Originally posted by FetchmyjunkDoes sonship have actual existence? - question dodged. Noted.
The answer is yes he truly exists. Therefore his existence is true.
Does he truly exist? - answered in the affirmative.
Does he match the first bullet in your quote? -question dodged. Noted.
If so, then is he a fact and is he true? -question dodged. Noted.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
No, twhitehead is waiting for you to realise that your conclusion does not follow from your premises. Hence you are less logical than I am. Or just just have poor English. I am still waiting for you to provide a single reference to your usage of 'true' that you invented for the sole purpose of trying to prove me wrong, but which incidentally Fetchmyjunk disagrees with but neither or you will address the fact that you disagree with one another.
Or just just [sic] have poor English.
Were you writing about "poor English" just now ? Check yours.
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy answer to all your questions is yes. Are you going to admit that you are wrong that there is no such thing as a neutral 3rd party?
Does sonship have actual existence? - question dodged. Noted.
Does he truly exist? - answered in the affirmative.
Does he match the first bullet in your quote? -question dodged. Noted.
If so, then is he a fact and is he true? -question dodged. Noted.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkSo have you changed your stance from when you said:
My answer to all your questions is yes.
No one claimed that he is a fact.
Are you going to admit that you are wrong that there is no such thing as a neutral 3rd party?
I will admit it right after you prove I am wrong. So far, I don't see you producing any actual neutral 3rd party, all I see is talk and no action.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI will open a thread and ask everyone participating in this Forum who realizes that they are not true according to a supplied definition to sign their name to indicate.
Are you going to provide a reference for your usage of the word 'true'? Didn't think so.
You provide a reference to indicate that the way we are using true in the English language is not valid.
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshipI take it you failed to find any reference.
I will open a thread and ask everyone participating in this Forum who realizes that they are not true according to a supplied definition to sign their name to indicate.
You provide a reference to indicate that the way we are using true in the English language is not valid.
I also note that your planned 'test', cannot help your case, because if you get no answers, you cannot claim any support, but if you get answers, then they will show you are wrong.
I know that your plan was to get no answers and then pretend that nobody answered because everyone agrees with you, but surely you see the flaw in that?
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipLiar.
I don't care about "winnings" or "losings" of arguments here or offended or vindicated egos.
For my part I just want to see where the more sound thinking is and what I should believe as it relates to Spirituality.
We both know that you care more about 'winnings' than the truth. You and several other posters have gone to great lengths and been grossly dishonest in this thread for the sole purpose of trying to prove me wrong ('winnings' ).
What you should believe 'as it relates to spirituality' really has nothing to do with the definitions of the words 'fact' and 'true' or their varied usage.
'God exists.'
The above declaration is neither true or a fact (brute or otherwise).
For a Christian the existence of God may feel like a fact, like a truth, but this assurity is built upon a foundation of faith, a faith that doesn't require compelling and tangible evidence.'
Well I sorry, but a truth, a fact, does require compelling and tangible evidence and can not be considered as such until it is provided.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou can 'note' whatever you want. But I see no point in helping you find something simply because you're incapable of finding it, or too lazy to look for yourself. If you are as intelligent and well educated as you would have us believe then you shouldn't need my help in finding the vital piece of 'information' you ask for.
From you dodge I take it that you have nothing to back up what you said. Noted.
Your comment/question (regarding Leviticus) is near the bottom of page 7, so logic dictates you should begin your search from that point. In other words, you don't need to waste time/effort looking at pages 1 through 7.