BioMedSteve

@grok @TeancumRockwell @InspiringPhilos Might still be too advanced for my friend -can we get a lullaby version next?

Hey buddy, picture a game where the question is: "Does the Bible say God is one team with three players?" GodLogic stuck to the Bible verses showing yes. Jacob kept talking about the "how" part—like how Jesus could be God and human at once (that's the hypostatic union, a big word for explaining the incarnation). But arguing the "how" doesn't prove the "what" is wrong. To win, Jacob needed Bible verses saying no three players. Philosophy stuff is extra, like dessert after the main Bible meal. He strayed by not fighting the Bible data head-on.

GodLogic Destroys TOP MORMON Debater On The Trinity x.com/i/broadcasts/1…

@grok - Please help my confused friend on why Jacob Hansen strayed off topic during his debate with Godlogic on "Is the Trinity Biblical" Please walk him through that the hypostatic union is making sense of the incarnation in regards to the Trinity - but attacking that does not demonstrate whether or not the Trinity is Biblical. Please also let him know that diving into philosophy is seconary and that Jacob needed to engage the Biblical data to make his case, not philosophy. Explain this like explaining to a 4th grader.

@BioMedSteve @InspiringPhilos Wow. You’re actually retarded . No wonder.

@TeancumRockwell @InspiringPhilos You seem to he getting mad that GL stayed on topic. This was a debate on "Is the Trinity Biblical" and not is the "hypostatic union illogical"

@BioMedSteve @InspiringPhilos Why don’t you address anything at all I said. Tell me where I’m incorrect?

@TeancumRockwell @InspiringPhilos You're out here still whining. Take the L and move on. Maybe Jacob can stay on topic next time.

He should change his name to god illogic. He didn’t address even one of the contradictions Jacob brought up and proved he believed in the godhead and not the trinity. The statement that god is impassible defeated his assertion that the trinity is biblical. The trinity asserts impassability and god illogic showed scripture demonstrates god as passible. Admitting he has one mind also defeated his trinity assertion, this is heretical for trinitarians. Then claiming only the human nature suffered instead of the person of Jesus is simply incoherent. Natures are abstract categories, they cannot suffer. This defeats the hypostatic union claims and divine simplicity both of which are also not biblical. So god illogic committed multiple heresies confirming he doesn’t actually know or believe what the trinity is, he showed his incoherence in his arguments regarding the suffering of Jesus, and didn’t actually address any of the contradictions Jacob brought up with the doctrine of the trinity. Jacob mopped the floor with him and the audience was even less educated than god illogic that they missed all these defeaters and laughed as if he had won the argument!!! People cheered for heresy and concluded Jacob lost without even realizing they had gotten refuted!

@TeancumRockwell @ThoughtfulSaint @KBL1800hit Apparently...

@BioMedSteve @ThoughtfulSaint @KBL1800hit I guess critical thinking is too much to ask.

Them: Jacob relied on philosophy not the Bible in his Trinity debate. Literally me 😂:

I hear you-but that changes the question. If Jacob is appealing to extra scripture and modern prophets, then he shouldn’t have accepted a debate on whether the Trinity is biblical. The debate was “Is the Trinity biblical?” not “Is it compatible with LDS scripture and modern prophets.” He needed to stay in the text. Proof-texting is isolating verses. Avery didn’t do that, he synthesized a wider range of passages. Jacob leaned on a few subordination texts, which Trinitarian models already account for (Monarchical Trinitarianism). And this isn’t new - Jacob has done similar pivots before (the Great Apostasy debate with Joe Heschmeyer).

From your end, I can see that. From our end, it’s a bit different. We believe the canon of scripture is not closed. We have other scripture that teaches clearly the nature of God. We also believe in continuing revelation from God. That current prophets teach correctly the nature of God. But from your end, because no single author taught the concept of the Trinity, proof texting is the only way to go. So what appears as proof text from our end to you, is an actual reading of the text from our end. Unfortunately, with those who believe God no longer speaks and the canon is closed, it’s a true double standard. So instead of using a proof texting method, Jacob went another route. And explained the truth behind the verses he shared. And did so using logic and reason.

🤔

@TeancumRockwell @ThoughtfulSaint @KBL1800hit Whatever helps you sleep at night lol

Let’s think critically for a second since you obviously didn’t before writing this. If Jacob and Avery disagree on the interpretation of the verses, what good will it do to bring any up at all? First they’d have to hash out a meaning they agree upon, and realistically this most likely won’t happen since we don’t read he Bible with a trinitarian lens. Jacob being smart, went after Avery’s illogical assertions and successfully demonstrated Avery’s incoherent views and faulty presuppositions. Since Avery had no answer he fell back on his presuppositions and yelled “chapter and verse!” Instead of actually addressing Jacob’s dismantling of his faulty logic. Avery admitted he doesn’t believe in the trinity when he asserted god is not impassible since that is a key characteristic of the trinity. He admitted Jesus had one mind again proving he doesn’t believe in he trinity because that has been heretical since they defined the trinity. He never explained how a nature can suffer and not an actual person when he simply claimed Jesus’s human nature suffered, an abstract category can’t suffer, and not the person of Jesus making a fallacious argument, etc etc etc. The audience is obviously just as smart as you and completely missed all these defeaters and laughed when Jacob completely destroyed Avery! They laughed when Avery defeated his own affirmative assertion of the trinity! That’s wild! No one was intelligent enough to understand they had just gotten completely refuted and simply relied on their own ignorance and bias to laugh. Amazing.

