Author Topic: Large Tree (Read 16511 times)

happyjosiah · « **Reply #50 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:57:12 PM »

The point I said you had to concede was that it is not intutive.
Here's a simple yes or no question:
Is this confusing?
If yes (which is my opinion), could we please have errata or a REG entry?
If no (which is your opinion), how do you explain all these confused people?
Your explanation seems to be that you think they are all just being rules lawyers and looking for loopholes to make their decks better. (Correct me if I'm wrong here).

Putting aside that particular piece of paranoia for the moment, at least this would be the first time you've admitted "hey, there are confused people in this thread" which is all I wanted in the first place. Given that, is it really so unreasonable a request that we get a ruling to clarify this? If not, why not? (And "cause it doesn't confuse ME" is not a valid answer).

The Schaef · « **Reply #51 on:** August 03, 2009, 03:01:41 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on August 03, 2009, 02:52:46 PM

Well, no one finds that intuitive (as far as I can tell), but the problem is that king is nowhere defined as 'actual, historical, "king" kings'.

Well, it seems like common sense to me what a king is. We've lived with kings on the planet for thousands of years. Add that to the fact that this is the only reference in question at present, and it's based on a prophetic image which is clearly symbolic, I personally don't think there should be much confusion about whether the King of Tyrus is any more an actual king than the King of Rock-and-Roll or the King of Queens.

Quote

Of course, I don't really think I'm arguing with you, Schaef. I haven't seen any proof that you'd be against an REG clarification, which is all I'm asking for. Perhaps you just don't see it as necessary? I guess I don't completely comprehend your position.

My position is that everyone seems in a rush to make things more complicated than they are, regardless of which side of the issue they fall on. If there's a REG clarification or not makes no real difference to me.

Quote from: happyjosiah link=topic=16938.msg267579#msg267579 date=1249325832If no (which is your opinion), how do you explain all these confused people?[/quote

Is it also possible in your mind that there could be people confused about something and I could still think that something is intuitive? This is not an either/or situation to me.

Quote
at least this would be the first time you've admitted "hey, there are confused people in this thread" which is all I wanted in the first place.

I never said there were no confused people. So what exactly did you think you were arguing against?

happyjosiah · « **Reply #52 on:** August 03, 2009, 03:19:27 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 03, 2009, 03:01:41 PM

I personally don't think there should be much confusion about whether the King of Tyrus is any more an actual king than the King of Rock-and-Roll or the King of Queens.

That was funny (seriously, it was), but it's a straw man argument. No one is arguing KoT represents an "actual king" because the Large Tree doesn't SAY "actual king."

Quote from: The Schaef on August 03, 2009, 03:01:41 PM

I never said there were no confused people. So what exactly did you think you were arguing against?

For once, we agree. We are talking past each other. My whole point all along has been "this is confusig, REG entry please." You have now said you don't care if a REG entry gets added. That's all I want. Why argue for pages with me about whether or not it is confusing if you have no problem with a REG entry?
I thought you were being arrogant, and I was incorrect. For that I apologize. I do think you were just being argumentative though. Example time:
You and I want to order pizza together.
I think meat lover's pizza is best, but I decide it would be better to get the veggie pizza and save a few calories.
You think that veggie pizza is the best flavor ever.
So I say, let's order the pizza. You instead set about trying to convince me that veggie is so much better than meat lover's.
Let's just order the dang pizza!
In other words, can you stop arguing with me about whether or not it is intuitive when all we want is something added to the REG. You have no problem with that, so let it go.

The Schaef · « **Reply #53 on:** August 03, 2009, 03:50:10 PM »

Quote from: happyjosiah on August 03, 2009, 03:19:27 PM

That was funny (seriously, it was), but it's a straw man argument. No one is arguing KoT represents an "actual king" because the Large Tree doesn't SAY "actual king."

This only proves my point that people argue to include King of Tyrus by extending the definition of "king" beyond what actually constitutes a "king". Therefore, you have proved my argument is valid.

Quote from: The Schaef on August 03, 2009, 03:01:41 PM

Why argue for pages with me about whether or not it is confusing if you have no problem with a REG entry?

Why demand that I admit to something I don't believe is correct?

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #54 on:** August 03, 2009, 04:11:09 PM »

Schaef, your examples thus far have been silly. Of course the "King of Bubble Land" or "King of Rock and Roll" aren't real kings, because those aren't real kingdoms. Tyre is a real kingdom. You're also being exceptionally narrow in your interpretation of what the card is. In your mind, it's (let me get the quote) "based on a prophetic image which is clearly symbolic." Actually, there is debate about that and the good Professor has already shown that if (as seems to be the case from the mention of him being in the garden of Eden) the King of Tyrus is Satan, then he is even an actual king (to fit your shoehorn definition) with actual authority over an actual physical realm.

Even playing to your definitions King of Tyrus comes out a "real king," unless you insist that "king" actually means "earthly king" which is nowhere defined and is not actually what the card says.

The Schaef · « **Reply #55 on:** August 03, 2009, 04:14:49 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 03, 2009, 04:11:09 PM

because those aren't real kingdoms.

So the kingdom HAS to be real, but the king does not. Interesting.

Quote

You're also being exceptionally narrow in your interpretation of what the card is.

I'm not being exceptionally narrow in anything. I'm just saying that a king is a king. My "exceptionally narrow" view excludes exactly one card based on a prophecy. oh noes.

Quote

then he is even an actual king (to fit your shoehorn definition) with actual authority over an actual physical realm.

I thought you hated semantics in rulings. Apparently you are plenty happy with semantics that suit your agenda.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #56 on:** August 03, 2009, 04:21:35 PM »

Schaef,
My only agenda here is consistency and ease of explaining the rules to my students. If I have a card that says it works with "kings" and I have another card called "King of Tyrus", then my students are going to assume that they work with each other. It's really that simple to me.

If you see it differently, that's ok. But don't accuse me of wordsmithing, or having a hidden agenda, or whatever.

The Schaef · « **Reply #57 on:** August 03, 2009, 04:41:59 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on August 03, 2009, 04:21:35 PM

If I have a card that says it works with "kings" and I have another card called "King of Tyrus", then my students are going to assume that they work with each other. It's really that simple to me.

Would your students also expect my other examples to be valid? Does it really require nothing more to you than the word "king" in the title somewhere? I would only consider that a "simple" and "obvious" conclusion if I also expected people to conclude the earth had "four corners" and "edges" because that's the literal text of the passage.

Quote

If you see it differently, that's ok. But don't accuse me of wordsmithing, or having a hidden agenda, or whatever.

And you are saying this in response to a post in which I quoted Polarius and addressed him directly?

LukeSnyder · « **Reply #58 on:** August 03, 2009, 04:47:08 PM »

Is Jesus a king?

happyjosiah · « **Reply #59 on:** August 03, 2009, 04:49:05 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 03, 2009, 04:41:59 PM

And you are saying this in response to a post in which I quoted Polarius and addressed him directly?

I admit it kind of seemed to me too like in some of your posts you were accusing ANYONE who didn't see it your way of this.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #60 on:** August 03, 2009, 04:52:29 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 03, 2009, 02:26:53 PM

I should also point out to Pol the amount of wordsmithing that is going on in order to suggest that KoT was an authoratative ruling figure over an earthly kingdom.

Here you made a broad statement that could have easily been directed at me.

Quote from: The Schaef on August 03, 2009, 02:48:52 PM

It's not possible to you that maybe with people trying to think up reasons to shoehorn KoT into a "king" ruling, and people making broad accusations about things that people like me did not say, that maybe there are some contributing factors to the confusion taking place in this thread?

Here you made another broad statement that could have easily been directed at me.

Quote from: The Schaef on August 03, 2009, 03:50:10 PM

This only proves my point that people argue to include King of Tyrus by extending the definition of "king" beyond what actually constitutes a "king".

Here you made another broad statement that could have easily been directed at me.

If it'll break the game for King of Tyrus to count as a "king" then fine make up a new "Redemption definition" for the word "king" and post it in the glossary. And stop being argumentative and simply admit that it is somewhat confusing to players to have a card with a title of "king" that doesn't count as a "king". It's really not that hard

happyjosiah · « **Reply #61 on:** August 03, 2009, 05:00:23 PM »

Schaef, if you had just joined the boards today and all the posts you made were in this thread, I don't think anyone would be surprised if you had a mod warning for your behavior here. You really need to take it down a couple notches. You've managed to offend (intentionally or not) many people in this thread and haven't contributed anything that could be considered helpful. Your tone smacks of being an argumentative know-it-all. You don't seem to desire to help people understand the ruling, just attack them if they don't. Your real joy seems to come from "winning the discussion." This is ridiculous behavior from anyone, and a terrible example from a moderator, someone who is supposed to keep threads like this from getting out of hand. Take a step back for a second before the next post you make and really consider your motivation. Are you trying to help us? Or are you trying to win an argument?

Professoralstad · « **Reply #62 on:** August 03, 2009, 05:04:17 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 03, 2009, 04:41:59 PM

Does it really require nothing more to you than the word "king" in the title somewhere?

Well, it seems that the only justification for Priests of Christ being given the identifier "Priest" is the fact that they have it in the title, and that they are called priests of God and Christ in the verse. Since King of Tyrus was called the "King" of Tyrus in his verse, and King is in the name, I don't see the difference.

FWIW, if there was a Redemption card called Michael Jackson, King of Pop (whether he'd be a hero or an EC I suppose is a matter of debate) then I would also argue that he is a king unless the rules stated differently. Silly? Maybe. But there is an argument that can be had that he was a king, so unless king is defined, King of Tyrus is a king in my opinion.

The Schaef · « **Reply #63 on:** August 03, 2009, 05:07:12 PM »

Well, I guess if we HAVE to have this discussion publicly, I should note that none of your quoted sections say anything about you, or anyone other than Pol, having an agenda. At all. And NO ONE is accused of having a "hidden" agenda. You are just making that up now.

Additionally, I have no problem saying that you are using semantic arguments in this discussion. Or is it really your belief that there is zero distinction between "King of Tyrus" and King David, or Nebuchadnezzar (who now that I think about it, should not count since his card does not say "king", and we don't want to cause confusion)?

Nobody seems to have a problem acknowledging that Elvis was not a king, without confusion. So no, I don't see the logic in assuming everything that happens to have that word automatically fits the bill.

Incidentally, calls for this ruling for the sake of consistency run up against the issue of having a king who is not considered royalty. hmmm.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #64 on:** August 03, 2009, 05:10:22 PM »

What was Elvis king over? Satan is King of the world, or if we want to go literal, King of Tyrus/Tyre, which is a place.

I don't see how this is illogical at all.

happyjosiah · « **Reply #65 on:** August 03, 2009, 05:11:55 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 03, 2009, 05:07:12 PM

Well, I guess if we HAVE to have this discussion publicly, I should note that none of your quoted sections say anything about you, or anyone other than Pol, having an agenda. At all.

One of your quotes above, even refers to PEOPLE. People means more than one person. Unless I'm just arguing semantics and being a rules lawyer again. You clearly meant more than just Pol.

As a side note, I don't want to lose the (somewhat) rhetorical question someone posted "Is Jesus a King?" Not because you really need to answer that, but just because it shows it's not as cut and dried as you want to make it (since dozens of people can't seem to convince you otherwise.)

LukeSnyder · « **Reply #66 on:** August 03, 2009, 05:16:53 PM »

The problem of defining a king in redemption as a human ruler of an independent state (which is what we would have to define it as to exclude KoT) then a theoretical "God" card couldn't be considered a king.

1 Timothy 6:15
God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,

The Schaef · « **Reply #67 on:** August 03, 2009, 05:28:21 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on August 03, 2009, 05:10:22 PM

What was Elvis king over? Satan is King of the world, or if we want to go literal, King of Tyrus/Tyre, which is a place.

I don't see how this is illogical at all.

So if Satan tells us to do something, we are REQUIRED to do it, because he is our king and has authority over us?

Quote from: happyjosiah on August 03, 2009, 05:11:55 PM

One of your quotes above, even refers to PEOPLE. People means more than one person. Unless I'm just arguing semantics and being a rules lawyer again. You clearly meant more than just Pol.

If you were being a "rules lawyer", you probably would have taken notice that none of those quotes other than the one directed at Pol says anything about an agenda, and none of them say anything about anyone having a "hidden" agenda. Which is PRECISELY what I said in the paragraph you QUOTED.

Quote

(since dozens of people can't seem to convince you otherwise.)

Dozens? Multiples of twelve? I'm counting five or six, but maybe you know something I don't.

LukeSnyder · « **Reply #68 on:** August 03, 2009, 05:32:35 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 03, 2009, 05:28:21 PM

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on August 03, 2009, 05:10:22 PM
What was Elvis king over? Satan is King of the world, or if we want to go literal, King of Tyrus/Tyre, which is a place.

I don't see how this is illogical at all.

So if Satan tells us to do something, we are REQUIRED to do it, because he is our king and has authority over us?

Are we of this world?

The Schaef · « **Reply #69 on:** August 03, 2009, 05:34:27 PM »

/touches his arm...

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #70 on:** August 03, 2009, 05:35:20 PM »

Satan is no longer OUR king but he is king over the unsaved. Do we have to go through basic doctrines now?

lightningninja · « **Reply #71 on:** August 03, 2009, 05:37:24 PM »

Wait.... I thought King of Tyrus WAS referring to Nebuchadnezzer. I know he's not actually a demon... and that made a few people mad.

happyjosiah · « **Reply #72 on:** August 03, 2009, 05:43:10 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 03, 2009, 05:28:21 PM

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on August 03, 2009, 05:10:22 PM
What was Elvis king over? Satan is King of the world, or if we want to go literal, King of Tyrus/Tyre, which is a place.

I don't see how this is illogical at all.

So if Satan tells us to do something, we are REQUIRED to do it, because he is our king and has authority over us?

Since when does "king" mean "king over me." The king of england can tell me to do something and I don't have to listen. I am a citizen of and am currently in America. Christians are not members of Satan's kingdom.

Quote

Quote from: happyjosiah on August 03, 2009, 05:11:55 PM
One of your quotes above, even refers to PEOPLE. People means more than one person. Unless I'm just arguing semantics and being a rules lawyer again. You clearly meant more than just Pol.

If you were being a "rules lawyer", you probably would have taken notice that none of those quotes other than the one directed at Pol says anything about an agenda, and none of them say anything about anyone having a "hidden" agenda. Which is PRECISELY what I said in the paragraph you QUOTED.

Putting aside the hidden agenda thing, you did indicate in that quote that you thought people who did not see it your way must have ulterior motives, such as wanting to fit something into their deck. You made it clear that you think PEOPLE who don't see it your way are trying to shoehorn it into their deck. I thought this. ProfUnderwood thought this. Even if we just misunderstood, the correct response is "oh sorry, what I meant was..." not "i never said that."

Quote

Quote
(since dozens of people can't seem to convince you otherwise.)

Dozens? Multiples of twelve? I'm counting five or six, but maybe you know something I don't.

Let's just say, everyone who has posted so far except you.

I really wish you would respond to the important aspects of things I post instead of nitpicking. You have not responded to me (or anyone else) who has said "hey, it kinda seems like you are just trying to win an argument and not be helpful." I would love to have you look me in my proverbial eye (internet and all) and tell me your posts here have really been to try to help us understand and not at all because you just love to be an argumentative know-it-all.

lightningninja · « **Reply #73 on:** August 03, 2009, 05:44:48 PM »

Quote from: lightningninja on August 03, 2009, 05:37:24 PM

Wait.... I thought King of Tyrus WAS referring to Nebuchadnezzer. I know he's not actually a demon... and that made a few people mad.

slugfencer · « **Reply #74 on:** August 03, 2009, 06:12:14 PM »

I think this thread has become the "king of pain" (police)

News:

Author Topic: Large Tree (Read 16511 times)

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

slugfencer