Search results

Barney Fife's (figurative, of course) bullet is definitely not a blank. Lol - you just couldn't resist. weepy .

Some peoples just devour themselves. .

There's something familiar about this post. What could it be? .

What about a trolling sockpuppeteer? Can one be one of those and a Christian at the same time? .

I hear the klan is having a recruiting drive in the Denver area. Or are you one of those Catholic-haters that loves Jewish people? 'Cause that'd never work for ya. Btw, glad to have you back, BB - lol. .

I'll be frank, because I know you can appreciate that. I don't have conscious access to the part of my brain that would reason this way, and I'll tell you why: When I was a child going to Vacation Bible School and all that stuff, I was taught 2 things, very emphatically: 1 - Jesus saves by...

Naturally, I'm totally devastated but I'll try to pick up the pieces of what's left of my miserable life and move on. .

Well-said, Archie. .

:watching and waiting: .

A good place for them to start would be here: Sounds remarkably similar to this, which you later admitted was incorrect: There's much more than "just facts" being offered. Your capacity for diversion and self-justification aren't very well-disguised. By the way, passive-aggressive replies...

Are we really supposed to believe that the Sabbath is referred to without using the word "Sabbath" in Genesis 2 just so that God can invoke the scene millennia later to signify a regional Mosaic covenant article? That's a pretty hard technicality for me to wrap my head around, especially...

Promises, promises .

I think we've established in the past (maybe not) that we have widely different views of what constitutes law in the Bible. As to Exodus 16, I honestly don't see how verse 28 can be read any other way than seeing God as already having an established law (commands, instructions) which He then...

All you have to do is go back and re-read our conversation. I've brought no impassioned expression to this discussion. Your "facts" are judgmental demands—not even well-veiled ones. .

Oh, I can answer them. This isn't my first rodeo. But you posed your questions and points in response to a claim I've made that you refuse to address. I'm sure you're hoping I've gotten distracted by now and have forgotten that, but I haven't. No, I claim, and rightly so, that you're moving...

So, rather than address the point of my post you divert and resort to threats of the GOTCHA sort. Nice You could do the same thing with the Bible but, of course, you won't. That would be gauche at a Christian forum, wouldn't it? Critics of Ellen White always hold her written works to a far...

So, the "only logical conclusion" is that all Seventh-day Adventists think and believe alike on some undetermined number of detailed issues. Got it. .

What I'm going to do is to ask you once again for some evidence that your theories regarding the 4th commandment were being taught before the advent of consumer Internet service—which you've thus far flatly declined to do. I'm not interested in doubled-down explanations of the theories...

Pardon me, Chum, but aren't you applying an at least slightly arbitrary standard here? Where does the Bible (New Testament, I'm assuming) say that consequences apply specifically to the breaking of certain commandments to the exclusion of others? And how do we know there aren't consequences for...

So much for proving that your arguments existed pre-Internet. You could have just said: "I can't prove it." Instead, you went on a rant about some "Laurie White" person and lots of other non-proof. .