User Tag List

Page 3 of 45 FirstFirst 12345613 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 665

Thread: BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)

  1. #31
    Formerly Shimei! Servo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    3,047
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 20 Times in 15 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11237
    Quote Originally Posted by Freak
    Hello Knight. Making some observations, that's all.
    About what? About something you didn't really read or a self analysis about how confused you are?

  2. #32
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    13,852
    Thanks
    1,282
    Thanked 8,742 Times in 5,737 Posts

    Mentioned
    100 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147840
    Quote Originally Posted by chatmaggot
    Jerry,
    Have you ever read The Plot?... I think Bob does an excellent job showing in The Plot that Jesus actually meant what He said.
    chatmaggot,

    No,I have not read "The Plot".But perhaps you can answer some questions that I raised in my post on the "Critique"thread.Here is what Bob wrote:
    What could Jesus be wrong about? Everything He wanted to be wrong about. While He promised Israel to return to establish their kingdom, He would not be taken for a fool….Jesus repeatedly promised to return soon (giving the apostles the hope they displayed in Acts of His imminent return…[emphasis mine]
    I asked:

    "Where was Israel ever told by the Lord Jesus that He would return soon?How could He do such a thing since He had told them that He did not know the hour or the season when that would happen (Mt.24:36;Acts1:7)."

    Does Bob answer those questions in "The Plot"?

    I also said:

    "The Apostle Peter knew that His return was dependent on the nation of Israel repenting and turning to the Lord,so the Lord would know the same thing.And unless He had knowledge that Israel was going to repent then He surely would not promise to come soon."

    Does Bob say anything in "THe Plot" that might answer these concerns that I have?

    In His grace,--Jerry
    ”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
    http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shuga...made_easy.html

  3. #33
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    13,852
    Thanks
    1,282
    Thanked 8,742 Times in 5,737 Posts

    Mentioned
    100 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147840
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbo
    Hypocrite, no Open Viewer has said that any prophecies go unfulfilled because God is unfaithful.
    If promises go unfulfilled then that in itself means that God is not faithful.

    The Scriptures speak of the "faithfulness" of the Lord.

    In the OT the Hebrew word ”emuwnah” is translated “faithfulness”,and it means “faithfulness,in fulfilling promises”.

    In the NT the Greek word “pistis” is applied to the Lord,and it means means “fidelity,faithfulness,i.e. the character of one who can be relied on….of one who keeps his promises(”Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon”).

    So the Scriptures reveal that the Lord is faithful and we can depend on His faithfulness in fulfilling His promises.But then Bob Enyart says that God does in fact not fulfill His promises.

    Bob also says that God has not done anything contrary to His own righteous nature.

    But a part of that "righteous nature" is His "faithfulness",and since Bob argues that He does not keep His promises then it is obvious that if Bob is right that HE has in fact done something contrary to His righteous nature.

    In His grace,--Jerry
    ”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
    http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shuga...made_easy.html

  4. #34
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    13,852
    Thanks
    1,282
    Thanked 8,742 Times in 5,737 Posts

    Mentioned
    100 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147840
    Quote Originally Posted by RightIdea
    Yeah, sure you can distinguish them.

    You take artistic, poetic writings full of hyperbole and you interpret those as literal. And you take historical narratives describing specific events and you take those as figurative.
    RightIdea,

    Here is a "narrative" that is not to be taken literally:

    "I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know"(Gen.18:21).

    If we take this "literally" then we must believe that until the Lord went down that He did not know whether or not "they have done altogether according to the cry".

    But the Scriptures reveal that the Lord sees everything that is going on in the earth:

    "The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good"(Prov.15:3).

    No sins of mankind are hidden from His eyes:

    "Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do"(Heb 4:13).

    All things are opened unto His eyes and He beholds the evil of every creature.So it is obvious that Genesis 18:21 is not to be taken "literally".

    If He knows all evil because He sees the evil of man then it would not have been necessary for Him to go down to find out whether or not "they have done altogether according to the cry".

    In His grace,--Jerry
    ”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
    http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shuga...made_easy.html

  5. #35
    TOL Subscriber chatmaggot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,098
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 16 Times in 11 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    29931
    Jerry,

    Bob does answer those questions in The Plot. It is an interesting read (and listen...I have his tape series too).
    fidelis usque ad mortem

  6. #36
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    10
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    To Bob's fanclub. Please take notice that the greatest majority of Bob's posts have been rambling (sometimes structured) philosophic thought with very little to no attempt to exegete Scripture. Bob does the same things that many of his supporters do on this site, they rely on their own limited human reasoning. Hitek357 post #220 is a perfect example of this.

    It is obvious that Sam was led to believe this would be a true debate centered on Scripture, but Bob has taken it as an opportunity to cut and paste his long-held beliefs in an apparant attempt to bolster his base and hopefully recruit some new followers. It is clear Sam feels betrayed by Bob, which only shows Sam didn't do his homework on his opponent.

    Open Theism believes God's omniscience is incompatable with human free-will. It is not. Most OT theologians have an accurate understanding of what the traditional Christian belief of God's omniscience is, though they revel in painting emotional and distorted caricatures of this belief. The great divide appears to be over what "free will" means.

    My question to the OT's is, what do you think the "will" is? And, what do you think happened to man's "will" when sin entered the human race through Adam? (i.e. was there any change in that "will"? Is the "will" of man the same after the fall as it was before the fall?).

    Bob seems to glory in his belief that the historic/Biblical Christian doctrines he disagrees with have commonalities with Greek philosophy and therefore are wrong. This is absurd. Suppose Bob read about some non-Christian religion as a young man, and now Bob has a belief about God that has some commonalities with that same non-Christian religion. Do I safely assume Bob's beliefs were formed by this non-Christian religion rather than by careful study of the Scriptures? What if that belief is that God is loving, good and kind? (and many non-Christian religions believe this about their god). Do we throw these truths about God out? Of course not! The Socinians in the 18th century also argued that God cannot know the future exhaustively. In that sense they held the same view as OT, but they were heretics. They denied the trinity, the deity of Christ, and a lot of other things. By the way, there are many in the OT camp that do deny many other essential Christian doctrines such as the inspiration and reliability of Scripture, and given the Socinian roots of OT, it is only a matter of time before OT slides into that abyss (though I pray you won't).

    In case you are wondering. I do not believe Open Theism is a Christian/Biblical belief, nor do I accept those who fully understand and embrace OT to be brothers in Christ. The god OT believes in is not the same God revealed in the Scriptures. Paul warned Timothy about wolves in sheeps clothing who sneak into the church to ravage the sheep and bring God down to man's level instead of exalting God to his rightful and Biblical place. God is infinitely higher than man, and OT has a problem with this. There are just some things that we won't understand about God until we see Him face-to-face, but we are responsible to embrace those things He has revealed. I do pray that you will all return to the true God of the Bible and refrain from the philosophies of man that make the Word of God of no effect.

    .

  7. #37
    Friendly Neighborhood Admin Turbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 13 Times in 13 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1036
    Quote Originally Posted by MyshrallBayou
    Bob [and] his supporters... rely on their own limited human reasoning.
    So, you don't bother to exercise your God-given ability to reason? Good to know; thanks for the warning.

    However,
    “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD... Isaiah 1:18a
    Bob has taken it as an opportunity to cut and paste...
    I guess that's a compliment, that Bob's posts, each composed in just a few days, look quite thorough and refined.

    in an apparant attempt to bolster his base and hopefully recruit some new followers.
    Wait... You mean all this time Bob has been trying to convince people that his position is correct??? THAT JERK!!

    ...which only shows Sam didn't do his homework on his opponent.
    I agree that Sam probably wasn't aware of the skill and effort Bob applies to his debates. I wonder how much of Battle Royale VII he read.

    [Open Theists] revel in painting emotional and distorted caricatures of [Settled Viewers'] belief.
    Like saying that the opposition believes in a God who is a bumbling, impotent loser? Oh, wait...

    By the way, there are many in the OT camp that do deny many other essential Christian doctrines such as the inspiration and reliability of Scripture
    Oh.... kay? I've yet to encounter one.

    Bob seems to glory in his belief that the historic/Biblical Christian doctrines he disagrees with have commonalities with Greek philosophy and therefore are wrong. This is absurd. Suppose Bob read about some non-Christian religion as a young man, and now Bob has a belief about God that has some commonalities with that same non-Christian religion. Do I safely assume Bob's beliefs were formed by this non-Christian religion rather than by careful study of the Scriptures? What if that belief is that God is loving, good and kind? (and many non-Christian religions believe this about their god). Do we throw these truths about God out? Of course not!

    ...given the Socinian roots of OT...
    Bob established that the Settled View doesn't just have coincidental similarities with pagan Greek philosophy, but that it was actually imported into Christianity by well-known theologians who recognized intuitively that "the Classics" clashed with plainly interpreted Scripture, but they deferred to the pagan Greeks regardless and adjusted their interpretation of Scripture accordingly.

    But the Open View doesn't have Socinian roots. You won't find open theists now or ever who build their case based on Socinian writings. All that stuff you said about non-Christian religions getting some things right by happenstance? It just came back to bite you.

    MyshrallBayou seems to glory in his belief that the Biblical Christian doctrines he disagrees with have commonalities with Socinian teachings and therefore are wrong. This is absurd. Suppose MyshrallBayou read about some non-Christian religion as a young man, and now MyshrallBayou has a belief about God that has some commonalities with that same non-Christian religion. Do I safely assume MyshrallBayou's beliefs were formed by this non-Christian religion rather than by careful study of the Scriptures? Do we throw these truths about God out? Of course not!
    In case you are wondering. I do not believe Open Theism is a Christian/Biblical belief, nor do I accept those who fully understand and embrace OT to be brothers in Christ.
    Thankfully, you are not God.

    There are just some things that we won't understand about God until we see Him face-to-face, but we are responsible to embrace those things He has revealed.
    Is this your way of saying that we shouldn't expect you to back up your assertions?

    I do pray that you will all return to the true God of the Bible and refrain from the philosophies of man that make the Word of God of no effect.
    Good news! That is just what we have done. I hope one day you will join us, so that you might better know the True and Living God.

  8. #38
    Gold level Subscriber Bob Enyart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    1,109
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 132 Times in 123 Posts

    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    74376

    Myshrall, let's explore your ideas! -Bob

    Quote Originally Posted by MyshrallBayou
    It is obvious that Sam was led to believe this would be a true debate centered on Scripture, but Bob has taken it as an opportunity to cut and paste his long-held beliefs...
    Myshrall, I'm interested in the issue you raise about which side focused more on Scripture. I have a suggestion on how to determine that objectively. Copy the debate into two files, one titled Sam's Posts Only, and the other titled Bob's Posts Only, and from those files, delete the oppositions posts (I've done this from the beginning. It is extremely helpful in remembering and carefully analyzing Sam's arguments. And by the way, I also have files that contain, for example, only the Q&A that Sam and I have traded, and files that collect everything either of us have written, say, on Roosters, or Christ emptying Himself, or JONAH, etc.). Now that you have Sam Only, and Bob Only, then from each file delete everything except for the biblical material. If you leave only the quoted scriptures and verse references, which side do you think relied most heavily on Scripture? (Hint: the answer is inversely related to which side appealed heavily to extra-biblical authority [which Sam answered correctly, by the way, all though most people read his answer exactly backwards. Did you?].) Now, if that's too unfair a test, then try this: delete everything except quoted scriptures, verse references, and comments made directly on and about the text. And then see which side relied most heavily on Scripture! Now if these tests seem unfair to the Settled View side (I have no doubt), then don't declare the winner of these contests by word count (since the Open View has been far more willing to expound on it's position), but rather, divide the biblical material into the total argument presented by each side, and the winner will be the side with the lowest score! Now, I can already hear the Calvinists criticizing this entire scheme, saying, "Bob thinks that if you quote more words from the Bible, you're being more biblical! Ha!" Well, Myshrall, you criticized my posts complaining that, "Sam was led to believe this would be a true debate centered on Scripture." Well, what if you find out that I did quote and reference and directly comment on more Scripture than Sam, and also as a greater percentage of my argument? I perceive that regardless, you would still assert that Sam's posts were more centered on Scripture than were mine! And how would you come to this conclusion? Because you disagreed with my position. So, perhaps you can identify a weakness in the argument of this paragraph, but if not, this is what you first criticism translates into: I will judge whatever side that disagrees with me as not being centered on Scripture.

    Of course, that attitude would set you up in your own mind as an authority over the Bible, which I'm sure you would not intentionally do. So... I'll accept a "thanks Bob for pointing that out to me," either in this thread, or when we meet in heaven .

    Regarding cutting and pasting, Myshrallm, I guess that's an insult? If I had these posts written earlier, I WOULDN'T HAVE KEPT IT A SECRET! My ministry struggles financially to reach more people. We would have been selling this just like we sell The Plot manuscript! And while I'm at it, I was somewhat suprised when Sam wrote, "Rev. Enyart continues to want to smuggle in whatever paper he has written about Greek philosophy..." Smuggle in? Anyone who has read this debate has also read Sam's 2001 paper on Openness and the Historical Jesus, from which he copied and pasted much into BR X (in rounds 1, 3 and 5). And interestingly, just a couple sentences after Sam accused me of this, he copied lengthy swaths of that paper into Round Five! Huh! Myshrallm, this was your second criteria on which to judge the debate. So, after a bit more reflection, which side wins in the category of Least Smuggled Material?
    Quote Originally Posted by Myshrallm
    My question to the OT's is, what do you think the "will" is?
    See 2B [BEA-]SLQ3! You could comment on it!
    Quote Originally Posted by Myshrallm
    Suppose Bob read about some non-Christian religion as a young man, and now Bob has a belief about God that has some commonalities with that same non-Christian religion. Do I safely assume Bob's beliefs were formed by this non-Christian religion rather than by careful study of the Scriptures? What if that belief is that God is loving, good and kind? (and many non-Christian religions believe this about their god).
    Myshrallm: you give false religions too much credit. Firstly, they are all either pagan, polytheistic, pantheistic, or atheistic (except for the monotheistic religions which are perversions of the biblical revelation of the God of Abraham). What other religions acknowledge one true creator personal God who offers to save men from His own righteous judgment of the wicked? (This is what you jsut claimed I might have stumbled upon wading through some false religion not based on the Bible.) But even this does not sufficiently expose your confusion. Because my criticism of immutability and Christian fate is NOT that they are similar to Greek culture and philosophy -- but that they are DEMONSTRABLY IMPORTED from the Greeks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Myshrallm
    there are many in the OT camp that do deny many other essential Christian doctrines such as the inspiration and reliability of Scripture...
    And are you saving their identities to be used as a secret weapon in the future?
    Quote Originally Posted by Myrshrallm
    God is infinitely higher than man
    Yes. And would you agree that He is not lower than man? Or are you one of the many who think that a homosexual sodomizing a young boy gives pleasure and glory to God?

    -Pastor Bob Enyart
    Denver Bible Church (.org)
    Last edited by Bob Enyart; September 8th, 2005 at 09:22 PM. Reason: higher & lower
    The Bob Enyart Live talk show airs at KGOV.com weekdays at 5 pm E.T. Also, same time, same station, check out Theology Thursday (.com) and on Fridays, Real Science Radio (.com) a.k.a. rsr.org. All shows are available 24/7 and you can call us at at 1-800-8Enyart.

  9. #39
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,925
    Thanks
    389
    Thanked 2,335 Times in 1,100 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1097775
    Bob Enyart - POTD.
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  10. #40
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    13,852
    Thanks
    1,282
    Thanked 8,742 Times in 5,737 Posts

    Mentioned
    100 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147840
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Enyart
    Now, if that's too unfair a test, then try this: delete everything except quoted scriptures, verse references, and comments made directly on and about the text. And then see which side relied most heavily on Scripture!
    The important point in the debate is not in regard to how many Scriptures are quoted but instead the veracity of the "comments made directly on and about the text".

