General Discussion

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I'm starting this thread so we have a place to discuss how we want to set up this subforum and how we want to organize the rules for discussion, what our goals are, and so forth.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

General plan:

The "sticky thread" at the top of this subform is reserved for the Outline. It is a closed thread so it won't get cluttered up with discussion. When someone want's to suggest a change to the outline, they should post their suggestion in the "Outline Update" thread. Then when we come to a general agreement about the update, I will post the updated outline in the sticky thread so everyone can work from the new Outline.

When a person wants to discuss or answer a point in the Outline, they first should check to see if a thread is already opened for that point. If not, then they should open a thread with a title that starts with the Part and Section number like "Part III.a". Now I have a question I'd like some input on: Should we restrict all discussion to Part III.a to a single thread, or should we allow many threads with extended titles like "Part III.a and Galations 3.28" or "Part III.a and Genesis 12.3"?

The rules of this study are open for discussion. Please post any suggestions you have.

Richard

[wstruse]

Richard,

Awesome! this is just what I had in mind. I am just home for lunch. I will comment more tonight. I just wanted to let you know I appreciate the extra work you are doing for this.

Warm Regards,
Wstruse

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,

Awesome! this is just what I had in mind. I am just home for lunch. I will comment more tonight. I just wanted to let you know I appreciate the extra work you are doing for this.

Warm Regards,
Wstruse

Excellent! I think we will all really enjoy and benefit from this structured and disciplined collaborative study.

Richard

[wstruse]

Richard,

You stated:

I think its an excellent idea to have individual threads devoted to each point. But I wonder about the purpose of such a strong limit on the discussion. The reason we digging into this issue is because there are continued points of contention. How can we come to any resolution if we limit discussion to just two posts each? It seems like we will be left with the same situation with which we began - that is, unresolved differences.

To me, the solution would be to discuss each point (or question) listed in the outline until we come to agreement on either 1) the true Biblical teaching on the issue, or 2) the specific reason(s) for the difference(s). If we come to a solid agreement about 1) then we post a synopsis of that in an expanded outline that contains both questions and answers, and that will be continuously updated. If on the other hand we come to 2) then we start a thread to resolve those specific new "root issues" that have arisen.

My main point is that it seems like just "stating our different positions" will not ultimately resolve our differences. And our common purpose is to discover the true Biblical teaching on these issues, correct? So we should be able to state each point of total agreement, and then break down the points of disagreement until we find the remaining "root issue" that needs to be resolved.

You make some excellent points above. Maybe I am looking at it wrong and it is too restrictive. I am open to alternatives. I just want to provide a framework or structure, if you will, within which each person can solidify his or her thoughts and share them with others. My idea of keeping each initial response to one post was to provide the impetus for each of us to distill our thoughts and the Scriptural evidence to as concise a response as possible. This would help encourage us to keep on topic and help eliminate hyperbole.

By removing the option for debate in the initial posts I believe it would help to encourage original thought and scholarly expression. By removing the debate from the 1st two rounds it would be much more concise body of information to which we could refer others interested in this subject.

What if after each person has made as good a case as they can make for each point we open up a parallel debate thread within which we can then try to reach some common ground?

I guess we could look at this as a trial of sorts. (trial of ideas) Both sides must first have the opportunity, nay has the responsibility, to present their case. After both sides have made their best case the cross examination can begin.

I could look something like this:

Discussion Thread /// Part I – Section A – Israel / Jacob a introduction

Once each person has made their case for the specific point on the outline, the debate thread could be opened. I think it would be best if only those who have made the effort to present their own case in the Discussion Thread be allowed to participate (if they so desire) in the Debate Thread.

Debate Thread /// Part I - Section A – Israel / Jacob a introduction

After some sort of consensus has been reached in the debate thread the next point in the outline can be addressed. If a consensus cannot be reach then by common consent the debate could be ended and the next point in the outline can be addressed.


I look forward to your input and refinements.

Warm Regards,
Wstruse

[wstruse]

Hello Richard,

I just wanted to let you know I am still planing to post my thoughts on this topic. I just have been very busy with some research I have been doing. I hope you don't mind if it takes me awhile.

Warm Regards,
Wstruse

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard,

I just wanted to let you know I am still planing to post my thoughts on this topic. I just have been very busy with some research I have been doing. I hope you don't mind if it takes me awhile.

Warm Regards,
Wstruse

Hi Wstruse,

No problem bro. I'm a little behind myself. I need to get some "starter threads" going on the various points of the outline.

I appreciate the notice that you are still planning to work on this. I find that encouraging.

Richard