Workman, my apologies and a concession...

Hey Workman, how's it going buddy? Hey, I wanted to offer you an apology. I wanted to apologize first of all, for having been offline for a couple of days. I've been swamped with work and family obligations and I'm taking my 7 year old son to OK City for 2 days to watch the world trials (wrestling) and just son/dad hang out. So I've been really busy.

I wanted to also apologize because in our last kind of monstrous "dual" I started to respond to some of your comments concerning my motives. I started to feel a petty sense to return some fire. I don't like that. It's probably one of the reasons why I haven't engaged myself as much in debate on here as I used to. I heard a foreign missions preacher mentioning how you can "win and lose". These conversations are not about me (or you) but about a serious but fun engagement in an awesome God and in profound and personal beliefs. I don't want to belittle you or your views nor feel as if this is a "contest" to win. I'm ok with agreeing to disagree before I'd like our discussions and debates to get personal.

So I'm sorry I haven't re-connected and I'm sorry I got a bit petty.

I also owe you a concession. I just don't have as much time as I'd like to. I spent 3 1/2 hours the other night just going through your rebuttals, one at a time and fell asleep at 3 a.m. I was shot at work the next day! :-) My fault not yours.

So I am happy to continue this discussion but I will have to focus on being a bit more concise, a bit more joyful :-), and a bit more paced...I concede that my time crunch is a big imposition!

anyway, thank you for asking my opinions on some theological questions that I am passionate about.

I only hope that I glorify Jesus Christ as Lord and God, and provide some personal edification to you (or to me) or to someone reading this.

God bless buddy!

If I may poke my head in the room and say; dude, you ARE concise! Just because a sentence or paragraph is lengthy doesn't mean it still doesn't capture the essence of something, hit on the head, nailed, raised above you as if to say "I dared try to run in circles, but look at me now". Carry on chaps Phone Post

Hey Rooster, all is well, thanks for asking. It is not in the least necessary for you to apologize for being offline.

After all, the thread did not get deleted, and you were able to return and respond.

But more importantly; you are not just some guy who lives in a bunker, in the outbacks, where you are a full-time blogger.

I think that it is awesome that you are able to have a balanced life, while using this forum to share your incredible passion of theology.

As far as response time goes; I don't recall us making rules, and or, making demands on each other.

So, lets keep it that way, as I think the 100 plus comments collectively, proves that we are doing just fine.

And yes, so you lost your cool a little; but calling me a "little man" isn't exactly going to get my nasals flared up, though, it did provide a good chuckle or two (thx for that lol).

Seriously though, I too am really enjoying the dialogue, and can assure you, that I consider this recent infraction to be a blip, since the vast majority of our dialogue has been quite respectful.

As you should know by now, I am fully on-board with being more concise with our responses.

It will make dialogue between us much more manageable, if we remain strict, in keeping to one point at a time.

When the comments get too long, I am unable to actually quote it, due to post limitations.

Which is why I have to create multiple separate posts to respond to one large post, but it is painstaking work.

So, I do understand and share your pain.

As for your hope, I get the feeling that you know that you can be sure that God's word, when preached, will not return to Him void.

I will return to respond to your questions and challenges tomorrow.

Thanks Rooster for taking this step of reconciliation, I do appreciate it, and receive it with all gentleness.

By the way Rooster, if you've seen my apology on the Nature of God thread, then you will know that I do not actually believe that you are being deceitful or dishonest in your dialogue with me.

work, just got back from a great MAN-cation with my little guy, his best buddy (they are 7) and his dad (my sons wrestling coach). We went to see the world trials and pretty much had a blast (eating wings, seeing movies, swimming and working out, got caught in 1 tornado, etc!).

I was re-engaging with my family over a very busy weekend.

I will be traveling tomorrow and have time at night to start dipping my toe back in on the beautiful and profound discussion over the revelation of God and His Nature.

Thank you for letting me be a part of the discussion.

Talk to you soon!

Hey Rooster,

Sounds like you all had an incredible time.

Wow, what an excursion; one that you (dads) and the boys won't soon forget.

You are creating some pretty amazing memories, yet, it is such a blessing, since there are countless kids who never get a sniff at these types of experiences.

I'm certain that you'll never take it for granted.

And I'm sure that your wife and daughter were happy to have you back, at least I hope.

You just never know; maybe they were enjoying girly time together, while part-taking in activities like shopping, pedicures, and whatever else gals do (lol).

As far as our discussion is concerned; in the face of your busy schedule and general responsibilities, you truly have to be passionate in order to find the time to take part in such a lengthy and drawn out dialogue that has resulted in well over a hundred comments between the 2 of us.

Obviously I am very happy to be able to engage with you on this topic, of which I too am quite passionate.

So I thank you as well, and look forward to resuming.

One more thing; I am very grateful that, by the grace of God, you were all provided with protection from the tornado.

See you on the 'Nature of God' thread!

Good posts guys! God bless! Phone Post

Thanks Gord!

Work, got a new IPAD 2 yesterday and it stole my time. I will see you soon on the nature of God. Thanks for your patience and kind words!

Much appreciated Gord...!

Honestly Rooster, I'd rather you take your time to gather your thoughts, rather than to rush.

But I do think that it is awesome that you are considerate enough to keep me in the loop, and communicate to me that you are still in the game, but just on a time out.

By the way, nice new toy there Rooster.

I've always wondered what it looks like when someone with multiple personalities has an argument with himself. At least now I think I know what it looks like when someone with multiple screennames debates himself..

I bet at the end of this "debate", "Workman" will be converted to modalism, thereby serving as an example of the triumph of modalist exegesis over the "best" trinitarian arguments (at least as conceived by "Workman"...)

Could you make a new thread when "Workman" renounces trinitarianism and embraces neo-sabellianism? I don't have the attention span to read that other thread.

TheHawker: I've always wondered what it looks like when someone with multiple personalities has an argument with himself.

Workman: Just so we are clear, who exactly are you accusing of arguing with himself?

Are you actually going to make the bold claim that, while my arguments (on the nature of God) vastly contrast the position and arguments brought forth by Rooster; you're still going to make the baseless allegation that I (Workman) and Rooster are one and the same person (lol)?

TheHawker: At least now I think I know what it looks like when someone with multiple screennames debates himself..

Workman: Really? If that is true, then it must reside alone in your imagination, since you have not provided any evidence to prove your false claims.

TheHawker: I bet at the end of this "debate", "Workman" will be converted to modalism, thereby serving as an example of the triumph of modalist exegesis over the "best" trinitarian arguments (at least as conceived by "Workman"...)

Workman: Betting is for atheist, since it is predicated on chance, rolling of the dice, and conjecture; but invariably empty on facts.

Where in the debate does it even hint at the possibility that I am being swayed in a way that leads you to believe that I will be converted to Modalism?

If the arguments I present are strong; then how in the world will I be able to justify converting to Modalism?

You are not making any sense, unless of course, your baseless theory is correct; that I am Rooster, but I'm here to tell you unequivocally that you are completely wrong on this one.

And therefore, you are also wrong to presume an outcome where I will renounce my Trinitarian position for Modalism.

TheHawker: Could you make a new thread when "Workman" renounces trinitarianism and embraces neo-sabellianism? I don't have the attention span to read that other thread.

Workman: Have you seen Rooster's start date? The man's been here since 2001, and though I am new here, I have not seen anyone accuse him of creating multiple handles for the purpose of interacting with himself.

What does this say about a person, such as yourself, that has zero problems attacking one's character, by inferring that they are manipulative and dishonest, as to construct his own thread, debate himself, and then bring forth a conclusion that is satisfactory towards Modalism.

Have you no shame for going public with such an outrageous and baseless claim?

And are you open to the real possibility that you could be wrong?

This is hilarious. But sorry for ruining the theater. You might have to flip the script now and send "Workman" off in a huff and introduce another ringer once this episode is forgotten.

TheHawker - This is hilarious. But sorry for ruining the theater. You might have to flip the script now and send "Workman" off in a huff and introduce another ringer once this episode is forgotten.


I assume that you are talking to Rooster!

If your allegations are correct; then why would Rooster send a "ringer" to defend a position that he is opposed to?

 Dont feed the troll Workman

Rocky Dennis -  Dont feed the troll Workman


Assuming that you were talking about TheHawker, I will take your good advice and stop feeding the (alleged) troll.

Yep, that's him!  And nothing "alleged" about it.  You must be new to the forum, fren.

 workman is a troll...now go clean your mothers basement loser.

Hey, I appreciate the heads-up there Rocky.

Thanks for that, and given that you are correct in stating that I am new to this forum, I also appreciate that you have given me the benefit of doubt, in not falsely accusing me of trolling.

Robert Wynne -  workman is a troll...now go clean your mothers basement loser.


Robert, is there any hope that you'll share what evidence you have to prove that I am a troll?

I have been coming here for over 5 years, same screenname, most regulars here know me and my views. Whatever I am, I am not a troll.

Getting back to Workman and Rooster. A newbie with the screenname "Workman" (a term which rooster has used to refer to himself as in the past, I guess there is some theological meaning to it) just shows up on the Holyground of all places with no prior posts, meaning this is the first forum he has posted on, and starts a discussion on the "nature of God" (rooster's favorite issue), and best of all, has a posting style identical to rooster's.

A massive FRAT debate with rooster ensues, allowing Rooster to put forth all his arguments for modalism , while also disposing of "Workmans"'s trinitarian arguments. It remains to be seen, but I think Workman is due to be converted soon, having been shown the error of his ways, and saved from the clutches of polytheism.

If a devoted trinitarian like Workman (and he certainly is, look at his passionate arguments on the debate thread!) can be made to see the light, then perhaps all we polytheists should examine our views and come to the same conclusion!

Granted this is all conjecture on my part, but the evidence is pretty strong.

Workman - 
Robert Wynne -  workman is a troll...now go clean your mothers basement loser.





Robert, is there any hope that you'll share what evidence you have to prove that I am a troll?



 well, rooster, fapout or whatever screen name you want to use today, it is because your schit is old and used by so many before, that it becomes obvious to seasoned members of this forum.