My position - supported by Aquinas - is that it is false to state that unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment. It couldn't be any clearer.

Hmmm. Is that the same Aquinas who said this? "Men are bound to that without which they cannot obtain salvation. Now it is manifest that no one can obtain salvation but through Christ; wherefore the Apostle says (Rom. 5:18): "As by the offense of one unto all men unto condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men unto justification of life." But for this end is Baptism conferred on a man, that being regenerated thereby, he may be incorporated in Christ, by becoming His member: wherefore it is written (Gal. 3:27): "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ." Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be baptized: and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men."

I don't agree with his comment about baptism, but that statement sure affirms that salvation only comes through Christ. But bear in mind that this whole discussion started when I said, "Christ is the sole source of salvation." You claimed that, "This claim has been rejected by mainstream Christianity beginning with the Catholic Church in the 12th century." Well, Aquinas (13th century) plainly does not support that position. Neither did citing the 1959 Vatican 2.

But your position, to be clear, is that unbelievers do not go to hell? Can we deduce from your position that belief is basically unnecessary?

What is hell? And what does everlasting mean?

Matthew 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Matthew 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

You and the dufus on the southern border. Should you be taking heed?

I'd still like to know if you have a shepherd.

Matthew 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
I wasn't looking for a canned answer.

I wasn't looking for a canned answer.

Sorry that the words of Jesus are, to you, a "canned answer". Wow. What a reply.

Sorry that the words of Jesus are, to you, a "canned answer". Wow. What a reply.
I was hoping for YOUR take on what is hell and everlasting. I own at least six Bibles in English and several auf Deutsch.

I gave you what Jesus said. I can't do any better than that. His words are good enough for me.

I gave you what Jesus said. I can't do any better than that. His words are good enough for me.
Hell: WHO goes there? WHAT is it? WHEN do they go there? WHY do they go there?

Is everlasting the same as forever and without end?

And yeah, what about this part as pertains to our southern border: 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

I said, "Christ is the sole source of salvation." You claimed that, "This claim has been rejected by mainstream Christianity beginning with the Catholic Church in the 12th century." Well, Aquinas plainly does not support that position

Aquinas wrote volumes (Summa Theologicae) and it is necessary to consider his mature writings. Your quote is an earlier Aquinas superceded by his belief as I have provided. I stand by his belief that, through no fault of their own, and by "seeking the good and avoiding evil", God would provide for these souls. It is a modern viewpoint and one of the reasons Thomas is still so read almost a thousand years later.


Neither did citing the 1959 Vatican 2.

You have the wrong year for the Council. It was 1962-1965, not 1959. But that's beside the point.

From Vatican II - Those who do not know Christ, but seek to do good, according to the dictates of their conscience
"those too may achieve eternal salvation" - could it be any clearer?
and,
"...in a manner known only to God, every man is offered the possibility of [salvation]".

You have stated your dislike for the Catholic Church as most fundamentalists do, but don't let that lead you to misrepresenting what is very clear about that Church. Doesn't help your case.


But your position, to be clear, is that unbelievers do not go to hell?

Not exactly. Unbelievers, because they are unbelievers, do not go to hell for that reason. I believe your position is that unbelievers DO go to hell for their unbelief.


Can we deduce from your position that belief is basically unnecessary?

I believe, in a manner known only to God, that he provides for all souls who seek the good, avoid evil, and act according to the dictates of their conscience.

I deduce from your position that you do NOT believe that. Am I correct?

His statement in the quote I provided is clear and unequivocal. In your quote, the key component is here: "for it belongs to Divine Providence to provide everyone with what is necessary for his salvation, provided that he on his part place no obstruction in the way."

And what is necessary for salvation? The name of Jesus.

This is the remainder of your Aquinas quote, part of which you left out. " For if anyone thus bought up were to follow the guidance of natural reason in seeking good and shunning evil, it must be held most certainly that God would reveal to him even by an internal inspiration those things which are necessary to be believed, or would direct some preacher of the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius. (Acts 10)."

That addition makes a lot of difference. Those "seeking good and shunning evil" do not have what they need until "God would reveal to him..those things which are necessary to be believed." And so there is that word. BELIEF. So it would certainly seem that unbelief would be fatal to that arrangement. Note also of God sending "some preacher of the Faith.." Now it is no accident that "the Faith" is capitalized and preceded by the definite article "the". He is not referring to any faith, but to the faith of the gospel, and that being a very particular faith. So there you have faith and belief in your statement. How does that demonstrate that unbelievers are in no danger of hell?

Now as to your question, "I deduce from your position that you do NOT believe that. Am I correct?" I can certainly agree with Aquinas's position as stated above, that God will reveal to those people what is needed for salvation, just as He has done in the stories coming from the Middle East (internal inspiration). It all fits quite well into the description of Aquinas.



Not exactly. Unbelievers, because they are unbelievers, do not go to hell for that reason. I believe your position is that unbelievers DO go to hell for their unbelief.

So why do people go to hell?

BTW, I do not believe people go to hell because of unbelief.

It is quite nice to be engaged in a well reasoned, non-vitriolic discussion.

Hell: WHO goes there? WHAT is it? WHEN do they go there? WHY do they go there?

Is everlasting the same as forever and without end?

I gave you what Jesus said. I can't do any better than that.


And yeah, what about this part as pertains to our southern border: 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

That's a legit point. Last time I checked, we are feeding those people, clothing those people, and giving them med care and a safe place to stay temporarily. They are as invited in as anyone else, but there is a legal process for them to follow.

But I will warn you ahead of time. We have talked that to death already, so I will not go there in this thread. Let's stay on the current discussion.

A good question for you is this: Do you believe what Jesus said?

A good question for you is this: Do you believe what Jesus said?
What Jesus actually said or what you say Jesus said?

What Jesus actually said or what you say Jesus said?

You asked me for my opinion and I instead gave you the Matthew 25 passage, so I don't know where you get the "what you say Jesus said" comment from. I simply gave you the passage from Matthew 25, so you can feel free to comment on His words.

You asked me for my opinion and I instead gave you the Matthew 25 passage, so I don't know where you get the "what you say Jesus said" comment from. I simply gave you the passage from Matthew 25, so you can feel free to comment on His words.
From what version?

Matthew 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Matthew 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Why do you continue to hit me with this and wonder what I believe? I'm a preacher's kid, for years a Lutheran grade school teacher, a Sunday school teacher, and an adult Bible class teacher, a psychotherapist who is always ready to bring into the discussion Jesus' two greatest commandments. Enough already!

Why do you continue to hit me with this and wonder what I believe? I'm a preacher's kid, for years a Lutheran grade school teacher, a Sunday school teacher, and an adult Bible class teacher, a psychotherapist who is always ready to bring into the discussion Jesus' two greatest commandments.

OK with me. I thought the question was legitimate enough. Maybe not.

Was Matthew quoting Christ first hand or second hand? I'm no scholar, just want clarification.

Was Matthew quoting Christ first hand or second hand? I'm no scholar, just want clarification.

I have no claim to being a scholar either, but I would think that being a disciple, he would have been a first hand witness.

Was Matthew quoting Christ first hand or second hand? I'm no scholar, just want clarification.

Jl's reply was a little misleading. He may not be aware of some facts about the Gospel of Matthew.

The work is attributed to Matthew but there's no evidence he actually wrote it. It was customary to identify a work as being written by a disciple.

The earliest compete manuscript of Matthew is from the 3rd century - several generations after the events described and time enough to edit/modify the work to conform to the then current ideas about Christ. There are small fragments of Matthew earlier than the 3rd century.

His statement in the quote I provided is clear and unequivocal. In your quote, the key component is here: "for it belongs to Divine Providence to provide everyone with what is necessary for his salvation, provided that he on his part place no obstruction in the way."

Augustine/Plato starts off the Middle Ages and Aquinas/Aristotle is the culmination. Aquinas wrote tons of words and I stand by my interpretation of what he wrote. Like the Bible, there is so much there that the tendency to cherry-pick is never far away. For that reason, I suggest we drop Aquinas as getting too far from the topic at hand.


just as He has done in the stories coming from the Middle East (internal inspiration).

If you're referring to your claim of visions of Jesus leading Muslims to convert to Christianity, and your "documentation" is a self-made video on Youtube, and the video claims a Muslim had a DREAM that you think is a VISION of Jesus, it's hard to describe just how utterly absurd your claim of a vision is. It's SO ridiculous I will give you the opportunity to withdraw the claim.


So why do people go to hell?

I don't know but it sure ain't because they never heard of Jesus.


BTW, I do not believe people go to hell because of unbelief.

That's what you've been saying all along. Do you wish to change your position or restate it?

What I don't get is we are willing to take one set of ancient words which are nothing more than opinion and suggest this is more authorative than the Bible.

I don't know

Perhaps you should find out.


That's what you've been saying all along. Do you wish to change your position or restate it?

I have not said that. That's what you claim I have said. People perish because they have broken God's laws and are guilty before Him. It is by faith in the finished work of Christ that we are rescued from judgement and given free access to God. People are condemned for sin, but saved by faith.


Augustine/Plato starts off the Middle Ages and Aquinas/Aristotle is the culmination. Aquinas wrote tons of words and I stand by my interpretation of what he wrote. Like the Bible, there is so much there that the tendency to cherry-pick is never far away. For that reason, I suggest we drop Aquinas as getting too far from the topic at hand.

You are the one who brought up Aquinas. As to your quote, this is the question he was responding to, and it's interesting since it so clearly resembles one of the chief objections to the gospel to be heard even in our day. " Objection: It seems that it is not necessary to believe explicitly. For nothing should be accepted, from the acceptance of which something inappropriate would follow. But if we accept that it is necessary to salvation that something be believed explicitly, something inappropriate would follow. For someone might have been reared in the woods, or among wolves; and such a one cannot know explicitly anything of faith, so that thus there would be a man who would necessarily be damned-which is inappropriate; hence it does not seem to be necessary to believe in anything explicitly."

His reply is very clear. If a man seeks after God by doing that which is right, then God will reveal to him, either by internal revelation or the sending of a preacher, that which is necessary for belief, which is what he referred to as "the Faith". So I don't see how your conclusion was warranted, nor do I understand how a person can claim that belief in the gospel is unnecessary on the basis of that passage.

Aristotle lived 1500 years prior to Aquinas, so I'm not sure how the two of them concluded the middle ages. At any rate, I'm surprised you mention Plato. The earliest complete manuscript of the works of Plato is dated about 1300 years after his life. You think three centuries, which is true only if you insist on a complete manuscript, is extreme for Matthew. What do you do with 1300 years? Would it not be foolish to believe, by your standard, that we genuinely have the words of Plato after that much time went by?

The work is attributed to Matthew but there's no evidence he actually wrote it.

The early church fathers attributed the book to Matthew. Irenaeus, for instance, wrote that “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” Not only does that attribute the work to Matthew, but places the date of writing to earlier than 70 A.D. The evidence is actually quite substantial.

Fascinating stuff for sure given the avenues of communications ancient man did a heckuva a job moving from the local event to the global stage through history on the tails of trade and conquest, and just walking around to other humans. Reading, writing and telling a good story is still held in high esteem as such learned men often have a following and that's always been true across many tribes and civilizations. While it's truly believable that many have a spiritual experience or awakening that compels spiritual behavior in the forms of spiritual sharing it's often confused by the very human flaws of compulsion or in layman terms the basics of survival.

In this we have the steep competition for the hearts and minds of men to follow whatever line of thoughts builds the army they seek for that survival, and GROWTH, even within their own tribes as most of the major religions and minor ones have so many off shoots under the same banner that one could almost see them as different and separate competing religions.

Heck JL, all you have to do is go down the road a bit and find a different doctrine, custom, or tradition from the one you just left. Some are vastly different, some more nuanced, but it's all about God isn't it?

Heck JL, all you have to do is go down the road a bit and find a different doctrine, custom, or tradition from the one you just left. Some are vastly different, some more nuanced, but it's all about God isn't it?

You're asking me, so here's my answer. It's all about gods, but only one can be about God. Choose wisely. The essentials of the Christian faith are so wildly different from other religions that they cannot be reconciled.

You're asking me, so here's my answer. It's all about gods, but only one can be about God. Choose wisely. The essentials of the Christian faith are so wildly different from other religions that they cannot be reconciled.
Thus, the Muslim god or even the Mormon god is not the Christian god? What about the Southern Baptist god and the Lutheran god and the Catholic god?

I have not said that. That's what you claim I have said.

WHOA-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A!!!! Let me get this straight. In plain language --- you do NOT believe that unbeleivers go to hell for eternal punishment. Is that correct? Why did it take you so many months to finally say that? If, in fact, that is your position now, I congratulate you.


People perish because they have broken God's laws and are guilty before Him

No, whether people break God's laws or they don't, ALL people perish, even saints and holy people.


It is by faith in the finished work of Christ that we are rescued from judgement and given free access to God. People are condemned for sin, but saved by faith.

That is your religious belief, it is not the belief of many millions of other people.




