Shilohsfoal Posted January 4 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 153 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 5,881 Content Per Day: 2.47 Reputation: 330 Days Won: 1 Joined: 10/22/2017 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 4 2 minutes ago, douggg said: No, half of the Jews in Jersualem are taken as hostages and held just outside of the city of Jesusalem. They escape danger just like the forefathers did under Uzziah's rule. God keeps his promise. Deuteronomy 28 25 The Lord shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies: thou shalt go out one way against them, and flee seven ways before them: and shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shilohsfoal Posted January 4 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 153 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 5,881 Content Per Day: 2.47 Reputation: 330 Days Won: 1 Joined: 10/22/2017 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 4 4 minutes ago, douggg said: No, half of the Jews in Jersualem are taken as hostages and held just outside of the city of Jesusalem. They escape danger just like the forefathers did under Uzziah's rule. God keeps his word. Revelation 13:10 “He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tristen Posted January 4 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 9 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,367 Content Per Day: 0.63 Reputation: 1,340 Days Won: 1 Joined: 01/26/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted January 4 36 minutes ago, Shilohsfoal said: If your not here to address the topic then you are only here to argue There is no point addressing the topic when one of the participants is determined to engage disingenuously. I have therefore addressed the manner in which you argue - which is a necessary first step - and therefore a perfectly valid point of discussion. If you insist you have the right to break the conventions of respectful discussion, then nothing can be achieved by addressing the topic. The conversation is a waste of time. 39 minutes ago, Shilohsfoal said: Its sad when you have nothing to add to the subject and only follow people around to argue with them.You have proven what kind of person you are. Time to stop stalking . It's more "sad" (i.e. pathetic) that you have to resort yet again to personal insinuations about me. Perhaps you would be less "sad" if you could learn to argue rationally - and thereby not give opponents an opportunity to challenge the manner of your arguments rather than their content. 47 minutes ago, Shilohsfoal said: You've exposed yourself. My intention to address the manner of your arguments has been self-evident throughout our discourse. Therefore, nothing has been "exposed" that wasn't already obvious to anyone reading my posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shilohsfoal Posted January 4 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 153 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 5,881 Content Per Day: 2.47 Reputation: 330 Days Won: 1 Joined: 10/22/2017 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 4 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Tristen said: There is no point addressing the topic when one of the participants is determined to engage disingenuously. I have therefore addressed the manner in which you argue - which is a necessary first step - and therefore a perfectly valid point of discussion. If you insist you have the right to break the conventions of respectful discussion, then nothing can be achieved by addressing the topic. The conversation is a waste of time. It's more "sad" (i.e. pathetic) that you have to resort yet again to personal insinuations about me. Perhaps you would be less "sad" if you could learn to argue rationally - and thereby not give opponents an opportunity to challenge the manner of your arguments rather than their content. My intention to address the manner of your arguments has been self-evident throughout our discourse. Therefore, nothing has been "exposed" that wasn't already obvious to anyone reading my posts. Your not here to discuss the topic.You here to flame.That is your only purpose. You've been exposed flamer.Stalk elsewhere. Edited January 4 by Shilohsfoal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tristen Posted January 4 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 9 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,367 Content Per Day: 0.63 Reputation: 1,340 Days Won: 1 Joined: 01/26/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted January 4 10 hours ago, Shilohsfoal said: Your not here to discuss the topic.You here to flame.That is your only purpose. You've been exposed flamer.Stalk elsewhere. I haven't heard the term used like this before, but I imagine from the context that flaming is something akin to trolling? That means, once again, you have decided to ignore what I said in favor of repeating a debunked claim. Like I said before, every single post you have addressed to me has incorporated some measure of dishonesty or mischaracterization. It is seemingly not in your capacity to consider the possibility that someone who challenges you might have a valid point - worthy of consideration. Rather, if they disagree with you, you default to assuming there must be something wrong with them - they must be deceived, or deceiving, or argumentative, or stalking, or flaming etc. And whilst you don't get to tell people when they can engage on this forum, I have come to the same conclusion that further discourse with you would be unfruitful. So thanks for the chat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shilohsfoal Posted January 5 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 153 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 5,881 Content Per Day: 2.47 Reputation: 330 Days Won: 1 Joined: 10/22/2017 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 5 1 hour ago, Tristen said: I haven't heard the term used like this before, but I imagine from the context that flaming is something akin to trolling? That means, once again, you have decided to ignore what I said in favor of repeating a debunked claim. Like I said before, every single post you have addressed to me has incorporated some measure of dishonesty or mischaracterization. It is seemingly not in your capacity to consider the possibility that someone who challenges you might have a valid point - worthy of consideration. Rather, if they disagree with you, you default to assuming there must be something wrong with them - they must be deceived, or deceiving, or argumentative, or stalking, or flaming etc. And whilst you don't get to tell people when they can engage on this forum, I have come to the same conclusion that further discourse with you would be unfruitful. So thanks for the chat. You have already proven what you are here for. goad verb gerund or present participle: goading 1. provoke or annoy (someone) so as to stimulate some action or reaction. "he goaded her on to more daring revelations" 2. drive or urge (an animal) on with a goad. "the cowboys goaded their cattle across the meadows" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tristen Posted January 5 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 9 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,367 Content Per Day: 0.63 Reputation: 1,340 Days Won: 1 Joined: 01/26/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted January 5 22 hours ago, Shilohsfoal said: You have already proven what you are here for. goad verb gerund or present participle: goading 1. provoke or annoy (someone) so as to stimulate some action or reaction. "he goaded her on to more daring revelations" 2. drive or urge (an animal) on with a goad. "the cowboys goaded their cattle across the meadows" Lol. If only the logic improved as the font size increased. https://p3n9m3v6.stackpathcdn.com/uploads/emoticons/default_smile.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts