to is this: “You believe Jesus was 100% not God and 100% God?”

And I have answered this in here and in PM to you.  So I have not dodged this question at all, if this is the “different” question you are talking about.

I've already explained what part of Jesus is NOT God… and what part of Jesus IS God.  So I don't understand your accusation.

————————————————

Quote

Francis     The fact that your question continues to use the 100% number Ed J This is 'a lie', there is no mention of any percentage in my new question!

First of all, I am not lying.  It is obvious from your knee jerk response in throwing the word “lie” around so carelessly, that you probably don't know what the word “lie” means just as you didn't know what “agreeing to disagree” meant.

I gave you what you I thought was the “different question” you were asking.  I could be mistaken, but that doesn't mean i'm lying.

Indeed, if I'm mistaken, then it is your fault because I only followed your instructions to me as I looked for this “different” question of yours.  This is the INSTRUCTION you gave to me:

Quote

Will you now, Francis, address the question that I posed to you on the top of the last page?

That is what you wrote to me in your latest post.  This is page 11.  So as per your instructions, I went to page 10 because that would be the last page.  And I looked at the top of the last page (pg 10), and this is the question you asked of me:

Quote

You believe Jesus was 100% not God and 100% God?

Notice the percentage in your question?

So I am not lying to you at all.   I fol
lowed your INSTRUCTIONS, located your question, and gave you my answer.  You  then called me a liar.

I might have been mistaken and was looking at the wrong question of yours.. but that IS NOT AN EXAMPLE OF A LIE!!

As a Christian, I would hope you will apologize.

——————————————————

Quote

Francis there is that communication problem we are having Ed J I have been attempting to break down this barrier! Your willingness to want to agree to “The Truth” will help!

Your attempts are failing.  

First you were incorrectly using the phrase “agreeing to disagree” to mean that someone is agreeing to a lie.

Secondly, you appear to not understand what a lie is.

Thirdly, you called me a liar even though it is clear that at the most, I was mistaken because you gave me faulty instructions.

Fourthly, I've never wrote… and no where in any of my posts… have I have not been willing to agree to “The Truth”.  

Fifthly, I still don't know what “The Truth” is to you, but if I do not believe that this “Truth” that you talk about is really “The Truth” in the first place, then I will not agree to it.  

As I have pointed out to you, everyone and anyone can say they have “The Truth”… but that doesn't mean they do because it is logically impossible for everyone to have “The Truth” if their “Truth” makes mutally exclusive claims to other “Truths”.

So the fact that I have no idea what this “The Truth” is to you,  I can't reject or accept it or even comment on it.   What this shows is that your lack of clarification is not breaking down our communciation barrier, but it is only demonstrating the barrier's existence in the first place.

And that is why, for the above reasons,  I say your attempts are failing.

———————————————-

Ed J… I have a very serious concern about you calling me a liar… without even attempting to first find out if I might have been mistaken.

That kind of quick and cavalier reaction and attitude on your part is extremely troubling in my opinion.

At the very least, I think you owe me an apology.  And be aware that I myself am not above apologizing when I've been shown to be in the wrong.  You can ask Asana for confirmation of that.  So to apologize is not a mark of weakness or defeat.  It's just the honest and Christian thing to do if we make a mistake.

If you refuse to apologize for calling me a liar, then there is no reason to continue our discussion.

Respectfully
Francis

[Ed J]

Quote (francis @ Jan. 15 2011,03:23)

Hello Ed J… Quote Francis what does “agreeing to disagree” mean to you? Ed J     It means to agree to 'a lie'! Therein lies the problem between you and I.  You ARE using the English language differently than I am. Here is how Wikipedia defines the phrase “agreeing to disagree”: Agree to disagree or “agreeing to disagree” is a phrase in English referring to the resolution of a conflict (usually a debate or quarrel) whereby all parties tolerate but do not accept the opposing position(s). It generally occurs when all sides recognise that further conflict is unnecessary, ineffective or otherwise undesirable. They may also remain on amicable terms while continuing to disagree. As you can see, “agreeing to disagree” is NOT agreeing to a lie.  And as you can see from the above, “agreeing to disagree” is NOT unfounded and useless (in this case) as you have been contending.   It helps both sides to part ways on amicable terms. It's for this reason that I sometimes find it difficult to communicate with you.  You appear to “hear” something different than what is spoken to you. Respectfully Francis

Hi Francis,

With regard to “The Truth”, I refuse to disagree with “The Truth” and neither should you.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Quote (francis @ Jan. 15 2011,03:23)

Hello Ed J… Quote Francis I was VERY DELIBERATELY saying that having too much of a person's emotional selves invested in their opinions makes it extremely difficult to ADMIT that they are wrong.       Ed J Thank you, this is the point that I'm trying to establish! And that is what I've been saying ALL ALONG!! Respectfully Francis

Hi Francis,

Then you do have a willingness to agree; great!

