Search results

My father-in-law used to have Norton on his computer; I continually urged him to uninstall it. He kept insisting it was the best antivirus. I kept telling him it was the cause of most of his computer slow-downs. I'm still not sure what's happened in the recent past, but I've noticed that he...

deleted. Unnecessary.

Look, I'm not claiming to be a computer expert. I personally know three dozen people I can name off the top of my head that know WAY more than I do. A couple of them frequent this message board. That said, I keep running across church-going folks who keep getting what I personally consider bad...

Well, huh. I agree wholeheartedly. So should we have faith in Christ because of the law?

The point of my story to Evangelist was about approach and wording. At the time, I wasn't a Christian. And guess what? With the JW's comment as he turned away, I was no longer interested in hearing what he had to say. It was two years later before I heard the gospel message, and was saved.

Were the rich young ruler or the woman at the well, or Zachias for that matter, saved because of the law?

If I may ask - what about the thread title is an "outright lie"? ---------------------------------------------------- Flynn is also a self-professed Democrat http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/11/politics/michael-flynn-general-trump-vp-option/index.html Flynn, 56, is a registered Democrat in North...

If all they hear is that they've broken the law, then is it possible they're left with an implication that all they have to do is start obeying the law? And thus, they're left with a works-based gospel? The message is incomplete without the message that the law is incomplete without God's mercy...

I have yet to see a single post in any thread where Smyth has posted a link to a source for any of his "information." Maybe I missed one somewhere? Smyth, so you'll understand credentials: Mr. Cassidy is our resident law enforcement official. Thus, what he says about such matters usually...

I read the thread title and thought, that sounds like something CTB would post ... and guess what....

So what were you expecting by telling him he was going to hell? At what point did you tell him God so loved him, that He gave His own life for him? I had a Jehovah's Witness once knock on my door; told him I was in the military; he asked to come in and talk about Jesus; I told him I wasn't...

But you have judged what the police did. What makes you think they didn't take tear gas or other methods into consideration? By saying "I do say that considerations should be made," you're implying that the *only* outcome the police decided upon was to kill the suspect; then the only...

Did you stop there? Or did you finish with "but God gave Himself so that you wouldn't"?

They're muddying the argument. He could have been killed by cops shooting him; by cops lobbing a flash-bang that exploded too close to him; or, as in this case, a robot that detonated an explosive too close to him. The suspect could have survived, and would be in a hospital, and would eventually...

Call the cops. Let them handle it.

By telling them to go and sin no more?

RD2 - I know you don't like me; you might even have me on ignore. I'm going to try to be as un-antagonistic as I can, and offer this for you to simply consider in all seriousness: the situation in Dallas is being used by the left to try to take away our constitutional 2nd amendment right. Now...

It's because he IS trying to justify two systems of justice. He's trying to say, "see, Nixon got away with it, so it's okay for Clinton to get away with it."

I have to echo exscentric on this one. Your question defies logic. The democrats did not initiate the investigatigation on their own democratic secretary of state; why would you expect republicans to initiate the investigation back then? Where were the democrats back then?

Our foolishness of pointing out that you can't actually argue facts? Okay, will do. (Yes, I know you haven't actually put me on ignore)