I'm apologizing in advance for not sticking to the proof for this post. I'm taking a break in this post for reasons listed at the end. And for what it's worth, David, your point is clear, but likely never to A Friend.
As any discussion goes it need not go into infinity, so it is reasonable to conclude it is won since you still find no fault with the 4SPFG and the 4SMFA.
You're an intelligent person, Troy. I can't understand why you don't wait until I say "I agree, I'll sign up on your board soon" or "I give up?" If I kept claiming victory at the beginning of each post, would you not have called me on it? Attempt to denigrate the discussion noted.
The fact still remains Christians believe the world is NOT overpopulated, so you would be bearing false witness saying otherwise.
Now you're contradicting yourself. Page 5 in comment #311391 you say that it is.
My mistake for messing up my sentence, though, and I apologize for it. Just as I have apologized for my other blunders in this quote.
As USA is falling babylon, you would expect for a time period it will undergo certain transgressions which is a small sample size for nations have been falling throughout the millennia. The important point is to take the biggest picture which is to say polygamy justified fornication before, but today it is frowned upon, so this is an exponential progression in conscience.
You're wrong, I included proof in comment #312629 with a link. Extramarital sex is on the rise. It had been in decline with the institution of Judeo-Christain marriage and then before that, cultures like the Roman pagans and Egyptians and African tribals, for example, were pretty proud of their sexual deviancy. Furthermore fornications isn't frowned upon in the secular world. Haven't you been listening to your sources lately? I guess someone forgot to give you the memo about Planned Parenthood.
You are missing the point. Sin is sin, that is not the issue. The issue is if you are going to be scientific, you can only compare apples to apples. You can't compare sin on computers because there were no computers before. Otherwise you are biased in your data.
Sin is sin, thank you for agreeing with me. That being said, we see plenty of new ways to sin and some revival of old ways of sinning. The worldwide obesity epidemic and increase in fornication are definitely on the rise in the secular world, although, to your credit, we are decreasing in most of our violent sins. When we add them all together, because that's what God does, we see that the exponential increase of global conscience is false.
It is quite relevant that you have a darkened mind and a dead spirit to God, for this is what causes your irrationality in your words, so it needs be addressed.
Vague statement about me being irrational. Attempt to provoke noted.
An offended person keeps trying to rationalize a lie, so you are offended.
I guess you'll have to try harder, because I don't feel offended. I certainly would have told you if I were. Attempt to provoke noted.
Regarding your comments, 310726, 310802, 310907, 311169, 311356 and 312629, please respond to my response to them. If you choose to repeat yourself, you will only receive the same similar response I gave before. You see I always kingdly respond, hence, by following posts.
Since I provided a list of quotes, I'll tally up the number of times I've forgiven you for trying to denigrate the topic when I post my summary. I do respond to them, my posts in this quote are pretty distinct. My style here is the "inverse Papabear." I bold your statement, I respond in plain text.
By your choice to go to hell, you only slander yourself. Don't blame Christians.
This doesn't need to be said, it's an attempt to denigrate the discussion.
You said I did not respond to your abortion statement in #312629, but I did. See the following responses given.
You hadn't addressed my statement about abortion being the new child sacrifice since page 5. 2.1 million babies, according to your worldview. Or did you want me to go back to earlier reasons that I overturned? Not that it matters now, but maybe you could clear it up anyway.
Please respond to what I said rather than repeat yourself, for that is just the belligerency of an unrenewed mind to do that.
I have responded to every counterpoint you've made. You know that, so you're just trying provoke, not actually discuss the proof. In fact, my posting style is pretty distinct in this quote. As I mentioned before, it's the "inverse Papabear."
When I post, I am responding directly to what you said, so if it seems off course it is only because you went off course.
An intelligent guy like yourself should know when he's drifting off topic.
You know that, but you are just trying to be couth.
I haven't been trying to be couth. I feel pretty confident I've succeeded. Attempting to denigrate the discussion noted.
Okay, so we're holding the bar at five attempts to provoke a flame war instead of trying to be serious. Since you don't want to discuss like a mature adult, I'm concluding you're just wasting my time. I'll post a summary of points in a few days and see if Mr. Brooks can show some signs of maturity next year. But don't you worry, Troy. If I do accept Jesus as you have asked, I'll be sure to sign up and learn all I can about Biblocality.
PLEASE NOTE:[/img] I have concluded that Mr. Brooks is a troll, who's using his four step-perfect proof and initial courteous attitude to eventually enrage people, for whatever enjoyment he gets out of it. His obvious intelligence vanishes at convenient points after a few posts and then lays the unnecessary evangelistic quips aimed at provoking inflammatory responses. I know a lot of you would say "No shit, Sherlock!" But I'd hate to have to make a mistake and write off someone who could be reasoned with.
As for my absence from yBoards, I've forgotten my password and I can't create a new account as of yet. If there are some board members who would like to keep up with me, I have an account under the same name on the Internet Infidels Discussion Board. Send me a PM there, thanks.
