Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Produce evidence that verifies this:
Genesis 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
... or admit that there are things God did that didn't generate any.
Nah, you were turned away long ago. What's the fine print in your avatar?
How smug of you to assert that. I would say that in my transition from apatheism to ignosticism I did go through several threads here as a lurker, and marvelled at the confidence of one particular poster, who happens to be the OP of this thread. I always carry some doubt about my convictions, personally and professionally, and I thought this would be a good place to come to sort those personal doubts out, but I did not have the confidence at the time.Nah, you were turned away long ago.
What's the fine print in your avatar?
While I am a huge fan of Google Images, it may not work in this case as I cut it down a bit in the process of avataring it.
I am surprised that you did not pick up on the reference. Chuck Norris, the last time I checked, is a creationist.
I heard the adepts of Atlantis had such submarines as well. Powered by vrill capacitor crystals. Like Noah they learned how to build them from three eyed crab clawed aliens from Sirius.
[serious];60591600 said:Depending on the mechanism of "taking" there could be a variety of evidences:
1. decrease in mass of the planet (unless specifically covered up) causing changes to orbital period of the moon
2. a loud bang from the sudden creation of a vacuum where enoch used to be
3. scorch marks on the ground (if the chariot of fire method was used for this one as well.
How smug of you to assert that. I would say that in my transition from apatheism to ignosticism
I did go through several threads here as a lurker, and marvelled at the confidence of one particular poster
Later, I followed dad's same-state-nonsense challenge here, and signed up.
I did hold my breath on many of those exchanges here on this board, thinking that there may have been something of significance that I had overlooked.
So far, it does not appear so.
While I am a huge fan of Google Images, it may not work in this case as I cut it down a bit in the process of avataring it.
I am surprised that you did not pick up on the reference. Chuck Norris, the last time I checked, is a creationist.
I heard the adepts of Atlantis had such submarines as well. Powered by vrill capacitor crystals.
Yeah, and I don't get it. Is it meant to be funny? Or on the topic?
It was perfectly in context, in that part of the thread. As for being on topic, what evidence did Red October leave behind, that could be hinted for?
Perhaps 'smug' is not the right word. What word should one use to describe confidently asserting what other people are thinking while being wrong about it?None of that is anything but already "turned away." Do you know what the Greek word metanoia is about? Have you ever read up on it? It proves my point. Knowing something =/= being smug.
How could I agree or disagree with such a vague objection? However, guessing at what you mean from a presuppositional approach such as yours, I agree that those particular comments were not directed at Christianity, but at its underlying premise; Christianity is only a religion.You do realize none of those things have anything to do with Christianity, right?
Perhaps 'smug' is not the right word. What word should one use to describe confidently asserting what other people are thinking while being wrong about it?
How could I agree or disagree with such a vague objection?
However, guessing at what you mean from a presuppositional approach such as yours
I agree that those particular comments were not directed at Christianity, but at its underlying premise
Except where you tell me when I was 'turned away'.I have no idea what you're thinking, nor have I ever pretended otherwise.
No it was not clear, but I agreed in this case.That wasn't vague, but perfectly explicit. Everything you expressed as "turning you away," has nothing to do with Christianity.
False dichotomy. There are other options.Nothing could be further from my approach. Which means you're either being intentionally dishonest, or what you said above is mere projection.
Perhaps my statement would make more sense if you did not edit it to alter its intent. Now who is not listening?That makes no sense, and it amounts to
Which you have every right to do.
I do listen carefully, but it seems that there are some that bail out of a thread just as it gets interesting.I just don't think it's a very good basis for making decisions, that's all.
Except where you tell me when I was 'turned away'.
False dichotomy. There are other options.
Perhaps my statement would make more sense if you did not edit it to alter its intent. Now who is not listening?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?