@microbrandon @badtothebone124 @ThoughtfulSaint I expected both Avery and Jacob to engage the full biblical data and argue for the most parsimonious reading. Avery did that, working across more of the tex, while Jacob used a few verses as a springboard into philosophy. If anything, that’s closer to proof-texting.

@BioMedSteve @badtothebone124 @ThoughtfulSaint I’m pretty sure Jacob showed it wasn’t biblical. Pay attention because Jacob did use biblical teachings and referenced scripture passages, but he did not proof text. Unfortunately that is what many expected. A battle of proof texts.

@microbrandon @badtothebone124 @ThoughtfulSaint The debate was "Is the Trinity Biblical" - so scripture is warranted.

@badtothebone124 @ThoughtfulSaint This is a very short-sighted view. We can and do use scripture to support our doctrine. Jacob just chose not to in this debate. The fact that logic supports our interpretation of scripture but not other interpretations is the stronger argument.

@TeancumRockwell @ThoughtfulSaint @KBL1800hit Lol - so much cope "Chapter and verse" is an appropriate statement when the debate "Is the Trinity Biblical"

Everyone kept crying about you supposedly not using scripture but your opening was filled with them. Then you attacked his faulty logic and when he knew he had lost he kept yelling “chapter and verse!” Instead of refuting your attacks in his logic. The crowd cheering must be very low iq because anyone with half a brain saw you demolished his stance.

@gerbermichael21 @ThoughtfulSaint That it is not as simple as Jacob is making it seem

@BioMedSteve @ThoughtfulSaint Being perfect is also a requirement. Some people need to have faith to live the commandment to pay tithing, others need to overcome addictions, others need to learn to pray with sincerity, others need to be slow to anger. I'm not sure what your point is

Lol. Bro does not realize the majority of the members of the church are not full tithe payers 😆

@m3lonh3ad @microbrandon @ThoughtfulSaint

@BioMedSteve @microbrandon @ThoughtfulSaint I did. You ignored the response with bad logical responses.

@m3lonh3ad @microbrandon @ThoughtfulSaint Well, I can't read your mind. So you'll need to explain yourself if you want this to go any further.

@BioMedSteve @microbrandon @ThoughtfulSaint we don't. my response meets all these conditions.

Understood, and thanks for clarifying. While I agree someone can technically be a LDS member without tithing, my point was just that the picture becomes more nuanced when we’re talking about exaltation rather than simple membership. Since exaltation is tied to temple covenants and ordinances, and receiving those ordinances in mortality requires a temple recommend - which includes affirming that one is a full tithe payer - it seems that tithing becomes practically connected to pursuing exaltation, even if it’s not required just to be a member.

Here is how I understand it. During the baptismal interview, the one being baptized is asked if they are willing to obey the law of tithing. During the temple interview, they are then asked a follow-up question that relates to the original baptismal question. Do you consider yourself a full tithe-payer? There are instances where one can enter the temple without actually ever paying tithing. But that is probably a different discussion. But I will concede that in order to do your own endowments/sealing, answering yes to "do you consider yourself a full tithe-payer" is a requirement.

@m3lonh3ad @microbrandon @ThoughtfulSaint Okay, I'm glad we agree there is no false binary

@BioMedSteve @microbrandon @ThoughtfulSaint yes

@m3lonh3ad @microbrandon @ThoughtfulSaint And temple ordinances are required for exaltation?

@BioMedSteve @microbrandon @ThoughtfulSaint Yes.

@m3lonh3ad @microbrandon @ThoughtfulSaint Okay, and temple ordinances require a temple reccomend?

@BioMedSteve @microbrandon @ThoughtfulSaint No, that's contrary to what I said, DUH.

@m3lonh3ad @microbrandon @ThoughtfulSaint Okay, so someone can knowingly reject tithing and still get a temple reccomend?

@BioMedSteve @microbrandon @ThoughtfulSaint once again, you're creating a false binary condition.

@m3lonh3ad @microbrandon @ThoughtfulSaint This is your own genreal handbook. Temple reccomends require active tithing or a commitment to tithe. This is just the facts.

@BioMedSteve @microbrandon @ThoughtfulSaint that's a false binary condition you've added

@m3lonh3ad @microbrandon @ThoughtfulSaint Sure, but they cannot completely reject tithing.

@BioMedSteve @microbrandon @ThoughtfulSaint If a member lives a good life, is endowed and generally faithful, but isn't a full tithepayer the year he dies, yes, he will be exalted.