I see we are back to entertaining the
"old accuser" again JD (see your final comment); why would I
need to deny this question.
It's a valid one. If the foundation for your belief is the Universalism of
Kruger,
& Torrance, along with the
existentialism of Barth then how would your preaching differ in content from
what you have been writing on TT -
other than the two hat scenario? jt
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 10:40:34 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The previous similar post was sent while I was trying
to get the right "copy." Try it again. JD
In a message dated 4/9/2005 7:31:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ACtaully, I found the context -- right there under my nose. While you are pretending that I started the "personal" stuff
In a message dated 4/9/2005 7:31:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ACtaully, I found the context -- right there under my nose. While you are pretending that I started the "personal" stuff
by referring to my preaching, you domonstrate your own rebellion
and stubborness. Look at what you said --
JD: If you actually ever have the privilege of hearing me
preach - you will change your mind
about the passivitity and presumption
thingy.
jt: How is what you preach different from the beliefs you have posted on the TT list?
My point exactly !!!!!
jt: What is your point JD? Are you a doubleminded man - a Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde?
jt: How is what you preach different from the beliefs you have posted on the TT list?
My point exactly !!!!!
jt: What is your point JD? Are you a doubleminded man - a Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde?
Do you have one hat for preaching and another for TT?
You equate me talking about my own preaching with you put forth the notion that I am double minded.
You equate me talking about my own preaching with you put forth the notion that I am double minded.
The redundancy of the question reveals your
intent. Plausible
denialbilty ("it was only a question, John")
will be your defense, no doubt.
Transparent and unbelieverable. Jd
