Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Spammers wasteland

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Rusha View Post
    Indeed ... no one expected you to reply to the FACT that second-hand smoke puts children at risk and has been linked to approximately 3500 infant deaths a year.
    You're talking to a guy who doesn't even think that smoking is harmful in itself, that's how thick he is. No wonder he starts threads without any evidence in support as long as he can project his ignorance and hatred...
    Well this is fun isn't it?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by musterion View Post
      I like beer. I enjoy maybe one a week, usually less. Don't particularly like wine, hate the hard stuff. I can enjoy my one beer without concern of becoming even slightly impaired.

      Pot cannot be smoked without becoming impaired to some degree. That's exactly the point of smoking it.
      Even that one beer 'impairs' you, even if imperceptibly to yourself. You're not the arbiter of what constitutes that believe it or not.
      Well this is fun isn't it?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Nick M View Post
        Nice misdirection. I told you. Marijuana smokers are immoral.
        Hey, not like you to make broad, grandiose and sweeping statements rooted in anything but fact. Well, okay, you certainly don't make grandiose statements but moving on from that...Soooo, anyone who's ever smoked a spliff is immoral then? But not anyone who's smoked a cigarette? When you first smoked a 'fag' Nick did you not get a bit high off the nicotine rush your body wouldn't have been used to?

        Well this is fun isn't it?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
          You're talking to a guy who doesn't even think that smoking is harmful in itself, that's how thick he is. No wonder he starts threads without any evidence in support as long as he can project his ignorance and hatred...
          But but but ... all I provided was evidence from the CDC .....

          TRUST
          is a fragile thing.

          Easy to break, Easy to lose
          and one of the hardest things to
          ever get back.







          Comment


          • Originally posted by zzub View Post
            May I EMPHASISE - Do you love Jesus and his word ?

            If yes then get back to CF soteriology and defend it. Bottom line - true Christ or the 'elite mob' - what is left of them, leading Christians astray.
            Please defend the true Gospel with all your heart.
            No more. I can't love the dead as their word no longer means any thing.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by zzub View Post
              Do you love God's word or what ?

              Matthew 18:6 ESV

              But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea
              I do love God's Word. How could I not to? If you read Psalm 147:19,20, God's Word was given to Israel only and to no other people on earth. I could never stop loving God's Word.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Ben Masada View Post
                I have never visited a Cabbalist synagogue. From the short contacts I had with Cabbalism, I left with the impression of Mysticism which is the same as Superstitious legenda.
                ALL Synagogues are Kabbalah Synagogues. Biblical Judaism is extinct. Your Pharisaic Rabbinical Talmudism is a fraud, just as you personally are. Zohar, Tikkun, and all the rest.

                You are your last sentence.
                Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
                “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

                Comment


                • " An eye for an eye " and eventually the whole world will be blind ". Mahatma Gandhi .

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by 1Mind1Spirit View Post
                    Unlike youJob repented, because like you, he erroneously thought he could contend for his case with God.

                    You might want to ask yourself why Job repented.
                    Because his butt hurt

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by patrick jane View Post
                      Because his butt hurt

                      Job Submits Himself to God
                      …4'Hear, now, and I will speak; I will ask You, and You instruct me.' 5"I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; But now my eye sees You; 6Therefore I retract, And I repent in dust and ashes."…

                      Comment


                      • Hey, do you want a real good post or two or three on the "Historical Development of the Trinity"? It's very informative, and can be found on the forum Debating Christianity & Religion.

                        Spam link removed.

                        This will take care of the argument.....if anyone is really interested in what has actually transpired throughout history.
                        Last edited by Sherman; June 1st, 2016, 09:30 AM. Reason: Redirecting to another forum.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                          And that is the problem. If one doesn't understand the distinction between ousia (essence) and hypostasis (substance), one cannot address this topic sufficiently or accurately.
                          So the Christian church not only did not, but could not address this topic sufficiently or accurately, during the 300 years before this distinction was created - yet - this understanding is essential to being a Christian. See a problem here? Sorry, not buying this for obvious reasons. What we should be aiming for is the understanding Christ had of himself and the apostles had of Jesus, and their immediate successors had, BEFORE all of these distinctions were made. THAT would be the orthodox faith, and any development afterward is only helpful at best, not essential, and the councils were not infallible. Since the councils were not infallible, we might be able to find fault in them. I have.
                          Atheism is a advertising nightmare as in what you see is what you get and when you die that's it. - DaveDodo007

                          Totally depraved doctrine.
                          Uncertain salvation.
                          Luck of the draw.
                          Irresistible damnation.
                          Persecution of the saints.

                          Courtesy of Desert Reign

                          Comment


                          • Jesus and his apostles were strict monotheists who never entertained the idea of God being ontologically 3 anything. When they became Christians they became Christian Monotheists. This is what the church was before it was trinitarian. If not this, then what? What was the church before it was trinitarian if it wasn't Christian Monotheist (aka Unitarian)?
                            Atheism is a advertising nightmare as in what you see is what you get and when you die that's it. - DaveDodo007

                            Totally depraved doctrine.
                            Uncertain salvation.
                            Luck of the draw.
                            Irresistible damnation.
                            Persecution of the saints.

                            Courtesy of Desert Reign

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Krsto View Post
                              So the Christian church not only did not, but could not address this topic sufficiently or accurately, during the 300 years before this distinction was created - yet - this understanding is essential to being a Christian. See a problem here? Sorry, not buying this for obvious reasons. What we should be aiming for is the understanding Christ had of himself and the apostles had of Jesus, and their immediate successors had, BEFORE all of these distinctions were made. THAT would be the orthodox faith, and any development afterward is only helpful at best, not essential, and the councils were not infallible. Since the councils were not infallible, we might be able to find fault in them. I have.
                              Incorrect. Though it was understandably delayed by extreme persecution, the very earliest apologists began distinguishing the subtleties of Greek word meanings to apply to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one divinity in some manner.

                              Councils were to omit clearly heretical schismatic beliefs that were a threat to truth, unlike modern systematic theology, etc.

                              And I never indicated that understanding thosa word meanings was the threshhold for salvific faith. But to deny the authentic eternal and uncreated divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit is beyond that threshhold.

                              Salvation is a being/becoming comparable to copula/gerund in linguistics. We are "saved" when we receive the end of our faith.

                              If you're appealing to first century theology as orthodox, then you are in even greater peril. Polycarp and others clearly affirmed the ontological divinity of our Lord. Just because apologetics lagged behind that for clear expression, it doesn't change the core beliefs that you are trying to dismiss.

                              The Apostles weren't Unitarians or Arians or Sabellians.
                              Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
                              “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Krsto View Post
                                Jesus and his apostles were strict monotheists who never entertained the idea of God being ontologically 3 anything. When they became Christians they became Christian Monotheists. This is what the church was before it was trinitarian. If not this, then what? What was the church before it was trinitarian if it wasn't Christian Monotheist (aka Unitarian)?
                                "God, His Word, and His Wisdom" was among the earliest cry of Patristic hearts according to Apostolic teaching. Divinity all around is the theme. And it was near unanimous.

                                You know I despise the English term "Person/s" and Multi-Hypostaticism. So I'm obviously not lobbying for any Nicean form. Yet there was a general consensus of ontological divinity for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
                                Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
                                “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X