Theo1689
Well-known member
I get it, you're angry.
<Chuckle>
Not only is bearing false witness (I suggest you repent), but you are DEFLECTING from your bogus claim, and trying to mud-sling me.
Let's try to stay on TOPIC, okay?
Are you capable of doing that?
1) You claimed dispy's "have an issue" with sola Scriptura (with ZERO evidence whatsoever).
2) I asked you if you thought Johnny Mac rejected sola Scriptura.
3) You said there is a difference bretween "rejecting" and "having an issue with".
4) I asked you to EXPLAIN this alleged difference.
5) You then proceeded to engage in personal insults and attacks.
So are you claiming that there is no difference?
Or are you now willing to try to EXPLAIN this alleged "difference"?
I'll give you another chance.
I can have an issue with you being angry often but I am not against you or your anger.
I'm not "angry".
Why are you projecting emotionalism onto to me?
And why are you derailing discussion AWAY from the issue, and trying to attack me instead?
Having a problem with something doesn't mean being against it.
So you CLAIM.
An empty claim is not convincing.
Can you provide a convincing argument?
(Without the personal attacks?)
Last edited: