Liste des Groupes | Revenir à a drwho |
In article <7rCqO.32095$Wam7.27426@fx01.ams4>, Hornplayer9599Usually because we've got NO FUCKING IDEA what the context is ....
<Hornplayer9599@aol.com> wrote:On 7/31/2024 03:39, Daniel70 wrote:Or you just care not to read in context.Blueshirt wrote on 30/07/2024 11:48 pm:And when someone *does* read the entire chapter, and points outThe Doctor wrote:OR HE POSTS THE ENTIRE CHAPTER (rather than just the fewIn article <xn0oowfnmh1im5w002@post.eweka.nl>, BlueshirtNo Dave, we all know more about the bible than you do... as
<blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:Dave was repeatedly asked by people here to provide a chapter/verse to back-up one of his infamous biblicalOr so you beleive.
claims a couple of months ago. We are still waiting for the
relevant reference point. That man hasn't a clue about the
bible.
I know more about his bible than he does and I'm a Atheist!
you fail time and time again to back up any of your wild
claims about what is actually in the bible when requested to do
so. You only parrot what you have been told by a bible-bashing
pastor. You are a child in a man's body.
relavent verses) SO NOBODY CAN BE BOTHERED TRYING TO WORK OUT
what he's on about!!
that it doesn't say what Gobble-de-Gook claims, he then throws a
completely different, and irrelevant, book as a deflection and
distraction.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.