Search

Search in sorted by
  • Re: How did David slay Goliath

    [quote user="Jeremy Einfeld"] [quote user="Paul Oertly"]Is it coincidence that the only posts removed reflect one side of the "issue"? Even when other provocative posts are called to your attention?[/quote] Yes, it is a coincidence. [/quote] Who could doubt you? After all, You do have a Cross under your picture.
    Posted to General by Paul Oertly on Thu, Jan 17 2013
  • Re: New Interpreter's Bible treatment of Psalm 44

    [quote user="MJ. Smith"] And regulars on the forums know that their crossing outside forum guidelines will not lead to a flare up in the forum.[/quote]I will revert to observing. I hope the regulars enjoy chatting with one another. God Bless
    Posted to General by Paul Oertly on Thu, Jan 12 2012
  • Re: New Interpreter's Bible treatment of Psalm 44

    [quote user="Super Tramp"] Let the readers decide[/quote]agreed
    Posted to General by Paul Oertly on Wed, Jan 11 2012
  • Re: New Interpreter's Bible treatment of Psalm 44

    [quote user="David Paul"]Paul...were you invited to correct MJ?[/quote]MJ and I were having a conversation, Until you Butted In . Are you sure you even know what we are discussing? MJ is quite capable of speaking for herself. She has shown no indication that she is offended. If/when she does, I will apologize/answer to her... Not you. Have a good day
    Posted to General by Paul Oertly on Wed, Jan 11 2012
  • Re: New Interpreter's Bible treatment of Psalm 44

    [quote user="MJ. Smith"]So, yes, the way I try to guide behavior into the forum guideline is different for different people[/quote]So, I ask again...Do you you not see that a casual observer ( without benefit of what you just told us) might construe Your actions as unfair/preferential treatment? I refuse to ignore the elephant in the room. Before an
    Posted to General by Paul Oertly on Wed, Jan 11 2012
  • Re: New Interpreter's Bible treatment of Psalm 44

    [quote user="Dan DeVilder"]MJ gives a lot of help on these forums. I appreciate her for that.[/quote]Dan; Thanks for your attempt at peacemaking. However, you seem to misunderstand the situation. My issue was not with MJ. We were just having a calm discussion about an issue I had with another individual. She said she didn't understand the issue. I suggested
    Posted to General by Paul Oertly on Wed, Jan 11 2012
  • Re: New Interpreter's Bible treatment of Psalm 44

    [quote user="TCBlack"]we were guilty of fanning flames and determined to try not to continue doing that. We (all) are only moderately successful in the ongoing attempt.[/quote]Thomas; My issue is certainly not with you. You are not even on my list of heavy handed, dictatorial, hypocritical individuals who are wolves in sheep's clothing. They fan the
    Posted to General by Paul Oertly on Wed, Jan 11 2012
  • Re: New Interpreter's Bible treatment of Psalm 44

    MJ You are getting faster at deleting your posts...But I saw both of them. Can you see how making allowances for extenuating circumstances can be misinterpreted by common folk? How can you know that David Paul, nor I do not have extenuating circumstances of our own? In the future, If I want to ignore the rules, Can I play the extenuating circumstances
    Posted to General by Paul Oertly on Wed, Jan 11 2012
  • Re: New Interpreter's Bible treatment of Psalm 44

    [quote user="Dan DeVilder"]Paul, MJ, Super Tramp: hey, why don't you all go out to the park and play.[/quote]It would be my luck that we would all end up at the same park.
    Posted to General by Paul Oertly on Wed, Jan 11 2012
  • Re: New Interpreter's Bible treatment of Psalm 44

    (in reply to MJ's post which she deleted) If you read what I wrote above, I think you could identify the issue....An individual who reprimands others for discussions/debates/arguable assertions, then cheerfully discusses, debates, and asserts. You called David Paul on the same issues. Why shouldn't S.T. be challenged?[quote user="MJ. Smith"]"We" refers
    Posted to General by Paul Oertly on Wed, Jan 11 2012
  • Re: New Interpreter's Bible treatment of Psalm 44

    [quote user="MJ. Smith"] [quote user="Paul Oertly"]there is no consensus among the referees[/quote] As I say frequently, I can only take responsibility for my own actions. [/quote]Then, who is this We you speak of?[quote user="MJ. Smith"] We reached an agreement that when others recommended or suggested a resource we would not speak unless we supported
    Posted to General by Paul Oertly on Wed, Jan 11 2012
  • Re: New Interpreter's Bible treatment of Psalm 44

    [quote user="Super Tramp"] [quote user="Paul Oertly"]That's the whole point There is no consensus among the referees[/quote] We are not here to form a consensus. [/quote] When a group of individuals is responsible for officiating a game...it is imperative that they all read from the same playbook, or pandemonium erupts. Oh wait ! That is what is happening
    Posted to General by Paul Oertly on Wed, Jan 11 2012
  • Re: New Interpreter's Bible treatment of Psalm 44

    [quote user="DMB"]But the theological discussion is interesting[/quote]Please don't get me wrong. I strongly encourage discussion. I am, However, offended when only Some discussions are allowed. And it seems the allowable discussions are the ones the MVP's choose to participate in. (until it is obvious they are losing the debate...then they invoke the
    Posted to General by Paul Oertly on Wed, Jan 11 2012
  • Re: New Interpreter's Bible treatment of Psalm 44

    [quote user="Super Tramp"]Funny, I missed the part where someone promoted a theological view.[/quote] That's the whole point There is no consensus among the referees.[quote user="MJ. Smith"] We reached an agreement that when others recommended or suggested a resource we would not speak unless we supported the resource. I know this is an unwritten rule
    Posted to General by Paul Oertly on Wed, Jan 11 2012
  • Re: New Interpreter's Bible treatment of Psalm 44

    [quote user="Mitchell Ebbott"]I think this comment keeps in line with discussion of the resource, not discussion of the theological topic.[/quote]Is there more than one conclusion that can be reached when reading the passage? If so,Stating one view is an arguable assertion.[quote user="MJ. Smith"] Please refrain from arguable (theological) assertions
    Posted to General by Paul Oertly on Wed, Jan 11 2012
  • Re: New Interpreter's Bible treatment of Psalm 44

    Are we playing good cop, bad cop today?[quote user="MJ. Smith"] Please refrain from arguable (theological) assertions.[/quote][quote user="Super Tramp"]There is a danger here to blame all "evil" (sorrow & suffering & decay) on sin. John 9:2-3 supports both your assertion and mine. Our perception of suffering makes us demand an answer from a higher power
    Posted to General by Paul Oertly on Wed, Jan 11 2012
  • Re: Catholic Users

    [quote user="Peter Cellini"]Hey, who removed those truthful quotes from this thread about the Papacy as anti-christ?[/quote]Do you mean these citations? John Huss John Huss was a student of John Wycliff, who translated the Bible into English in 1382. Wycliff advocated the right of the common man to read the Bible in his own language. Both Wycliff and
    Posted to General by Paul Oertly on Fri, Jan 6 2012
  • Re: baptism

    [quote user="MJ. Smith"] I am sorry that you misconstrued my intent [/quote]I'm glad you have determined where the responsibility lies.
    Posted to General by Paul Oertly on Wed, Jan 4 2012
  • Re: baptism

    [quote user="Richard DeRuiter"]Perhaps you think MJ selected her facts with some sort of hidden agenda in mind. If so, let's talk about that.[/quote] OK, I will make one more stab at explaining that aspect of it. I would not go so far as to call it a hidden agenda. But she supplied citations that did nothing to answer the OP's question.[quote user=
    Posted to General by Paul Oertly on Wed, Jan 4 2012
  • Re: baptism

    [quote user="Richard DeRuiter"]What I don't see is why citing the conciliar action in the context of answering a historical question is somehow an endorsement or promotion of that council's action.[/quote]If it were not still in effect, I could see your argument. It would be just another outdated doctrine. But that's not the case. It is alive and well
    Posted to General by Paul Oertly on Wed, Jan 4 2012
Page 1 of 3 (59 items) 1 2 3 Next > |