God's Truth
New member
Flattery will get you nowhere...is that a Shakespearean comment?
In debate, agreeing to disagree allows time to continue sharing. Your sewing seed.
The Holy Spirit might bring the blam and you never know. But because of the afforded ability to stay cool and agree to disagree, you get to speak with an individual longer.
I never agree to disagree about any false doctrines. I can't agree to disagree in a debate group. If I do, then what say anyone about anything?
[MENTION=14521]God's Truth[/MENTION],Me either!
Now what?
I don't comprise no matter what.
[MENTION=14521]God's Truth[/MENTION],
[MENTION=3698]Tambora[/MENTION] is now taking a loving stance with you and affording you a live example of agreeing to disagree. She is clearly desiring that you have more tools to share with people, but experience an even higher success rate.
You and I do not agree, and I doubt Tambora is agreeing with you.
Now the most interesting thing to do is agree to disagree, not feel attacked and enjoy receiving another perspective.
# Did I answer it right?
No. That is not what is going on. Let us always and only be honest, no matter how much it hurts.
Flattery will get you nowhere...is that a Shakespearean comment?
It's no secret I abhor Calvinism.Scripturally, God is Triune.
I meant that I was adding the "Walvinists" to the ranks of human indoctrination of the other three groups I eluded to, and they are full blown Trinitarians. I was lumping them with other thick skulled pains in the ... ahem... elbow.
I know this is going to sound stupid, but...
Which is stronger in high winds? A flexible tree that fully retains all of its properties as a tree and stays deeply rooted, or a stiff tree that has no flexibility?
Was that humor?
Humor is a powerful ally in debate.
It's no secret I abhor Calvinism.
But if I were putting together a debate team to defend that GOD is triune, AMR and Nang would be two that would be beneficial to that debate team (on that subject alone).
It's no secret I abhor Calvinism.
But if I were putting together a debate team to defend that GOD is triune, AMR and Nang would be two that would be beneficial to that debate team (on that subject alone).
What do you perceive is going on? I'm dropping all debate demeanor and stepping before you as just old me.
# listening
Now I'm genuinely concerned. What's up?
To be blunt...
They are both too fat with pride in their human understanding to be beneficial to a debate. They are too concerned in people seeing it "Their" way to actually respond directly to the other parties understanding and perspective.
# I have followed them both and searched their discussions
Did you hear that Calvinists?
Tambora abhors Calvinism.
I was attacked earlier by Musterion. You must have missed it.
To be blunt ...To be blunt...
They are both too fat with pride in their human understanding to be beneficial to a debate.
He's harsh in speech because he is passionate about his stance like you are. He is an example of an inflexible debate style.
Sometimes the harsh style works, most of the time it offends people.
But, God uses each of us differently.
Within moments of meeting [MENTION=15685]musterion[/MENTION] he informed me that if he ever stabs me it would be to my face.
So... if I ever get a "shut up man child..." from Musterion, I'll probably smile and say something slick back.
Take note.. he can be offensive, but he never cloaks his intentions. This is a good thing.