Search results

I guess we are making different points. ;)

I reject the idea that all sin is equal for this is the error of over-generalization. Sure, all sin is sin but there is ample evidence in Scripture of ranking severity. Consider Ex 22. And in the NT, we are told we will be paid for our work, implying another graduated (non-equal) schedule...

Arthur, welcome to CyB. You certain seem knowledgeable. But my simple question is do you agree that homosexuality is a sin? @Arthur81, isnt' Lev 18:22-30 an explicit statement of Scripture condemning homosexuality? Hmmm. I'm a little disappointed with this rhetoric since @TLHKAJ did share...

Agreed. That is exactly what you are doing.

Huh? Those who sexually abuse children are that minority! :mad:

Hmmm. What does your Bible say? I will bless those who bless you (the great nation God made of Israel), but I will put a curse on anyone who puts a curse on you. Everyone on earth will be blessed because of you. (emphasis added for clarification) GE 12:3

You got some kind of fetish going on there. We are required to love one another, man and woman. Love one another does not mean have sex with every fellow you meet, man or woman! Love does not mean sex. You obviously know that.

It'a amazing some of the things one may read on CyB.

Sure. I just deny this means a 2nd, let alone a 3rd Being. Words are a thing, not a person. Words are an attribute of a person or Being.

Again, plural does not convey 3 is one. This is dicta. One must assume who God is talking to in order to read something into it. Language usage: God is NOT talking to himself. What is far more compelling is the single pronoun in the 1st commandment. It's so important, God put it first.

Language Usage. You do know that "Him/His" are singular pronouns, right? They do not refer to 3 is one.

Welcome to CyB Tony! I appreciate your approach. Three basic problems. 1st, you are presenting conclusions as premises. 2nd, the question is binary; it is true or false. There is not probability of it being true. The premises supporting the binary conclusion may have probability but not the...

And what do you want to argue based on? The issue is not my lack of understanding; nonsense is not supposed to be understood. The issue is how to you limit parts to the magic number of 3 while also calling these parts a whole? That is inherently contradictory in any language, in any context...

All agents have authority, not just Paul. Why is your focus on Paul? Why not ask about the authority of Moses and every Bible author? Agency is ubiquitous throughout Scripture. Did the Angel who silenced the father of John the Baptist have authority to do so?

I find the idea absurd on its face that a married would be supposed to remain a virgin OR that there is something virtuous or healthy about a sexless marriage. I also find the obsession with the sex life of a 1st century Jewish girl to be bizarre. It has no doctrinal significance and even...

Broadly Mathematically? Now, you've moved the goal post to assert parts are the whole, which works for any number, not just 3. Point is, 3 is not 1 and 3-in-1 is not 1. A philosopher pointed out that 100 pennies are not $1. To prove this, he presented this context. If 100 pennies is $1, then...

If "one" makes a multi-person Being, then all believers are God by this verse. This is how it is with many of their rationalizations, such as God making us in "our" image implies a "plural" God. Neither are "support" for 3. Again, how peculiar it is a thread dedicated to non-JW anti-Christ...

Indefinite moving the goal posts. Does 3 equal 1; yes or no?

You are guilty of slander as it is you who took what I said out of context. But guess what? This thread is not about me or debating doctrine. Please address the point of the OP.

Talk to an attorney. Maybe all that is necessary for you to be grandfathered in is to apply.