Search results

There is no fixing it because the Constitution failed to translate the right to life into the right to private property. As a result, we have neither. A good start, however, would be to get the government out of the business of providing ANY good or service that can be provided by the private...

Your objections, it seems to me would all be overcome by simply adding a mechanism by which the king could be impeached, thus placing him under the law, which is what I've been advocating. Your faith in our constitution is understandable but misplaced. We are already living under laws that are...

You act like Nang. Congratulations.

Well, you ought to. Repeating yourself doesn't do a thing to respond to what I've already said in response to this, glorydaz! You sound like a broken record.

Really?! I was just listening to a recording of his where he talked about it and called it a "new argument". I thought I was listened to something relatively recent but it must have been an older one. Regardless, its certainly not an old argument.

A point that, if true, would mean that God is not omniscient! At least not in the Classical sense of the term.

You're making yourself look ridiculous. You should look up the term "Question begging".

Its frequency of use is directly proportional to the frequency of unsubstantiated claims being made in this forum. That's a laugh since the contingent being argument was made first by Bob Enyart only months before his death (i.e. several months ago). It's one of the most eloquent arguments...

Brilliant post! The part about Ariel making herself into a contingent being will go over her head. She won't understand what you're talking about at all.

The same is true of the system you are proposing so this doesn't move the debate along at all. It isn't a committee and even if it were, the guarantee is the same as anything in the system that you propose, the rule of law. Millions? I'm simply talking about a referendum of some sort among...

I've added nothing. "Adding" is your accusation which you have failed to establish. Pretending like it's true doesn't count as an argument. For reasons explained multiple times already in response to this exact endlessly repeated statement. Repeating the same accusation over and over and over...

That's the stupidest thing ever. Romans is one of his letters. What there's no support for is thinking that chapters 9-11 don't go with the rest of the book of Romans. So what? He said it exactly two sentences after you claim he just made a distinction! Did he change the subject inside the...

For the seven hundredth time, I've NEVER DENIED IT!!!! Who am I even talking too here? The entire freaking thread is right here for the whole dad-gum world to read, glorydaz! So says Paul.. Romans 10: 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is...

There would be no new members. It isn't even rightly referred to as a committee because that term implies not only a permanence but an actual body that wouldn't exist. What I'm thinking of would work more like the way a petition works now. Any judge could start such a petition but no charges...

Well, saying it doesn't make it so, glorydaz. You know, Kingdom believers not only confessed with their mouths but had to put their faith in a man named Jesus Christ. They also believed that Jesus was the Son of God and that He was the Messiah, that He was the Lamb of God who was slain for...

I stand by my list as it currently exists for the reasons given dozens of times now.

Why? How so? No, the committee only exists long enough to bring charges and select a judge for the trial. The point being that any such objection can be overcome with the sort of reasons that you've been defending the system as proposed. That reason being that the existence of such a...

Okay, so this is clearly all you've got which is entirely unconvincing for reasons already explained and totally unresponsive to the multiple arguments presented against this whole wacky idea. I'm done with it.

Major progress! :cool: Well, this is the claim but I've not seen the proof. It seems at least plausible to me that a system could be put into place where a king could be impeached. If it were sufficiently difficult to initiate and carry out then it couldn't serve as a means to basically...

It does for everyone other than the king himself. Even with that flaw, its far superior to the joke of a legal system we have in this country where anyone with enough political pull doesn't have to pay any attention to the law whatsoever. The king is the system we are discussing would not be...