Search results

The Barrd, The NT is more specific than that. We need to be accurate with what the Scripture states in context and not invent what we want the text to state. Oz

Since God will be there, it will be perfect, beautiful and justice will prevail. We won't have to deal with eisegesis anymore or postmodern inventions.

Stan, You are into imposing on the text again. If you continue to build straw men fallacies with me, I won't respond, because we can't have a rational conversation. Take your first sentence: 'It doesn't say that Oz, you're inferring it'. You don't tell me what you are talking about so I have...

Stan, Jesus received Stephen's spirit into heaven as Acts 7:55-56 indicate. I have covered the meaning of 'sleep' at death in my article, 'Soul sleep - a refutation'. 'Sleep' is a metaphor for death. It does not refer to sleeping after death, instead of going into the Lord's presence, as seen...

lforrest, I'm not convinced by that statement. Here's why. Stephen was proclaiming the Gospel and was being stoned to death. What did he see as he was dying? This is what we read in Acts 7:55-60 (ESV): Stephen saw the Lord - the Son of Man - in the heavens, at the right hand of God. This is...

What was the content of what I wrote? 'If you want to communicate with us, please abandon what you wrote in #3. As a communication initiative, it falls flat'. I was discussing communication with us and communication initiative. Love was not the content of what I wrote in response.

biointeger, If you want to communicate with us, please abandon what you wrote in #3. As a communication initiative, it falls flat. :huh:

Where is the evidence for that?

I haven't as a regular part of my interaction on CyB. I'm interested to know if others use it. Oz

Bio, Welcome to another Aussie. I'm from Brissy and the muggy north. Oz

Stan, I'll leave it to the moderators to take action. However, I found your language towards The Barrd to be rude and crude. Oz

That is NOT what I wanted to know. This is what I stated in #45: What was your reply to #45 in #49: Your response in #49 had zero to do with what I asked in #45. What is a red herring logical fallacy? The Nizkor Project gives this explanation of a red herring fallacy: That's exactly what The...

The Barrd, So you give me another red herring.

Stan, You have not addressed the issue I raised when you say about her, 'In my world she would we called a S___ D________!', it is using profane language. What is profane? I am using it in the sense of one of the Merriam-Webster dictionary meanings: 'to debase by a wrong, unworthy, or vulgar...

Stan, To speak of any person in this kind of pejorative language is not becoming of a Christian believer. No matter what you think of her views, The Barrd should never be addressed in this kind of profane manner. Why are you using language like this towards her? I urge you to quit it...

So does that make you only acquaintances on CyB?

The Barrd, I have not been reading your encounters with Stan so I'm unaware of the dimensions you mention. Would you please refer me to one of them and I'll address that matter with him as I want to treat both of you fairly? However, this doesn't address the issue I raised with you of treating...

The Barrd, I consider that is a very unkind way to approach your brother in Christ, Stan. How does it meet the standard that Jesus asked his disciples to pursue? Are you loving Stan as you love yourself with your kind of no care statement? I think not. Does that not bother you? We have this...

Tom, Today I received this emailer from William Lane Craig's 'Reasonable Faith' ministry. I thought it might be of interest to you. There is some interesting material in the URL link provided: What I find encouraging is to see these evangelical Episcopalians, who are in a hostile atmosphere to...

It's impossible for me to have a rational conversation with you when you engage in these kinds of logical fallacies and misrepresentations of what I wrote and what the Bible teaches. Bye, Bye :wub: