Search results

It should be pointed out that those points are not my mere opinion. Each point is substanciated biblically in the thread I linked too. Are there any of them that you reject? Saved from what? That's a whopping big "If"! Most, if not all, children do not need saved. Romans 3:20b ...by the law...

The following is an essay written several years ago by a poster here that went by the user name "Lion" (if memory serves me correctly!). He was a member of Bob Enyart's congregation at the time and may still be a member of that church. The point being that I am not the author of what follows but...

Gary, Okay, so based on your opening post, I would be strongly inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt and proceed as though you ARE NOT saved. (i.e. I'd rather assume you aren't saved and be wrong than to assume you are saved and be wrong so whenever there's any doubt, the default is...

Yes, we spent several weeks hashing out what was the bare minimum of what one needed to believe in order to be saved. It was a good exchange! I particularly like that thread because its one of the times where I've been convinced to change my position on an important point. I started the thread...

They are consistently against anything that would bring consequences - any consequences - to a person's sexual behavior.

No way you're that stupid. Is being a liar a qualification for Bishop at your church? Any sixth grader could read post 1718 (and now post 1736 as well) and understand the argument it's making about you abruptly switching from talking about "God's words", whatever that even means, to "Jesus".

That's an excellent point! Evolution could never produce a self-correcting mechanism in the first place because, among other reasons, doing so would mean creating a mechanism by means of the very process that the mechanism itself is intended to prevent! Is there even any evidence in the real...

Why, if your doctrine is true, do you dance around the point? Why not just address that actual point of the argument? :unsure:

I have little doubt that he'd "allow" them to come here but I very much doubt that he advertises his participation on the web forum. Although, you never know! I keep having to remind myself that people who throw reason to the wind have no fence between what makes sense and what doesn't.

Completely brilliant from start to finish. Don't expect any sort of answer of any substance from Dartman. I wonder if he allows any of his congregation, of which he a supposed "bishop", to read this thread?

John was not transported in time, Marke! He was shown a vision of future events, not the actual future. The future does not exist.

You believe a Greek philosophical fantasy and I believe the word of God which teaches that God has always existed, not that He exists outside of time. Aristotle taught that God exists outside of time and Augustine imported that belief into the Catholic church. If you believe that God exists...

(y) I thought of a point last night that I wish I had included in order to help convey the point on this matter and since we're mostly in agreement here already, I won't make a big deal of it but I would like to present the brief point just for the sake of doing so.... We human beings are also...

The fact that Jesus is God in the flesh is not one of the hidden things of God, marke! The Apostle John wrote it as plain as day in his part of the most widely published book in the history of books!

Oh wow! You made it to two sentences! I'm not sure I'll have the time to respond to it all! Not honestly they don't. It isn't a limitation inherent in Dartman, or most anyone else for that matter, that prevents him from understanding that Jesus is the fleshly incarnation of God Himself. It's...

This is Calvinist stupidity. Literally, Marke, it's stupidity. It's no different than believing that Marvel Comic books are a record of real events. You're right about one thing, though! No amount of genius could ever compute the notion with "natural mathematical formulas" (I have no idea what...

JR already handled this quite well and so I won't go into detail here except to say that there isn't anything the slightest bit irrational about 2 Peter 3:8. The verse isn't try to tell you that a thousand years IS a day to God and and that a day IS a thousand years. It's an expression with a...

Okay look, I've had some things happening around here that have gotten me on edge and so I'm going to take your word for it and chalk it up to me just being an idiot. If that's your answer then you don't understand the question. All you did was make the distinction between the person's of the...

I Corinthians 2:14 is not talking about that basic tenets of the gospel, marke! I've already addressed this? Why won't you have a discussion with anyone? Anyone who can read can be shown the spiritual things of God. And, even without the written word, God has shown everyone to the point that...

What? You're moving the goal post here, marke. You are making that claim that somehow Dartman, and presumably anyone else who dissagrees sufficiently with your doctrine, that they don't get it because they CANNOT get it. That there's something broken that makes them incapable of understanding...