Search results

The only regress is within your own position. My arguments have been developed. That they overlap and branch into one another demonstrates their consistency, which is a mark of a sound argument. Now you're being inconsistent, Clete. In post #492, you wrote: You therefore acknowledged that...

Agreed that the rule of law is now the central issue. We agree that the Constitution defines the king’s office, limits his jurisdiction, and determines the legal consequences of exceeding those limits. Our dispute is whether those limitations count as law only if a higher domestic authority may...

So quit acting like a petulant child, and have the maturity to recognize what I'm talking about. Do you think that the verse you gave somehow contradicts the one I quoted? Oh, and let's not forget that Jesus called people names.

The New Covenant was made between the same two parties as the Old Covenant: God and Israel. That did not change with Paul. The cut-off branches are unbelieving Israel. They will be grafted back in again, upon the fullness of the Gentiles having come in. Sorry, what? That makes no sense...

:think: At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means...

The ability to recognize patterns is not dependent on how long someone has been a member of a site.

You're not the only one, though it's very rare these days! Some clarification is in order, then. I am aware that you are not proposing a standing body of men whose continuous occupation is watching the king and waiting for an opportunity to remove him. By a “permanent institution,” I mean...

Never heard of it. Doesn't matter. Guilt by association is a fallacy. Even demons believe there is one God. That does not make monotheism demonic. Make an actual argument from Scripture.

Reference Post: W2G’s Arguments and Where They Have Been Answered W2G, you have repeatedly returned to arguments that have already been answered, frequently without addressing the answers. To prevent the discussion from becoming an endless cycle of repetition, I am consolidating your arguments...

You missed what the last verse said, Idolater. And this I say for your own profit, not that I may put a leash on you, but for what is proper, and that you may serve the Lord without distraction. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians7:35&version=NKJV The law is a heavy...

:think: :doh:

Or you've simply entrenched your worldview in "whatever the mainstream media says" (ie corporatized media). Try taking what is said at face value rather than just dismissing it out of hand simply because "it comes from X."

This verse literally proves my position. This verse literally supports my position. God asks, “Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do?” He is deliberating about His own future choice. He is deciding whether He should tell Abraham what He is about to do. He considers Abraham’s calling...

This is what happens when we raise a generation on thinking that it's okay to kill the baby in the womb.

https://tenor.com/jcmb9Ufeydy.gif

Fair enough. Given this clarification, I overstated your position when I formulated premise I(2) as the claim that every integral feature of Israel’s governmental order is universally necessary. However, I inferred that position from your repeated identification of Israel’s kingdom with “the...

By knowing the matter exists without choosing to search out every detail of it. You do not have to know the contents of a sealed letter in order to decide not to open it. Likewise, God can know there is a matter to investigate without already knowing the result of the investigation. That is...

This will also be very long, but only because it's a proper formal argument: The first questions to ask are whether the conclusions follow from the premises, whether the premises are true, and whether the evidence given supports them.

This is long, but only because most of it is me attempting to advance my position instead of rehashing what we've already covered. Calling an argument “semantic” is no rebuttal when the dispute concerns the meanings of the relevant terms and whether you are using them equivocally. Meaning is...

Pickleball is played with paddles, silly, not rackets!