Search results

VS You're simply running with your cycle of self-contradiction again. You're insane.

Oh, OK, so when you wrote you meant It's just another case of you not knowing how to use English to express what you mean. Got it.

I think you may be thinking of The Avengers.

@oatmeal's words from a defunct post, as quoted by @way 2 go in post #17: So, after all--surprise! surprise!--the earth was perfect in its original form even though @oatmeal was not yet inhabiting it. So much for the gappers' ridiculous and false claim that absence of inhabitants meant...

When was the earth "no longer habitable"? No longer inhabitable by whom?

God formed the earth to be inhabited by man. If you have a problem with the fact of God's having created the earth just six days before He created man to inhabit it, I fail to see how saying He created it millions or billions of years prior to man's inhabitance of it is supposed to do anything...

Amen! 6,000 to 10,000 years old is, indeed, very, very, very old!

I get what you Bible-denying gappers are trying to do with the "re" in "replenish", but it is really silly, and baseless, and will never work out for you. By telling man to replenish the earth, God was not telling man to do something again that had been done before. Rather, God was talking to...

You have been persistently sinning by writing the lying posts you have been writing in this thread, you lying sinner. Your sin of lying shows you to be a lying sinner, you lying sinner. Your refusal to candidly admit your sin of lying is you lying on behalf of your lying.

VS Out of the one side of your mouth, you admit you are capable of sinning tomorrow. Out of the other side of your mouth, you claim you are not capable of sinning tomorrow. You've shot yourself down, you lying sinner.

So you retracted your earlier claim that they fall away, and replaced it with your claim that they do not fall away.

Not a single person takes you to be a righteous man, you lying sinner.

Your lying and glaring self-contradiction throughout this thread is a rooting-out of you, poser.

I view your self-contradiction as a self-contradiction. And what you are doing, now, is lying about your self-contradiction, and trying to distract attention from it by uttering nonsense like "I see as two different subjects". You clearly are highly devoted to your father Satan.

But you did not say "by appearances" before; rather, you said they fall away: So now, once again shooting yourself in your foot, you've just changed your story from saying they do "fall away" to saying they do not "fall away".

So, by telling us you are capable of "falling away" tomorrow, you are telling us you are a poser, and that you are not now, and have never been, "in Christ Jesus".

According to you, if you're "in Christ" now, you are incapable of sinning tomorrow. So, by admitting to us you are capable of sinning tomorrow, you are admitting to us that you think you are not "in Christ" now; you are admitting to us that you think you are a child of the devil. You've shot...

You are not right in the head. I've documented you in the act of glaringly contradicting yourself, and not only have you just noted your agreement with the fact of your self-contradiction, but you sit there actually doubling down in that very self-contradiction, as though you consider...

VS How can they "fall away" if, as you say, they have "none occasion of stumbling"? You've not thought this stuff through. But, out the other side of your self-defeating mouth, you say they fall away: But, according to you, they fall away:

So, @Hoping, basically, your doctrine is "Once walking in God, always walking in God" (OWIGAWIG). Yet, out of the other side of your mouth, you contradict it by telling us that you are presently "walking in God", but that you don't know that you will still be doing so years from now: If (as...