User Tag List

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 101

Thread: THE CREDENCE OF JESUS CHRIST AS A DEISTIC DESCENDANT OF JEHOVAH IS DISCREDITED BY SHO

  1. #31
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    PneumaPsucheSoma,
    All of that is the most radically extensive fallacious argumentum ad hominem ever posited in the history of the world and, achieves absolutely nothing other than insult to my noble personage, and to derogate J. P. Sartre, who was so unworthy that he was awarded a Nobel Prize.
    You cannot achieve an iota against my position by attacking me ! Leave me out of the considerations which I so nobly submit for Christian contemplation. Reflect upon your ad hominem methodology, which constitutes a total failure to grapple with the central construct employed by my declarations, which is that all determination is negation.
    It would take me five thousand years to respond to your tirade point by point, I will carefully re-read your argumentum ad hominem, purely for the literary beauty thereof. Enscausasui

  2. #32
    Over 6000 post club Aimiel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    6,516
    Thanks
    367
    Thanked 422 Times in 310 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    117555
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscausasui View Post
    Can you possibly suspend the robotic parroting of ancient and stale scripture ...
    Your parroting of superstitious nonsense gives me the heebie-jeebies and I don't have the time or inclination to catalogue the plethora of errors you've swallowed as 'truth;' especially because you blaspheme The Lord and His Holy Word so easily.
    "That man of sin must first be revealed." -- Jesus

    If you haven't tried: you've already failed. -- Aimiel

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Aimiel For Your Post:

    PneumaPsucheSoma (April 5th, 2019)

  4. #33
    TOL Subscriber PneumaPsucheSoma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In Christ
    Posts
    4,058
    Thanks
    584
    Thanked 980 Times in 716 Posts

    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    123650
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscausasui View Post
    PneumaPsucheSoma,
    All of that is the most radically extensive fallacious argumentum ad hominem ever posited in the history of the world and,
    Drama queen much?!?! And strong statements are not ad hominem if they’re not used to replace subject matter contrary to that which is posited. So you expose your ignorance of logical fallacies immediately, along with your middle school mentality and victim-stancing (which is forensic psychological dysfunction and/or deviance).

    achieves absolutely nothing other than insult to my noble personage, and to derogate J. P. Sartre, who was so unworthy that he was awarded a Nobel Prize.
    Any alleged nobility of your personage (again, define this word exhaustively... you can’t and won’t) hasn’t been established, and would be quite subjective according to many factors. I don’t forsee acquiescing to any nobility on your part.

    And the existentialists you revere are only worthy of disdain. They have no more idea about epistemics based on a philological foundation than do you. These are facts, not insults. No need to be so hyper-sensitive; especially when you’ve come here to continuously condescend and attempt to exert your fallacious self-agrandized faux-importance and pseudo-intellect, etc. It’s all a sham. You don’t even know what words mean.

    You cannot achieve an iota against my position by attacking me !
    I didn’t “attack” you, girlfriend. I pointed to your complete lack of linguistic competence in dealing with grammar and semantics.

    Leave me out of the considerations which I so nobly submit for Christian contemplation.
    This is sheer prevarication. You don’t do this nobly, and it’s not for Christian contemplation. It’s nothing but narcissistic nonsense.

    Reflect upon your ad hominem methodology,
    Again, you don’t know what ad hominem is. I didn’t use personal insult to avoid counterpoint. On the contrary, I explicitly informed you of your linguistic ignorance. The rest is your victim-stancing.

    which constitutes a total failure to grapple with the central construct employed by my declarations, which is that all determination is negation.
    Ra’a and hamartia (evil and sin) are the negations. And they’re the source of your mentors’ false assertions and your own.

    It would take me five thousand years to respond to your tirade point by point,
    Longer. There isn’t sufficient chronological time for such. You’re too far removed from any form of truth or rationality.

    I will carefully re-read your argumentum ad hominem, purely for the literary beauty thereof. Enscausasui
    LOL. You do that, Nancy. You don’t know what any words mean that you use and build your fallacies upon. You’ve literally wasted your life on nonsensical fecal material in pursuit of a false sense of superiority that’s a vapor of smoke at best.

