Search results

That's utter stupidity, bordering on outright insanity. Establish that idiotic claim! You won't even try, you idiotic fool! What the Hell am I doing here! This website is 1000% a waste of time!

Welcome to my ever growing ignore list.

Well, then you've got to read it! In fact, I'm going to read it again myself. God bless you, JR! Clete

I agree! That, however, is a different question! The only point with which I disagree is when you tell them that they have to prove that God doesn't exist. They do not have to prove that.

It is not relevant whether they are Catholic! So far as I understand the gospel, there is no requirement to reject Catholic errors, or any other errors for that matter, so long as those errors do not have as a consequence the denial of any of those six points. On what basis do you suggest that...

When did Satan ever confess with his mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. openly acknowledge his need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe in his heart that God raised Him from the dead? When did he ever do such a thing, Hoping? NEVER! That's when! He not only didn't, but hasn't...

First of all, I reject your premise. This is an appeal to consequence fallacy*. Who gets included and who doesn't has nothing to do with determining what is and what is not the gospel. I'd love to debate what should and should not be included in that list of doctrines! Also, if you want to...

For those of you who think Skeeter's point about asexual reproduction accounting for less speciation was a good one... First all at it wasn't a good point from ANY perspective. He completely ignored the fact that there has been an e coli experiment running continuously since 1987! That's coming...

👋

"Supposedly" being the key word there! Evolutionists would never use the term "married" but who knows what they claim? It seems to change on an annual basis. There isn't any such real thing as Neanderthals, by the way. (You probably already knew that.)

The seminar is amazing but the book is better! If you'd like a copy of the book, tell Connie to give you one and to charge to me. She's got my number if she wants to confirm or I can just call her.

So delusional liars are producing what sort of fruit? Hmm :unsure: Once again, you can defend - let me be clear - YOU, HOPING, can defend ANY DOCTRINE WHATSOEVER with the way you handle scripture. Pick any wacko nut job idiotic doctrine you care to name. Want to defend indulgences? You can...

You don't get to disagree and maintain a leg to stand on, Marke! Sound reason is not a matter of opinion. We theists are the ones making the claim that God exists. A God whom we claim that "no one can see and live" (Exodus 33:20) and who "hides himself" (Isaiah 45:15). It is therefore OUR...

While I agree with the thrust of your post, I would have to disagree on this specific point. It is not typically someone's burden to prove the non-existence of something. Generally speaking, it is properly the burden of whoever is making the affirmative case to prove their case. There's good...

You've read "The Plot", right?

Evidence is nothing at all compared to rational inferrence. Indeed, evidence has no meaning outside rational inference. Presenting something as evidence is rational inference! Valuing evidence over reason is stupidity on parade.

It has nothing to do with what I like or don't like. That IS NOT evolution, that is natural selection and adaptation which is NOT the same thing. The problem you evolutionists have is that you've lowered the goal post so far that it's gone. Anything you see happen in nature counts in your minds...

You should learn to be more consistent! You said to me, "Inference is a powerful tool in history and science." It's just as powerful in philosophy.

Precisely!

Well my intent was to be clear so let me just state it outright... The sentence is Galatians 2:9. (It's actually only part of one of Paul's many run on sentences :))... From post 143... Galatians 2:9 and when James, Peter, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been...