<html>
Dear Visionaries,<br><br>
After waiting patiently for Doug Jones to produce his last response, I'm
simply going to call an end to our debate on the Trinity. Some of
you will remember that this all started in the aftermath of Jones'
"debate" with Unitarian minister Forrest Church, son of the
late Sen. Frank Church on September 30, 2003.<br><br>
For us Jones agreed to a four part debate involving two 400-word salvos
on both sides and he promised that it would be published in <i>Credenda
Agenda</i>, Christ Church's slick cover magazine. He also said that
he would link my long essay that was my initial response to the
Jones-Church debate. You can find that essay and our debate at
<a href="http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/trinity.htm.%A0" eudora="autourl">www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/trinity.htm.
</a> Jones was so generous that he allowed us two more exchanges. I
wrote one up very quickly, but I've been waiting for two months for
Jones' final reply. I'll of course add it if it comes in.<br><br>
Over all I was disappointed in Jones' responses. He simply repeated
creedal formulations without giving any detailed defense of his
position. He also did not respond to my careful argument from
analogy about substantial divine unity. Furthermore, he sounds like
a French deconsturctionist when he claims that there is no difference
between rhetoric and substance or that we just make up our own logical
rules. Doug Jones and Jacques Derrida, what extremely strange
bedfellows!<br><br>
As Wilson and Co. prepare for their Trinity Festival later this year, it
might be a good idea for them to explain to the community what they
really mean by it. Jones at least cannot explain himself out of a
wet paper bag, one of my mother's favorite phrases.<br><br>
Nick Gier</html>