Search results

ROFLAO!!!!!!!!!! ART GETS NAILED! JB

It's not as strange as it sounds. She is accused of providing the weapon (by dropping it in range of the actual trigger-man) which in many states (including CO apparently) qualifies you for a murder charge. So, if she DID drop the weapon for the killer to use I can understand the charge...

We trade OFTEN at the open and we find IB executions to be very fast during that period. I'm sure there are exceptions, but they are just that. JB

I have very little time here but will return. There are near endless possibilities here of course, but I'm not sure there is a biblical requirement that the fire itself destroy the spirit -- the deity can make that happen any way he chooses in a blink. The only stated intention of the fire...

I'm not sure from your answer if I have mistated a position of yours. If I have I apologize. JB

>Vazquez insisted that there was no way to >alter the recorded images. LOL. Well, we don't know that they WERE altered, but we sure as hell know that they CAN be. >The armed forces don't perpetuate frauds." ROFLAO!!!!!!!!! JB

That is cool Damir and thanks for the clarification. I understand how both you and Shoe almost reflexively defend against the "burn forever" position since MOST christians believe that it is biblical. I happen to be one of the few (though now non christian) that believe with you and Shoe...

Close--not perfect but absolutely close enough for this discussion. Thank you. JB PS. BBL

And you too are presenting arguments against the "enternal, unextinguishable, unquenchable" hell and I have made NO ATTEMPT to argue that. Why must YOU ALSO argue with me something not in my question? JB PS I am VERY familiar with the differing meanings and origins of the three works for...

It means just what it says... >For the sake of discussion can we stipulate that >I BELIEVE the non-believer is destroyed? What's not clear? JB

Shoe: >I have never insisted on any such thing. A lack of stipulation says just that -- that the point is in question and requires further investigation to determine validity. I don't understand HOW the point can be in question since I have NEVER stated anything inconsistent with the...

Clearly we have an example of your lack of reading comprehension... Here is my request for stipulation: >For the sake of discussion can we stipulate that >I BELIEVE the non-believer is destroyed? >I believe that I can fairly ask for this stipulation as I >have NEVER stated anything on...

Your second post regarding my request to stipulate. So you won't stipulate? JB

So you won't stipulate. JB

Shoe: >Thank you for saying that - now you understand why I >emphasized the "carbon based" fire issue earlier in the >thread. Uhhh...no I DON'T understand your fascination with the "carbon based" issue so don't tell me I DO understand. I don't care if the heat is carbon based...

Sorry shoe, page numbers don't match from computer to computer. Please direct me to Damir's "biblical support". JB

Shoe: >I have provided significant support. I have shown many >verses in New and Old Testament that show that the non >believer is destroyed. Shoe, this really is becoming a laugh riot. For the sake of discussion can we stipulate that I BELIEVE the non-believer is destroyed? I...

Shoe: >I believe the fire is the punishment of >extermination, not torture. >Example: in our fair country we execute prisoners. >We do not torture them. OK, you pretty much just made my point with your "fair country" example. I ask you -- do we burn prisoners as a form of...

Ahh...Ok, you provide no biblical support for it. Just opinion. JB

Axe, shall I list the direct questions from the last 24 hours that Shoe has failed to answer? He really doesn't like having to get specific or supporting his statements. We all miss questions now and then that are ask of us, but Shoe takes it to a level that cannot by attributed to mere...