Trinity question

[2ducklow]

The problem with discussing Dr. Whites What who analogy is that I should have figured out what he meant first before commenting on it. Being open about not understanding him and probing for answers diverted attention away from the nonsensical analogy of his towards very minor points. In the future should I continue to debate in here, I will not make that mistake again. I have to say things that focus on the central question, but first of course I have to figure out what the central question is.
Alas just as I got it figured out no one wants to hear his illogical analogy explained. Aint that a shame.
Still I did learn some valuable lessons in understanding obscure explanations of trinity et. al. Look at the beginning and ending closely and see what his premise is and what his summation is. Terms that only he uses examine to see how he uses them thoughout his article. Organize all the disorganized parts . Clarify the parts left purposely vague as best you can. these were very helpfull tools that I used in deciphering his obscure explanation of how a person of god is not a being.

 

[hybrid]

The problem with discussing Dr. Whites What who analogy is that I should have figured out what he meant first before commenting on it. Being open about not understanding him and probing for answers diverted attention away from the nonsensical analogy of his towards very minor points. In the future should I continue to debate in here, I will not make that mistake again. I have to say things that focus on the central question, but first of course I have to figure out what the central question is.
Alas just as I got it figured out no one wants to hear his illogical analogy explained. Aint that a shame.
Still I did learn some valuable lessons in understanding obscure explanations of trinity et. al. Look at the beginning and ending closely and see what his premise is and what his summation is. Terms that only he uses examine to see how he uses them thoughout his article. Organize all the disorganized parts . Clarify the parts left purposely vague as best you can. these were very helpfull tools that I used in deciphering his obscure explanation of how a person of god is not a being.

hmmmm, a relevant statement with our present discussion in the other thread.

 

[2ducklow]

hmmmm, a relevant statement with our present discussion in the other thread.

Basically I was berated for being an idiot while trying to figure it out then when i finally see what he means all the trinitarians run for cover. If the bullets get to close guess one has 2 duck low to miss um.

 

[hybrid]

Basically I was berated for being an idiot while trying to figure it out then when i finally see what he means all the trinitarians run for cover. If the bullets get to close guess one has 2 duck low to miss um.

i just opted to go on the sideline. those kind of talk gives me the headache. not my style.

though your conversation with tinker gray was a happy ending.

 

[2ducklow]

i just opted to go on the sideline. those kind of talk gives me the headache. not my style.

though your conversation with tinker gray was a happy ending.

Wading through excessive amounts of mud slinging to see what a person might actually be saying if anyting is not pleasant unless you can just tune it out like static on a radio, which is my method. But if you wanna debate thats all there is usually.

 

[hybrid]

Wading through excessive amounts of mud slinging to see what a person might actually be saying if anyting is not pleasant unless you can just tune it out like static on a radio, which is my method. But if you wanna debate thats all there is usually.

well its always to one's credit to be nice when debating about religion. if that is what your saying.

 

[2ducklow]

well its always to one's credit to be nice when debating about religion. if that is what your saying.

Yea besides when one resorts to argumentum ad hominum, and especially the really vicious kinds, one only casts ones believes in an unfavorable light. That is why I have no problem with anyone representing untruth with all the
mud slinging they want. Besides if that persuades bystanders then they aren't really looking for the truth anyway. As far as I am concerend they can cuss me up one side and down the other cause all they are doing is making their doctrines look bad.

 

[hybrid]

Yea besides when one resorts to argumentum ad hominum, and especially the really vicious kinds, one only casts ones believes in an unfavorable light. That is why I have no problem with anyone representing untruth with all the
mud slinging they want. Besides if that persuades bystanders then they aren't really looking for the truth anyway. As far as I am concerend they can cuss me up one side and down the other cause all they are doing is making their doctrines look bad.

this we can agree. to be nice that is.

 

[2ducklow]

this we can agree. to be nice that is.

People from my church know I am in here. having people from ones church that know you read what you say in here is a strong impetus to say things politely. anninimity breeds impoliteness i think.