If you are trying to say i changed the defintion of ownership, you literally missed the whole debate.
I as a divine being set the bounds of ownership (not the definition) and then refused it.
Therefore i showed as god that i owned nothing.
Try viewing it as an arguement of authority, and i became the authority, then rejected myself.
I did accept the definition. I showed i was the definition. I didnt put in a new arguement in the final round. I disregarded ownership in the first round as a divine being/god.
I didnt try an intresting tactic, instigator never refuted it.
And he did not challenge my definition of divine or my expansion of ownership.
Not that he could have anyways, unless he disagreed i was a divine being/god. Which he didnt.
So in good faith i took that as acceptance.
I didnt define ownership, i simply expanded it as a divine being to its affects as maximal.
I then gave the ability to define it back, cause as a divine being i can forsake what i own. Even definitions. And in my r2 i did that.
I didnt disagree with description. I defined it. I then became it. Then i said i forsake ownership as a divine being/god. Therefore i proved him wrong.
Its easy to skip over if you have an expectation.
Its easy to say. "Well this looks like it cant be false"
Reads 2 paragraphs, ignores bit about divine defintion.
Assume i didnt agree to something (cause instigator didnt regard it, as i gave them ownership over it)
And called it a day.
Yall can use ai to summarize my arguements if it helps.
No one else is volunteering. Basically i argued that saints avoid wrath, and rapture is before wrath.
If yall want i can give scriptures of How i am divine by God's standard (Jesus)
I gave 3 definitions of divine in the debate and i meet all 3 of them.
Savant failed to recognize i met description of divine being.
Therefore debate wasnt a truism.
If however you insist upon debate, i cannot promise ill be able to explain everything, unless it just becomes a question/answer thing.
I dont have liberty to directly express all of that in a debate. I have to consider alot of things than just talking about it.
We can discuss it in private chat or forums if you wish.
Bring forth your best aphorism.
"The sage who suppresses his best aphorism: cut off his hands, for he is a thief." - vivec
Change description and i can win any debate against you regarding scripture.
I have the right to rephrase or reinterpret as i see fit.
Any of yall wanna vote on this? Im curious on yall's opinion.
Got 5 days left.
This should have been in the forums, not a debate.
But then again there would probably been more hate.
Imma have to reread this a few times. But a key thing i notice is the approach.
1 approach is a logical evaluation of the system considering the aspects that the law and voters historically undertook to prove the point of view.
2 approach is logical evaluation of the liberty and free market of ideas that a person can engage with.
One approach is more systematic,
The other approach is more freeform and liberal (liberal as in not bound by Bureaucracy or historical prescedent)
Good debate guys!
Sure, and that reason is, all humanity is evil.
And humanity doesnt want to condemn its self, but it is already condemned if it believes not in Jesus Christ.
If the man christ Jesus is a created being, he cannot be the father or the Holy Spirit.
Scripture says the Holy Spirit made him luke 1:35
So if we say the man is God, then God is flesh and blood.
But if we say Jesus, the name of God and Spirit of God in the man, is God. Then the Man christ Jesus is a vessel of God, for he said. John 8:29 and john 10:30.
Colossians 2:9
Well, i aint debating them till they change the description
Because whoever is pro would win. The concept of personhood isnt extendable in the sense its presented.
Because the laws of nature and creation are set on what a person entails, people cannot naturally assert what is human or what is divine to those things which are not.
If the roles were reversed kohai would have won. If you dont believe me, remake debate exactly as it is and switch it.
Sure the argumentation would change, but the voting would still favor pro's postition.
Declension: “Spīritus” is a fourth declension noun in Latin. Below are the singular and plural forms:
Singular:
Nominative: spīritus (spirit)
Genitive: spīritūs (of the spirit)
Dative: spīrituī (to/for the spirit)
Accusative: spīritum (the spirit)
Ablative: spīritū (by/with/from the spirit)
Plural:
Nominative: spīritūs (spirits)
Genitive: spīrituum (of the spirits)
Dative: spīritibus (to/for the spirits)
Accusative: spīritūs (the spirits)
Ablative: spīritibus (by/with/from the spirits)
I add this for grammar sake if what i said was incorrect.
Only problem i have is "C. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is valid."
Validity means it has legal force, grounded, effective or binding.
Can be based on truth or reason.
So depending on what you are trying to say, the debate is either a truism, or it can be debated on How infallibility makes sola scriptura effective, binding or of Legal force.
In which case you are arguing a concept and an application, not if its true.
Catholicism under the ecclesia believes it is valid for the pope to make a public declaration which is as valid or of legal/binding force as scripture (i wont get into details)
Mal talks about interpretation of the Word by the Spirit, so it is possible he supports sola spīritus. Which is not officially recognized by either protestant or catholic church.
Specifically Sola Spīritus Sanctus or Holy Spirit alone (in context of interpretation of the Word of God)
This debate could turn out intresting.
I cant in good faith vote on this, its more a debate over definitions.
Wether someone believes belief to be more or less than feeling and circumstantal evidence or not, doesnt really help me to decide the matter.
It seems like instigator went the truism route and refused to accept the idea of belief being more than what they declared.
Was a stacked debate, even the concept of personhood innately ties to intelligence and axiomatically a spirit.
I wish this wasnt one of the first ultrarated.
The biggest problem of premise 1 has to do with the wording.
"P1. If one genuinely testifies to their genuine belief in an event’s occurrence, and they have access to knowledge that would allow them to know whether or not the event occurred, then the event must have occurred."
If theOGinji is trying to say the ACCESS of Knowledge makes the claim true, then that would suppose knowledge needed to ASSERT truthfulness concerning the event/action.
The problem arises in communicating or asserting that the disciples had knowledge concerning Jesus rising from the grave.
1: no one actually saw him Leave the tomb, mary saw the stone rolled away, john and peter didnt see his body in the tomb. Jesus told mary to tell the others.
I personally believe the bible, however i cannot agree with the premise 1 as no one had all knowledge of the situation, thus making their genuiness truth.
Edit: Thankfully Jesus revealed himself and we dont have to rely on the genuiness of the disciples or mary, we do have to believe the report of the writers of the gospel however, assuming scripture to be true (which i personally do)
I would recommend that if theOGinji is trying to make a premise about genuineness, he instead say that having knowledge of the situational makes it FACTUAL, or that witnessing of the event can be CREDIBLE. To avoid confusion, then use strength of logic and evidence to verify the credibility (which is how the bible survived over 1900 years)
Who the heck defines morality? Is it sociatial morality? My morality? Whiteflames morality?
Needs definition or an example of application.
And with that i had to reinterpret mal's title.
See this is why i cant work with this nonsense
So basically, can we choose God or does he work through people who choose him.
The answer is yes. God does both.
If i had to guess, the meaning is probably this:
Does God need our permission to use us, or do we need to submit to him to serve him?
He uses everyone regardless of permission, regardless if you serve him or not.
Difference is, if you serve him willingly, you can be saved.
Aint voting on this due to mal's horrible description.
