@kellyjay saidSo why do you continue to engage with us, then?
Not sure why you trouble yourself with these guys, they will treat you the same way if you respond to them not, and they will follow you around different threads, and different forums just to speak about you. It doesn't matter if these threads have nothing to do with you, that is just who they are. The only thing you will do by engaging with them is find yourselves in an i ...[text shortened]... they are in where it has more to do with insults than discussions, they live for that no much more.
@kellyjay saidAfter your pridefulness-integrity meltdown in late 2022, when you regressed to a dj2becker-type insolence and dishonesty, I questioned why I'd bothered to spend a decade taking the time to indulge you, reading your stuff, and writing thought-out point-by-point things for you to read. Now your numbly generic recitations and huffy cowardice in the face of pertinent questions is, for better or worse, part of the discourse here, and you are an interpersonal monument to your own claims that there is a "holy spirit" that's working within you.
Not sure why you trouble yourself with these guys, they will treat you the same way if you respond to them not, and they will follow you around different threads, and different forums just to speak about you.
@kellyjay saidThis is not the story of you and me in 2022, though, is it, KellyJay? 2022 was when you started using feigned anterograde amnesia as a conversational gimmick so that you wouldn't have to converse in good faith.
The only thing you will do by engaging with them is find yourselves in an insult war with them as you are drug into a personal put-down contest.
@kellyjay saidActually you weren't talking to me, you were talking to mike69. You may have been talking ABOUT me, or you may have meant to say 'I wasn't talking to you.', or perhaps 'Was I talking to you?' It's a very simple sentence, have another go at writing it, practice a bit before you go public.
I was talking to you
1 edit
@indonesia-phil saidYou responded to me.
Actually you weren't talking to me, you were talking to mike69. You may have been talking ABOUT me, or you may have meant to say 'I wasn't talking to you.', or perhaps 'Was I talking to you?' It's a very simple sentence, have another go at writing it, practice a bit before you go public.
@suzianne saidThe righteousness God gives is due to Jesus and it is exclusive to Jesus, not everyone believes in Him. I'm sure however some have made up their own personal Jesus that only does what they want Him to do, instead of doing what God wants, because God is God and we are not.
Even those who reject him?
Where's the sense in that?
Romans 3:21-26
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.