• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

This is how handsome the Yaya @True Believer (self-proclaimed high SES ACS boy) looks like

Should we center the discussion around the moniker "True Believer"?
We can focus the discussion on the moniker @True Believer, but whether he is truly a believer must be judged strictly by the standards of Christian theology. An appeal to authority outside that framework is illegitimate, just as one cannot wield the Imperial Sword of Authority granted by the Emperor of Ming Dynasty to execute an official of the Qing Dynasty. :rolleyes:
 
@duluxe is so obsessed with @True Believer that he cannot sleep or do anything else unless he gets my attention. That is why he begs for it day and night to the extent of creating clones to beg for a response.
 
@duluxe is so obsessed with @True Believer that he cannot sleep or do anything else unless he gets my attention. That is why he begs for it day and night to the extent of creating clones to beg for a response.
U are just a excuse brain sheep…only your Jiuhu parent benefit greatly from the white..

Dun over “self importantize” yourself
 
U are just a excuse brain sheep…only your Jiuhu parent benefit greatly from the white..

Dun over “self importantize” yourself
I told him many times, he has many critics here. But, he stubbornly believes just 1 or 2 only.
 


Whether any particular individual is, in fact, a true believer is not something that can be established with certainty on the basis of empirical evidence. It concerns the inward reality of faith rather than something that can be conclusively demonstrated from outward conduct alone. Consequently, a single act of sin, however serious, does not logically establish that a person's faith was never genuine.

master, are you veering me towards theological discussion?

He self-professed to be a True Believer and this is not the same as some third-party trying to establish him as one. You are barking up the wrong tree again.

From external, his wife was seeing a pair of loving eyes during sex => The outward conduct.
Within the internal, the True Believer was fantasizing another woman without showing any trace of lust in his eyes =>The inward reality inside his mind.

You are defending his faith towards his wife is genuine on the ground that a single act of sin does not alter it. Are you sure there are no multiple occurrences of the same act of sin? :wink:
 
Back
Top