Search results

You can claim this but the facts show you refer to it as Rothchild not Balfour.

Your argument is simple - simply subterfuge. From today’s devotional reading. Ezekiel 47:22 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition 22 You shall allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the aliens who reside among you and have begotten children among you. They shall be to...

It’s called the Balfour Declaration not Lord Rothschild. We know you don’t support Zion but you are not able to touch the 6 reasons in the OP that detail why you should.

It did belong to the British via the Right of Conquest.

Yea, OK.

When you resort to personal attack, you've lost the argument. Odd that you want nothing to do with a thread I started that you keep posting to. Odd indeed. But not surprising from someone who cannot touch the reasons civlization should support Zion.

Obviusly, you need to update your concept of what is included with the term AntiSemitism for these 4 main reasons.

So,the proper translation of John 4:22 into modern language is irrelevant to your argument?!

Never read the Gospel of John huh?

We know that will never happen. The Demonrats are much better at circling the wagons to protect their own than the RINO’s.

Putting aside your messed up doctrine, you double down on the point I made. You are seriously comparing arguing with someone with being executed by the State, using anything you say against you! Arguing is a form of Freedom of Speech. This is NOT the scenario Jesus faced in the Star Chamber...

Now this implies the argument is with nonbelievers or those not strong in the faith, as compared to general argument. Which is it?

That's fine for vertical interaction. You are not talking about arguing with God though, right? Regarding horizontal interaction, the verse you cited simply does not apply.

Are you seriously comparing arguing with someone with being executed by the State, using anything you say against you? Really?

No. It goes without saying that everyone thinks they are on God's side. And the corrolary to that is that if you are on opposite sides, then 'the other' is against God. We must admit this is the ego driven starting point of every single argument human beings ever had! (Only then can one...

Define winning? Most people will not admit being wrong no matter what. So that begs the question of why argue?

Ad Homenim. Proof you lost the argument. My ignorance has nothing to do with this word is not in authoritative references like Merriam-Websters.

It's so funny how you are able to dish it out but cannot take it. I did read up on this AND I provided an authoritative reference to prove my point. You are in denial about why this anti-concept is not in authoritative references like Merriam-Websters. See that? I gave you a suggestion just...

Metacommunicating with you is exhausting! Communicating with you is exhausting. I've learned many decades ago that whenever people complain (perhaps) about HOW you are communicating, they actually don't like WHAT you are communicating but have no argument against it. Evidence is you never hear...

Another example of a destruction of a concept. The adjective "meta" does not alter what communication involves. If you want to emphasize nonverbal communication just say so. What's the difference between communication with how we communicate? Implied is "meta" is a different how than how one...