    When you can figure out what ad hominem is, let us all know with your self-correction of your false assertions. Thanks in advance.
    Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
    “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to PneumaPsucheSoma For Your Post:

    Aimiel (April 5th, 2019)

  6. #34
    TOL Subscriber PneumaPsucheSoma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In Christ
    Posts
    4,058
    Thanks
    584
    Thanked 980 Times in 716 Posts

    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    123650
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscausasui View Post
    PneumaPsucheSoma,
    All of that is the most radically extensive fallacious argumentum ad hominem ever posited in the history of the world and, achieves absolutely nothing other than insult to my noble personage, and to derogate J. P. Sartre, who was so unworthy that he was awarded a Nobel Prize.
    You cannot achieve an iota against my position by attacking me ! Leave me out of the considerations which I so nobly submit for Christian contemplation. Reflect upon your ad hominem methodology, which constitutes a total failure to grapple with the central construct employed by my declarations, which is that all determination is negation.
    It would take me five thousand years to respond to your tirade point by point, I will carefully re-read your argumentum ad hominem, purely for the literary beauty thereof. Enscausasui
    Define “law”.

    Define “ontology”.

    Don’t regurgitate English definitions which are completely derivative. Provide the definitions from the source languages that gave us English as a human dialect. Be concise and explicit and exhaustive.

    (Hint: You have no idea what law actually is and means; and you’ll demonstrate that because you can’t fake it like you do all the rest of this rubbish.)

    Good luck with Hebrew and Greek for those definitions.
    Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
    “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to PneumaPsucheSoma For Your Post:

    Aimiel (April 5th, 2019)

  8. #35
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Explicate the exhaustive definition of “ontology” from its original language source. Not English. Its origin. Its etymology. Its complete lexical meaning and application.

    Such an explication is readily achieved. Heidegger has already done so, in extensive detail.

    'ont' (Gk.),means being;'onto'(Gk.) means being; 'logy' means reflection upon/study of; 'ology' means the study of the language or logic of a given construct...blah blah blah... To do human ontology is to speak man's being; that is what we humans do, i.e., we speak being; e.g., Adam named all the animals...

    On your suggestion one would mire one's self down in an infinite regression of accounting for the historicity of each and every word one employs in order to posit one's position; not necessary; it is difficult enough to get readers to look at that which one urgently desires to submit to readers.

    All is vanity and vexation of spirit (King Solomon). I am indubitablly doing a wasted life when I herein engage Chistians for the sake of presenting them with critique of their weltanschauung. I, of course, live in the hope of proceeding onto other projects; however, I think it supremely important to articulate critique of the jurisprudential reason whereby we Americans are being enslaved. Emancipation from the tyranny of law is, for me, a most important requisite. I have demonstrated the theoretical/ontological defeasibility of both law and Jehovah/Christ in one fell swoop, while, all the while, all you are doing with your beautiful prose is to posit ad hominum argumentation, which is what each and every Christian who has responded thus far has done ! Enscausasui

  9. #36
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    Define “law”.

    (Hint: You have no idea what law actually is and means; and you’ll demonstrate that because you can’t fake it like you do all the rest of this rubbish.)

    Good luck with Hebrew and Greek for those definitions.
    No human being can have an absolutely translucent comprehension of what 'law' is, because, as it is thus far posited, it is both theoretically and ontologically unintelligible; absurd; nonsensical; a mere in vain Hebraic con game, which constitutes a Judaic devil's purse, which never empties as long as persons can be forever be subjected to ascriptions of fault; while, all the while, those persons are intellectually incapable of speaking up against said con game by describing and accomplishing a theoretical destruction thereof, which is precisely what I have done.
    Either conduct yourself decently in keeping with your Christian world view, or, leave me be.
    I am rapidly become extremely fatigued by you constant mindless insults. One does not have to entirely reconstruct the evolution of one's language, from scratch, in order to employ said language. With all of your insistence upon the auteur reconstructing the historicity of his native language, you are merely making another fallacious argument, i.e., argument by extension, whereby you vainly attempt to put me out on your philological limb, and, then, saw the limb off. You are, however, a completely articulate fool. Ensacusasui

  10. #37
    TOL Subscriber PneumaPsucheSoma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In Christ
    Posts
    4,058
    Thanks
    584
    Thanked 980 Times in 716 Posts

    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    123650
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscausasui View Post
    Explicate the exhaustive definition of “ontology” from its original language source. Not English. Its origin. Its etymology. Its complete lexical meaning and application.