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Quote (francis @ Jan. 15 2011,03:23)

Hello Ed J… Quote Francis   It SOMETIMES happens between civilized people that a stalemate occurs in a discussion/debate… and so both sides, realizing that they won't be able to persuade the other side of their “error”… will shake hands and agree to disagree because they are not interested in fighting.       Ed J (I will address 'your words' using the words in T8's signature)…        “An honest but mistaken man, once shown the truth, either ceases to be mistaken or ceases to be honest. ”   …T8 The problem with T8's quote is that it is far too simple and doesn't take into consideration a 3rd option.  and thus this quote is a kind of like a “false dilemma”… or “on the horns of a dilemma”  in a way.   A false dilemma is where a person says that there are only two options open.  But if it can be shown that a 3rd option is available, then the argument is false because the argument was assuming that there was no 3rd option. So… if we look at T8's quote again,  I immediately see a 3rd option which the quote doesn't take into consideration.  T8's quote is assuming that an honest but mistaken man, once shown the truth, will automatically and immediately see that what he is shown IS THE TRUTH. But If an honest man doesn't know that he is mistaken in the first place… and if he HONESTLY AND SINCERELY can't or doesn't recognize the truth in front of him, then how can he cease to be honest? Indeed, in such a case he is STILL mistaken!!  So, if an honest but mistaken man is shown the truth, but he sincerely and honestly doesn't recognize that it is the truth, then he is STILL mistaken and he is STILL honest. Can you see that? Respectfully Francis

Hi Francis,

You are right: your use of the English differs from mine, let's examine your quote here…

Is it not your words that present 'a false dilemma'?   …'the other side of their “error”'… 

Both sides don't have to equally have 'error'!   …your words do present 'a false dilemma'.

I will endeavor to fully articulate “The Truth”, so that you will be able recognize it's facade.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Quote (francis @ Jan. 15 2011,03:23)

Hello Ed J… Quote Francis   What I presented to you was not an opinion, but a fact.   Ed J What makes you believe your last quote is a “FACT” rather than just 'your opinion'? FACT: People can believe lies! What quote are you talking about? The last quote I made to you was the following: “It sometimes happens between civilized people that a stalemate occurs in a discussion/debate… and so both sides, realizing that they won't be able to persuade the other side of their “error”… will shake hands and agree to disagree because they are not interested in fighting.” This is not an opinion but a fact, and Wikipedia backs me up. Respectfully Francis

Hi Francis,

Is is merely an opinion (and not a fact) to assume that both sides equally have 'error'!

Is it not your words that present 'a false dilemma'?   …'the other side of their “error”'…  

Both sides don't have to equally have 'error'!   …your words do present 'a false dilemma'.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Quote (francis @ Jan. 15 2011,03:23)

Hello Ed J… Quote Francis   I have answered your question. Ed J   I have posed a different question to you; which you seem to be working hard to dodge; no? No.  The only question I could find which you are referring to is this: “You believe Jesus was 100% not God and 100% God?” And I have answered this in here and in PM to you.  So I have not dodged this question at all, if this is the “different” question you are talking about. I've already explained what part of Jesus is NOT God… and what part of Jesus IS God.  So I don't understand your accusation. Respectfully Francis

Hi Francis,

Sorry, I did have percentages in my question; my mistake.

According to what you believe could it then also be said?…
You believe Jesus was 100% not God and 100% God?

Do you agree with my assessment of your view?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Quote (francis @ Jan. 15 2011,03:23)

Hello Ed J… Quote Francis     The fact that your question continues to use the 100% number Ed J This is 'a lie', there is no mention of any percentage in my new question! First of all, I am not lying.  It is obvious from your knee jerk response in throwing the word “lie” around so carelessly, that you probably don't know what the word “lie” means just as you didn't know what “agreeing to disagree” meant. I gave you what you I thought was the “different question” you were asking.  I could be mistaken, but that doesn't mean i'm lying. Indeed, if I'm mistaken, then it is your fault because I only followed your instructions to me as I looked for this “different” question of yours.  This is the INSTRUCTION you gave to me: Quote Will you now, Francis, address the question that I posed to you on the top of the last page? That is what you wrote to me in your latest post.  This is page 11.  So as per your instructions, I went to page 10 because that would be the last page.  And I looked at the top of the last page (pg 10), and this is the question you asked of me: Quote You believe Jesus was 100% not God and 100% God? Notice the percentage in your question? So I am not lying to you at all.   I followed your INSTRUCTIONS, located your question, and gave you my answer.  You  then called me a liar. I might have been mistaken and was looking at the wrong question of yours.. but that IS NOT AN EXAMPLE OF A LIE!! As a Christian, I would hope you will apologize. Respectfully Francis

Hi Francis,

Sorry, I did have percentages in my question; my mistake.

According to what you believe could it then also be said?…
You believe Jesus was 100% not God and 100% God?

Do you agree with my assessment of your view?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Quote (francis @ Jan. 15 2011,03:23)

Hello Ed J… Quote Francis there is that communication problem we are having Ed J I have been attempting to break down this barrier! Your willingness to want to agree to “The Truth” will help! Your attempts are failing.   First you were incorrectly using the phrase “agreeing to disagree” to mean that someone is agreeing to a lie. Secondly, you appear to not understand what a lie is. Thirdly, you called me a liar even though it is clear that at the most, I was mistaken because you gave me faulty instructions. Fourthly, I've never wrote… and no where in any of my posts… have I have not been willing to agree to “The Truth”.   Fifthly, I still don't know what “The Truth” is to you, but if I do not believe that this “Truth” that you talk about is really “The Truth” in the first place, then I will not agree to it.   As I have pointed out to you, everyone and anyone can say they have “The Truth”… but that doesn't mean they do because it is logically impossible for everyone to have “The Truth” if their “Truth” makes mutally exclusive claims to other “Truths”. So the fact that I have no idea what this “The Truth” is to you,  I can't reject or accept it or even comment on it.   What this shows is that your lack of clarification is not breaking down our communciation barrier, but it is only demonstrating the barrier's existence in the first place. And that is why, for the above reasons,  I say your attempts are failing. Respectfully Francis

Hi Francis,

Agreeing to disagree is unfounded and useless; and I can't, it is to agree to 'a lie'!
Rather than discussing 'opinions', let's work towards agreeing on “The Truth”; OK?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Quote (francis @ Jan. 15 2011,03:23)

Hello Ed J… Ed J… I have a very serious concern about you calling me a liar… without even attempting to first find out if I might have been mistaken. That kind of quick and cavalier reaction and attitude on your part is extremely troubling in my opinion. At the very least, I think you owe me an apology.  And be aware that I myself am not above apologizing when I've been shown to be in the wrong.  You can ask Asana for confirmation of that.  So to apologize is not a mark of weakness or defeat.  It's just the honest and Christian thing to do if we make a mistake. If you refuse to apologize for calling me a liar, then there is no reason to continue our discussion. Respectfully Francis

Hi Francis,

I called your words 'a lie', I did not call you 'a liar'; I take offense in 'your' accusation!
I apologized twice so far, for being mistaken about your words being 'a lie'.
Hopefully you to will reciprocate, as I did NOT call you 'a liar'!

Now rather than discussing 'opinions', can we work towards agreeing on “The Truth”?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[francis]

Ed J…

Quote

I called your words 'a lie', I did not call you 'a liar'; I take offense in 'your' accusation!I apologized twice so far, for being mistaken about your words being 'a lie'. Hopefully you to will reciprocate, as I did NOT call you 'a liar'!

C'mon Ed J… do you really and honestly believe that if you call a person's words they have spoken as being a lie, this does not mean you are calling the person a liar?

I don't even know how to process or compute such an idea of yours.  The words that are a lie, they didn't spontaneously spring into existence out of thin air.  They came from a person.   Now… why would an honest person speak or writes words to you… words that are his own words… if those words are a lie?  Only a liar would write words that are a lie. Why would a person who is not a liar, spout words that are a lie?

So as far as I can see, when you say that my words are a lie, then you are calling me a liar because those words came from me… not from thin air.

I accept your apology and recognition that you were mistaken in saying that your question contained no percentages.  Mistakes do happen.  And if you had left it at that, I would have taken that as an apology for calling me a liar.

But you didn't leave it at that.  Instead, your insistence that you can call my words a lie, and claim that in doing so, it is the same thing as to not call me a liar… it betrays your unwillingness to take complete ownership of what you wrote.  

You sound just like Bill Clinton when he said that he didn't inhale or that he didn't have sex with Monica.

This only underscores my contention that we are just miles apart in our understanding of the English language and words.

—————————————-

Quote

agreeing to disagree is unfounded and useless; and I can't, it is to agree to 'a lie'!

No it is not.  I proved to you thru Wikipedia and the English Language that you are completely lacking in your understanding of the phrase “agreeing to disagree”.

So like above with the word “liar”… this here also underscores my contention that we are just miles apart in our understanding of the English language and words.

————————————

Quote

Rather than discussing 'opinions', let's work towards agreeing on “The Truth”; OK?

Since I don't know what “The Truth” means to you, I can't say that I will be able to agree with you.   I don't leap before I look.

————————————

Quote

According to what you believe could it then also be said?…  You believe Jesus was 100% not God and 100% God?  Do you agree with my assessment of your view?

I have already told you what part of Jesus was not God… and what part of Jesus was God.  Jesus was fully God and fully man.  The part of Jesus that was not fully man cannot logically be fully God. (I meant to say that the part of Jesus that is fully man cannot logically be fully God)  To say they are, that would be a contradiction in terms.

The part of Jesus that is fully God cannot also be fully man… because to say they are, this would also be a contradiction in terms.

When God inhabited the Temple/Tabernacle, that didn't mean that the man made structure called the Temple was God.  And likewise when God inhabited the Temple/Tabernacle, that didn't mean that God was the Temple.

And yet God inside the Temple was fully God… and the Temple that God was inhabiting was fully a man made Temple.  How is this difficult to understand?

Oh wait… it could very well be that this is difficult for someone who is not using the English language as I am using it.  That is probably where the problem is.

———————————————-

Quote

Is it merely an opinion (and not a fact) to assume that both sides equally have 'error'!  Is it not your words that present 'a false dilemma'?   …'the other side of their “error”'…   Both sides don't have to equally have 'error'!   …your words do present 'a false dilemma'.

Here is another example that we are not using the English language in the same manner.

I never said that both sides equally have “error” in our present discussion… so this is a strawman fallacy on your part.   Although in some cases and/or circumstances,  it is very possible for both sides to be in error.  For example, a Mormon can debate a Hindu and yet I believe both sides are in error.

But in the case you are referring to, you are objecting to the fallacy called “false dilemma” on the grounds that this is somehow an example of both sides equaly having error.  But that is not what False Dilemma means…. and so this shows that we are not understanding English words in the same manner.

When in a two person debate/discussion one side brings up a dilemma in an attempt to prove his viewpoint over the viewpoint of the person he is debating…  and if it turns out to be a false dilemma… then that person is presenting an argument which is logically flawed… because they commited a logical fallacy.  And to expose the false dilemma (the logical fallacy of the first person)… the other side only needs to identify a 3rd option in the argument of the first person's dilemma, to show that a false dilemma occured.

And thus this is NOT a case where both sides are equally in error.

So you were wrong on 3 accounts.  (1)… I never said that both sides are equally in error in our present discussion… (2)… you misrepresent what a false dilemma means… and so (3)… my words did not and cannot present a false dilemma because your entire argument was a strawman to begin with.

————————————

Quote

I will endeavor to fully articulate “The Truth”, so that you will be able recognize it's facade.

What on earth does this mean?  Are you saying that the “The Truth” is a facade??

If that is the case, then I am glad I didn't leap before I looked and uncritically agree with “The Truth”.

Somehow, I think you meant something else entirely.

And if so, then this is more example, in a long line of many examples… that shows we have a huge communciation barrier between us.  Because I can't understand half of what you are saying to me.

It could be because I'm just dense.  And that is a real possibility.   But I think the real reason is that we are not using the same language in the same manner.  And you did agre
e that was the case when you wrote:

Quote

You are right: your use of the English differs from mine…

Ed J… I'm not interested in doing this anymore.   I know that you mean well, but I'm having a very difficult time in understanding you, and so I don't wish to continue this disucssion any longer.

Although  I don't agree with you that “agreeing to disagree” is unfounded and useless, I do believe that our present dicussion IS useless.

And because I wish to part on amicable terms and remain friends, I will agree to disagree with you on this issue.  

God Bless
Francis

[Ed J]

Quote (francis @ Jan. 15 2011,06:52)

Ed J… Quote I called your words 'a lie', I did not call you 'a liar'; I take offense in 'your' accusation!I apologized twice so far, for being mistaken about your words being 'a lie'. Hopefully you to will reciprocate, as I did NOT call you 'a liar'! C'mon Ed J… do you really and honestly believe that if you call a person's words they have spoken as being a lie, this does not mean you are calling the person a liar? God Bless Francis

Hi Francis,

We are indeed using the English language differently!
Rather than discussing 'opinions', can we work towards agreeing on “The Truth” instead?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Quote (francis @ Jan. 15 2011,06:52)

Ed J… Quote agreeing to disagree is unfounded and useless; and I can't, it is to agree to 'a lie'! No it is not.  I proved to you thru Wikipedia and the English Language that you are completely lacking in your understanding of the phrase “agreeing to disagree”. So like above with the word “liar”… this here also underscores my contention that we are just miles apart in our understanding of the English language and words. God Bless Francis

Hi Francis,

Rather than discussing 'opinions', can we work towards agreeing on “The Truth” instead?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Quote (francis @ Jan. 15 2011,06:52)

Ed J… Quote Rather than discussing 'opinions', let's work towards agreeing on “The Truth”; OK? Since I don't know what “The Truth” means to you, I can't say that I will be able to agree with you.   I don't leap before I look. God Bless Francis

Hi Francis,

All I ask is: a willingness on your part to agree to “Truth”.
Remaining firm in disagreement is getting us no-where; agreed?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Quote (francis @ Jan. 15 2011,06:52)

Ed J… Quote You believe Jesus was 100% not God and 100% God. I have already told you what part of Jesus was not God… God Bless Francis

Hi Francis,

Will you then agree that this wording is accurate to your view?
If you can agree with the wording of my assessment of your view,
we're breaking new ground and, we have something to work with.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Quote (francis @ Jan. 15 2011,06:52)

Ed J… Quote Is it merely an opinion (and not a fact) to assume that both sides equally have 'error'!  Is it not your words that present 'a false dilemma'?   …'the other side of their “error”'…   Both sides don't have to equally have 'error'!   …your words do present 'a false dilemma'. Here is another example that we are not using the English language in the same manner. I never said that both sides equally have “error” in our present discussion… so this is a strawman fallacy on your part.   Although in some cases and/or circumstances,  it is very possible for both sides to be in error.  For example, a Mormon can debate a Hindu and yet I believe both sides are in error. But in the case you are referring to, you are objecting to the fallacy called “false dilemma” on the grounds that this is somehow an example of both sides equaly having error.  But that is not what False Dilemma means…. and so this shows that we are not understanding English words in the same manner. When in a two person debate/discussion one side brings up a dilemma in an attempt to prove his viewpoint over the viewpoint of the person he is debating…  and if it turns out to be a false dilemma… then that person is presenting an argument which is logically flawed… because they commited a logical fallacy.  And to expose the false dilemma (the logical fallacy of the first person)… the other side only needs to identify a 3rd option in the argument of the first person's dilemma, to show that a false dilemma occured. And thus this is NOT a case where both sides are equally in error. So you were wrong on 3 accounts.  (1)… I never said that both sides are equally in error in our present discussion… (2)… you misrepresent what a false dilemma means… and so (3)… my words did not and cannot present a false dilemma because your entire argument was a strawman to begin with. God Bless Francis

Hi Francis,

Rather than discussing 'opinions', can we work towards agreeing on “The Truth” instead? (see my previous Post)

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Quote (francis @ Jan. 15 2011,06:52)

Ed J… Quote I will endeavor to fully articulate “The Truth”, so that you will be able recognize it's facade. What on earth does this mean?  Are you saying that the “The Truth” is a facade?? If that is the case, then I am glad I didn't leap before I looked and uncritically agree with “The Truth”. Somehow, I think you meant something else entirely. And if so, then this is more example, in a long line of many examples… that shows we have a huge communciation barrier between us.  Because I can't understand half of what you are saying to me. It could be because I'm just dense.  And that is a real possibility.   But I think the real reason is that we are not using the same language in the same manner.  And you did agree that was the case when you wrote: God Bless Francis

Hi Francis,

The communication barrier (between us) is smaller than you assess.
The communication barrier is much larger between you and others here.
I know exactly what the problem is, but it will take time to explain this barrier.
It will become clearer in our discourse, please be patient. (Rom.15:5 / 2Tm.2:24-25)

                            It's facade: is the front of a building.

1Corinth.3:11-13 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
Every man's work shall be made manifest: for “the day” shall declare it, because it shall be
revealed by fire; and the fire (Hebrews 12:29) shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Author]

Posts