The early church fathers attributed the book to Matthew. Irenaeus, for instance, wrote that “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” Not only does that attribute the work to Matthew, but places the date of writing to earlier than 70 A.D. The evidence is actually quite substantial.

That does not change the FACT that the earliest manuscript is from the 3rd century, time enough to edit/embellish the Gospel to be in tune with the understanding of Christ at that time.

WHOA-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A!!!! Let me get this straight. In plain language --- you do NOT believe that unbeleivers go to hell for eternal punishment. Is that correct? Why did it take you so many months to finally say that? If, in fact, that is your position now, I congratulate you.

You are getting confused. Saying unbelievers go to hell is not the same thing as saying that is WHY they go to hell. They do not go because of unbelief. They go because of breaking the laws of God. If you would take the time to read carefully, you would see that I stated that very thing above.

"People perish because they have broken God's laws and are guilty before Him..It is by faith in the finished work of Christ that we are rescued from judgement and given free access to God. People are condemned for sin, but saved by faith.


No, whether people break God's laws or they don't, ALL people perish, even saints and holy people.

That seems to be a very strange statement. Wouldn't even a casual reading of John 3:16 show you that? Perhaps you thought I meant "perish" as in "die"? I meant it to be used as it is in the John passage.



That is your religious belief, it is not the belief of many millions of other people."

It is the teaching of the Bible. I blundered across this in 2 Thessalonians this morning. "when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with [f]His mighty angels in flaming fire, 8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes to be glorified [g]in His [h]saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed—for our testimony to you was believed."



That does not change the FACT that the earliest manuscript is from the 3rd century, time enough to edit/embellish the Gospel to be in tune with the understanding of Christ at that time.

You changed the subject. I replied to this statement. "Jl's reply was a little misleading. He may not be aware of some facts about the Gospel of Matthew. The work is attributed to Matthew but there's no evidence he actually wrote it." That statement is not even close to being accurate.

As to the date of Matthew, the third century only applies if you are looking for complete manuscripts. Papayrus P104 is a small fragment of Matthew dated to the second century. And if you are going to apply your standard of reliability to all of ancient writings, then you can't depend on any of it. The textual evidence for the NT is fantastically greater than that of other ancient texts. Nothing else even comes close. The textual evidence for the accurate copying of the NT is also tremendous.

Wondergirl, if you don't want to answer questions, then don't you think you shouldn't ask them? That's really a strange approach.

Wondergirl, if you don't want to answer questions, then don't you think you shouldn't ask them? That's really a strange approach.
I HAVE answered!

This is what you call an answer???


Why do you continue to hit me with this and wonder what I believe? I'm a preacher's kid, for years a Lutheran grade school teacher, a Sunday school teacher, and an adult Bible class teacher, a psychotherapist who is always ready to bring into the discussion Jesus' two greatest commandments.

The question was what you believed about what Jesus said in Matthew 25. You have not answered.

This is what you call an answer???



The question was what you believed about what Jesus said in Matthew 25. You have not answered.
I figured you'd connect the dots.

I did. No answer. But you can just come out and explicitly answer it whenever you are ready. For that matter, even hinting at an answer would be a step forward.

I did. No answer.

wonderful now we can move on from switch and bait

I did. No answer. But you can just come out and explicitly answer it whenever you are ready. For that matter, even hinting at an answer would be a step forward.
I DID answer it!!!!!! I'm guessing you want to make sure all my i's are dotted and t's are crossed so I don't end up in that hellfire forever.

Btw, where's trump going to end up?

I DID answer it!!!!!! I'm guessing you want to make sure all my i's are dotted and t's are crossed so I don't end up in that hellfire forever.

Btw, where's trump going to end up?

Wow. I don't know what else to say but "wow". Incredible that you actually seem to believe that the reply below really contains an answer to the question of what you thought about the words of Christ in the Matthew 25 passage.

Why do you continue to hit me with this and wonder what I believe? I'm a preacher's kid, for years a Lutheran grade school teacher, a Sunday school teacher, and an adult Bible class teacher, a psychotherapist who is always ready to bring into the discussion Jesus' two greatest commandments.

You're asking me, so here's my answer. It's all about gods, but only one can be about God. Choose wisely. The essentials of the Christian faith are so wildly different from other religions that they cannot be reconciled.

I suspect there are fundies like you who don't want it reconciled. Of course I think it the case on all sides even though the majority have lived in peace and prosperity for centuries like good humans should despite their differences. I think that's what a loving God that I understand requires most and not the predilection for some humans to castigate the others over contrived BS! This is the essence of respect and dignity in my view and a foundation for peace between the tribes, so while I reject your premise for non reconciliation as to wild a difference, I must point out the commonality that binds us...our shared humanity.

Even the Catholics and Protestants have ceased hostilities so what was up with that bloody conflict amongst Christians? Hopefully in time you will evolve to that level of human enlightenment. Embrace the love and reject the hate as your God has clearly directed you. I fail to see what's so hard about that.

I echo WG's question of is the dufus going to hell for his sins or will we get justice for his crimes?

Even the Catholics and Protestants have ceased hostilities so what was up with that bloody conflict amongst Christians? Hopefully in time you will evolve to that level of human enlightenment. Embrace the love and reject the hate as your God has clearly directed you. I fail to see what's so hard about that.

You are confusing two different issues.


I echo WG's question of is the dufus going to hell for his sins or will we get justice for his crimes?

It always amuses me how so many people are convinced it's the other guy who should be judged.

Wow. I don't know what else to say but "wow". Incredible that you actually seem to believe that the reply below really contains an answer to the question of what you thought about the words of Christ in the Matthew 25 passage.
Who made you interpreter, chief inquisitor, judge, and jury? Doesn't that same Bible also say something about this sort of thing?

P.S. This isn't how to be a fisher of men (and women).

You are confusing two different issues.

HOW?


It always amuses me how so many people are convinced it's the other guy who should be judged.

Glad you're amused and so am I at you ducking and dodging not rocks, but questions. This whole thread was hijacked by your scripture quoting about who gets judged and how and now you seek to turn it around to us being the judge.

Drop the crap Slick, and answer the question why don't you? Where do YOU think the dufus is going, heaven or you know that other place with the fire for criminals, liars, cheats, adulterers, and unbelieving heathens.

HOW?

You are confusing the exclusivity of the Christian faith with being hateful. They are not the same.


Glad you're amused and so am I at you ducking and dodging not rocks, but questions. This whole thread was hijacked by your scripture quoting about who gets judged and how and now you seek to turn it around to us being the judge.

Drop the crap Slick, and answer the question why don't you? Where do YOU think the dufus is going, heaven or you know that other place with the fire for criminals, liars, cheats, adulterers, and unbelieving heathens.

Why is he guilty before God but you are not? The two of you are in exactly in the same boat.

You are confusing the exclusivity of the Christian faith with being hateful. They are not the same.



Why is he guilty before God but you are not? The two of you are in exactly in the same boat.

I can go with ALL humans in the same boat and overlook the reluctance to answer according to your scripture therefore effectively dodging the question, but that confusing the exclusivity of the Christian faith with being hateful is a bunch of malarkey. If you don't know say so, if you cannot explain, or express say so, but don't insult me with double talk!

PS

You are in the boat with us right?

You are confusing the exclusivity of the Christian faith with being hateful. They are not the same.
The Christian faith is exclusive? If one isn't Christian (hmmm, wonder what kind and how much), one is headed for everlasting hellfire?

Why is he guilty before God but you are not? The two of you are in exactly in the same boat.
We're talking about Trump, and no one else. His daily misbehavior is suspect.

I can go with ALL humans in the same boat and overlook the reluctance to answer according to your scripture therefore effectively dodging the question, but that confusing the exclusivity of the Christian faith with being hateful is a bunch of malarkey. If you don't know say so, if you cannot explain, or express say so, but don't insult me with double talk!

There is no insult intended. We are all guilty before God which makes the question about Trump silly. Only in Christ is there forgiveness. That's what makes the Christian faith exclusive. Jesus said that no one comes to the Father but through Him. That's as exclusive as you can get. Either that, or Jesus was completely mistaken.

So tell me, Tal. Are you guilty? If Trump is to face judgement, then aren't you as well? That's not asked in a finger pointing way. Just an exercise in thinking.

You are getting confused. Saying unbelievers go to hell is not the same thing as saying that is WHY they go to hell. They do not go because of unbelief. They go because of breaking the laws of God. If you would take the time to read carefully, you would see that I stated that very thing above.

I'm not a bit confused. For months you have been supporting "unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment". Then in your last post, you walked it back a bit by the sophistry of introducing "WHY' into the equation. Then you changed it all by now saying "They go because of breaking the laws of God". You charge me with not being to read carefully. Yet you NEVER said that before. Your ethics, or lack thereof, get worse and worse.

To the new charge: read my lips, unbelief is NOT breaking the laws of God. Is God just waiting up there to swoop that old Chinese lady working the rice paddy to die so he can immediately cast her into the fires of your hell? Good grief, man, use your head. God gave you a brain for discernment. Start discerning.


People perish because they have broken God's laws and are guilty before Him.

No they don't. People perish because of sickness, old age, accident and a myriad other ways. Didn't we already do this?


Perhaps you thought I meant "perish" as in "die"?

Yes, that is the accepted, normal, common meaning of the word in English. If it means eternal punishment in hell, I'm sure the proper words would have been used.


I blundered across this in 2 Thessalonians this morning. "when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with [f]His mighty angels in flaming fire, 8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes to be glorified [g]in His [h]saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed—for our testimony to you was believed."

Wow, this threat is a beauty. "Eternal destruction" - you sure get riled up when you get tied up in discussion. What would you guys do without threats? Probably gain a few more converts. But it's not really about converts, is it?


gospel according to Matthew but there's no evidence he actually wrote it." That statement is not even close to being accurate.

It's perfectly accurate. Check with your Bible scholar pals.


As to the date of Matthew, the third century only applies if you are looking for complete manuscripts. Papayrus P104 is a small fragment of Matthew dated to the second century.

That's precisely, almost word for word, what I said!


And if you are going to apply your standard of reliability to all of ancient writings

No, just to Matthew.


then you can't depend on any of it. The textual evidence for the NT is fantastically greater than that of other ancient texts. Nothing else even comes close. The textual evidence for the accurate copying of the NT is also tremendous.

I've heard this argument before. It's irrelevant - other ancient writings have nothing to do with the NT - and it usually emerges as a last attempt to salvage an argument re Biblical accuracy.

My disagreement is with JL's erstwhile belief that unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment. If he wishes to change "unbelievers" to breakers of God's law, I think he has a perfect right to do that and I would not dispute his belief.

There is no insult intended. We are all guilty before God which makes the question about Trump silly. Only in Christ is there forgiveness. That's what makes the Christian faith exclusive. Jesus said that no one comes to the Father but through Him. That's as exclusive as you can get. Either that, or Jesus was completely mistaken.

So tell me, Tal. Are you guilty? If Trump is to face judgement, then aren't you as well? That's not asked in a finger pointing way. Just an exercise in thinking.

I will let God handle his business the way he sees fit, I have no control over that, and I suggest you do the same. I'm comfortable letting MAN'S law deal with the dufus. It's amusing watching his sycophants twist themselves in knots defending him, as more is revealed daily, and tomorrow starts the public hearings for those that haven't been keeping up.

I don't question God, just the humans. They are flawed and can screw up anything and that's what I am guilty of, being a flawed human.

That's precisely, almost word for word, what I said!

Nope. You never mentioned the second century document. Not true.


It's perfectly accurate. Check with your Bible scholar pals.
I'll let you argue that one with Irenaeus. Is he enough of a scholar for you???


And if you are going to apply your standard of reliability to all of ancient writings
No, just to Matthew.

Intellectual lunacy.


then you can't depend on any of it. The textual evidence for the NT is fantastically greater than that of other ancient texts. Nothing else even comes close. The textual evidence for the accurate copying of the NT is also tremendous.
I've heard this argument before. It's irrelevant - other ancient writings have nothing to do with the NT - and it usually emerges as a last attempt to salvage an argument re Biblical accuracy.

It's irrelevant only to you. People who actually know what they are talking about value that argument highly and see the consistency in it. A person would have to be absolutely blind to question the NT over a 100 year gap and accept Plato despite a 1300 year gap. It would be sheer stupidity.


My disagreement is with JL's erstwhile belief that unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment. If he wishes to change "unbelievers" to breakers of God's law, I think he has a perfect right to do that and I would not dispute his belief.



It's all very simple. You are basically putting words in my mouth and then trying to hold me responsible for what you said. It's a paper thin strategy that an eighth grader can see through. Again, I have never said that unbelief sends people to hell. And the quote I gave that you went apoplectic about is from the Bible, so your argument is with the Bible, not with me. That has been the case for months. Now you have elected to reject the Bible. That's your choice. If the Bible is accurate, then you will someday live to bitterly regret that decision.

Just give it up, Athos. You were wrong about Aquinas. Somewhat right about the earliest manuscript of Matthew. Wrong about the authorship of Matthew. Wrong about my views on who goes to hell. Wrong about the significance of the NT time gap. Wrong about the use of "perish" in John 3:16. You have arguments that cannot be supported. Give it up.


I'm comfortable letting MAN'S law deal with the dufus.

Tal, you are the one who brought up the question about Trump going to hell, not me.

Tal, you are the one who brought up the question about Trump going to hell, not me.

So what? You quoted your scripture and I expressed my opinion. I suppose you did your best. It is what it is.

So what? You quoted your scripture and I expressed my opinion. I suppose you did your best. It is what it is.

Fair enough. I'm ready to move on to something else anyway. This horse has been ridden to death.

Nope. You never mentioned the second century document. Not true.

I'll let you argue that one with Irenaeus. Is he enough of a scholar for you???

I said the small fragments were EARLIER than the 3rd century. I think Irenaeus is wrong. Why would Matthew, an eye witness, copy Mark's Gospel, an anonymous author?


Intellectual lunacy.

Now THERE'S a reasoned argument. A bit of projection, there.


It's irrelevant only to you...... It would be sheer stupidity.

Your failure in logic rears its ugly head - AGAIN! You really ought to think before you write.


You are basically putting words in my mouth

Are you now denying that "unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment"? That's fine with me, but why didn't you say that months ago instead of cherry-picking all those Bible verses is support of that proposition?


I have never said that unbelief sends people to hell.

YOU know that is exactly what you supported. I know it is. OTHERS here know it. Problem is, you can't get away from what is archived under your name. You should have thought of that.


your argument is with the Bible, not with me.

So you DO acknowledge the Bible verses supporting unbelievers go to hell. I think you're wrong. My argument is with YOU!


Now you have elected to reject the Bible.

There you go again. When in doubt, make up stuff. You dearly want me to reject the Bible, then you can send me to hell.


If the Bible is accurate, then you will someday live to bitterly regret that decision.

Ah, I was waiting for the threat. You are certainly consistent.


You have arguments that cannot be supported. Give it up.

And here I thought you might have changed. Now you're back to square one.

Are you now denying that "unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment"? That's fine with me, but why didn't you say that months ago instead of cherry-picking all those Bible verses is support of that proposition?

I can't explain it any better than I have done. I just don't know what to say. It's amazing. I could explain this to any competent sixth grader. There is a difference in saying "unbelievers will be judged" versus saying what they will be judged for. It is only slightly more complicated that saying 2+2=4. I suspect you are an intelligent person, so I can only assume you have determined NOT to understand such a simple concept.

As to the rest of your complaints, I can only say this. Your only position is that you don't like my position. You claimed Aquinas as your ally when he plainly said a person must believe in "the Faith", hardly supporting what I guess is your idea that unbelief is no big deal. You said there was no evidence for the authorship of Matthew. When I gave you Iraeneus (and there are others) you say, amazingly, that you don't agree with him. You can't seem to understand the meaning of "perish" as used in John 3:16 where it plainly cannot mean to die physically. You can't understand how ridiculous it is to not be able to understand why so many scholars believe a century gap in the NT manuscripts is so much less significant than the 1300 year gap for Plato's works. You are astonishingly unaware that most NT scholars believe that both Luke and Matthew used Mark as a source. You get irritated when I show you the 2 Thessalonians passage and act like I wrote it just to threaten you. You are evidently unaware that Matthew is extensively quoted in the second century and referred to as "scripture".

As to Irenaeus claiming Matthew copied Mark, which is plainly ridiculous since it would be the most obvious thing in the world to see, I don't know where that comes from. The passage I referred to is this. It says nothing to that effect, but perhaps you have another source. "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.3309 For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews3310 in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia."

I can't explain it any better than I have done. I just don't know what to say. It's amazing. I could explain this to any competent sixth grader. There is a difference in saying "unbelievers will be judged" versus saying what they will be judged for. It is only slightly more complicated that saying 2+2=4.

What IS amazing is this weird excursion into the recesses of your mind. I will leave it to others here to determine who is right and who is not telling the truth re your belief of unbelievers and hell.


Your only position is that you don't like my position.

Actually, that's true, except for the "only" part. I've spent months rebutting your position. I can do no more.


...Aquinas...authorship of Matthew....Iraeneus.........."perish".........century gap....NT manuscripts..........1300 year gap.....Plato......Luke and Matthew.............Mark as a source.....threaten you......... Matthew.......quoted second century........

Saving bandwidth, all your comments have previously been answered. Here's a sampling: "perish" means perish, you seem to think it means live forever in hell.

I'm not the only one to ever disagree with Irenaeus.

Almost every verse in Matthew is found in Mark which comes earlier. Etc. etc., etc. You even say yourself that "Most NT scholars believe Luke and Matthew used Mark as a source".


..................................... Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia."

Your lengthy copy of a Bible passage has nothing to do with unbelievers going to hell for eternal punishment.

Almost every verse in Matthew is found in Mark which comes earlier. Etc. etc., etc. You even say yourself that "Most NT scholars believe Luke and Matthew used Mark as a source".

First of all, Matthew is much longer than Mark, so "almost every verse" of Matthew could not possibly be found in Mark. Perhaps you meant it the other way around, but even then it would not be correct. Now much of Mark's content is in Matthew, but nothing approaching all of it. Much of Matthew's material is clearly original. And at any rate, the idea that Matthew used Mark as a source is strictly hypothetical.

Secondly, to say that Matthew used Mark as a source is far removed from saying he copied it. They are not even close to being the same thing. I have to believe you already know that.

Thirdly, if Matthew had simply copied Mark, then they would be identical. They are not in the ballpark of being identical. The same is true of Luke. It seems almost as if you have never read them. If you had, you would have known that instantly.


Your lengthy copy of a Bible passage has nothing to do with unbelievers going to hell for eternal punishment.

That was not a Bible passage. Did you really think it was? It was a quote from Irenaeus. I am still just astonished that you would think you would know more about the authorship of Matthew than he did. It would be like saying you know more about the European theater of WW 2 than Patton did.

Now I do agree with this. " I will leave it to others here to determine who is right and who is not telling the truth re your belief of unbelievers and hell." I have no doubt that others can tell the clear and obvious difference.

Perhaps the day will come when you will give us your position on eternity and judgement.

I don't understand you, Athos, but I do wish you well. I do sincerely pray the day will come when you will see the Truth.

And at any rate, the idea that Matthew used Mark as a source is strictly hypothetical.
And then there's Q.

Completely hypothetical with no direct evidence for it in existence, or at least not that I'm aware of. But even if it existed, and maybe it did, it would make no difference. It would simply have been a source. I'm not sure what the significance, if any, would be.

Perhaps the day will come when you will give us your position on eternity and judgement.

Why?

It is YOUR position that is in question here. Another attempt at deflection?


I don't understand you, Athos

Well, that's been obvious for a long time.


I do sincerely pray the day will come when you will see the Truth.

As I, you.

It is YOUR position that is in question here. Another attempt at deflection?


Remember Matthew 25? Now we have two areas where you are too fearful to take a stand.

I know. You're consulting scholars.

Jl responding to WG comment of "Q", German for Quelle, "source", which is thought to be the source from which Matthew and Mark were written.


But even if it existed, and maybe it did, it would make no difference. It would simply have been a source. I'm not sure what the significance, if any, would be.

The significance is that it's a strong indication Matthew is NOT the original author of the Gospel written in his name.

The significance is that it's a strong indication Matthew is NOT the original author of the Gospel written in his name.

Counting you, there is now one person on the earth who believes that. Your comment is completely ridiculous and shows you don't know the slightest thing about Q.

Now who's deflecting? Take a stand. Have some backbone.

Now we have two areas where you are too fearful to take a stand.

You didn't answer why.

Your tendency to avoid questions I pose - been going on since day one - does not help discover the truth.

Counting you, there is now one person on the earth who believes that. Your comment is completely ridiculous and shows you don't know the slightest thing about Q.

Of course, Luke was meant. Not Mark. Don't have a heart attack when you stumble across a typo. As far as your claim that Matthew and Mark are not alike, how do you explain of Mark's 661 verses, 660 are found in Matthew.


Now who's deflecting? Take a stand. Have some backbone.

You are the one doing the deflecting. I think you should calm down - you might rupture something.

Next you are going to tell us John was copied.

Next you are going to tell us John was copied.

Sure. As soon as you answer my question WHY.

Counting you, there is now one person on the earth who believes that. Your comment is completely ridiculous and shows you don't know the slightest thing about Q.
There are more than one who believe that. I took theology courses on M and Q and how the synoptic gospels came to be.

You are still too fearful to take a stand, Athos. Bear that in mind. Matthew 25 was weeks ago and still no answer.

As to Q, it is an attempt to explain the commonality of some parts of Matthew and Luke that are not common to Mark. Matthew has 1071 verses. 387 are in common with both Mark and Luke, 130 with Mark only, and 184 with Luke only. 387 verses are found only in Matthew. Much of Mark is in Matthew, but it is not copied verbatim and even a casual reading of the two books shows that. But even if it was, it would do nothing to show that Matthew was not the author of the Gospel bearing his name. To suggest that Q is thought to cast doubt on the authorship of Matthew is ludicrous. It does no such thing. And worse, there is not a shred of manuscript evidence for this Q document's existence anyway.

Irenaeus attributed Matthew to Matthew. Other early church leaders quoted freely from Matthew when it bore his name. Tatian, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, and Ignatius all treated the book as authentic. Your claim that there was "no evidence" to support the authorship of Matthew is just ridiculously false.


As far as your claim that Matthew and Mark are not alike, how do you explain of Mark's 661 verses, 660 are found in Matthew.

Simple. It's not true. 606 might be true, but not 660.


There are more than one who believe that.

Who? And I'd still like to know what you think about the words of Christ in Matthew 25. Hopefully you can provide something a little more substantial that this "answer".
Why do you continue to hit me with this and wonder what I believe? I'm a preacher's kid, for years a Lutheran grade school teacher, a Sunday school teacher, and an adult Bible class teacher, a psychotherapist who is always ready to bring into the discussion Jesus' two greatest commandments.

Sure. As soon as you answer my question WHY.

WHY what? or just plain WHAT?

GERMANS wrote parts of the BIBLE? Never heard that before.

GERMANS wrote parts of the BIBLE? Never heard that before.
You're kidding, right? Please reread what Athos wrote.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Vacuum7 https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?p=3844377#post3844377) GERMANS wrote parts of the BIBLE? Never heard that before.

You're kidding, right? Please reread what Athos wrote.

That's nothing. V7 also saw a video where Biden bragged about firing the prosecutor who was investigating his son. HEY, V7 says EVERYBODY saw the video and heard it! Somebody please call the WH. They could use that information.

That's nothing. V7 also saw a video where Biden bragged about firing the prosecutor who was investigating his son. HEY, V7 says EVERYBODY saw the video and heard it! Somebody please call the WH. They could use that information.


Look, if the President even speaks about someone firing a prosecutor it is grounds for impeachment, but of a would be candidate does it, who cares, Not the DNC, obviously

Quelle (SOURCE) in German: I took this to mean that the portion of the Bible being discussed was of German origin.

Biden is on video bragging about get the top Ukrainian Prosecutor fired: This is the same prosecutor who was investigating the firm that Biden's son worked for: When a "firm" is investigated, ALL of its management is INVESTIGATED under the umbrella of the investigation. This prosecutor is on record saying that he intended to investigate Hunter Biden. IN EFFECT, if OLD Biden is bragging about getting someone who is fixing to investigate his son fired because his son, Hunter, is part of the firm being investigated: By straight-forward inference, you can say that OLD JOE BIDEN is bragging about getting a prosecutor fired who was getting ready to investigate his son: THIS IS IRREFUTABLE! WORDS MEAN THINGS!

Quelle (SOURCE) in German: I took this to mean that the portion of the Bible being discussed was of German origin.
That's a HUGE leap! The WORD is from the German.

Your site name, Vacuum, is from the Latin and means "empty." Using your logic, what are we to deduce about you from that?

Biden is on video bragging about get the top Ukrainian Prosecutor fired: This is the same prosecutor who was investigating t.................... IN EFFECT, if OLD Biden is bragging about getting someone who is fixing to investigate his son fired because his son, Hunter,........................................... ....................... is part of the firm being investigated: By straight-forward inference, you can ......rosecutor fired who was getting ready to investigate his son

What an incredible mish-mash of hodge-podge this is! Even for you, V7, it's far out there.


THIS IS IRREFUTABLE! WORDS MEAN THINGS!

YES, THEY DO. THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING WHERE IS THE VIDEO YOU CLAIMED TO HAVE SEEN. YOU CLAIMED IT IN WORDS!!! You know, those irrefutable words that mean things! (Good grief).

WHY what? or just plain WHAT?

JL asked my what my position re hell is. I'm a coward since I won't answer.

My question for him is does he still believe that unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment. Lately, he seems to be reversing that position a little. Maybe not.

Tell him to include what happens to the Buddhist who lived before Christ and never heard of him. Does the Buddhist go to hell for eternity because he never heard of or believed in Christ?

If he includes the Buddhist result, I'll tell him my position re hell.

JL asked my what my position re hell is. I'm a coward since I won't answer.

You said it, not me.

What happens to the Buddhists? They will be judged for their sins like you, me, and everybody else. It's what I have been telling you for a while now. Serving a false god(s) does not profit a person, though Buddhism is really more of a philosophy than a religion based upon belief in god. Still, Jesus came to save sinners from the judgement of God, and there is no other name given under heaven whereby men must be saved than Jesus. Either that, or Acts 4:12 is mistaken.

OK. There you go. Now let's hear your statement about hell and God's judgement. Honestly, I don't care if you state a position or not. I think that if you do, it will likely be completely unbiblical, hopelessly vague, or will attempt to largely negate the clear language of scripture by making it all metaphorical and thus subject to any one of dozens of meaningless interpretations, but hopefully you'll prove me wrong. Perhaps we'll see.

Don't know if I know many people who live so strictly by scripture, or who judge others on it either. Or worse just set things up just so they can bash others over the head. Is using the gospel as a cudgel really a winning tactic? Or does it give you a perverse pleasure and you have some cruel underlying tendencies?

What are you hiding with such passive aggressive behavior? Mostly aggressive. No knock, just an observation. I'll admit I can be aggressive too, often without provocation, which may be me just projecting what I see in myself at times on you but I honestly think it goes DEEPER.

You are up early, or still up late for sure.

Don't know if I know many people who live so strictly by scripture, or who judge others on it either. Or worse just set things up just so they can bash others over the head. Is using the gospel as a cudgel really a winning tactic? Or does it give you a perverse pleasure and you have some cruel underlying tendencies?

"Some cruel underlying tendencies?" Probably. Most of us do. God rides me all the time about trying to stay humble and kind in my responses. It's a challenge. The biggest irritant I have is people who want to misrepresent what I say and who will not answer questions. If you're big enough to criticize the views of others, then be big enough to put your own views out there. You know I appreciate your willingness to speak your mind. I'd like for everyone to do that. Some won't.


What are you hiding with such passive aggressive behavior? Mostly aggressive. No knock, just an observation. I'll admit I can be aggressive too, often without provocation, which may be me just projecting what I see in myself at times on you but I honestly think it goes DEEPER.

I am aggressive. Isn't that kind of like you??? These issues are not play things to me. It's not like we're discussing the impeachment hearings that, a hundred years from now, will matter but little. Issues of eternity are critical and I want people to be honest in their responses, so yeah, I do push kind of hard. I try not to be rude. I don't call names, and if you'll remember, I've told you to call me out on it if I call names. Honestly, you irritate me when you want to point these things out in me, and then let Athos have a free ride when he is very much the chief offender. Just being honest here. I think you're honest enough to admit that is true.


You are up early, or still up late for sure.

Up early. Had a couple of weird dreams so I got on the web to settle down a bit.

Strange how I understand Athos AND WG almost perfectly, but I can understand how guys like us can be rather annoying and as my wife says so frustrating sometimes, trying to make a point or mostly with me when I don't want to hear what others have to say, you know, well because I know I'm right, or want to be right so bad LOL, but a big part of humility is listening and asking questions to gain what the heck others are feeling and talking about. Now that's a heckuva self admission from a big ego, but in no way does that mean I let you off the hook in the future or going soft now just because I learned my lesson the hard way through mistakes, blunders, and stupidity, and just shut up listen and accept, that I have people who actually yell me that I'm so full of crap, and strangely I am grateful for it.

I understand your feelings JL, and know that it's just as important for you to be right about God and gospel, and that's okay with me but it's not the same importance to others as it is with you, and it would be a better world if everybody would be as you are about it but that's not LIFE, or reality maybe yours, but certainly not mine.

Heck dude if everyone was more like me then the world would be a better place too! Then you would really be chasing me with a bible or a stick to beat me about the head to wipe the silly grin off my face wouldn't you? 8D Don't answer, we both got our running shoes on this morning. Right? Always ready for action!

I'm grateful just to be HERE! You?

in no way does that mean I let you off the hook in the future or going soft now just because I learned my lesson the hard way through mistakes, blunders, and stupidity, and just shut up listen and accept, that I have people who actually yell me that I'm so full of crap, and strangely I am grateful for it.

That made me laugh. We are way too much alike.



I understand your feelings JL, and know that it's just as important for you to be right about God and gospel, and that's okay with me but it's not the same importance to others as it is with you, and it would be a better world if everybody would be as you are about it but that's not LIFE, or reality maybe yours, but certainly not mine.

It's not so much that I want to be right as much as I want to know the truth. If I am proven wrong but better learn the truth, then so be it.


Heck dude if everyone was more like me then the world would be a better place too! Then you would really be chasing me with a bible or a stick to beat me about the head to wipe the silly grin off my face wouldn't you? 8D Don't answer, we both got our running shoes on this morning. Right? Always ready for action!

I'm going to be in FW one of these days and take you up on the cup of coffee!


I'm grateful just to be HERE! You?

At my age, absolutely!

[QUOTE]Honestly, I don't care if you state a position or not.

Honestly, you sure act as thought you do. You've been asking for my position for months.


I think that if you do, it will likely be completely unbiblical

No.


hopelessly vague

Nope.


will attempt to largely negate the clear language of scripture

No again, but keep trying.


making it all metaphorical

Finally, no and no and no. Finished?


hopefully you'll prove me wrong.

Now, you're clickin'.



What happens to the Buddhists? They will be judged for their sins like you, me, and everybody else.

I'll answer when you answer my question. You didn't do that. You side-stepped it (as usual).

My question - Does a Buddhist go to hell for eternity because he never heard of or believed in Christ? Simple question, demanding a simple answer.

If he includes the Buddhist result, I'll tell him my position re hell.

I did my part. Why am I not surprised? I'm not holding my breath.

I did my part. Why am I not surprised? I'm not holding my breath.

No you didn't. Read again my post - you missed the last part probably because of similar times in posting.

It takes a bunch of faith to beleive in the words of guys that have been dead for thousands of years. At least for me it does. That Christians and Muslims are so different boggles my mind as all religions on the Earth are made up of HUMANS.

Hey whatever makes us feel better and gives us hope and guidance I suppose.

It takes a bunch of faith to beleive in the words of guys that have been dead for thousands of years.

If it's just their words it would be stupid to have any faith at all in them.

If it's just their words it would be stupid to have any faith at all in them.
What is there beyond their words?

What is there beyond their words?


I know it makes you nervous for me to quote scripture, but check these out.

Heb. 1:1In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

2 Peter. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

I still want to know what you think about the words of Christ in Matthew 25.

It takes a bunch of faith to beleive in the words of guys that have been dead for thousands of years. At least for me it does. That Christians and Muslims are so different boggles my mind as all religions on the Earth are made up of HUMANS.
Plus centuries have passed, cultures are different, languages cause difficulties, human motivations and hopes vary.


I know it makes you nervous for me to quote scripture, but check these out.

Heb. 1:1In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

2 Peter. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

I still want to know what you think about the words of Christ in Matthew 25.
Words on a page. I ask again, what is there beyond their words?

I'm certainly not going to be kind and merciful because I'm afraid of "eternal hellfire"!

Plus centuries have passed, cultures are different, languages cause difficulties, human motivations and hopes vary.

Hey whatever makes us feel better and gives us hope and guidance I suppose

No wonder you don't seem to know what you think about Matthew 25. If I believed your quote above, I'd just throw my Bible away. I'm not interested in feeling better. I'm interested in following Christ.


Words on a page. I ask again, what is there beyond their words?

God's words. Did you even bother to read those scriptures? You say you studied theology. Man I'm glad I didn't go to the school you went to.

JL - you're avoiding the question - Does a Buddhist go to hell because he has never heard of Jesus and does not believe in him.

Your first answer didn't directly answer.

No wonder you don't seem to know what you think about Matthew 25. If I believed your quote above, I'd just throw my Bible away. I'm not interested in feeling better. I'm interested in following Christ.
You joined up my quote with someone else's. Not fair!


God's words. Did you even bother to read those scriptures? You say you studied theology. Man I'm glad I didn't go to the school you went to.
God's words that have been translated over and over again and misinterpreted far too many times. Which translation am I supposed to use?

(If you are interested in following Christ, please stop with the putdowns.)

You joined up my quote with someone else's. Not fair!


I don't like it either. This program doesn't seem to give me an option. I can type what is a separate message and it just joins it to the previous one.


God's words that have been translated over and over again and misinterpreted far too many times. Which translation am I supposed to use?

There are many translations but that's not a problem. 98% to 99% of the text of the NT is not in question, and even that small part that is does not present problems. And here we are in America with plenty of money to buy all of the translations we want, and then we can go to any one of many websites and toggle between translations. We can even go to school and learn Greek, so I'm not sure why you are asking that question. We are in an ocean of good translations. I like the NASB and ESV. I sometimes read the NIV. I use the Amplified version and the Living Bible as sort of commentaries. Take a pick and start.


(If you are interested in following Christ, please stop with the putdowns.)

If you don't think that Jesus could be confrontational and speak in a direct manner, then you haven't read the NT. He was frequently kind and gentle, but not always. You say you've been to Bible classes. Well then, you should know some things.

JL - you're avoiding the question - Does a Buddhist go to hell because he has never heard of Jesus and does not believe in him.

Your first answer didn't directly answer.

I answered the question clearly. Now try being honest and take a position.

I don't like it either. This program doesn't seem to give me an option. I can type what is a separate message and it just joins it to the previous one.
WHAT???? You and I need to have a private tutoring session about quoting another poster.

There are many translations but that's not a problem. 98% to 99% of the text of the NT is not in question, and even that small part that is does not present problems. And here we are in America with plenty of money to buy all of the translations we want, and then we can go to any one of many websites and toggle between translations. We can even go to school and learn Greek, so I'm not sure why you are asking that question. We are in an ocean of good translations. I like the NASB and ESV. I sometimes read the NIV. I use the Amplified version and the Living Bible as sort of commentaries. Take a pick and start.
I have already. I was just fishing to find out if you are a KJV fan.

If you don't think that Jesus could be confrontational and speak in a direct manner, then you haven't read the NT. He was frequently kind and gentle, but not always. You say you've been to Bible classes. Well then, you should know some things.
I know LOTS of things. Jesus even used a whip to drive moneylenders out of the temple. But He didn't use putdowns.

WHAT???? You and I need to have a private tutoring session about quoting another poster.


I know how to quote. That's not what I'm talking about. I mean that I respond to one person, and get a separate text box and respond to a second person, but then it just joins the second one to the first one.


But He didn't use putdowns.

Have you read this? "17Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them: “Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don’t you remember? 19When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?” “Twelve,” they replied. 20“And when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?” They answered, “Seven.” 21He said to them, “Do you still not understand?”

You call it a putdown. I call what I do simply challenging people, like you, to think. For instance, if you wanted to know if I am a KJV only guy, then why not just ask? Why make reference to the Bible as though it is just the words of men? You have to know better than that.

I know how to quote. That's not what I'm talking about. I mean that I respond to one person, and get a separate text box and respond to a second person, but then it just joins the second one to the first one.
You have to use (minus spaces) [ quote ] at the beginning of a quote and [ /quote ] at the end of a quote.

Have you read this? "17Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them: “Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don’t you remember? 19When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?” “Twelve,” they replied. 20“And when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?” They answered, “Seven.” 21He said to them, “Do you still not understand?”

You call it a putdown. I call what I do simply challenging people, like you, to think. For instance, if you wanted to know if I am a KJV only guy, then why not just ask? Why make reference to the Bible as though it is just the words of men? You have to know better than that.
Okay. I'll take all your putdowns as challenges from here on.

You have to use (minus spaces) [ quote ] at the beginning of a quote and [ /quote ] at the end of a quote.

Huh?? Why are you still talking about quotes? Can you see from my posts I know how to indicate a quote? The problem is when one text box is fused into another.


Okay. I'll take all your putdowns as challenges from here on.

Better yet, understand from the get-go that they are not putdowns.

I'm glad we have that settled.

Huh?? Why are you still talking about quotes? Can you see from my posts I know how to indicate a quote? The problem is when one text box is fused into another.They fuse to each other when you don't differentiate between them, that one is by e.g., tal and one by me. If you quote more than one person, the quotes end up in the same speech box. If you don't differentiate, they look like they're from the same person.

Better yet, understand from the get-go that they are not putdowns.
Okey dokey.

I'm glad we have that settled.
Me too.

I answered the question clearly. Now try being honest and take a position.

Now who's being honest? You have NOT answered the question clearly.

My original question ----- "What happens to the Buddhist who lived before Christ and never heard of him. DOES THE BUDDHIST GO TO HELL FOR ETERNITY BECAUSE HE NEVER HEARD OR BELIEVED IN CHRIST"?

Note the underlining.

Your side-stepping answer ------ "They will be judged for their sins like you, me, and everyone else".

Last chance, JL, answer the question.

Now who's being honest? You have NOT answered the question clearly.

