Retribution is defined as punishment as vengeance for a wrong. John in Atlanta thinks that in the darkness of three hours on the cross where Jesus eventually cried out My God My God why haveThou forsaken Me, that that had nothing to do with Christ being punished for sin? Sin has a penalty, the soul that sinneth shall die, sin has a payment that must be met, the wages of sin is death, but John thinks Christ didn’t pay the price for anyone’s sin. What kind is twisted theology is that?
ErikCasey wrote: There a just as many hypocrites baptized
you are saying because some people baptized were unbelievers, it is therefore makes it proper to baptize other unbelievers? You think that makes sense? You can guarantee the church thought it was wrong when they discovered the unconverted were baptized, because it is. "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." - II Timothy 3:5
s c wrote: Lurker...you know my motives? Heaven help you if you're wrong. For a Christian that's a very bold statement to make without really knowing. I had left this item after Dolores started posting again about her good works/life. I happened to see that Dorcas had left a post and so decided to see how "s c" was still being a troublemaker even after being off the forum. All I can say is that if Lurker can misjudge my motives based on a simple "boo hoo" in response to someone who likes drama and incorrectly accuses people who disagree with her to deem them as bullies...I think that the real bully remains unchallenged. I'm a little surprised,though I shouldn't be,how one ecumenical lover can wield so much influence over others on a Christian news site. ...sign of the times
Did the same person say
Lurker...you know my motives? Heaven help you if you are wrong.
and
Please examine your motives and maybe your eyes before posting in error
A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways
Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised is wisdom.
inherited genes wrote: ... The point is you cannot believe man's sinner dominated science.
There is another kind? How is what you quoted more reliable, doesn't it fit the same definition of what you just said could not be trusted? But you throw this study (and others) and know that your belief that this is junk science is scientifically accurate because? Why is important to discredit this? Me agree much junk science out there, just not sure why you insist this is. Are you a cardiologist?