noski
Captain
"Richthofen lived where the rest of us go , only in our greatest moments." Udet
Posts: 286
|
Post by noski on Mar 19, 2010 14:25:26 GMT -5
K & M, the Jews are still waiting for that messiah you refer to in those 2 verses . If Luke is talking about Jesus,why doesn't he say Jesus? Is there something on either side this verse that says who Luke is talking about? (I don't carry a bible , but maybe I should for purpose of this stuff)
|
|
phoenix
Second Lieutenant
This has all just gotten so bizarre and pointless...
Posts: 80
|
Post by phoenix on Mar 19, 2010 14:33:35 GMT -5
So essentially you have absolutely no evidence to back up your claims about Osama. Glad we cleared that up. Yep, same as your dad not having any evidence about Osama trying to negotiate before 9/11. You didn't even read my post did you? I gave you all the evidence, HE DID try to negotiate, go to wikipedia, follow their footnotes. I answered your question with evidence and you have chosen to ignore it.
|
|
Michael
Captain
Red Baron Fight XX and XXI Champion
Posts: 407
|
Post by Michael on Mar 19, 2010 15:38:42 GMT -5
Yep, same as your dad not having any evidence about Osama trying to negotiate before 9/11. You didn't even read my post did you? I gave you all the evidence, HE DID try to negotiate, go to wikipedia, follow their footnotes. I answered your question with evidence and you have chosen to ignore it. Just like your dad continues to ignore me and Mr. Richeson on the fact that if we say we wouldn't have been tories, that we wouldn't have been tories.
|
|
phoenix
Second Lieutenant
This has all just gotten so bizarre and pointless...
Posts: 80
|
Post by phoenix on Mar 19, 2010 15:41:53 GMT -5
You didn't even read my post did you? I gave you all the evidence, HE DID try to negotiate, go to wikipedia, follow their footnotes. I answered your question with evidence and you have chosen to ignore it. Just like your dad continues to ignore me and Mr. Richeson on the fact that if we say we wouldn't have been tories, that we wouldn't have been tories. He has asked for evidence, and you have not provided any. Much the same as your inability to answer the question I've put to you for some 3 weeks now.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 20, 2010 11:25:08 GMT -5
If you all are going to continue this huge thing covering multiple threads, perhaps it might be good to start one new one and everyone take a starting position. And have an impartial moderator. Just a thought. Sounds like my original suggestion on the "Fair Debate" thread. The offer is still open. Anyone who wants can moderate, including my opponent. Use any form of debate rules you like. You name the terms, rules and format. I'm in. Until we establish some basic debate skills and fundamental rules, we'll keep chasing rabbits.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 20, 2010 11:32:37 GMT -5
Which is what we've been saying the whole time. What you and Kevin are offering is this thesis: "A) My position is correct because B) prophesy holds that Christ will one day be the leader of the world." The reason no one else has accepted that thesis is because you have failed to explain why B automatically results in a justifiable verification of A. Until you make the direct connection, you are merely offering one vague interpretation of scripture and declaring it to be fact. The simple observation in scripture that Christ will one day assume his rightful place as head of the earth does not validate your position that The Bible universally authorizes the use of government force over humans today. This is why we need debate rules. They impose the basic skills of debate into the situation and compel the participants to demonstrate their points in a mutually acceptable manner.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 20, 2010 11:42:43 GMT -5
[Yep, same as your dad not having any evidence about Osama trying to negotiate before 9/11. This is another excellent example of why we need debate rules. In this instance, rather than responding directly to the question asked by Stephen Dale, Michael avoids the issue by accusing a third party of committing some faulty behavior in the past. Whether Michael's accusation is correct or incorrect is totally unrelated to the question posed. This is a major penalty in debate and repeated offenses guarantee a loss. A moderator would immediately offer Michael one chance to directly answer the question, or forgo his lectern and accept the points penalty. We need some basic debate skills employed here. Rick is right... let's name a moderator, establish some basic debate rules and abide by them.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 20, 2010 11:47:15 GMT -5
Just like your dad continues to ignore me and Mr. Richeson on the fact that if we say we wouldn't have been tories, that we wouldn't have been tories. Oh, for crying out loud. This is how children debate when they're arguing over crayons. "Isn't that my red crayon?" Rather than responding "yes" or "no," the other child cries out... "SO WHAT??? Billy has a blue crayon and it's not his, either!!!" Debate skills require mutually non-objectionable question premises and direct answers. Who wants to moderate? What debate rules do you choose for us? Let's get on with it.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 20, 2010 11:50:57 GMT -5
I don't care who moderates but this children-on-the-merry-go-round act has to stop.
