Imaginary friends are okay.
LOL. They're all undergrad and graduate students, and PhD pursuants. I think they might take umbrage at your insistence they're non-existent. They even have student loans. Haha.
I'm saved, thanks. How are you?
I've never doubted you have elpis (hope/trust), which doth now save you (Romans 8). Elpis isn't pistis (faith), which worketh by agape (love). That's all kinda important.
The church-at-large is teaching elpis as pistis, for the most part. Come sit through 2 hours. It'll change your life.
Okay, now I've shifted from bored to mildly intrigued. Exactly what do you mean by that? You're Mr. Gutsy tonight, and we all can take whatever you want to say.
I've never seen a lack of hardness and self-assurance on TOL, so I have no doubt.
What exactly is it about me indicates I shouldn't be a dispie, and what is it the other MADs here have EVER said that even suggests they're in love with Law?
The floor is yours. Thrall us with you acumen.
Virtually everyone is employing law methodology (nomos anarthrous). Few even know what nomos (law) means, presuming it to be some set of rules to follow. That isn't even what it meant in Hebrew, and certainly not Greek. English is the problem, and the concepts derived by it.
For my entire tenure on TOL, you have seemed impervious to law methodology beyond all your peers who indeed are in love with anarthrous nomos (the quality and character of law as methodology).
Having seen you take a stand against such craziness, I thought you were among the minority who truly understood faith and grace practically and would not be one to embrace 19th-century silliness as eschatology.
All I'm saying is it caught me more off-guard than most things with most posters on TOL. Not much more to it.