Search results

No. This is fun, isn't it? Nope. Never claimed to be. What I HAVE claimed is the ability to see with my eyes and think with my brain, and to reason. Something "Arthur Brain" apparently can't do. Again, non-sequitur.

K. Why did you bother posting in this thread again if you aren't going to consider the evidence?

https://kgov.com/bel/20201002 https://cogforlife.org/wp-content/uploads/CovidCompareMoralImmoral.pdf https://cogforlife.org/2020/06/04/sanofi-pasteur-discontinues-aborted-fetal-polio-vaccine-using-moral-cell-lines-instead/

My point remains. Dead babies were used in the development of some of the vaccines.

Well, no, I'm not. You clearly don't know what an appeal to authority is. Allow me to define it for you, from Wikipedia: An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used...

I think the arguments you and marke have been making ignore the fact that many of the vaccines that have been created were done so by using the body parts and tissues of dead babies. If there was any reason to reject the vaccines, that would be it, because it would be immoral to approve of such...

Superior to whom? Finite? Who said humans were finite? Humans, like angels, were created to last forever. Sorry, the creation was corrupted once. Not twice. Again? Because that's not the God of the Bible. You're arguing against a straw man, Caino. Please stop. Once more, ripping...

Because I'm not claiming that "because he's an expert, therefore he's right." Because the video shows how ineffective masks are against stopping aerosols. The good doctor doesn't just claim it. He demonstrates it to be so. But you just can't believe your lying eyes, can you? I have the...

Yes, and? "Cast into the lake of fire." Not "destroyed." Not "annihilated." Still extant. What "second creation"? God created once, in a six-day period, at the beginning of creation. I didn't just imply that. That's what I said. And? Why is it God's fault when His creation, which has...

What part of "knew it was a possibility and thus implemented contingencies into His creation? What part of "He cannot destroy something that He created to be indestructible" do you not understand? Where did I say such? The what? Oh, do you mean Revelation? Just say Revelation then...

... says the mask-wearer...

Try Revelation. "If there be any other way, let this cup pass from me..." Sound familiar? I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. Not according to the Bible. You have yet to prove that. You have yet to make a convincing argument that such is the case.

Try reading the Bible. Maybe you'll understand it then.

What obvious flaw? Please point it out to me.

You should go to the Bible, rather than "common Christian theology" for what the Bible says. I told you why. Beings that are created in such a way as to last forever cannot be destroyed. Satan is one such being. This applies to human soul/spirits too. (Hence why Christ went to the Cross)...

The Bible. God cannot do the impossible. Sorry, you seem to be confusing my beliefs with Calvinism. I don't believe that God knows the future, only that He can look at His creation and determine what will happen based on the decisions creatures make. I believe that God knew it was a...

God's creation had become completely corrupt, save one man and his family. So that He could start over with Noah and his family. Creatures designed to live forever cannot be destroyed. Satan is one of those creatures. You lost me. Who's fooling who? Who's wringing their hands? Certainly...

Always bin laden like that?

You still have yet to even attempt to answer my question. And no, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, period, and shame on you for trying to defend your use of it to defend your argument. You're claiming that the experts who say the doctor in the video is wrong are right because they...

Your entire post is nothing but an appeal to authority. It's a logical fallacy for a reason. In what way was what he was demonstrating "misleading"?