Dan or Rick, are either of you sufficiently familiar with debate rules to moderate? Even if you're not, anything is better than the responses on this thread.
|
|
Michael
Captain
Red Baron Fight XX and XXI Champion
Posts: 407
|
Post by Michael on Mar 20, 2010 11:52:00 GMT -5
Which is what we've been saying the whole time. The simple observation in scripture that Christ will one day assume his rightful place as head of the earth does not validate your position that The Bible universally authorizes the use of government force over humans today. You are correct, it does not. Though, I never said it did. But, it does prove that A) all government is not evil, and B) anarchy is not the system that will bring about world peace.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 20, 2010 12:07:20 GMT -5
it does prove that A) all government is not evil No, there is nothing whatsoever in that passage to indicate anything either positive or negative about government from the fall of man until the return of Christ. Between the fall of man and the return of Christ, there will be no world peace under any system according to scripture. I do not believe it is rational to attempt to take events or objects from prophecies related to some future date in another realm (that of God's eternal kingdom) and attempt to apply them in our physical world setting. For instance, I believe that heaven will one day have streets of gold. However, this neither validates or condemns the use of asphalt in streets on earth today. To attempt to interpret that into our physical world today is wrought with errors of logic. It is equally invalid for me to claim that since the last instance of true world peace came in a state of true liberty and anarchy in the Garden of Eden, that this somehow validates everything I believe and therefore you must accept it. The world we are discussing is the one in which we live. Scripturally, that is the one created at the fall of man and ending with Christ's return.
|
|
Michael
Captain
Red Baron Fight XX and XXI Champion
Posts: 407
|
Post by Michael on Mar 20, 2010 12:12:37 GMT -5
it does prove that A) all government is not evil No, there is nothing whatsoever in that passage to indicate anything either positive or negative about government from the fall of man until the return of Christ. But Christ will rule a government, in the form of a monarchy. How can Christ rule something that is inherently evil and that is ruled by the devil, as you so think?
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 20, 2010 18:32:10 GMT -5
But Christ will rule a government, in the form of a monarchy. That could be true. It could also be false. Christ will be the ruler of this earth according to prophecy. This much we agree on. However, we do not know if he will construct an entire government as we know it today, complete with taxes, military draft, sanitation department and transportation administration. The general precepts of scripture are clear, but we must be very, very careful when it comes to fine interpretations of specific words for the purpose of defending a pre-determined position. Words and concepts have multiple definitions, any of which are potentially correct. If you are relying on such a narrow interpretation to validate your entire theory, you are on thin ice indeed. He will rule mankind, won't he? Yet "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Gen 6:5). And Romans says ""None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God." Jeremiah says ""The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" You and I would both agree that mankind is inherently evil, wicked and fallen, yet you have no problem accepting that Christ will one day rule us. Why is it difficult to accept that God can also re-take possession of a ruling system that is now purely evil? Is he not capable?
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 20, 2010 18:34:18 GMT -5
How can Christ rule something that is inherently evil and that is ruled by the devil, as you so think? BTW, you may or may not take my answer into consideration, but your question is a good one, fairly asked, and raises the level of our conversation considerably.
|
|
Michael
Captain
Red Baron Fight XX and XXI Champion
Posts: 407
|
Post by Michael on Mar 20, 2010 19:07:56 GMT -5
But Christ will rule a government, in the form of a monarchy. That could be true. It could also be false. Christ will be the ruler of this earth according to prophecy. This much we agree on. However, we do not know if he will construct an entire government as we know it today, complete with taxes, military draft, sanitation department and transportation administration. It will have none of these worldly things that men seek after. But nevertheless, it will still be a government.
|
|