    Let us take a look at the comments of Bob Enyart in regard to the "knowledge" of God.He said:
    What is the true doctrine of God’s knowledge? God knows everything knowable that He wants to know. God does not want to know everything![emphasis mine]
    Bob explains what the Lord does not want to remember:
    He reveals that He has no desire to retain Memorex memories of endless sadism, sodomy, and rape, and He need not keep infinite charts analyzing the base bodily functions of all animals.[emphasis mine]
    However,the Lord would “want” to know about all these crimes,or else He will be unable to “judge” men for their crimes:

    ”In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel”(Ro.2:16).

    If the Lord does not “want” to know about the crimes of men how is He going to judge men at the Great White Throne?:

    ” And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works(Rev.20:13).

    Bob got one thing right:
    The LORD has a purpose for His knowledge.
    The Lord does have a purpose for "knowing" the secret crimes of men,and that purpose is so that He can judge men for those crimes.

    In His grace,--Jerry
    ”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
    http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shuga...made_easy.html

  11. #41
    Over 2000 post club Mr. 5020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,370
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 65 Times in 44 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    22168
    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    Bob Enyart - POTD.
    I'm shocked.

  12. #42
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,925
    Thanks
    389
    Thanked 2,335 Times in 1,100 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1097775
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. 5020
    I'm shocked.
    Yeah, me too.

    I think that might be only the second POTD I have ever given to Bob.
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  13. #43
    TOL Subscriber chatmaggot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,098
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 16 Times in 11 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    29931
    Bob mentions in the critique thread that he is going to post something after round 10. Does he have the right to change his mind and not do it if circumstances change or is he stuck by his statement? He made a "prophecy" about the future. If he it comes to pass is he a true prophet? If he doesn't do it does it mean he's a false prophet or just that circumstances changed. Do all prophecies that are conditional have to state the conditions?
    fidelis usque ad mortem

  14. #44
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,686
    Thanks
    661
    Thanked 6,961 Times in 3,706 Posts

    Mentioned
    64 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147776
    Well it would appear that Dr. Lamerson actually showed up to do battle in the next to last round. Better late then never I suppose but this would have been a much more exciting debate had he given as much substantive thought to the rest of the debate.

    Dr. Lamerson's opening paragraph is a crack up, as if Bob hasn't been keeping track of the word count himself. In fact, if I remember correctly it would seem that some 800+ words had to be used in one of Bob's posts doing nothing but quoting from the rules of the debate.

    Further, the word limit rules read as follows...

    The debate will last for ten rounds. The recommended maximum word limit for the average post is 6,000 words, but any or all posts could be much briefer.


    That sounds to me like it could easily be interpreted to mean that we have a ten round debate, two posts per round for a total of 20 posts with an average word length of 6000 words per post. That's a total word limit for the entire debate of 120,000 words, which we are nowhere remotely close to reaching because Dr. Lamerson has basically chosen to barely participate since round three. In fact, according to my count there have been approximately 87,719 words used thus far in the debate. That means that unless all three of the remaining posts exceed 10,760 each, the word limit for this debate will not have been exceeded.

    Of course it will be up to the moderator to decide whether such a reading of the rules is a valid one or not but my point is that it is laughable that Dr. Lamerson wants to hold the rules over Bob's head after Bob was required to expend nearly a thousand words explaining the rules to him.

    Resting in Him,
    Clete

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  15. #45
    Gold level Subscriber Bob Enyart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    1,109
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 132 Times in 123 Posts

    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    74376
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete
    "The debate will last for ten rounds. The recommended maximum word limit for the average post is 6,000 words, but any or all posts could be much briefer."

    That sounds to me like it could easily be interpreted to mean that we have a ten round debate, two posts per round for a total of 20 posts with an average word length of 6000 words per post. That's a total word limit for the entire debate of 120,000 words, which we are nowhere remotely close to reaching because Dr. Lamerson has basically chosen to barely participate since round three. In fact, according to my count there have been approximately 87,719 words used thus far in the debate. That means that unless all three of the remaining posts exceed 10,760 each, the word limit for this debate will not have been exceeded.
    I wish! -Bob
    The Bob Enyart Live talk show airs at KGOV.com weekdays at 5 pm E.T. Also, same time, same station, check out Theology Thursday (.com) and on Fridays, Real Science Radio (.com) a.k.a. rsr.org. All shows are available 24/7 and you can call us at at 1-800-8Enyart.

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