>>Actually, when you say that there’s something in an article and it turns out not to be true but you continue to claim it, then it WOULD be your job to prove your point.<<
Here are my posts to you.
• Friday, February 25, 2011 8:35:53 PM • 50 of 80
CynicalBear to what’s up
>>The original city (Damascus) is still destroyed.<<
Show me from scripture where. Remember that it had to remain a place where sheep grazed.
• Friday, February 25, 2011 9:03:47 PM • 52 of 80
CynicalBear to what’s up
Just go read the site that was posted in 33. You’re going to lose that argument with most people.
• Friday, February 25, 2011 9:28:55 PM • 59 of 80
CynicalBear to what’s up
Maybe scanning has been your problem? Don’t be angry with me if I don’t put a lot of stock in the opinion of someone who only scans.
• Friday, February 25, 2011 9:50:35 PM • 66 of 80
CynicalBear to what’s up
Nah, I find that once someone has made up there mind it’s pretty much made up.
• Friday, February 25, 2011 10:56:05 PM • 78 of 80
CynicalBear to what’s up; circlecity; GiovannaNicoletta
>>and I’m waiting for you to prove your point.<<
That’s not my job. You see, when it comes to God talking to people, His Holy Spirit is the one that speaks to the heart. I could never do that. I find that when I try to convince someone of something I get in God’s way. When God has someone in a place I’m not going to take that person out of it. I’m supposed to just introduce the concept. Just ask Him to point you in the right path and He will always take you where you need to be. He knows better where you need to be. I’d just get in His way.
Now, would you please tell me in which one of those I said “there’s something in an article” that turned out not to be true? It’s becoming obvious to me that your excuse of “scanning” is really covering a problem with either reading or reading comprehension.
Your implication was that the article would address my "argument".
When I pointed out that I didn't see my argument addressed you implied that it was an issue of "scanning" rather than posting the actual information from the article which would address my argument, even though you had ample opportunity to do so.
Disingenuous to say the least.