1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Is Christian debate more of a monologue or point counter-point apologetic
Is Christian debate more of a monologue or point counter-point apologetic
Z Man – You said
I know you can and do speak for yourself, I wasn’t speaking for you, I was responding to someone else about what I had said about you. Also, I affirmed that you can speak for yourself by saying, you said, ... demonstrating that you can and do speak for yourself. It is a free country right, this is a public forum right, I can “refer” to something you said without it being a problem.
Speaking “about” you, speaking “for” you, these must be very difficult concepts if you confuse them so easily. Joke, just kidding, we all can see that you twist things around so that you can make personal attacks even over superfluous issues, i.e. your temper gets the best of you. If I go to the dictionary, are you sure I will not find you there listed under ill will?
(?)
After reading your entire post I’m left wondering, didn’t I represent my arguments along with my points(?) I’m thinking especially of those arguments, which came directly from the bible?
Unless all you want to do is monologue, and play the claim game, one of your main goals should be to demonstrate why “my arguments” are wrong, not just why you think you are right on this topic. By the mentality of promoting one’s own sense of being in the right, all parties stand to loose the benefit of objectively seeking the truth of the matter.
You may not want to deal with my views, but, no one will be convinced you are right “about my views being wrong” if you don’t
1) specifically address my points along with their naturally connected support arguments
2) make counter arguments against mine that
2a) show an accurate understanding of what I am arguing
2b) show some logical fallacy or some other error in the expressed train of thought
This is a public service announcement
Friends don’t let friends run around the truth
Respect and understand the truth
Don’t violate or neglect the context
Moral support for this public announcement was provided by the campaign for putting truth back into Christianity
If need be, I’ll re-address my points and support arguments one doable step at a time so that we can keep a better focus, or I’ll simply await a direct response to my arguments and points. I just don’t want anyone to be deluded into thinking that just because you quoted me that you answered me let alone attacked/refuted my position.
Your first quote and response is a perfect example of the obfuscation I am referring to where you did not even deal with what I said. I appreciate your question at the end, but although that is pretty much on topic, it does not address my point and argument for my point about establishing what free will actually is before arguing if we have free will or not. But, I’ll show you my graciousness and good will and treat you like I wish you would treat me. The answer to your question is: Man does not have absolute control over his will, he is the only person controlling his will. There is a difference. But that is not the main issue. Why doesn’t free will man live perfect lives? Because of sin, sin is part of our nature, so I repeat my caution, lets not confuse this to be a discussion about the nature of our will or our being, it’s about man’s will, and control, is every person free to control their will or do others (or anything outside of their own self) control it. Also, even if we could live the perfect life, that would have no barring on this discussion, this is not about ability, it’s about control and responsibility.
Now, everyone, please be honest and tell me if my response was direct and fitting to his question. I quoted it, addressed it in several ways and demonstrated why it is incorrect or off base. That does not mean I’m right, nor does that mean the issue is resolved, but it does mean that I answered his question and did not meaningfully neglect it and go off into what I think is right despite his thinking.
For starters, please respond to the point and arguments in your first quote in your last post to me.
Is Christian debate more of a monologue or point counter-point apologetic
Z Man – You said
Spoken like a true open theist, corporate predestinarian. Bravo!I can speak for myself. I already went over this earlier in this post, but I'll repeat myself, just in case. Man's will is limited in that it is enslaved by sin. God must affect our will if there is any hope for man to receive salvation. How else can God get people to love Him without affecting their "free will"? It can't be done...
I know you can and do speak for yourself, I wasn’t speaking for you, I was responding to someone else about what I had said about you. Also, I affirmed that you can speak for yourself by saying, you said, ... demonstrating that you can and do speak for yourself. It is a free country right, this is a public forum right, I can “refer” to something you said without it being a problem.
Speaking “about” you, speaking “for” you, these must be very difficult concepts if you confuse them so easily. Joke, just kidding, we all can see that you twist things around so that you can make personal attacks even over superfluous issues, i.e. your temper gets the best of you. If I go to the dictionary, are you sure I will not find you there listed under ill will?
(?)
After reading your entire post I’m left wondering, didn’t I represent my arguments along with my points(?) I’m thinking especially of those arguments, which came directly from the bible?
Unless all you want to do is monologue, and play the claim game, one of your main goals should be to demonstrate why “my arguments” are wrong, not just why you think you are right on this topic. By the mentality of promoting one’s own sense of being in the right, all parties stand to loose the benefit of objectively seeking the truth of the matter.
You may not want to deal with my views, but, no one will be convinced you are right “about my views being wrong” if you don’t
1) specifically address my points along with their naturally connected support arguments
2) make counter arguments against mine that
2a) show an accurate understanding of what I am arguing
2b) show some logical fallacy or some other error in the expressed train of thought
This is a public service announcement
Friends don’t let friends run around the truth
Respect and understand the truth
Don’t violate or neglect the context
Moral support for this public announcement was provided by the campaign for putting truth back into Christianity
If need be, I’ll re-address my points and support arguments one doable step at a time so that we can keep a better focus, or I’ll simply await a direct response to my arguments and points. I just don’t want anyone to be deluded into thinking that just because you quoted me that you answered me let alone attacked/refuted my position.
Your first quote and response is a perfect example of the obfuscation I am referring to where you did not even deal with what I said. I appreciate your question at the end, but although that is pretty much on topic, it does not address my point and argument for my point about establishing what free will actually is before arguing if we have free will or not. But, I’ll show you my graciousness and good will and treat you like I wish you would treat me. The answer to your question is: Man does not have absolute control over his will, he is the only person controlling his will. There is a difference. But that is not the main issue. Why doesn’t free will man live perfect lives? Because of sin, sin is part of our nature, so I repeat my caution, lets not confuse this to be a discussion about the nature of our will or our being, it’s about man’s will, and control, is every person free to control their will or do others (or anything outside of their own self) control it. Also, even if we could live the perfect life, that would have no barring on this discussion, this is not about ability, it’s about control and responsibility.
Now, everyone, please be honest and tell me if my response was direct and fitting to his question. I quoted it, addressed it in several ways and demonstrated why it is incorrect or off base. That does not mean I’m right, nor does that mean the issue is resolved, but it does mean that I answered his question and did not meaningfully neglect it and go off into what I think is right despite his thinking.
For starters, please respond to the point and arguments in your first quote in your last post to me.
Last edited: