Search results

Yeah, you're right. -2 on me for grammar.

You do realize that sounds like you're admitting that you refuse correction, and will continue in your error(s)?

Look, I could care less about Rippon, and you'll notice that I don't discuss things with him; here's the thing: he doesn't try to correct your grammar; he corrects it. YOU are just as arrogant by continuing to refuse correction and continuing to commit grammar errors.

The problem, Martin, is that many--both calvinist and otherwise--have discussed his opening posts with him. Archangel, a cavinist, has presented thorough refutations of points SBM has made; only to be told by SBM that Archangel is evading the points. The very fact that SBM refuses to discuss the...

Martin - the point is SBM being able to answer these questions.

If 2 Pet 2:1 is not talking about the blood of Christ, then what is it talking about?

-1 for improper use of "whom." "Confront"? How about you schedule some time with him for the two of you to study the matter together, instead of "confronting"? Iron sharpeneth iron; and more especially, Galatians 6:1.

Only if you fully agree that calvinism follows the bible.

Yes, yes you are!

It depends on what you assume my view is. Intent is the demonstration of intent to cause serious bodily harm or death. Show me in the video where this young man exhibited intent. Capability is the ability to cause serious bodily harm or death. As in, does the perpetrator have a weapon? In this...

Intent. Opportunity. Capability. All three must exist before deadly force is authorized.

Oh, I dunno; one lion despicably killed, vice 1 million abortions per year....

"Alleged" is perfect ... although, technically, that's what we should be saying about Dylan Roof, too.

When you said: "The senseless murder of unarmed black people by police continues" the question was raised. We can't technically call it murder yet.

Um...technically, he's only been charged with murder. He hasn't actually been convicted of murder.

They were refuted--by a calvinist. You just don't understand.

In the parts of my message that you chose not to quote, I did. You have just further substantiated what I wrote in the final paragraph.

The evidence is not self-evident. The verse says they were bought by the Lord. Peter wrote both 1 Peter and 2 Peter; in 1 Peter 1:19, Peter clearly proclaims that it is the blood of Christ. In 1 Peter 4:1, he writes that Christ suffered for us in the flesh, again referring to paying the price...

You say the poster lied; but you've provided no evidence that he lied. Only your statement that you disagree with him. That's not a lie; that's a disagreement. If it's a lie, then you *MUST* provide the evidence of why it's a lie. In other words, you *MUST* identify what was used to buy them...

Am I being ignored?