Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
That position would suggest that any word could be used to shoehorn the irrelevant into any discussion and require a lengthy discourse with people who obviously either have no grasp of the subject, or who have a desire to derail the subject — think Bilbo) and the regular participants are required to spend all of their time on a theoretically (yet minutely) possible but extremely implausible position.
|
I'm assuming reasonable people are participating.
Look, all I was saying is that given the audience of people who have a background of believing 1 Cor 15:45 is somehow about the Trinity, it is not unreasonable to expect some of those people to begin to discuss the Trinity in an attempt to unwind their understanding of that verse from their legacy interpretation.
I wasn't trying to force the discussion into something about the Trinity. I was just saying that I understand why the subject might come up given the history of the verse amongst the participants.
I suppose arguing for "full discussion" was too much. What I meant was it's not unreasonable to expect some discussion.
Quote:
|
We are still responding to the guy in class who continually asks irrelevant questions and wastes the professor's time as he discusses that and leaves the topic for the day languishing. (Probably means we need a new professor. One that is not distacted from his purpose.)
|
How about me?!!!