My original question ----- "What happens to the Buddhist who lived before Christ and never heard of him. DOES THE BUDDHIST GO TO HELL FOR ETERNITY BECAUSE HE NEVER HEARD OR BELIEVED IN CHRIST"?

Note the underlining.

Your side-stepping answer ------ "They will be judged for their sins like you, me, and everyone else".

Last chance, JL, answer the question.

OK. One more time for the first grade students. The question is, ""What happens to the Buddhist who lived before Christ and never heard of him. DOES THE BUDDHIST GO TO HELL FOR ETERNITY BECAUSE HE NEVER HEARD OR BELIEVED IN CHRIST?"

The answer is this. No, the Buddhist does not go to hell for eternity because he never heard or believed in Christ. He will be judged for his sins just like everyone else. Gosh. That answer is like the other three I have posted.

Now, having answered your question four times now, let's see if you will answer my question. If you don't then everyone will see you for what you are Athos, a scared person too afraid to do what you said you would do. Oh well. Remember Matthew 25???

Everyone sees you for what you are Athos, a scared person, too afraid to do what you said you would do. Oh well. Remember Matthew 25???

No, JL, the fear is all yours. Afraid to answer a simple question.

That tells me you are thinking that maybe you had it wrong - at least partially, and you don't want to go on record with a direct answer to - Do unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment because they don't believe.

I think you're finally realizing that your position is absurd for many reasons. That's good.

Your next step is to analyze where that belief comes from. No, it's not your Bible, JL. That idea has been debunked many times even tho you refuse to see it.

Like Jesus said, "The Kingdom of God is within you", so your belief about hell is within you.

That was your last chance to know my position - I certainly gave you enough chances - now you will say you don't care. But we both know differently, don't we, JL?

Good luck to you.

Look above. Against my better judgement, I answered for the fourth time now.

Your turn!!

Look above. It's answered for the fourth time now.

Your turn!!

Ah, I didn't see your answer. Very good. I'll make an exception since the posts probably coincided.

I'm heartened by your answer. To wit: UNBELIEVERS DO NOT GO TO HELL FOR ETERNAL PUNISHMENT BECAUSE THEY ARE UNBELIEVERS.

Congratulations, JL. It took a man to say that.

As promised, I do not believe in hell defined as a place of eternal punishment.

I'm heartened by your answer. To wit: UNBELIEVERS DO NOT GO TO HELL FOR ETERNAL PUNISHMENT BECAUSE THEY ARE UNBELIEVERS.

Correct, which has been my view from the beginning. Thankfully you finally caught on the fourth time. The problem has been your inability to see the difference between saying, "Unbelievers go to hell," versus saying, "People are sent to hell for their unbelief". It's the same difference as saying, "People from New York are sent to hell," versus saying, "People are sent to hell for being from New York." Hopefully you see that now.

Thank goodness for your stated position which was arrived at with more effort than pulling a tooth, but at least it is here. " I do not believe in hell defined as a place of eternal punishment." We can now await your long promised analysis of the words of Christ concerning an eternal hell in Matthew 25.

what is all this condemnation stuff? it is really easy to understand if you are listening and not carrying-on about your own beliefs.

Start in John; '"God so loved the world that he sent his son" Jesus.

Now, why did he send Jesus if any old belief was ok? Because everyone had fallen short, gone their own way.

So Jesus said; "I am the way, the truth and the life"

He also said this is my body broken for you, Symbolism?, Yes, but the following day his body was broken

Once again, why did this need to happen? Because noone can cover their own sin, it took the blood of some one pure, and that someone is Jesus, so belive in him

Good luck, Clete. If you say all of that about ten times, it might begin to have some impact.

Good luck, Clete. If you say all of that about ten times, it might begin to have some impact.

You and I both know you either get it or reject it. faith is a gift, and without it, the message is lost

Well there is at least one unbeliever among us, but we all need to move on, but in my defence, I am not the only one who has been doing that

you either get it or reject it. faith is a gift, and without it, the message is lost


True. Unless the Holy Spirit opens a person's eyes, they do not see it.

True. Unless the Holy Spirit opens a person's eyes, they do not see it.
So it's the Holy Spirit's fault for not opening a person's eyes?

‘Go to this people and say,
“[s]You will keep on hearing, [t]but will not understand;
And [u]you will keep on seeing, but will not perceive;
27 For the heart of this people has become dull,
And with their ears they scarcely hear,
And they have closed their eyes;
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
And hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart and return,
And I would heal them.”’

Now I know you get nervous when I quote the Bible. You will call me a fundy, accuse me of cherry-picking and using proof texts, but at any rate, "with their ears they scarcely hear, and they have closed their eyes."

You could also look at the words of Christ in John 16. "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. 8“And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment"

Might want to look at this as well from Acts 26.

rescuing you from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you, 18to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.’

Or this from Acts 16. "14 A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; [f]and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul."

Might want to look at this as well from Acts 26.

rescuing you from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you, 18to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.’
What if the Lord hadn't opened their eyes?
Or this from Acts 16. "14 A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; [f]and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul."
What if the Lord hadn't opened her heart?

What if the Lord hadn't opened their eyes?

Then they can't see.


What if the Lord hadn't opened her heart?

Then she would not have been able to see

How do you think it works? Any scripture to back up your position would be nice. It would also be nice if you would actually answer this question.

Then they can't see.

Then she would not have been able to see
So then it's God's fault, not the person's. God has therefore condemned that person for some reason, right?

I should answer this? I'm being devil's advocate for YOU.

How do you think it works? Any scripture to back up your position would be nice. It would also be nice if you would actually answer this question.

Oh well. It was just too much to hope for.

Oh well. It was just too much to hope for.
Answer WHAT question? You're the one who needs to explain what you said.

Answer WHAT question?How do you think it works?

How do you think it works?
How 'bout this:

Men choose the darkness and their condemnation lies in that very fact…. They refuse to be shaken out of their comfortable sinfulness. John 3:19 -- Now this is the basis for judging: that the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil.

We condemn ourselves.

Men choose the darkness and their condemnation lies in that very fact…. They refuse to be shaken out of their comfortable sinfulness. John 3:19 -- Now this is the basis for judging: that the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil.

We condemn ourselves.

I can go along with that. It is only the mercy of God that allows anyone to be saved.

I can go along with that. It is only the mercy of God that allows anyone to be saved.
"I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith."

"I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith."

Well said. Apostle's creed response?

Well said. Apostle's creed response?
Martin Luther, my birthday buddy. His explanation in his Small Catechism to the Third Article of the Apostles' Creed.

W.G. & jlisenbe: Ya'll's knowledge of the Bible and passages therein is very impressive....regardless of whether or not you agree with each other.

The question was what you believed about what Jesus said in Matthew 25. You have not answered.


For final discussion on this Matthew 25 matter, see Religious Discussions in Member Discusssions.

I note that a Fed DA appointed by the emperor has absolved the Clintoon Foundation of all wrong doing . So I guess that should be included in the "nothing to see here ....move on " category .

Who absolved them?

Deep Stater Jeff Sessions appointed John Huber (the emperor appointed him in 2015) ;DA from Utah to investigate the Clintoon Foundation and Uranium One ;largely to mollify conservative critics . .Huber had offered his resignation when Trump requested it . But Sessions appointed him as an interim U.S. Attorney .Then he was assigned the Clintoon Foundation investigation .

The investigation was conducted largely in secret .Likely witnesses have said they were not contacted. Trump should've dismissed Huber when Sessions was dumped ;and Barr should've assigned a special prosecutor to the case .But that didn't happen.

Victoria Toensing is a former Justice Dept prosecutor and now lawyer for one of the witnesses ,Doug Cambell , an FBI informant who says he has evidence that Evita helped a Russian company obtain U.S. uranium rights in exchange for large donations to the foundation . She says that Huber never contacted her or her client .

Huber basically centered his investigation in Little Rock where the Clintoons are effectively insulated .

Last month it was announced that he found nothing there and was wrapping up the investigation .The Washington Compost reported it . But otherwise the media ignored the news .
It is my hope that Barr gives the case to Horowitz .

Wonder why Barr hasn't jumped into that like he jumps into everything else the Dufus wants him to. After being convicted in a court of law, he has overturned the sentencing recommendation of the DOJ prosecutors to get less time for his boy Roger Stone (And Flynn). Of course the procecutors just quit!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/barr-takes-control-of-legal-matters-of-interest-to-trump-including-stone-sentencing/ar-BBZTXGc?ocid=spartanntp

The fix is in AGAIN, for dufus sycophants. Pardons anyone?

Pardon for Flynn? Absolutely yes.

Why are you wanting Roger Stone penalized in any way? He did nothing criminal: If you haven't figured it out, the FBI has gotten WAY TOO BIG FOR THEIR BRITCHES and out of control: THEY THINK THEY MAKE LAWS! They don't! This B.S. of entrapment is exactly what it is: B.S.! Roger Stone is "figment" of the stupid arse Mueller Investigation and should not be given a minute of time in any incarceration. The left is looking for their "POUND OF FLESH" and think they can get it from Flynn and Roger Stone: DOJ, Barr, and Trump should step in and deny this immediately.

Pardon for Flynn? Absolutely yes.

I thought that was a given for all the dufus criminal butt boys.


Why are you wanting Roger Stone penalized in any way? He did nothing criminal: If you haven't figured it out, the FBI has gotten WAY TOO BIG FOR THEIR BRITCHES and out of control: THEY THINK THEY MAKE LAWS! They don't! This B.S. of entrapment is exactly what it is: B.S.! Roger Stone is "figment" of the stupid arse Mueller Investigation and should not be given a minute of time in any incarceration. The left is looking for their "POUND OF FLESH" and think they can get it from Flynn and Roger Stone: DOJ, Barr, and Trump should step in and deny this immediately.

So the jury that convicted this slime bag, and that plea deal dirt bag got it wrong? Or is this just a double standard for white collar guys do stuff for a rich guy? How about international spy criminal Manafort too?

overturned the sentencing recommendation of the DOJ prosecutors to get less time for his boy Roger Stone good the recommendations were excessive . How much time does Congress get for lying to us ? How much time did Brennan get after he admitted lying to Congress. How much time did Clapper get ? These prosecutors were part of the Mueller goon squad that raided Stone's house like they were going after a cartel capo .

Yeah we can't have a rich white guy doing a perp walk can we, or going to jail, or getting booted from his job. It's illegal to write a law for it but we see another standard for the rich and well off don't we? Besides swat squads are for low level locals so talk to Barr about Clapper or any of those other guys. I'm sure he will get around to them. He's too busy with Comey and those dudes.

I love it when repubs get support from conservatives for their white collar criminals. Especially the convicted ones. The right wing fix is IN, and we can all see it.

Yeah we can't have a rich white guy doing a perp walk can we, or going to jail,Always has to be about race for liberal dems.

A minority liberal dem and yes it is and address it constructively. Imagine 250 years of slavery and 150 years of Jim Crow crap and you would be a bit worried about race too, if that crap was still going on! That rug you sweep stuff under must be overflowing by now.

Because we advocate for justice for a white man is no more race based than your liking Obama. It just is what it is. I would vote for Dr. Carson and you would vote for Sanders. Has nothing to do with race. I will say it again. The greatest threat to the well being of black people in America is not the behavior of white people, it is the behavior of black people.

Typical white man response to let you off the hook and stoke your own conscious. Naw couldn't be the 400 years of butt kicking that was handed out or the years since of racist tricks and traps that are being ignored. Not you personally JL, you got no more power than a minority, but stoking divion betweeen the races financially benefits somebody and parroting the party line just insures those benefits.

As I remember it from historical data the overseer was a prestigious position on the massa's plantation and still is on America's plantation. If you think that's not what the dufus is doing you must be BLIND, but you picked your own poison.

Typical white man response to let you off the hook and stoke your own conscious. Naw couldn't be the 400 years of butt kicking that was handed out or the years since of racist tricks and traps that are being ignored. Not you personally JL, you got no more power than a minority, but stoking divion betweeen the races financially benefits somebody and parroting the party line just insures those benefits.So if I referred to this as a typical black man response, would I be right? I don't think I would be. I think it would be a racially prejudiced statement just like your "typical white man response" statement was.


As I remember it from historical data the overseer was a prestigious position on the massa's plantation and still is on America's plantation. If you think that's not what the dufus is doing you must be BLIND, but you picked your own poison.Comparing Trump to the a slave owner's overseer is lunacy.

Yeah we can't have a rich white guy doing a perp walk can we, or going to jail, or getting booted from his job. It's illegal to write a law for it but we see another standard for the rich and well off don't we? Rich White guys like Bubba and Quid Pro Joe ?

Now Tom, you know it's only the rich CONSERVATIVE white guys that are being referred to.

So if I referred to this as a typical black man response, would I be right? I don't think I would be. I think it would be a racially prejudiced statement just like your "typical white man response" statement was.

Probably, but my historic perspective is much different than yours.


Comparing Trump to the a slave owner's overseer is lunacy.

I would have compared him to the massa, matter of fact I will. Thanks for the input.


Rich White guys like Bubba and Quid Pro Joe ?

