THE TRINITY

[Space Merchant]

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Thanks a lot for this. You made strong arguments against my opinions :)))))

Anytime, but that being said, you still need to voice your claims, and every single time you avoid and run from the very things you said.

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

according to SM link:https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-common-signs-of-a-person-that-is-losing-an-argument

Ok let's see what you have to say. And I am a debater, not a judge of a debate, for what I link are tell tale signs of a losing debater, and only the loser.

And I love debates, be it in them or watching, I mentioned this before...

On 1/24/2018 at 7:59 AM, Space Merchant said:

All in all, I do fancy watching debates for it is something I taken great interest in since for several years now

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

#6: Ad Hominem (Abusive) - resorting to abusing someone and calling them names because at this point you are running on fumes

In a debate, even those on the winning side can spit a few insults, unfortunately I am not on the losing end. I suggest you look into some debates, a notable debater being Ben Shapiro, Br. Myatt, Masur, etc.

The irony is in a debate, one can see who actually wins by means of 2 points:

• [1] Contextualizing what it means to meet your burden of proof, i.e. arguing in favor of a framing device that acts as an evaluative mechanism for proving the truth or falsity of the resolution or topic statement.
• [2] Proving that the topic itself meets that contextualization, i.e. that it meets the criteria you've set up for proving the resolution true.

I even told you from the very beginning, even a seasoned debater can be unpredictable and can insult their challenger, but evidently not to the extreme, for me, I merely played on your Biblical Intelligence, for even the Bible speaks of stupid persons concerning what is true and what is false, what is wise and what is unwise, etc.

Therefore, you can be called as such if you are making absurd claims that are not even Biblical.

That being said you missed 3 points that fits you perfectly lol:

• #3: False equivalence aka comparing a counter-argument with something abhorrent
• #4: Tu quoque or “What about-ism” - straying away from the topic and saying “look at this”, “but what about that”; a diversionary tactic.
• #5: Appeal to motive - implying that the opponent seeks to gain something due to their stand on the issue

You fit all 3 of such while being on the losing end, so much you cannot speak a single thing without using JWs to help you out. More so, you stated I am using articles, I am using Interfaith Dialogue (I got quite the laugh out of this one granted the source linked by me proved you wrong), etc, with no evidence to claim, therefore, if a debater can call you ignorant, or stupid, or silly, etc. Then what they are saying is true. You also show anger and frustration granted that

A - you voted down someone who was speaking to me and only me and

B - you had copied and paste your idiot filled claims elsewhere.

The fact you willfully shot down a spectator/onlooker shows you have lost from the get go.

That being said, the article is indeed correct, when a person loses a debate, such points showed by them by their words etc.
And to this day, we still never found out your claim about donkeys preaching the Christ, the most sillies thing I had ever heard.

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

#7: Poisoning the well - The deux ex machina of logical fallacies. When everything else fails, go on a tirade to tarnish the image of your opponent.

This one is a nice one, also you do not even know what Deux [Deus] Ex Machina even is, which makes it all the more amusing to see you struggle in this debate.

So I ask you this question: Can you point out and quote ANY of my fallacies regarding our debate? As a bonus, I want you to quote the so called "interfaith dialogue" I am speaking. as well as the "article" claim made by you.

This I got to see, especially with my history of fighting the interfaith, I want to see from an ignorant person, you, of this so called claim you speak of. Let's have at it Srecko.

I can quote some of your fallacies, here they are:

NOTE: Before we start, let me tell you what a fallacy is. A fallacy is a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument. It also means a failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid or faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument.

On 7/10/2019 at 1:00 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

Balaam's Donkey did, and Stones can preach too, according to Bible.

Then show us this evidence regarding the Donkey and the stones preaching the gospel truth, Screko.

You said according to the Bible, so surely to you, you may have something to say rather than run away from the very words that you said. I an assure you, even this claim of yours sounds very stupid when read out loud.

On 7/12/2019 at 1:39 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

Snake in Paradise also spoke to Eve and preach some sort of doctrine (another "gospel" if you want,... haha, not "gospel" in strict way about Jesus and his death and his life and what he has said and done. But "something" that have connection about God and People).  

So show us your evidence that a Snake was preaching some sort of gospel, Srecko, otherwise unfounded claims such as this shows us, no, it exposes you to be nothing more than an ignorant lair concerning the Bible of which you lack.

The word gospel as defined:

• [1] the age concerning Christ, the kingdom of God, and salvation.
• [2] one of the first four New Testament books telling of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ
• [3] an interpretation of the Christian message

As we can see, the snake has never preached about the Christ let alone speak of the good news gospel, more so, the snake was not spreading a Christian message and or a doctrine. The truth of the matter, according to the Bible, according to the book of Genesis (Torah) is that Satan had used the snake to deceive the first woman, Eve, resulting in her and Adam's disobedience.

On 7/13/2019 at 8:08 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

Well, please, what we today have to understand and how about past and about future in connection to some Bible quotes is not in group of "simplified edition articles" as you suggest. 

You said I suggested whatever it is you are referring to, this so called simplified edition article editions you speak of when all that I said comes merely from an ESV Bible, and my 2 minor sources being Wikipedia, and an English Dictionary (evidence of this is on page 2-4 of regarding our debate), and nothing more. Can you quote anything from me in this debate that I had suggested simplified edition articles as you claim? If not, you must make Satan very proud to add words to someone's mouth. As a man of God, I do not add nor do I take from God's Word, and had been very vocal of Deut. 4:2.

That being said, show me, Srecko Sostar your claim.

On 7/20/2019 at 3:05 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

"interfaith dialogue"

Let's see it, show me any of my quotes in this debate that shows "Interfaith Dialogue" when from the get-go I am only using the Bible. That being said, we can see earlier you tried to steer into the direction of the WT and JWs in order to not be focused on solely a Bible discussion, for you had been exposed for the simple fact that without JWs in your dialogue, you have nothing - and it shows.

If you cannot answer what you yourself had said, well, that link only proves to everyone here that you not just started a debate, but you lost it by not in mere defeat, but throwing yourself into your own ruin and peril of depravity, so much so you resort to a copy/paste shenanigans elsewhere by means of your own fumes.

That being said, address the questions posed in light orange.

Check mate

[Space Merchant]

23 hours ago, Equivocation said:

No interfaith dialogue.

That is why his claim can be evidently destroyed by means of what an Interfaith Dialogue is, as shown here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_dialogue

That being said, it is funny how he mentions this, yet he accepts God's Order being nullified by men and brazen conduct to enter the church. He speaks of ill doctrines yet he follows them. For he is a Satanic hypocrite to the highest degree in this sense.

But it was a stupid and weak move on his part when he makes this claim against someone who has been proclaiming word and voicing themselves against the Interfaith, such as Kairos, Peak, etc.

We never forget 2016, we never forget Ted Turner's words at the UN, for it is burning reminder that such ones, the powers that be are a threat to the people of God.

He never clicked the link because he knew that claim of his backfired.

Always, and forever, avoid the interfaith.

23 hours ago, Equivocation said:

The Bible tells you clearly what is said, for any Bible reader can see that for themselves. For instance if you go to the verses about the donkey, you don't see any donkey talking about Jesus, let alone that one donkey who was shook by the angel. 

He is too blind to even see that. That being said, this is true- the honest Bible reader can discern this for themselves, even if that reader is a child, they can see what is conveyed.

 

The truth will always hurt, it will always sting and will always give scar to the ignorant one who does not know or is willfully evading truth.

[Srecko Sostar]

17 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

In a debate, even those on the winning side can spit a few insults,

 

17 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

I even told you from the very beginning, even a seasoned debater can be unpredictable and can insult their challenger, but evidently not to the extreme, for me, I merely played on your Biblical Intelligence, for even the Bible speaks of stupid persons

 

17 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

For he is a Satanic hypocrite to the highest degree in this sense.

SM, I gave you Bible verses. What you will do with them is your free will and choice. But you will not command other people here what to accept and what to not accept about it. You will not mastering over people here to play "debate games" by your rules or by "debating rules".

If you feel yourself as "a winner" in "a debate" and as "a winner" over other people comments, and if such Idea in You gives you Permission to Insult....

........i will not spoil your personal happiness about that :)))  

[Srecko Sostar]

1 Pet 2:5 -  As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men+ but chosen, precious to God,+ ⁵  you yourselves as living stones are being built up into a spiritual house+ to be a holy priesthood, in order to offer up spiritual sacrifices+ acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

this two sort of stones preaching too (offer up)  :))))

[Srecko Sostar]

23 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

you tried to steer into the direction of the WT and JWs i

We are on Forum that caries this name:

Jehovah’s Witnesses

 Open Club  ·  365 members

well, it is quite ok that we steer into direction of WT an JWs :))))

 

 

Open Club  ·  365 members

[Space Merchant]

On 7/22/2019 at 10:09 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

SM, I gave you Bible verses. 

But none of the verses you gave lines up with your claims? i.e. a donkey and literal stones found on the ground and on walls preaching about Jesus Christ before the Messiah was even born.

On 7/22/2019 at 10:09 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

But you will not command other people here what to accept and what to not accept about it.

There is no command. It is of what the Bible says is true. Using Appeal to Motive does not work anymore and yet you continue to use it.

On 7/22/2019 at 10:09 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

You will not mastering over people here to play "debate games" by your rules or by "debating rules".

You started the debate, I did not. We can see evidence of you starting said debate when you chimed in 2 days later. We can also see by means of your responses you further pushed yourself into said debate with questions and claims.

Therefore, you allowed the debate to take place, not me, for my corral was with the Trinitarian.

And I do not make up the rules of debate lol, for if that was the case, I would not have linked literal information from an actual Debate Judge.

On 7/22/2019 at 10:09 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

If you feel yourself as "a winner" in "a debate" and as "a winner" over other people comments, and if such Idea in You gives you Permission to Insult....

A debate is won whereas the opponent fears and or cannot answer his own claims let alone address questions, thus putting you at fault here.

Mind you, we use the Bible only, and even the Bible alone you show yourself to be in quite a bit, no, a lot of struggle, on your part.

There is always insult in debate, I had only used lite and cheeky remarks, more so, according to the Bible, it does speak of ignorant people, depraved ones, ans stupid ones. If stupid ones speak in err, someone who knows the truth of the matter can make the refutation, rebuke even, if need be - of which I had done with you. But you had done FAR worse, and one can see that by simply looking you up.

On 7/22/2019 at 10:09 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

........i will not spoil your personal happiness about that :)))  

Personal happiness for speaking the truth about the Bible? Weren't you the guy who said a donkey as been preaching about the coming Messiah?

I call it like it is, it is willful ignorance and stupidity, there has been others who had seen this thread, your comments, and they said the same thing. I do not think any screenshot of what they had to say about you will help you sleep at night.

That being said, you make claims you cannot cash, you only laugh knowing you, casted stones upon yourself.

On 7/22/2019 at 2:23 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

1 Pet 2:5 -  As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men+ but chosen, precious to God,+ ⁵  you yourselves as living stones are being built up into a spiritual house+ to be a holy priesthood, in order to offer up spiritual sacrifices+ acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

this two sort of stones preaching too (offer up)  :))))

But your originally claim and response was of LITERAL stones preaching about Jesus Christ.

Also seeing that you agreed with Witness on the other thread, you do not believe in the truth about the New Covenant either, for both of you were against what it coneys as both of you were against God's Order.

I would not take this from Witness concerning another response you made, therefore, said response makes that belief of yours and abomination.

On 7/22/2019 at 3:24 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

We are on Forum that caries this name:

Jehovah’s Witnesses

 Open Club  ·  365 members

well, it is quite ok that we steer into direction of WT an JWs :))))

And yet this debate was solely about the Bible and only the Bible. You kept going into the direction of the WT and JWs because every time you say something along the lines of err and stupidity, you are always quick to bring them up, and in every single claim of yours there is no evidence to what you had said.

A fallacy upon a fallacy, driven by depravity and stupidity leads one to ruin and utter embarrassment, especially if this is willfulness.

That being said, you have brought up claims by your OWN word, why do you fear to answer them? Let's hear it from you:

NOTE (before you answer): Before we start, let me tell you what a fallacy is. A fallacy is a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument. It also means a failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid or faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument.

Number 1: Can you point out and quote ANY of my fallacies regarding our debate? As a bonus, I want you to quote the so called "interfaith dialogue" I am speaking. Can you show evidence to this claim?

Number 2: Then show us this evidence regarding the Donkey and the stones preaching the gospel truth, Screko: You said according to the Bible, so surely to you, you may have something to say rather than run away from the very words that you said.

Number 3: So show us your evidence that a Snake was preaching some sort of gospel: You stated that the snake in the Garden of Eden was preaching a gospel, according to the Bible as you said.

The word gospel as defined:

• [1] the age concerning Christ, the kingdom of God, and salvation.
• [2] one of the first four New Testament books telling of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ
• [3] an interpretation of the Christian message

Number 4: You said I suggested whatever it is you are referring to, this so called simplified edition article editions you speak of when all that I said comes merely from an ESV Bible, and my 2 minor sources being Wikipedia, and an English Dictionary (evidence of this is on page 2-4 of regarding our debate), and nothing more. Can you quote anything from me in this debate that I had suggested simplified edition articles as you claim? If not, you must make Satan very proud to add words to someone's mouth. As a man of God, I do not add nor do I take from God's Word, and had been very vocal of Deut. 4:2.

For these points, 4 of them, addressed to you, of which you made claim of, remain unanswered. So it would be wise on your part, the starter of this debate, to answer such that was engineered by your own words.

 

 

 

[Srecko Sostar]

@Space Merchant Bible verses defending or destroying Own statements, and Ideas in Interpretations made by Readers, too.

Accept that if you like. If you don't want, what I have with You :)) Your's and other people comments are free to be read by other people because all that comments are Open to Public. So, if i "jump" in it by my cleverness or stupidity why you are upset so much? Because you want to defend so called "truth"? What "truth" .. in final conclusion? Opinions more likely. :)))   

[Space Merchant]

@Srecko Sostar Appeal to Motive or the Deus ex machina motive will not work anymore. Please answer your own claims for they remain unanswered, as already pointed out. For another time, you started such claims, not me, show respect to your own words by answering them with total honesty.

[Srecko Sostar]

38 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

your claims?i.e. a donkey and literal stones found on the ground and on walls preaching about Jesus Christ before the Messiah was even born.

 

39 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

Weren't you the guy who said a donkey as been preaching about the coming Messiah?

Find where and when i made this explicit quotes, word by word. :))))) You adding, doing this all the time,  in every new sentence you made, a new "element" of my supposedly claiming this and that. You are comedian :)) and want to prove something that NOT EXISTING :)))

[Space Merchant]

12 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Find where and when i made this explicit quotes, word by word. :)))))

Gladly

Concerning what I had said when it came to preaching about the good news gospel and the Christ, this is what you said:

My response that day to Rook: Animals cannot preach the gospel, understand and learn about God let alone teach it.

Highlighted in red is what you pulled and said the following as seen in this link below

 

12 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

You adding, doing this all the time,

Not really because you did proclaim this and stated that this was according to the Bible, immediately after I had said animals cannot preach the gospel. If you actually felt this way, you should have said this from the start.

12 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

my supposedly claiming this and that.

I can see through the assumed alligator tears of which you convey.

12 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

You are comedian :)) and want to prove something that NOT EXISTING :)))

Keep telling yourself that:

On 7/10/2019 at 1:00 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

Balaam's Donkey did, and Stones can preach too, according to Bible.

That being said, please address your claims, for all of them are still unanswered.

[Srecko Sostar]

3 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

preach

preach

verb UK  /priːtʃ/ US  /priːtʃ/

preach verb (IN CHURCH)

[ I or T ] (especially of a priest or minister in a church) to give a religious speech

to try to persuade other people to believe in a particular belief or follow a particular way of life:

to give unwanted advice, especially about moral matters, in  way:

preach

US verb [ I/T ]  /pritʃ/

preach verb [ I/T ] (SPEAK IN CHURCH)

to give a religious speech:

to try to persuade other people to do or accept something

To preach is also to try to persuade other people to have particular beliefs or behave in particular ways:

Well, preach is not always about Gospel :)))

 

[Srecko Sostar]

On 7/10/2019 at 7:00 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

On 7/9/2019 at 11:54 PM, Space Merchant said:

Animals cannot preach

Balaam's Donkey did, and Stones can preach too, according to Bible

You mean this? :)))))

Again, please go to  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/preach

... dictionary said what are the meanings of word PREACH.