Search results

There is when you (or anyone) makes three or more separate claims in one sentence. Again, that would have been an appeal to the stone. Don't use logical fallacies, Arthur. Yes, it really is, by definition. Do you need me to quote the definition again? It's not kidnapping if the police...

All rights that stem from the right to life. He doesn't. There's too many of them, which puts a burden on the innocent, and they violate God's standard of good. No one said they were. To protect my right to life. Jesus did. The problem is that one of those is a right, the other two...

Because you're not viewing TOL in a mobile browser, which isn't as wide. Whatever. I snip them because you often make several claims within the same sentence, if your sentences aren't run-ons. I address each claim individually. Whatever. It's just not how my brain works. Not what you...

The most basic right, from which all other actual rights extend, is the right to life. As RD said, there is no "right to food," et al. Common sense, no. Morality comes from God. Morality? Supra. Common sense? Who knows. It's a "right to purchase and own personal defense weapons," not...

I do it for my own sanity, and so I'm not just responding to a wall of text. I also do it so that whoever reads my posts can follow along with my arguments, and not wonder what it is I'm replying to, something I've had to try to figure out by you NOT using the [ quote ] and [ /quote ] tags...

No, it's not.

It's not needless. It exposes the flaws in your arguments. I have never said otherwise. I don't insist otherwise. What I say is that they don't have the rights YOU think they should have. It's not self-righteous. They aren't my parameters, they're God's. And yes, people ARE bound by...

Did you lose track of the conversation or something? Correct. Those rights do not include food, water, shelter, et al. Correct. No such thing. Correct. My opinions have nothing to do with this. And who determines what is "in the main," who determines what makes sense, and who...

To explain: When two or more entangled particles are generated, if you modify one of them, its entanglement with the other(s) will be broken, while the other(s) will remain unchanged.

Wrong. It indicates a point in time. The point (that I'm trying to make) is that "From/since" the foundation of the world is a figure of speech that means "NEVER". Supra. Again, the phrase just means that they have never been in the Book of Life. Sure, but that doesn't change the fact...

Your opinions aren't God's Word.

Define "Real Christian." You seem to think it's something other than a "Christian," Otherwise you wouldn't have capitalized "real."

Don't be lazy. Go read the thread.

Yes, which is a figure of speech which means "accusing people of not being Christians" because they don't meet your definition of "Christian."

Been there, done that. https://theologyonline.com/threads/the-earth-is-flat-and-we-never-went-to-the-moon.38074/ Note: The part 2 thread is linked at the end of that thread.

You're just in denial. Yes, it is. So what? A righteous man regards the life of his animal, But the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel. - Proverbs 12:10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs12:10&version=NKJV That shows that they are responsible, at least to that...

I'm not saying you're able to. I'm saying that you deny someone's faith based on your own standard, despite you not knowing their heart, which is something only God can do. Why do YOU get to be the judge of whether someone is a Christian or not?

Oh boy... another flat earther... This isn't the correct forum for this bunk. Moving it to where it belongs....

They haven't done the shows live for some time because the device they used to do that broke a long time ago, and I'm not sure if they ever replaced or repaired it.

@Dominic Enyart maybe you can answer this?