The only thing wrong with them on the lists is repubs tried their darnedest to make that happen relentlessly for decades, with impeachment and mudslinging. To some extent you succeeded since Clinton was impeached and convicted of a count and paid consequences and HC ain't the president.


Now Tom, you know it's only the rich CONSERVATIVE white guys that are being referred to.

Like Tom, you can name your own nominee for that glorious list. since he took the Clintons, what's yours?

I would have compared him to the massa, Why would that not be the democrat party?

My nominee? Hillary Clinton.

Why would that not be the democrat party?

My nominee? Hillary Clinton.

Why not the repub party, and HC was taken already. I think it's possible though for someone to be pulling the dufus strings (Putin maybe?), while he cracks the whip on repub politicians.

90% of blacks do not vote repub. They vote dem. Their votes have become regarded as the property of the dem party. Now 2020 might very well begin to shake that ownership.

I think Blacks are ready to leave the fabled "LIBERAL PLANTATION" where they have been enslaved since the times of "The Great Society"!

I think Blacks are ready to leave the fabled "LIBERAL PLANTATION" where they have been enslaved since the times of "The Great Society"!
No. That's where they escaped to when repubs started cutting their lifelines.

Pardon for Flynn? Absolutely yes. complete exoneration yes and he is due damages . Lesser cases have been thrown out of court for prosecutorial excess and abuse. The only thing they did not do to extract confession was to yank out his fingernails .

cutting their lifelines.And therein lies the entire problem. Anytime I consider my lifeline to be a government that takes money from one group by force of law and gives it to me, then I become, in essence, the slave of that government. God help us that we have lost the attitude of just wanting freedom and opportunity. Instead, you advocate a government sponsored "lifeline".

I keep on replaying Mike Lee's address in the Senate when announcing he'd vote against convicting Trump. Mandatory listening especially the beginning of the address
https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/speeches?ID=CD939D09-F235-4B2E-ACEF-C7B386C78328

The FBI agents involved with the Flynn episode were bastards: Told him he didn't need a lawyer present for questioning....real turds.

Flynn should be set free and Trump should give him a job: Hunt down the Deep State plants still out there and pull them out by their ears, hair, or whatever else he can grab! I think Flynn would do very well with the fire that burns inside of him now.

And therein lies the entire problem. Anytime I consider my lifeline to be a government that takes money from one group by force of law and gives it to me, then I become, in essence, the slave of that government. God help us that we have lost the attitude of just wanting freedom and opportunity. Instead, you advocate a government sponsored "lifeline".

Of course that also means you are against eminent domain where government takes someone's land to repurpose by force of law. While a government lifeline for it's citizens that need it is in my view a good thing during hard times they had no control over and very different from you being forced to contribute through taxes, or being made a slave of the government. Seems a guy from Mississippi would know what real slavery looks like and be grateful you aren't one of those.

Luck of the draw.


I keep on replaying Mike Lee's address in the Senate when announcing he'd vote against convicting Trump. Mandatory listening especially the beginning of the address
https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/speeches?ID=CD939D09-F235-4B2E-ACEF-C7B386C78328

Great excuse to finally recognize the ball has been dropped for a long time which has nothing to do with dropping the ball yet again in this time. Pretty words to justify not doing what must be done.


The FBI agents involved with the Flynn episode were bastards: Told him he didn't need a lawyer present for questioning....real turds.

Flynn should be set free and Trump should give him a job: Hunt down the Deep State plants still out there and pull them out by their ears, hair, or whatever else he can grab! I think Flynn would do very well with the fire that burns inside of him now.

Boy if the FBI can bamboozle a 4 star general he must be a real horses arse in the first place. No wonder he was fired and warnings about him given to the new guy. Ever look and see the pattern of the dufus guys he likes around him, AND that have trouble with the law? Hope you remember that when a guy gets caught stealing a loaf of bread for his family.

Talaniman: No, you can't blame Flynn when the FBI agents KNOWINGLY/CONSCIOUSLY LIED TO HIM! The FBI was, and possibly still is, out of control: They think they make the laws! Not too long ago the left HATED THE FBI! Why does the left love them now? Funny how that works: The left wants us to think that the FBI is beyond reproach and as pure as the wind driven snow: YOU AND I BOTH KNOW THAT IS B.S.! Flynn's mistake was trusting the FBI. If the FBI ever comes asking you anything, you don't say one damn word to them without a lawyer present...if you do, you are opening yourself up to a world of hurt.

Of course that also means you are against eminent domain where government takes someone's land to repurpose by force of law. While a government lifeline for it's citizens that need it is in my view a good thing during hard times they had no control over and very different from you being forced to contribute through taxes, or being made a slave of the government. Seems a guy from Mississippi would know what real slavery looks like and be grateful you aren't one of those.No, I'm not against eminent domain and, for that matter, I'm not against taxes. I am against this "lifeline" mentality which teaches people that there is no real reason to be prudent, save, work hard, and plan for the future because, after all, my Lord Government has a lifeline there for me. It's just an effort to corral the votes of poor people by encouraging them, rather than taking care of themselves, to trust in the gov to provide the all important lifeline.

Talaniman: No, you can't blame Flynn when the FBI agents KNOWINGLY/CONSCIOUSLY LIED TO HIM! The FBI was, and possibly still is, out of control: They think they make the laws! Not too long ago the left HATED THE FBI! Why does the left love them now? Funny how that works: The left wants us to think that the FBI is beyond reproach and as pure as the wind driven snow: YOU AND I BOTH KNOW THAT IS B.S.! Flynn's mistake was trusting the FBI. If the FBI ever comes asking you anything, you don't say one damn word to them without a lawyer present...if you do, you are opening yourself up to a world of hurt.

I can see a young guy caught up in a mess and feeling trapped but not a seasoned career national security officer that did enough dirt to be fired, not knowing his rights. That dog just don't hunt that he was duped by a couple of FBI agents and his hands were clean of all wrong doing after admitting many times he was probably being bugged when talking to foreign entities.

Geez Vac, what's with the notion the left hated the FBI and now they don't? Catching a high level fish instead of an ordinary pick pocket is love? I don't think so! It's the right who should be questioned for not being suspicious that the dufus cronies are landing in jail after a trial or plea deal. Or after the latest developments the defender of war criminals intervenes in the cases of those cronies during sentencing, and the fact he perp marches others working in the WH out, and recommends prosecution for obeying a LAWFUL subpoena from the congress for testimony.

I'm still no fan of the FBI, but the dufus and his ilk are even lower on the totem pole than the FBI. They are without a doubt double dealing nefarious and corrupt actors who have no business anywhere near the trappings of what's supposed to be OUR government.

No, I'm not against eminent domain and, for that matter, I'm not against taxes. I am against this "lifeline" mentality which teaches people that there is no real reason to be prudent, save, work hard, and plan for the future because, after all, my Lord Government has a lifeline there for me. It's just an effort to corral the votes of poor people by encouraging them, rather than taking care of themselves, to trust in the gov to provide the all important lifeline.

So people who need help during a tough time are being led to some type of dependence on a government life line, but it's okay for people to help them through charity? Dude please, if you have not recognized charity is not enough, and they need more substantive help then you deny reality of the size and scope of the real issues people have. I mean explain to me what happens at YOUR charity when indeed people have greater need than what YOU can honestly provide?

So people who need help during a tough time are being led to some type of dependence on a government life line, but it's okay for people to help them through charity? Dude please, if you have not recognized charity is not enough, and they need more substantive help then you deny reality of the size and scope of the real issues people have. I mean explain to me what happens at YOUR charity when indeed people have greater need than what YOU can honestly provide?So for the five hundredth time, there is a great difference between me helping someone by choice versus being compelled to do so by the government. I do it to help people. I get involved with them and, hopefully, help them learn to make better choices in life. If you were doing it then you would know that. The government does it to get the votes of poor people and leaves them just as they found them except that, in many cases, they are worse off because they become dependent upon government assistance and even develop a sense of entitlement to it.

So for the five hundredth time, there is a great difference between me helping someone by choice versus being compelled to do so by the government. I do it to help people. I get involved with them and, hopefully, help them learn to make better choices in life. If you were doing it then you would know that. The government does it to get the votes of poor people and leaves them just as they found them except that, in many cases, they are worse off because they become dependent upon government assistance and even develop a sense of entitlement to it.

That's commendable of you, keep it up, but I spent years learning, and getting people back on their feet, no matter the reasons they had fallen, and charity ain't enough all the time. We both no its a network of people, because people are unique and have different issues to be addressed and that often involves professionals. Can you get an ex con a job? How about the mom with no skills that needs childcare so she can get the skills to get a job?

JL I don't even want to diminish what you do, but I just lived in some places that are fair in size from where a bunch of people just wanted help, and the charities do help, I've worked with many, can't do without them, but that's where I probably learned the most about the importance of networking to provide a huge variety of services and yeah that government assistance is as invaluable as the charities and they do work together in many areas so it just burns my bum that you get so bent out of shape and would deny the right help people need for some draconian out of touch notion they will get hooked on government assistance.

I have seen much good that private and public cooperation can do and proud to be a part of the efforts. You should rethink your position guy, because you never know how great people can be if you deny them the right help.

Can you get an ex con a job?Right now? We have ex cons leave the drug rehab center regularly and get a job within a week. With this economy we have now, getting a job is no problem.

And again, when the gov starts taking money by force of law from one American and giving it to another American, we are in big trouble.


You should rethink your position guy, because you never know how great people can be if you deny them the right help.I am very well aware of what help can mean to people. I'm all for me and you personally doing that very thing a lot. What you are in favor of is voting for people who will make other people give money to the poor.

And again, when the gov starts taking money by force of law from one American and giving it to another American, we are in big trouble.


Then you have been in big trouble for a long time

JL, by law you are the government, and we all live here by consensus. So whether you agree with the law or not you are free to comply or suffer the consequences just like everybody else so stop whining like you are a VICTIM!

JL, by law you are the government, and we all live here by consensus. So whether you agree with the law or not you are free to comply or suffer the consequences just like everybody else so stop whining like you are a VICTIM!There is a third option, one which you exercise to the fullest. I can voice my opinion and try and sway public opinion.

there is a third option, one which you exercise to the fullest. I can voice my opinion and try and sway public opinion.

yup!! 8d

now nanny Bloomy wants Evita to run as VP on his ticket lolololol

my advice for him would be to watch his back if he becomes President . The Clintoons have long knives .

tomder55: Would love for Bloomturd to take Hillary on as VP: She will get her arse beat AGAIN by Trump!

Bloomturd will be a horrible candidate: He has NO CHARISMA! Bloomturd COULD NOT LEAD FLIES TO FRESH DOG SH&T!

tomder55: Would love for Bloomturd to take Hillary on as VP: She will get her arse beat AGAIN by Trump!

Bloomturd will be a horrible candidate: He has NO CHARISMA! Bloomturd COULD NOT LEAD FLIES TO FRESH DOG SH&T!

Do we really need this level of rhetoric. It is obvious you hate minorities and while I don't condone their lifestyle choices, this level of rhetoric is unnecessary and points to a level of hatred that is unbecoming

It is on the strong side.

Paraclete: Bloomturd is WHITE! Where the devil do you get that I hate minorities? No basis for that statement....I stand by my claim Bloomturd is as UNCHARISMATIC as he can possibly be and will be trounced by Trump.

Vac, I don't know where he got the hating minorities thing from either. I've never seen you post a racial remark.

Hating minorities is not confined to race, vac's latest remarks show hatred of goys who are a minority, at least where I come from


Paraclete: Bloomturd is WHITE! Where the devil do you get that I hate minorities? No basis for that statement....I stand by my claim Bloomturd is as UNCHARISMATIC as he can possibly be and will be trounced by Trump.

What part of lifestyle don't you understand you have made very specific gay hate remarks now you try to cover by saying you are not racist,

Paraclete: FIND WHERE I SAID/DEFENDED MYSELF THAT I WAS NOT "RACIST" IN THIS THREAD: Nowhere did I use that term and YOU KNOW IT: You are attempting to draw an inference that doesn't exist and it is UNBECOMING OF YOU. Also, nowhere have I said I hated anyone or anything, other than communists, which I freely admit that I detest with passion.

Gay means "happy": I don't participate or in any way adhere to the cute plays on words: As an Australian, and a purist of the English language, I would very much assume you have an utter disdain for the adulteration of this beautiful language by those who try and reinvent it to conform to their twisted concepts. Homosexuals are not a minority...not a minority by any stretch of the imagination. A "lifestyle" does not qualify you for any rating as a "minority": The next thing you will draw an inference with and to is that White Supremist are a minority because they, too, live a "lifestyle" that only a few percentiles of the population do. For WAY, WAY, WAY TOO LONG we have allowed THOUGHT POLICE, like yourself as you apparently aspire to be, to define what is accepted as fact which isn't fact and I say to hell with that idea.