    Such an explication is readily achieved. Heidegger has already done so, in extensive detail.

    'ont' (Gk.),means being;'onto'(Gk.) means being; 'logy' means reflection upon/study of; 'ology' means the study of the language or logic of a given construct...blah blah blah... To do human ontology is to speak man's being; that is what we humans do, i.e., we speak being; e.g., Adam named all the animals...
    This is nowhere near exhaustive; and it’s not even wholly accurate.

    There is no “doing” of human onotology. Ontology is a noun. The accompanying verb would be relative to economy, which is action. “Speaking man’s being” is not at all “ontology”.

    What you’re abysmally and pathetically attempting to address is, at least partially, semiotics. But since you don’t know what THAT is or means either, then this will only go further down a dead-end rabbit hole because of your ignorance and arrogance, and plain ol’ wrongness.

    On your suggestion one would mire one's self down in an infinite regression of accounting for the historicity of each and every word one employs in order to posit one's position; not necessary; it is difficult enough to get readers to look at that which one urgently desires to submit to readers.
    I only asked for 2 defintions, and you responded with some feeble and incompetent attempt at one while ignoring the other. That’s hardly “an infinite regression of accouting for the historicity of each and every word one employs”.

    You’re a trip. And it’s a trip into a cul-de-sac of your double standards and narcissistic meanderings. Oh... and your accusations of ad hominem by others while you perpetually condescend to others and demean them. I stated facts that you corroborated. You’re not competent at linguistics. You regurgitated hubris from an idiot as an English definition that wasn’t even valid.

    All is vanity and vexation of spirit (King Solomon).
    Quoting scripture now? LOL. And in nothing approaching authentic context. Figures.

    I am indubitablly doing a wasted life when I herein engage Chistians for the sake of presenting them with critique of their weltanschauung.
    Poor thing. We’ll throw you a big pity party.

    I, of course, live in the hope of proceeding onto other projects; however, I think it supremely important to articulate critique of the jurisprudential reason whereby we Americans are being enslaved.
    You don’t have ANY idea why “we Americans” (and all others” are being enslaved. Not even a Clue from the board game by that name. If you think it’s because of the drivel by your existentialist nannies, you’re beyond hope.


    Emancipation from the tyranny of law is, for me, a most important requisite.
    And yet you don’t even know what law is or means, particularly according to the Christian faith and the one true and living God (Jehovah isn’t His “name”, BTW, Nancy. Go ahead and define name. It’s onoma in Greek. Try it.)

    I have demonstrated the theoretical/ontological defeasibility of both law and Jehovah/Christ in one fell swoop,
    No, you’ve demonstrated gross linguistic ignorance. You don’t know what law means, so your bogus claims are not worth sawdust. Grow up, neophyte. (Again, not ad hominem. A valid description by name.)

    while, all the while, all you are doing with your beautiful prose is to posit ad hominum argumentation,
    No. Ad hominem is something you don’t understand any more than human epistemics or ontology. I would have to be substituting personal insult for any and all pertinent subject matter for it to be ad hominem. Why are you so ignorant?

    which is what each and every Christian who has responded thus far has done ! Enscausasui
    Incorrect. You came here to engage in wholesale ad hominem on the grandest scale. And now that someone has bested you by exposing your false foundation and ignorance, all you can do is cry.

    Everyone has responded with subject matter. No one has personally insulted you instead of doing so. You, on the other hand, have avoided all addresses for exhaustive definitions of basic words upon which your premises are built.

    Your lies and fragility and double standards are duly noted, along with your whack existential nothingness. Tell Hegel “hey” in hades (in case I forget to tell you later).
    Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
    “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

  11. #38
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by George Affleck View Post
    Me too...me too!!

    I can be almost nearly as unkind and rude. Honestly I can.
    And insulting too. I really am that way.

    Please sir, do not forget me too.
    I, indeed, have not forgotten, will not forget, YOU; by all means, no.

    I have been entirely unable to find the forum rules; I know I read something like the rules when I researched this forum.

