Archivedbad theology of Dr Ross.twohumble wrote:Aineo wrote:twohumble wrote:By the way, I could do as you have, and regurgitate the same ole stuff on the other side of the fence against what you have said....but I gave you a link to a very well done paper and you said you "skimmed it" and you have "no use for" that stuff....so why should I assume that when I post the information you will read it any better than you did the last bit I gave you.....In fact, when I went through, in fine detail your first post, you have yet to refute a single point I made....now chill
But I will ask you the same question tuppence has asked. You have not bothered to respond to my 2nd post on this thread.
If your only agenda is to defend the day/age theory then this thread does not belong here.
No Aineo, I have not responded, because, as I have said, I was directly asking you to defend your claim of "word of faith" doctrines by Ross. You then post a long discussion on day/age issues or tangential subjects, which is, as you have noted, NOT what this thread is about, and why I did not respond.
My very first post to this thread you started was to correct your terminology from "bad theology" to "suspect". The 9th post to the thread is the 2nd post I made were you can find what I stated about researching the years 1991-2001. BTW, this is how your opening post to this thread reads. You did not even bring up "word of faith". twohumble wrote:Accusations of bad Theology:
Aineo has accused a Christian brother of poor theology, to the point where he likened him to a heresy filled cult.
He has asked that I start a thread here so that he can explain his comments. I await his response.
| View Parent Message View dfilename Return Home |