Homosexuals DO NOT HAVE SPECIAL RIGHTS OR PRIVLEGES BEYOND THE RIGHTS OR PRIVLEGES OF ANYONE ELSE. And, being homosexual doesn't offer you any special "armor" or shield against scrutiny: If you parade your precious "lifestyle" up on the proverbial "Public Square", as in running for POTUS, then you should be prepared for whatever comes your way: You better put on your Big Boy Pants when you run for President: Trump has been attacked viciously every single day leading up to his election and every single day since he was elected so why should a homosexual candidate not be attacked, what make him special? The homosexual Presidential Candidate can't wear his mantle of homosexuality as a shield to deflect ANY RHETORIC directed his way: He doesn't get a pass!

I also find your "selective" moral outrage to be more than a little strange: You admonish abortion as "a sin", and I agree with you, but you turn right around and do not have a problem with homosexuality: How does that square with your Christian views?

As I said vac, I don't approve of their lifestyle or the life style of neo-nazi or communists, but your outrage is unbecoming. Where I come from we count gays as a minority, but if they are part of the majority there, I don't think that is news. For the sake of definition, a minority is any group who is not in the majority and may hold different views to the majority. There are many sins, and none of us are immune. Nor long ago here a prominent sports star made a declaration somewhat similar, however, he used the word homosexual and that is all anyone saw. He was castigated in the media, etc. As to a candidate wearing a mantle of homosexuality, he probably just feels he was following the lead of BO, although he didn't come out of the closet.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/investigation-underway-as-rainbow-flags-cause-controversy-during-israel-folaus-rugby-league-return/news-story/07b619ee573da0f736421fe868fb02b8

Minorities don't let things go, you exhibit the same traint

I don't know what the gay lifestyle is other than a choice of sexual partners, and probably no different in heteros in the sense of how they conduct their lives and on average are no more or less promiscuous than heteros. The dufus just sets a very low bar for respectful public discourse though, and unfortunately influences others to follow suit. As far as I can remember though many of us have pet names for public figures, or political parties.

You really think BO was a closet gay Clete? That's almost slanderous.

Paraclete: O.K., if you think the Campaign season in the U.S. is not as civil in the U.S. as it should be, you are probably right....but you should extend that thought: It used to be that once the "CAMPAIGN" and elections were over, civility came back into fashion: BUT NOT SINCE TRUMP WAS ELECTED! The atmosphere is as acrid as Australia's air this Summer from all the fires....he hasn't been offered any olive branches and, because of his nature, to fight back, he has also responded-in-kind! So, civility is going the way of dinosaurs it would appear.

I am willing to be more "civil" by your definition but I will continue to point out extreme differences in candidates....you don't like the word I used to identify the homosexual candidate, then I won't use that word to identify him as such...….but I reserve the right to identify him for what he is.

All minorities, by your definition or by mine, strive to "fit in" and become undistinguishable amongst the general population UNLESS they choose to make themselves obtuse and stand out and bring attention to themselves, which invites the majority of the population to then recognize them as nonconformists. Paraclete, you have STEREOTYPED minorities by saying that "Minorities don't let things go" and, in effect, you have stated a view that minorities cannot assimilate with the majority population, reinforcing the idea that they are to be regarded as "different" and that they should be treated as such.

Paraclete, you have STEREOTYPED minorities by saying that "Minorities don't let things go" and, in effect, you have stated a view that minorities cannot assimilate with the majority population, reinforcing the idea that they are to be regarded as "different" and that they should be treated as such.Interesting observation. I wonder how far we intend to go with "tolerance". If a man sleeping with a man is OK, and a man marrying a man is OK, then how about a man marrying two men, or two women, or a fifteen year old girl, or for that matter an animal? Already there is a movement to be able to "self identify" as a dog. So now that we have cast off the idea of moral boundaries, where does it go?

jlisenbe: I am fixing to answer your question with a response that I KNOW you, as a fellow Southerner, have heard before and a phrase I have heard my Father say before: We are "Going To HELL If We Don't Straighten Up!" Have any truer words ever been said?

From JL: "...a man sleeping with a man is OK, and a man marrying a man is OK. And women loving and marrying each other."

Don't forget. God set up binary, but after what happened in Genesis 3, those binary types took it upon themselves to disobey their Creator and, as a result, ushered in non-binary types. (Hey! Those male-male, female-female matings mean no abortions!!! God always brings good into our lives.)

Now the universe is full of uncountable possibilities. (There was no death before Genesis 3, so what did lions and tigers eat?)

W.G.: You left out the little part about PROCREATE: Without a WOMAN-MAN COUPLING, there is no HOMOSEXUAL...and there is NO MAN, PERIOD! Given unto their own devices, homosexuals will go the way of dinosaurs: they will go extinct because HOMOSEXUALS CANNOT PROCREATE...THEREFORE HOMOSEXUALS CANNOT SUSTAIN THEIR POPULATION AND THE POPULATION WILL EVENTUALLY DIEOFF.

The world can be cruel. One of the cruelest notions is that homosexuals can rely on the charity of a MAN-WOMAN COUPLING to continue their populations. Use logic to find the end results of this.

Again and again, as I have said before, even if you are an atheist or agnostic or even a religious person of any description: NATURAL LAW and THE LAWS OF NATURE DICTATE THE ABSURDITY OF HOMOSEXUALITY: IF YOU DON'T FIND IT IN NATURE, IT IS UNNATURAL. It is very simple.

Don't forget. God set up binary, but after what happened in Genesis 3, those binary types took it upon themselves to disobey their Creator and, as a result, ushered in non-binary types. (Hey! Those male-male, female-female matings mean no abortions!!! God always brings good into our lives.)

Now the universe is full of uncountable possibilities. (There was no death before Genesis 3, so what did lions and tigers eat?)You flippant attitude is unappealing. There are no "non-binary types" in the Bible. It plainly condemns sex outside of marriage and plainly defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

W.G.: You left out the little part about PROCREATE: Without a WOMAN-MAN COUPLING, there is no HOMOSEXUAL...and there is NO MAN, PERIOD! Given unto their own devices, homosexuals will go the way of dinosaurs: they will go extinct because HOMOSEXUALS CANNOT PROCREATE...THEREFORE HOMOSEXUALS CANNOT SUSTAIN THEIR POPULATION AND THE POPULATION WILL EVENTUALLY DIEOFF.

The world can be cruel. One of the cruelest notions is that homosexuals can rely on the charity of a MAN-WOMAN COUPLING to continue their populations. Use logic to find the end results of this.

Again and again, as I have said before, even if you are an atheist or agnostic or even a religious person of any description: NATURAL LAW and THE LAWS OF NATURE DICTATE THE ABSURDITY OF HOMOSEXUALITY: IF YOU DON'T FIND IT IN NATURE, IT IS UNNATURAL. It is very simple.
There is nothing in the Bible that forbids homosexuality. And since lesbian couples cannot reproduce (except by means of expensive IVF) nor can gay couples, your fears about abortion are washed away. Those couples adopt the parentless children whose bio-parents can't support them or don't want them. And there are a lot of parentless children out there! -- and always will be.

Homosexuality is very much in nature. Do some homework!

You flippant attitude is unappealing. There are no "non-binary types" in the Bible. It plainly condemns sex outside of marriage and plainly defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Of course there are! Of course, the writers didn't SAY it in print because it wasn't that uncommon. Hmm, what about David and Jonathan's love for each other? Do some honest research beyond the fundie stuff.

Yes, God started out with male-female marriage, but that got turned on its head in Genesis 3.

W.G.: You left out the little part about PROCREATE: Without a WOMAN-MAN COUPLING, there is no HOMOSEXUAL...and there is NO MAN, PERIOD! Given unto their own devices, homosexuals will go the way of dinosaurs: they will go extinct because HOMOSEXUALS CANNOT PROCREATE...THEREFORE HOMOSEXUALS CANNOT SUSTAIN THEIR POPULATION AND THE POPULATION WILL EVENTUALLY DIEOFF.

The world can be cruel. One of the cruelest notions is that homosexuals can rely on the charity of a MAN-WOMAN COUPLING to continue their populations. Use logic to find the end results of this.

Again and again, as I have said before, even if you are an atheist or agnostic or even a religious person of any description: NATURAL LAW and THE LAWS OF NATURE DICTATE THE ABSURDITY OF HOMOSEXUALITY: IF YOU DON'T FIND IT IN NATURE, IT IS UNNATURAL. It is very simple.

https://whatdewhat.com/interesting-animal-change-gender/

Homosexuals have survived as long as man without procreating. What makes you think they won't continue?

Of course there are! Of course, the writers didn't SAY it in print because it wasn't that uncommon. Hmm, what about David and Jonathan's love for each other? Do some honest research beyond the fundie stuff.And again, there are no binary types in the Bible. When you say it is not said in print, then you are admitting it. As to Jonathan and David, they were both married, fathers of children, and there is not a whisper in the Bible of them sleeping together as man and woman. Even worse for your case, David's great sin did not involve sex with a man, but sex with a woman. You really should be ashamed of yourself to represent the Bible is such a way as to simply confirm your political persuasions. It is really pitiful. And then you further disgrace yourself by suggesting I need to do research. You present not one word of text, and then suggest someone else needs to do research. It is quite an adventure in misplaced boldness.

As to your absurd comment on marriage, (Yes, God started out with male-female marriage, but that got turned on its head in Genesis 3), there is first of all not the slightest indication that what you say is true. Worse, even a grade school child would note that Jesus himself quoted the Genesis passage in Mark 10 as His view of marriage. There is not a whisper of a hint anywhere in the Bible of God approving gay marriage. You sometimes accuse me of shaming you. I wear the badge proudly. When one intentionally misrepresents the clear and plain teaching of the Bible, that person should be shamed thoroughly. Your intellectual honesty would be much better served by simply saying that you really don't care what the Bible says.

Yes, God started out with male-female marriage, but that got turned on its head in Genesis 3.
Yes, it sure did, didn't it!

My goodness, as of Genesis 3, babies were born LEFT HANDED! and with a missing body part! and autistic! and ... and ... and ...

Your intellectual honesty would be much better served by digging beyond the literal and the KJV of your Bible.

My goodness, as of Genesis 3, babies were born LEFT HANDED! and with a missing body part! and autistic! and ... and ... and ...Let's see. People were born left handed, so now we have binary types? Well of course.


Your intellectual honesty would be much better served by digging beyond the literal and the KJV of your Bible.Your prejudice betrays you. I don't use the KJV and I'm well aware that the Bible has many passages that are not to be taken literally. Unlike you, however, I don't just make it up as I go along to suit my preconceived notions. Unlike you, I do believe the Bible is meant to be taken literally in most places, even if it disagrees with your beliefs. You make statements which you cannot even begin to support with scripture, and then you get mad when you are called out on it.

BTW, to address another of your prejudices, I am not a fundamentalist. I never cease to be amazed at the prejudice and perfect willingness to engage in name-calling of the group that is so insistent on calling for tolerance.

Let's see. People were born left handed, so now we have binary types? Well of course.
The aftermath of Genesis 3. You missed walking over the bridge.


BTW, to address another of your prejudices, I am not a fundamentalist. I never cease to be amazed at the prejudice and perfect willingness to engage in name-calling of the group that is so insistent on calling for tolerance.
I learned the name-calling from you.

How about conservative instead of fundie?

Please, please, please do some research! I actually used to be like you, so I understand.

WG, you cannot simply keep appealing to Genesis 3. At some point you need content.

But I am not the apostle of tolerance. That is you.

Conservative is fine.

I assure you I have read as much on the Bible as you have and probably more. I never used to be like you and never hope to. I will not make it up to suit my own tastes as you do.

If you have done so much persuasive research, then employ it. You have nothing to support your contentions. That is my chief complaint about you and why I would never hope to be like you. You might not like my conclusions, but you cannot say I have no scripture to base them on.

BTW, I would be happy to join with you in calling for legal limits on presidential vacationing. I felt the same way when Obama was pres.

WG, you cannot simply keep appealing to Genesis 3. At some point you need content.
You don't KNOW what happened in Genesis 3???


I assure you I have read as much on the Bible as you have and probably more. I never used to be like you and never hope to. I will not make it up to suit my own tastes as you do.
I very much doubt that you have. At least sixty years' worth?


If you have done so much persuasive research, then employ it. You have nothing to support your contentions. That is my chief complaint about you and why I would never hope to be like you. You might not like my conclusions, but you cannot say I have no scripture to base them on.
No, it's time you start digging and researching. You obviously have no respect for what I say, so please do some honest reading in reputable concordances and histories of Bible lands and Jewish practices. Read Kissing Fish by Roger Wolsey. Read up on the cultural background and meaning of St. Paul's made-up word, arsenokoites.

Your intellectual honesty would be much better served by digging beyond the literal and the KJV of your Bible.

We are not here to do Bible study led by you

No, it's time you start digging and researching. You obviously have no respect for what I say, so please do some honest reading in reputable concordances and histories of Bible lands and Jewish practices. Read Kissing Fish by Roger Wolsey. Read up on the cultural background and meaning of St. Paul's made-up word, arsenokoites.It's not that I don't respect what you say. It's that you don't say anything. You give outlandish opinions, and then suggest we do more research, endlessly repeating about how "the world turned upside down after Genesis 3", but at some point you have to know enough scripture to support your point. That's what I continue to wait on.

