Search results

Do you? I can't do any of those things. Yes. I see some words appear on the forum. Yes, I can. So can you. You describe it as "water flows downhill". That's a "downward bias", if I understand what you mean by it.

I can see the results of your actions, but you don't exist. (Does it matter WHERE you don't exist?)

Who are you? How can you be replying when you don't exist?

I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of @1Mind1Spirit from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called a hypothesis, and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical...

Yet you never called it "stupid"? But seriously, it was an interesting interchange. A bit repetitive, as would be expected.

Seems like we need some of these. https://www.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/flat-earth-funny-memes-fb11.png

"Let not many be teachers" comes to mind.

Why isn't "remove from existence" an option?

My position is that He could have, and practically did, prior to the resurrection of Christ.

Good topic, JR.

It goes to the question of authority. If Jesus told them to do it (whether or not He told them how), then Matthias is a shoo-in for Judas' replacement. If not, then the question has to be decided on other points. The biggest factor, in my opinion, is about whether CHRIST chose him. Christ...

Yes, you are. There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus taught the apostles how to replace Judas while on earth. I agree. Mine is an argument from silence. And yours is too. Which shows you are confused about what I've been saying. A retarded moron must be pretty smart.

So, what is James' salvation saved from?

So, if you survive the great tribulation, it means you will survive the great tribulation? Then James is talking about the salvation Paul talks about? Or is it a third type?

I figured that, but what does it mean? And does James mean the same thing, when he says "that kind of faith cannot save."

Certainly, since appeal to tradition is a subtype of appeal to authority. The argument supports a position by appealing to long-standing or traditional opinion, as if the past itself were a kind of authority.

Sorry, I never replied to this. I have no idea, that's why I keep asking. What do you think it means?

I just remembered another issue, kind of related. When I edit a previously posted post, the insert quotes feature is missing. Is there a way to add it?

Agreed. Her statement is only true if Europe clings to God, which it hasn't.

It wasn't THE premise, but it was A premise of RD's argument. And a fairly important premise. And, as you usually do, and as RD has done, when you start to lose an argument, you turn to ad hominem. By the way, I did do a search, and it confirmed my position. To say Jesus could have taught...