1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell either your "Biblical knowledge" is different from their's or it isn't. I find many Christians' inability to process disagreement fascinating. So you feel liable to being 'conquered' if your "Biblical knowledge" is shown to be in disagreement with lemon lime's "Biblical knowledge". Making yourself sound rather insecure in this way is surely not your intention, is it?
yes but you are attempting to use my Biblical knowledge against lemon lime and GB. This appears to me to be a divide and conquer strategy despite the fact that I don't profess the same beliefs for I am friends with both and rather enjoy seeing lemon lime and GB talk smack to you and divesgeester.
Originally posted by FMFYou're barking up the wrong tree again. robbie is smart enough to know the difference between what I've said and what you say I've been saying.
As someone who studies the Bible carefully, and who has entered into debate, discussion and disputes with non-JW Christians on scriptural matters for many years, what verse do you think lemon lime might be referring to when he claims that there is scriptural support for RJHinds' assertion about 'not believing in eternal torture' is punishable by 'eternal torture'?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyHow did you and RJHinds resolve this issue? Did you decide that divegeester DOES deserve to burn in "Hell" for his "sins" and for not believing in a torturer God, or that he DOESN'T?
I have no "issue with rjhinds" or with any other human being which has not already been resolved in private messages, emails, phone calls or face to face conversation.
Originally posted by lemon limeIf you reckon there is scriptural support for RJHinds' assertion about 'not believing in eternal torture' being punishable by 'eternal torture', why not just say what it is?
You're barking up the wrong tree again. robbie is smart enough to know the difference between what I've said and what you say I've been saying.
Originally posted by FMFI don't know, I never really thought about whether I feel secure or insecure. Perhaps it never crossed my mind or holds no interest, difficult to say, more difficult is why it should interest you? but I am fairly secure in my understand of scripture.
Well either your "Biblical knowledge" is different from their's or it isn't. I find many Christians' inability to process disagreement fascinating. So you feel liable to being 'conquered' if your "Biblical knowledge" is shown to be in disagreement with lemon lime's "Biblical knowledge". Making yourself sound rather insecure in this way is surely not your intention, is it?
2 edits
-Removed-If that's what you think then who am I to deflate your big boy head? as for not wanting to engage in debate lemon lime has asked you to explain Jesus words, as far as i can tell you have failed to do so. Perhaps if you desist from stroking your ego and trying to convince me that you are a big boy you may do better, who can say. You will always be a dweeb to me, perhaps that should cure you of any of your big boy pretensions should they surface again. 😵
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou are a regular contributor to this debate forum and most contributions to the debates here interest me to some degree.
I don't know, I never really thought about whether I feel secure or insecure. Perhaps it never crossed my mind or holds no interest, difficult to say, more difficult is why it should interest you?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, my interest lies in both the content and conduct of contributors and how each affect each other. lemon lime, for example, has offered virtually no content over the last few pages because he is intent on conducting himself in a certain way. Grampy Bobby, on the other hand, when his content does not get the response he wants ~ and gets called on it ~ he starts conducting himself in certain way. On a message board like this, content and conduct seem inextricably linked.
yes but you seem more interested in the behaviour of others rather than the debate itself.