Search results

It's awfully hard tot tell what people's threshold of respectfulness is. For some, all you have to do to make them angry is to say something they don't agree with to someone else entirely. To be fair, in our brief acquaintance, I haven't known you to be like that. :) .

You had a laugh and now you're angry and stomping off while accusing me of anger. And I'm not angry. But you're bringing up things that you said were forgiven just a day or so ago. What can I do? .

It is practically impossible for perception to be based solely on the word of God. For most all of us, everything sounds good while we're quoting Scripture, but as soon as we start interpreting and commenting, it just falls flat. And in the end, it just sounds like we're pretty much telling...

And yet, we are. And I don't really understand the humor in it. Sorry. .

That might be a little too generalized to be entirely practical. What if a "preconceived idea" is said tot be something that, as it turns out, one has arrived at after many years of studying Scripture? You see what I mean? Where's the hinge point between preconception and true Scriptural...

It seems like you might be talking about the issue of extra-biblical writings. But we can't both discuss them and not discuss them, can we? :contemplate: .

What makes an idea "preconceived?" .

I think I see. There is a popular school of thought that that which does not pertain to the simplest context of the atonement should not be discussed. I guess it goes without saying that I do not prescribe entirely to that view. There are no less than 3/4 million English words in the Bible...

Yeah, everybody's got their deal-breaker clubs ready in-hand. For some people, it's anti-trinitarianism. .

This passage, without being compared to others, would shut down inter-faith discussion. .

I know what nonsda.org is. It's really a hack job. They throw stuff together that's so inaccurate a 5-year-old can see it, unless they've changed management. And I don't know what "they go both ways" means. As I said, this topic of discussion is seldom fruitful. .

I guess I'm having a little trouble understanding this statement, Sis. Could I trouble you to rephrase it? .

What's surely becoming clearer and clearer to any who might be following along is that, instead of answering the refutations that have been given for the neo-Christian, neo-New Covenant claims you're making, you're simply posing a cat-and-mouse game of re-packaging those claims and re-posting...

As I've stated in other posts, I seldom bring up the subject of Mrs. White. I virtually never do in discussions about doctrine. But I'm very, very used to being ambushed with baseless claims about her and, once in a while, I make an effort to refute them. I will say this much: Seemingly honest...

Sounds like a good topic for a thread. :) .

What if Luke 14:26 simply means what it says without comparing it with other Scripture? .

No. That's just eisegesis. .

Unless it is neither symbolic nor a general transfer of divine prerogative but, instead, merely hard to understand. .

You lost me. .

Well, of course, Ron, you must realize that this last part begs the question: When exactly does this forgiveness of future sins take place? And what are the implications of a once-and-done expiation on the growth and psyche of a believer that emphasizes such a thing? I'd suggest that type A...