you made a little cute snide remark acknowledging that I wrote "tons" but necessarily addressing the points. well again, I have to say that just because you or others may not LIKE the answers that does not mean that the questions you or others raised were not "addressed".
in fact, you actually did have a good question or two. like about do all things that humans "conjure" up have to be bad, and are all 'emotions' bad, even with sinners and Adamites, and whatever.
I had no problem with you asking that stuff. at that point it was still cordial between us (though I did notice even then a little snideness on your part, but not really a big deal)
the point though is THAT I ANSWERED YOUR POINTS AND QUESTIONS with Scripture and history and logic and whatever, though you didn't necessarily agree with the answers.
"heart is treacherous and desperate." and a whole bunch of other things. not agreeing with the answers is NOT the same as "not addressing it" per se.
you mentioned "judge no man" recently. even AlmostAtheist would agree that I ADDRESSED IT AND ANSWERED IT AND WAS EVEN RIGHT ABOUT IT !!!!!!!
when you or other characters came at me with weak "well pagans ate fruit too, and urinated, and took baths, and drank water" I ANSWERED AND ADDRESSED THAT NONSENSE. tell me, you brat, how I did not address it?? I said that servants of God also ate, drank, bathed, and urinated, but they never celebrated birthdays in the Bible. EVEN ALMOSTATHEIST AGREES WITH ME THAT I ADDRESSED THOSE PARTICULAR THINGS AND EVEN ADMITS THAT IN THOSE CASES I WAS RIGHT !!!!
so to you and others, who think that I've "dodged" (which is so retarded and insane, given all that I've addressed) that simply shows warped bias and dishonesty.
human nature.
even the Calvinist stuff. did I necessarly address EVERY SINGLE LINE by others. no. but I addresed the bulk. just because they didn't agree with answers (like to the Romans 9 references) does not mean I, duh, "dodged" or "didn't address it" overall.
I mean, like I said, Little Toe Ross or whatever your name happens to be. you actually disagree with AlmostAtheist on certain things. and he's actually more in your camp as far as BD celebrations. in other words, you're being totally irrational and unreasonable on things. it's like "if sweetscholar writes it, I'll summarily dismiss it as not to be agreed with." listen, Einstein, AlmostAtheist does not do that with me, for the most part. he agreed with me on the "pagans ate fruit" lame argument and the Colossians 2 "Jewish feasts, let no man judge" matter. he's cooler (a little too much stretching with eye paint, though he has a point) and more reasonable.
but it's like whatever. this is an ex-JW anti-JW apostate pagan site. so it's like DEFD said, what can you expect?
but LittleToes, try to be more honest about the matter. not with this "don't confuse me with the facts. my mind is already made up against most of what JWs say". and I can almost see Almost's eyes bulging right now, cuz he's thinking that that's somewhat done too, about the BD and eye paint thing.
if me or the WT or whatever found hard conclusive proof that "eye paint" originally definitively expressly invented ORIGINALLY for the sole purpose (notice my wording) originally to "ward off spirits" or whatever, then yeah, I would prohibit it, in that sense. but there's nothing to really indicate (besides kooky "evil eye" websites that like to make weird inferences) that "eye makeup" was ORIGINALLY AND ONLY INVENTED for anything other than beauty enhancement.
ciao