Search results

The lesson to learn from the 2020 election is just precisely the opposite of what you said here. It took an almost unbelievably wild confluence of outrageous lucky breaks for the Dems to pull off that historically monumental level of cheating and they still only just barely pulled it off. It...

The point is that his rant, over a decade ago about an entirely different issue, has nothing to do with whether or not what he said two weeks ago was right or wrong. Nobody but you cares about what he said more than a decade ago or how or why he said it! The topic here is Biden, not O'Reilly...

That's an excellent video! I'm very glad that there are people who care enough about this stuff to spend the time and effort it takes to produce such videos. Personally, the entire subject is just such a transparently obvious political power grab that it glazes my eyes over when I try to dig...

An MO which ought not be allowed, IMHO.

Someone already made a case with no response. Why bother making any other case when there isn't any chance that he's going to respond? He's a waste of time.

Yet another self important fool who just wants to waste bandwidth expressing his opinion without any inclination, desire or intent of responding to anyone who disagrees, no matter how substantive the argument presented against his entirely unorthodox beliefs.

Yes, it's just you.

Yes it is! The only time impeaching a source is valid is if the impeachment of the source is directly pertinent to the argument being made. Otherwise, it's known as a poisoning the well fallacy. The simple fact is that the source of a piece of information has nothing to do with whether that...

Who dismisses it? Not me or Right Divider! No one suggested otherwise. Yeah, so what? The construction of this sentence is poor. Do you mean that it's fool hearty to throw out all discussion that is not based on absolute logic or did you mean that it's fool hearty to throw out all...

@beloved57, What does it say about a man who either will not or cannot defend his beliefs? If someone came to me with a passage they believed explicitly contradicted my core beliefs and challenged me to explain it, I quite literally could not resist doing so. I'm not just able to do it, nor am...

I'm losing my marbles. I thought I was responding to something B57 had written! How ridiculous is that! It's no wonder I couldn't figure out what would have made him point out such a verse! I've got to start paying closer attention! :cautious:

Great verse! I love that verse! It can only have any meaning whatsoever from within MY theological paradigm. For you it means nothing.

Oh yes! It does!

Well then straighten us all out here B57! If it doesn't mean that the pharisees and lawyers successfully rejected the will of God, which is what it explicitly says and which would crush your entire thesis, both for this thread and your entire theological construct, into dust, then what does it...

I answered that question already in anticipation of your refusal to answer the question at all. My question was asked in the context of this thread's specific topic. Now.... ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!

So, "Don't believe your lying eyes!" is the full extent of your argument? If there is no contradiction then you should be able to tell us all what Luke 7:30 means! Why will not not EVER answer a single question that is put to you? Why are you permitted to get away with that? And, I never...

@beloved57, If the doctrines of Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace are both true then what does Luke 7:30 mean? Luke 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him. The word "will" in that sentence is "boulē". It's the same...

Why is this fool allowed to continue on a public forum if he is going to systematically refuse to engage the discussions that he himself started? If he wants a personal blog site then make him go buy a domain name and start one!

What you did was a text book example of poisoning the well fallacy and you know it. Address the information pertinent to the argument and not the source of the information and people who are familiar with the fallacy will stop accusing you of committing it.

Yeah, I know that! I've shown biblical proof that your idiotic position is not only false but blasphemous! Now answer the question!