    I have been meaning to respond to your proffer of insult. However, I cannot, honestly ,authorize you to insult me, because, neither I, nor anyone will willingly invite your insult... As an experienced member here on the site, are you certain that you can even ethically, acceptably, insult another member ?! I am not so sure that you can, per forum standards of morality, insult me; after all, it is a stupid and foolish conduct; don't you think so/agree ?! Enscausasui

  12. #39
    TOL Subscriber PneumaPsucheSoma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In Christ
    Posts
    4,058
    Thanks
    584
    Thanked 980 Times in 716 Posts

    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    123650
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscausasui View Post
    No human being can have an absolutely translucent comprehension of what 'law' is, because, as it is thus far posited, it is both theoretically and ontologically unintelligible; absurd; nonsensical; a mere in vain Hebraic con game, which constitutes a Judaic devil's purse, which never empties as long as persons can be forever be subjected to ascriptions of fault; while, all the while, those persons are intellectually incapable of speaking up against said con game by describing and accomplishing a theoretical destruction thereof, which is precisely what I have done.
    What a rambling piece of nothing. Hubris.

    You use a word that you can’t define, and indeed say evades definition. I can clearly define it. Any competent linguist can do so. Your contentions are based on absurdities of erroneous speculations from delusions. You want to use a word and deny it has any real definition except your mumbo jumbo from moronic sources.

    The law in Hebrew was PROMISSORY, not punitive. It was the means of fulfiling COVENANT. It represented the Bilateral and Conditional covenant that paired with the Abrahamic Unilateral and Unconditional covenant of faith (other words you know nothing about in ANY language, novice).

    Either conduct yourself decently in keeping with your Christian world view, or, leave me be.
    No. Don’t attempt to prescribe the Christian world view (another fallacious monicker) or mine, holding me hostage to your prejudiced and tangential understandings. In defense of the faith once delivered to the saints, it is quite appropriate to correct those evil ones like yourself with an apologetic.

    Just because you’re a master victim, that’s not on me. You’re the one that picked this fight, and you well know it. And you want to shame Christians into cowering from your bluster. I’m not going to yield to your cowardice and dishonesty.

    I am rapidly become extremely fatigued by you constant mindless insults.
    Then put up or shut up. How could someone so “superior” already be extremely fatigued by rhetoric? You knew what you were doing when you came here, demon. You had NO positive reasons for joining this forum. You had NO intention of addressing anyone with respect or mutual consideration. So stop lying to yourself and all of us. You came here to be a self-appointed monarch and arbiter of alleged truth, subjecting everyone else as a serf in your false little kingdom of demented existentialism.

    One does not have to entirely reconstruct the evolution of one's language, from scratch, in order to employ said language.
    Only to employ is accurately and validly with consistency. This is you excusing your ignorance of words you use to build your foundation for false superiority. I’ve shattered you source of your fragile identity, and thus your worth. You have nothing without these shallow misdefintions and vagueries of concepts for pseudo-meaning.

    Who are you to speak authoritatively on the use of language? You know you’re no linguist.

    With all of your insistence upon the auteur reconstructing the historicity of his native language, you are merely making another fallacious argument, i.e., argument by extension, whereby you vainly attempt to put me out on your philological limb, and, then, saw the limb off. You are, however, a completely articulate fool. Ensacusasui
    No. I just know what “law” is and means, and I know what other major words you use that are the same situation. You make bare assertions about “law” that don’t even apply to “law” in regards to what it truly means. That’s because you’re an English speaker. You can’t even imagine how stupid your premises are from a linguistic perspective.

    And again it is you who are the one engaging in ad hominem, not me. And you couldn’t climb out on my philologcial limb if Hegel and company launched you there with a trebuchet. You’re a bloviating fool, pretending to be articulate. Now what, Herman?
    Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
    “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to PneumaPsucheSoma For Your Post:

    George Affleck (April 5th, 2019)

  14. #40
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    In my OP I am arguing against mistaken presupposition held by persons and putative gods; I am not addressing and arguing against the persons themselves; while, all the while, all you can do is insult my person. You are too much of a complete and ignorant young fool for my sensitive personality to be exposed to. You are dreadful. You nauseate me. Leave me the hell alone.

  15. #41
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Hebraic law purports to be determinative, which is the central consideration which I am addressing, i.e., determination by law...

