Point well taken. I'm in the discussion and have been wondering if anyone could follow. It's hard for me to dig through. Giving some thought on how to shed some light on the probably impenetrable thicket of discussion.>

Something we can agree on.

I was actually thinking of trying to summarize and condense everything into just a few bullet points.

It's up to the <skilled debater> to make sure to connect those dots for the readers, including his opponent, lest his words fail to persuade.>

Seems we are all in agreement here.

What happened? <OCF> challenged me to address his replies, point by point.

That was fair, since he did so himself.

But that turned into addressing supporting arguments point by point. And if your interlocutor is presenting an argument to support assertions, then a point by point rebuttal/reply quickly turns into multiple points, making for an explosion of replies.

Just a while ago, I was trying to think of the best way to condense everything I said to <OCF>, including anything I think he hasn't answered, and everything he thinks I haven't answered.

Currently, I consider the most salient points to be as follows:

1. <OCF> recognizes that we can convict in a court of law, based on evidence presented in court, even though it is not <our> own experience. (Also, eyewitness testimony is admissible in court.)

So why is eyewitness testimony of living witnesses (which is admissible in court) acceptable to him, but the eyewitness testimony of deceased persons is not acceptable? Does the act of dying refute eyewitness testimony from the deceased? (Keep in mind, history is, essentially, just recorded eyewitness testimony given by people of the past.)

2. Since <OCF> rejects <historical>, recorded eyewitness testimony, and this is the only possible evidence available to us if we want to <examine> and understand history, why does he repeatedly ask me to "prove" the historical record? After all, he automatically (and in advance!) rejects any and all possible historical evidence, other than scripture.

3. Since <OCF> rejects the recorded eyewitness testimony in the historical record (for example, the Council of Rome in 382 AD determining scriptural canon), what alternative does he posit for the creation of canonical scripture? In other words, who compiled it? And how did they compile it? And why should we reject compiled history as untrustworthy, yet trust in his alternative version of how scriptural canon came to be? (Assuming he can provide an alternative version.)

4. Scripture contains much history, of course. Why then, is it not invalidated for the same reason he invalidates non-scriptural history? After all, if history is written by the victors, that applies to history within the Bible as well as outside of the Bible.

5. Related to #3: As of yet, <OCF> presented absolutely no alternative to the Council of Rome, as explanation for the origin of the scriptural canon. If he has no alternative explanation for how the scriptural canon was created, why then does he accept the canon as the only infallible source for understanding Christianity? And by what methodology does he settle theological disputes?

<1. <OCF> recognizes that we can convict in a court of law, based on evidence presented in court, even though it is not <our> own experience. (Also, eyewitness testimony is admissible in court.)

So why is eyewitness testimony of living witnesses (which is admissible in court) acceptable to him, but the eyewitness testimony of deceased persons is not acceptable?>

Eyewitness testimony of deceased persons is acceptable to me. If a witness testified, was cross examined, and that recorded in a trial log, I continue to accept their testimony after their death. If someone was convicted upon their testimony, I would consider it an injustice to release the person upon the witness' death. Therefore, your claim I don't accept the testimony of deceased witnesses is found to be false.

< Does the act of dying refute eyewitness testimony from the deceased?>

No.

< (Keep in mind, history is, essentially, just recorded eyewitness testimony given by people of the past.)>

<OCF: Okay. I sure hope they did what they were supposed to. I mean, it took Aaron a few days to start making a golden calf. I suppose if you were a Jew wandering 40 years, you'd appeal to the first high priest Aaron making a golden calf to prove that all Jews should make golden calves. Right?>

<tga: Bad analogy. First of all, making a golden calf and serving the divine liturgy are not the same level of difficulty. Second of all, I am fairly certain Aaron didn't make a golden calf several days a week for his entire adult life. Try again.>

I affirm it is a valid analogy.

2. I am willing to defend my affirmation that we can't know the oral teachings of the apostles that weren't recorded during the lifetime of the apostles.

3. <tga: You obviously don't understand what Protestantism is. <There are only 3 options in Christianity.> Either you are in the Latin Church (RCC), the Orthodox Church, or you are a Protestant.>

I challenge <tga> to defend his highlighted affirmation.

4. <tga: The only one of us who needs to prove something is you. Namely, if the biblical canon was not compiled at the Council of Rome in 382 AD, where did it come from, and who compiled it? Rejecting the historical record does not answer these questions, it merely leaves you with no knowledge at all.>

I challenge <tga> to defend his affirmation.

5. <OCF: So what? God's methods change.>

I am willing to defend this affirmation.

6. Appealing to Acts 15 as proof that God approves of church councils determining doctrine is invalid.

What should I say in reply? "Gee, thanks!"? I don't think so.>

Well said.

These liberal boomers didn't just throw it away they willfully destroyed it. They did everything they could to destroy what was a good society. They're actually proud of that. "We changed the world," they like to say. Yes they did. They made it far worse.

As an example look at violence against women. It's at epidemic proportions. It's far higher than it ever was in the 1950s.

Liberal boomers lowered the penalties for rape to the point that some rapists are getting probation. In Europe some rapists are getting community service. The result is that rapists have gone berserk. Take a look at what happened in Rotherham, England. Liberal boomers are responsible for that. This would never have been allowed to happen in the 1950s.

Thanks, you too!

And to add to your list of lib atrocities, 50 million babies have been aborted since Roe v. Wade.

Babies are murdered, while rapists go free. And Walgreens has closed 3 pharmacies in San Francisco because the libs running the city won't prosecute shoplifters!

So libs have made it harder for people to get the medicines they need.

Gee, thanks? I don't think so.

Divorce and broken homes? Rampant, thanks to libs! Burning, looting and murder? Rampant in 2020, thanks to libs.

Libs ARE evil, they PREACH evil, they REJOICE over evil.

First, this one:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5448)

<OhioChessFan: ...

Eyewitness testimony of deceased persons is acceptable to me. If a witness testified, was cross examined, and that recorded in a trial log, I continue to accept their testimony after their death. If someone was convicted upon their testimony, I would consider it an injustice to release the person upon the witness' death. Therefore, your claim I don't accept the testimony of deceased witnesses is found to be false.>

Do you limit your acceptance only to court testimony of witnesses who are cross examined? I am trying to understand exactly why you don't accept history, specifically the history of the Council of Rome in 382, but in general ALL history.

So far we have established only that you accept testimony from decedents who testified under oath in a court of law. But that is an insignificant fraction of all human history, since court proceedings are such a tiny slice of 5,000 years of global human activity. What about other decedents?

Do you believe Charlemagne was king of the Franks in the late 700s?

Do you believe the Normands invaded the British isles in 1066?

Do you believe Julius Caesar became emperor of Rome around 50 BC?

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5450)

<OhioChessFan: I think <tga> and I both could have picked more "big ticket" items. I tried to choose things that strike me as more clear cut, maybe of more interest. I assume <tga> had his own reasons for what he chose, so I allow some license if he were to want to discuss another item after this group.>

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5449)

You have made a mistake in your numbering system. To wit, my point #3 makes no mention of the 3 types of churches. But you gave this as the 3rd point:

<OCF: ...

3. <<<tga: You obviously don't understand what Protestantism is. <There are only 3 options in Christianity.> Either you are in the Latin Church (RCC), the Orthodox Church, or you are a Protestant.>>>

I challenge <tga> to defend his highlighted affirmation.>

I will address this separately, now, and reply to your 2nd rebuttal in a subsequent post.

<I challenge <tga> to defend his highlighted affirmation.> is the point under discussion.

Here is my reply - you either intentionally or unintentionally hid from my point, and I will explain how.

You are asking me to prove a universal negative, but it is a <truism> that universal negatives, by definition, cannot be proven.

To give you benefit of the doubt, if you didn't realize this truism, please understand it now. If you did realize this truism, shame on you!

I made a factual assertion. You can easily refute it by naming a 4th kind of Church. That is the PROPER way to respond to my assertion. In other words, your rebuttal implies that the failure of my assertion rests in my <lack of knowledge>, namely, knowledge of a 4th kind of church. You <imply> possession of the knowledge I lack.

So reveal this supposed knowledge!

If you don't, and instead again ask me to prove a universal negative, I will assume you want to avoid disputing my assertion, but cannot admit you aren't up to the challenge, so you are taking a cowardly way out because you think it saves face for you.

No.

<I am trying to understand exactly why you don't accept history, specifically the history of the Council of Rome in 382, but in general ALL history.>

I'm tired of your false characterizations of my position. cf this nonsense. You keep asking questions that don't get to the point you want, then blame me for it. And characterize my positions as idiotic.

<So far we have established only that you accept testimony from decedents who testified under oath in a court of law. >

So far I'm answering your feeble line of questioning.

<But that is an insignificant fraction of all human history, since court proceedings are such a tiny slice of 5,000 years of global human activity. What about other decedents?>

Yes. Nice question.

<Do you believe Charlemagne was king of the Franks in the late 700s?>

Yes.

<Do you believe the Normands invaded the British isles in 1066?>

Yes.

<Do you believe Julius Caesar became emperor of Rome around 50 BC?>

Yes.

<None of this history is based on any court case, or any cross examination! And obviously all eyewitnesses to the events are dead>

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5449)

Reading through this post, I see it isn't a rebuttal at all, but the enumeration of your own points.

As it stands, you haven't responded to anything at all in this post:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5446)

As for your 6 points, let's begin.

<OhioChessFan:

Point 1: <<<tga: Then the Apostles taught the next generation of priests and bishops, handing down the oral knowledge with great care. And since this knowledge is stuff like how to serve the divine liturgy, the eucharest, other sacraments, etc., it was knowledge that they were putting into practice daily.>>>

OCF: Okay. I sure hope they did what they were supposed to. I mean, it took Aaron a few days to start making a golden calf. I suppose if you were a Jew wandering 40 years, you'd appeal to the first high priest Aaron making a golden calf to prove that all Jews should make golden calves. Right?

<tga: Bad analogy. First of all, making a golden calf and serving the divine liturgy are not the same level of difficulty. Second of all, I am fairly certain Aaron didn't make a golden calf several days a week for his entire adult life. Try again.>

I affirm it is a valid analogy.>

Since your analogy is NOT a universal negative, please make your argument in support of it. In other words, tell us why it is just as easy to make a golden calf as it is to serve divine liturgy. One requires only speaking and memorization, skills we all practice daily from childhood. The other requires smelting, esoteric craftsmanship and obtaining resources to make gold, none of which we do every day.

And please address my second criticism of the analogy. If a priest gives divine liturgy several days a week, why doesn't he hone and retain his skills with more certitude than someone who did something once? You are going to have to refute the science of spaced repetition, as well as refuting the audience's personal experience with how we learn and retain knowledge and skills, to support your claim of a valid analogy.

<2. I am willing to defend my affirmation that we can't know the oral teachings of the apostles that weren't recorded during the lifetime of the apostles.>

If you are willing to defend it, do so! Explain why can't oral teachings be passed down? And in contrast, why do you possess such certitude for written scripture yet continue to avoid posting any provenance in its favor?

3. I already replied, before I realized it was not a rebuttal to my own point 3.

<OCF: 4. <<<tga: The only one of us who needs to prove something is you. Namely, if the biblical canon was not compiled at the Council of Rome in 382 AD, where did it come from, and who compiled it? Rejecting the historical record does not answer these questions, it merely leaves you with no knowledge at all.>>>

I challenge <tga> to defend his affirmation.>

Your reply doesn't make sense! Challenge me to defend my affirmation?!?! You didn't quote affirmations, you quoted my questions! That's why there's a question mark at the end: <Namely, if the biblical canon was not compiled at the Council of Rome in 382 AD, where did it come from, and who compiled it? >

Now, looking at your #5, same response as earlier. If you are willing to defend it, go ahead. Make your case, convince me. I am not interested in just hearing contrary affirmations. I want to understand <why> you think mine are wrong, and just as importantly, why you think yours are right.

<6. Appealing to Acts 15 as proof that God approves of church councils determining doctrine is invalid.

I am willing to defend this affirmation.>

This misses the point. Acts 15 is not about determining doctrine, it is an example of settling a dispute over doctrine already taught by the apostles.

In other words, God's revelation to man was complete, but some who had been proselytized were confusing the delivered doctrine.

So go ahead, if you like, and defend your point 6. However, based on your wording you haven't correctly captured the essence of the dispute, so your defense of your #6 would be irrelevant to the debate, IMO.

No, the point under discussion is your point 1:

<1. <OCF> recognizes that we can convict in a court of law, based on evidence presented in court, even though it is not <our> own experience. (Also, eyewitness testimony is admissible in court.)

What part of "one point at a time" isn't registering?>

Physician heal thyself:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5449)

Looks like 6 points there. Plus my 6 points makes the tally 12, to which you contributed half.

And technically, I do discuss 1 point at a time. But when I finish 1 point, I move on to the next, usually within the same post.

In any event, it has been my longstanding policy that I discuss what I want to discuss, not what my interlocutors demand I discuss.

I'm tired of your false characterizations of my position. cf this nonsense.>

Excuse me, but the Council of Rome is history and you have rejected it. Same for all the other councils, apparently.

Not to mention the fact that the history of all of Europe, from the time Christianity became the Roman Empire's official religion, up until recently, was written by Christians! I shouldn't have to explain that if you are going to reject the history of the Council of Rome, because it was written by Christians, combined with the fact that most of European history of the last 2000 years was written by Christians, it presents a quandary to me because I have no idea what OTHER accepted/established historical record you are going to claim is just hearsay.

Thus, what you describe as a "feeble" line of questioning is only "feeble" because of your odd rejection of the historical record! You've hamstrung me, and then criticized me for your own action.

If you are not even willing to agree that the Council of Rome established scriptural canon, then extensive inquiry is required to establish just exactly what you agree is history!

And, I should add, your recalcitrance to be more forthright is counter productive to moving the discussion forward. I am now a kind of dentist, pulling rhetorical teeth from an uncooperative patient.

<You keep asking questions that don't get to the point you want, then blame me for it.>

Not at all. What you've posted so far is so at odds with accepted history, thus I am trying to get you to elucidate on your thinking, on your paradigm, so I can understand it.

<And characterize my positions as idiotic.>

Anyway, at this point I've reached my limit of tolerance for not only your snark, but your games, your avoidance, your recalcitrance, and especially your steadfast unwillingness to answer any of my questions, which are asked for the purpose of getting you to clarify your viewpoints.

DO YOU WANT HONEST DEBATE OR NOT??? A SIMPLE YES OR NO WILL SUFFICE.