Thou Shalt Not Kill.

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 95
#91
ATroubledMan
ATroubledMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 200
0
1
2
ATroubledMan's avatar
ATroubledMan
0
1
2
-->
@BrotherDThomas
You are taking semantics to an embarrassing low level to try in vain to remove your biblical ignorance
What I'm referring to is your misunderstanding of the English language, first and foremost. 

because myself, Jesus in spirit, and in behalf of others that would correct you
Currently, it is you who is not correct due to the fact you're confusing the definition of words.

 Besides, as if Jesus wouldn't stand by me
If Jesus was standing by you, then that's what Jesus would say, but he didn't say that, he said he is standing among you, which is completely different. This is where you're confused.

if only I was present in my easily Bible Slapping you silly, instead of two or three, or even a multitude was there, as the passage in question so states! 
No one is here posting on these forums other than you, all by yourself. Jesus is not standing by your words because they are your words, not His.

First off, you are denying Jesus' statement of "there am I among them" which deduces to Jesus' spirit.  In turn, you are having an embarrassing time of understanding the term "spirit" of Jesus standing with me, where once again you slap Jesus in the face by denying His spirt! When does your insolence towards Jesus ever stop???!!!
Now, that you've realized how wrong you are about the English language, you're forced to construct a Strawman argument that I'm denying His spirit. This is how weak your argument is and how bad your understanding of the written word. Perhaps, not only should you take that course, but also purchase a dictionary if you don't know how use an online version. 
#92
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Barney
@BrotherDThomas
giving a statement by Macbeth that is not relative to your running 
Macbeth not relative? Well, yes, he spoke to nothing regarding running, so the interpretative variance, notwithstanding, happens to be true. From there, it goes downhill.

My reply, sir, to your three points was Macbeth [now repeated]: they signify nothing, as the tragic king concluded regarding lighted candles in the fury of an idiot's story regarding Macbeth's grief at the loss of his queen. Your apparent misunderstanding of English literature at its finest best not be exemplary of yours regarding biblical verse. Remains to be seen. So, having answered your question, though not in the fashion you expected - but that's not your call, is it? - I note by rebuttal that you've said naught regarding men's nipples. It's a serious question my friend, and likely that the Bible is your salvation in response. Simple, yeah?

Or do I hold a mirror's face to your accusation that I do not respond?

Second question: Is Bible Slapping the purpose for which it was made? You don't need to appeal to Ragnar for that answer, do you?
#93
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@ATroubledMan



.
ATroubledMan,

This all boils down to the fact that you deny Jesus' spirit in the term of "there I am among them," where in this case, it is me that Jesus is among in dealing with your complete and laughable biblical ignorance.


.
#94
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw



.
FAUXLAW'S CONTINUED IRRELATIVE TO THE TOPIC QUOTE TO MY POST #90: "Macbeth not relative? Well, yes, he spoke to nothing regarding running, so the interpretative variance, notwithstanding, happens to be true. From there, it goes downhill. My reply, sir, to your three points was Macbeth [now repeated]: they signify nothing, as the tragic king concluded regarding lighted candles in the fury of an idiot's story regarding Macbeth's grief at the loss of his queen. Your apparent misunderstanding of English literature at its finest best not be exemplary of yours regarding biblical verse."

The above diatribe from faux law is another example on DEBATEART of RUNNING AWAY from the topics that I pose to him.  Yada, yada, yada, is all I see from this biblically ignorant fool, as he continues to RUN AWAY from me! LOL!

NEXT?


.

Topic's author
#95
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherDThomas
FAUXLAW'S CONTINUED IRRELATIVE TO THE TOPIC QUOTE 


This is what happens when they are caught on the back foot and have painted themselves into a corner , Brother. It is a diversionary tactic used for many reasons. (1) They run out of answers. (2) Burying embarrassing statements. (3)  Burying schoolboy errors. (4) Burying posts that caught them out blatantly lying.  (5) Start unnecessary and irrelevant argument for the sake of burying all the above reasons mentioned above.

And, as you clearly have pointed out a few times now, they will persistently post anything that is clearly irrelevant to the topic.(just look at this thread alone). This is the  one they get away with often as they know that flagging  irrelevant posts will attract the accusations of  you "stalking" a member (even on your own thread) and worse having an "obsession" with the reported member .

The reason is that to simply flag persistent irrelevant posts one can't show the irrelevancy simply by flagging it. The mod has to read all or most of the thread and as they are short for time and one cannot say why one is flagging a certain post, it is almost an impossibility for the mod to detect.  Abuse it pretty straight forward, but the deceit of irrelevant posting,  is, understandably, harder for a mod to detect. 

There is also the role reversal tactic. This is the deceitful snide tactic of accusing you of what it is that they themselves are doing.