  16. #42
    TOL Subscriber PneumaPsucheSoma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In Christ
    Posts
    4,058
    Thanks
    584
    Thanked 980 Times in 716 Posts

    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    123650
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscausasui View Post
    In my OP I am arguing against mistaken presupposition held by persons and putative gods; I am not addressing and arguing against the persons themselves;
    No, that’s your false and blind presupposition because you have no idea what “law” is or means, and that means YOU are evil and all you say is sin. Those are both the privation that is the source of everything within you.

    while, all the while, all you can do is insult my person.
    LOL. I came hard against your delusional subject matter. YOU insulted everyone on this forum. Stop crying, Karen. You’re not a victim. You came here to victimize and it isn’t turning out well for you. Insults are perfectly appropriate when they’re factual and warranted, especially in response to an onslaught of arrogant ignorance and demonic untruth.

    You are too much of a complete and ignorant young fool for my sensitive personality to be exposed to.
    Do you always attempt to bully a crowd and then go all crybaby when someone pops you in the mouth with rhetoric that destroys your entire premise of nothingness?

    You come here as a purported “deity” with superior reasoning to God and man, but now you have to run and hide because someone your senior and superior called your bluff.

    Your existentialism is based on false words. Your life has been a waste of pride. Your vanity has left you vulnerable and you want to be able to blame someone else for your own bullying and stupidity. That dog won’t hunt, Rufus. Ain’t happ’nin’. You don’t get to say “leave me alone, big monster” when you’ve been the one inciting everyone and everything in your wake of insolent drivel.

    You are dreadful. You nauseate me.
    Then go take a dramamene and harden up, Lucy. You pulled out the Guns of Navarone and started unloading. Suck it up, cuz the return fire is comin’ in hot. You’re gettin’ your own right back because your existential dung heap is built on egregiously faulty semantics.

    You. Know. Nothing.

    Leave me the hell alone.
    Leave the forum. And yes, you’ll be in hell alone. Aloneness is an aspect of the outer darkness.

    All you have to do is stop posting, Leroy. Abstain. Cease. Desist. Vamoose.

    What did you expect coming here pretending to be deity and denying authentic deity? Seriously?
    Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
    “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PneumaPsucheSoma For Your Post:

    Aimiel (April 5th, 2019),George Affleck (April 5th, 2019)

  18. #43
    TOL Subscriber PneumaPsucheSoma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In Christ
    Posts
    4,058
    Thanks
    584
    Thanked 980 Times in 716 Posts

    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    123650
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscausasui View Post
    Hebraic law purports to be determinative, which is the central consideration which I am addressing, i.e., determination by law...
    Nope. You’re clueless. Hebraic law does NOT purport to be determinative. You don’t know what the word means. You know nothing.

    Who do you think you are to try to make linguistic absolutes when you can’t even hardly spell the word? There is no way to effectively convey how much of a novice you are. Your decades of study are a sham.
    Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
    “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to PneumaPsucheSoma For Your Post:

    Aimiel (April 5th, 2019)

  20. #44
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    No, you will not drive me away via your vile hatefulness. My analysis of you God is absolutely correct and you are going nuts in the face of it. What I cannot stomach is your absolute hatefulness and your stereotypical thinking, placing me in your horrid predetermined pigeon holes.
    I have successfully accomplished a theoretical/ontological destruction of your God and your God's law. You need focus your sapientality upon my position, destroy my position with reason, not with horrid and ugly insult. I did not come here to insult. I came to hold a mirror up to a world view predicated upon law, which worldview is the original view whereby western civilization now takes the mistaken approach to civilization that is law. I am centrally addressing law as it is being used in America; however, since being on this site I am spending all my time defending myself from irrational and hateful insult; legitimate inquiry does not, cannot, proceed via personal insult. I am seeing that the particular scriptural spectacles through which you are now viewing the world are blinding you to and obviating your possibilities for rational response to my OP, which OP you ought rationally, not sordidly insultingly, attempt to merely incorrectly demonize; which is why you appear to be a fool. Destroy my position via philosophical polemic, for your violent hate is not an intelligent and rational means of dismissing my argumentation, which argumentation is predicated upon the ultimately indefeasible dictum which Spinoza originated, and, which is radically highly respected, worldwide. Become rational or get off my back. Enscausasui

  21. #45
    Over 6000 post club Aimiel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    6,516
    Thanks
    367
    Thanked 422 Times in 310 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    117555
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscausasui View Post
    I have been entirely unable to find the forum rules; I know I read something like the rules when I researched this forum.
    What... I thought you were greater than God?!? So, you're NOT omniscient?
    "That man of sin must first be revealed." -- Jesus

    If you haven't tried: you've already failed. -- Aimiel

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us