Reputable concordances? Give me either the concordance or, more specifically, the Greek lexicon that supports your arsenokoitai view. Either do so, or do please stop endlessly bringing it up.

W.G>: There is NO homosexuality in the animal kingdom nor in nature: Homosexuality is unnatural.

W.G>: There is NO homosexuality in the animal kingdom nor in nature: Homosexuality is unnatural.
Do some honest research, V7. Homosexuality is very much present in the animal and insect world.

I hope you are not suggesting that we humans pattern ourselves on the animal world. There is a reason we refer to brutal people as "animals".

W.G.: Homosexuality in the Animal World? You must be reading the National Enquirer! Doesn't happen! The Animal World is all about procreating and procreating doesn't happen when males couple with males or females with females! If what you say is true, then animals and insects would be lost to extinction because there would be no reproduced young!

Again, The Laws Of Nature and Natural Law cannot be violated....or they cannot be violated for very long before retributions are demanded: You cannot contest what is natural and you cannot support what is unnatural.

Imperial wisdom, or high hopes Vac? In humans homosexuality EXISTS, and though the numbers are unknown, has existed for thousands of years that we know of. In addition we have learned hopefully that a growing number of bi-sexuals also exists fully capable of procreating and still being GAY. Know many myself with kids and marriages that now are openly gay. The range of human sexuality has grown and expanded greatly the last few decades and we are and will continue to find even more who do not fit into the small boxes of the human experience that comply with notions of what's natural and what's not, as I respectfully submit those natural laws of which you speak may indeed be rewriting themselves whether we agree or not, or like it or NOT.

I don't think anyone is arguing that homosexuality does not exist in humans, or bi-sexuals either for that matter. You could, of course, say the same thing about people having sex with minors, people having sex with animals, people having sex with multiple partners, people who want to have sex in public, pornography, and so forth. The question under discussion was the view of the Bible on all of that, and the fact that, from a Biblical point of view, the only acceptable place for sexual activity is in marriage between a man and a woman.

Not even bible readers and followers can agree on that one my friend, as this nation of diverse citizens are more accepting of the existance of reasonable human behavior, while still rejecting what's still considered abnormal behavior. We know for fact, sexuality aside, that humans do what they do, whether its good, bad, or in the middle. Far more reject child sex, yet soften on gay marriage, including Christians, and an even greater number define the concept and institution of marriage in other terms outside of ANY religion group.

In this secular nation the bible is not the only or final authority in the definition of marriage.

Not even bible readers and followers can agree on that one my friendThere is actually pretty substantial agreement on that one from serious Bible students. The disagreement comes for the casual side. You simply cannot find any evidence in the Bible that God approves of same gender sex or gay marriage. It just isn't there.

Correct, but I can find many Christians that don't care one way or another about gay marriage, and more than a few churches and pastors that actually will marry them. Many states grant a marriage license, so the evidence is that it is happening and in greater number. I cannot speak to the casual Christian, or the serious student, nor whether or not it's written, on that I take your word, but fact is it's happening, despite the serious students objection. The biggest thing though is the clergy is not the only one that can perform a lawful wedding (https://www.usmarriagelaws.com/marriage-license/wedding-officiants-requirements), and that is what actually counts, so marriage and it's definition is not the exclusive domain of the church.

A state can define it also, and have.

Talaniman: So, through government intrusion into the business of families, absurd "laws" to help promote said behaviors that they were promoting, intrusions into the educational systems (starting at very young ages), public condemnations and the making of religion to be a pariah, the government funding of said "special interests" groups, and many other maneuverers to prop up the narrative that homosexuality was a "NORMAL" way of life, you may have finally beaten down a good portion of the American People, through constant haranguing and threats, to ostensibly "accept" the government line of crap that circulates around this subject.....and that is unfortunate. This FORCE-FEEDING of homosexual virtues upon the American People by the government is truly as bizarre as it is alarming and the purpose of it can only be to help facilitate the rapid decline of the American Family, the decay of which has been fueled by the government on many, many fronts over the years.

The majority rules, or it is supposed to rule, in the U.S. and this makes us wonder how the government was able ram-rod this homosexual agenda through because the majority of people DO NOT deem homosexuality as normal behavior?

The alarming part is this: If the government decides to condone Animalism, jlisenbe has alluded to, what is there to stop them from pushing that agenda upon us, too?

so the evidence is that it is happening and in greater number.The same can be said of child porn, child sexual abuse, human trafficking, and adultery, so I have no idea what conclusion you want me to draw from that. If it's happening and in greater numbers, then we are to just accept it?


The biggest thing though is the clergy is not the only one that can perform a lawful wedding (https://www.usmarriagelaws.com/marriage-license/wedding-officiants-requirements), and that is what actually counts, so marriage and it's definition is not the exclusive domain of the church.You are certainly correct in that regard. My parents were married by a JP. As I said earlier, the issue for me is whether or not the church is prepared to take a stand just in regard to the teaching of the Bible. I get real edgy when a professing Christian states that God accepts homosexual behavior/gay marriage but has not a single shred of scriptural evidence to support that contention.

jlisenbe: I have a real problem with clergy, or anyone else, for that matter, that purports homosexuality to be fine and dandy and, at the same time, supports abortion, as well.

Vac, I agree with you on both counts.

Here's a summary about homosexuality in animals:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

Read about Chicago's power couple, Myles and Precious (they've had their baby):
https://blockclubchicago.org/2019/07/03/chicagos-queer-power-couple-precious-and-myles-brady-davis-are-having-a-baby/

My husband's sister and her female partner of 30+ years were finally able to legally marry. Years ago they had adopted a newborn boy who has turned out to be a wonderful (straight, as I know you're wondering) young man.

I'm involved in and have friends in the transgender community. They are more than willing to answer my questions, even the very personal ones.

Christian churches (ELCA Lutheran among others) accept the LGBTQIA community as worshippers and members.

And still no scripture to back up your position. Can you see that that's what's lacking? Your opinion carries no more weight than mine in a discussion of what God says about all of this.

And still no scripture to back up your position. Can you see that that's what's lacking? Your opinion carries no more weight than mine in a discussion of what God says about all of this.
The point isn't proof passages. The point was to show that there is homosexuality in the animal kingdom. The Wikipedia article is merely one source; there are many more.

I thought it would be fun (and educational) for you to read about Myles and Precious.

...And that straight children can be raised by a lesbian couple (my SIL and her wife). Hmm, maybe sexuality isn't a choice....

Ask me a transgender question. I'll toss it out to my trans friends. Oh, and read up on DES. It is an estrogen that was given to pregnant women from the '30s to the early '70s, women who were in danger of miscarrying. Many babies that resulted were intersex, had a mix of male and female sex organs. Those babies are now in their 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, still struggling with their situation and many finally doing something about it (transitioning).

JL probably knows no hermorphidites and wouldn't know how to counsel them I'm betting, but I could be wrong. At least I want to be. Personally I marvel at the great things the Creator has made for us on this world and the real test is how you treat one another, and our home.

W.G.: The is a man of the Hebrew faith called Benjamin Shapiro....he is a very logic driven thinker and debater: I once heard him express the question "TRANSGENDER" this way: There is no "Transgender" because when one takes a DNA test they are EITHER MALE OR FEMALE AND THEY ARE NEVER MALE AND FEMALE WITHIN THE SAME PERSON! Case closed.

W.G.: The is a man of the Hebrew faith called Benjamin Shapiro....he is a very logic driven thinker and debater: I once heard him express the question "TRANSGENDER" this way: There is no "Transgender" because when one takes a DNA test they are EITHER MALE OR FEMALE AND THEY ARE NEVER MALE AND FEMALE WITHIN THE SAME PERSON! Case closed.
He is very incorrect. The DNA test doesn't say that at all.

Here's another Wikipedia article that should should be easy enough to understand:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

"Intersex people are born with sex characteristics (including genitals, gonads and chromosome patterns) that do not fit typical binary notions of male or female bodies."

Transgender has nothing to do with DNA, but a persons own psycology tied to feelings that are very strongly associated with how they see themselves and how others see them. That's why years of counseling comes first, before a final decision to proceed is made. You don't just wake up and find a surgeon and walk out a new male or female.

The point isn't proof passages. The point was to show that there is homosexuality in the animal kingdomThat's where you and I sharply differ. I guess you discover God's will in the animal kingdom. I look to the Bible. At least that much has become clear.

As to the animal kingdom, animals routinely kill and eat each other. Do you now say that killing and eating other humans is the will of God? Predators routinely attack the sick, weak, and young of their prey, so does that also mean that we should prey upon the weak, sick, and young?


a persons own psycology tied to feelings that are very strongly associated with how they see themselves and how others see them. Isn't that where most mental health disease comes from? Does that make it all wonderful?

That's where you and I sharply differ. I guess you discover God's world in the animal kingdom. I look to the Bible.
The question was about homosexuality in the animal kingdom. (Ask about the plant kingdom, too.) I provided a reference. We were not talking about God or the Bible at the time. As I have said more than once, the happenings in Genesis 3 opened up the universe to limitless possibilities.

Please answer my question: What did lions and tigers and bears eat before The Fall?


Isn't that where most mental health disease comes from? Does that make it all wonderful?
No. You need to get acquainted with trans and intersex people -- and listen to them.

The question was about homosexuality in the animal kingdom. (Ask about the plant kingdom, too.) I provided a reference. We were not talking about God or the Bible at the time. As I have said more than once, the happenings in Genesis 3 opened up the universe to limitless possibilities.Yes we have been talking about the Bible and homosexuals. Your reference to Gen. 3 is so vague and pointless as to be meaningless and can easily be taken to mean that anything that happened after the fall of man is just fine with God. But the fall was not a good event but a bad one, and the consequences are not treated as desirable at any point. You must have scripture if you want to discuss the Bible. We just completely differ there.

It is only in this "enlightened" age in which we live that the crazy idea that there are more than two genders has come forward. People mistakenly have all kinds of ideas about themselves. Some people genuinely think they are a dog. Others think they are a god. Yet others are convinced they can fly or they need to kill him/her self. We don't accept those things as normal. Well, you might, but most people don't, and nor should we accept the silly notion that a boy is really a girl or vice versa.

Fact is the Creator is the final judge, not anyone here.

Yes we have been talking about the Bible and homosexuals. Your reference to Gen. 3 is so vague and pointless as to be meaningless and can easily be taken to mean that anything that happened after the fall of man is just fine with God. But the fall was not a good event but a bad one, and the consequences are not treated as desirable at any point. You must have scripture if you want to discuss the Bible. We just completely differ there.
LGBT individuals have been in this world since Genesis 3. Native Americans called them "two-spirit" people who were accepted and respected by their tribes. Read more here:
https://www.nicoa.org/two-spirit-persons/

You've never studied Greek and Roman history and read about gays and lesbians? I have no doubt bi and trans were there too.

Here's more to read about non-binary individuals (and yes, even in ancient Jewish texts):
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-binary_gender



It is only in this "enlightened" age in which we live that the crazy idea that there are more than two genders has come forward. People mistakenly have all kinds of ideas about themselves. Some people genuinely think they are a dog. Others think they are a god. Yet others are convinced they can fly or they need to kill him/her self. We don't accept those things as normal. Well, you might, but most people don't, and nor should we accept the silly notion that a boy is really a girl or vice versa.
I will refrain from saying what I'd like to say. Please open your mind and educate yourself. I'm sure there are LGBT individuals in your extended family.

"There is a misconception that the concept of non-binary genders is relatively new -- that it is supposedly a product of the Internet age ... Cultures around the world have had more than two gender types for millennia. Anthropologists who have documented these roles tend to use the term Cogender (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogender)."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-binary_gender

W.G.: The general liberal line (I use "liberal" loosely because there are many people of all stripes saying this but I hear this idea come from liberals more often) is that homosexuality is not a "CHOICE", that you are born that way....so, I must ask this: If homosexuality is not a "CHOICE" and these people are born that way, how can you say: "Transgender has nothing to do with DNA, but a persons own psycology tied to feelings that are very strongly associated with how they see themselves and how others see them. That's why years of counseling comes first, before a final decision to proceed is made. You don't just wake up and find a surgeon and walk out a new male or female"? It seems from that quote that being a homosexual IS a choice.

W.G.: The general liberal line (I use "liberal" loosely because there are many people of all stripes saying this but I hear this idea come from liberals more often) is that homosexuality is not a "CHOICE", that you are born that way....so, I must ask this: If homosexuality is not a "CHOICE" and these people are born that way, how can you say: "Transgender has nothing to do with DNA, but a persons own psycology tied to feelings that are very strongly associated with how they see themselves and how others see them. That's why years of counseling comes first, before a final decision to proceed is made. You don't just wake up and find a surgeon and walk out a new male or female"? It seems from that quote that being a homosexual IS a choice.
That's not a homosexual. (Btw, doctors or therapists or a nasty parent can't make someone become a homosexual.) Tal was talking about a transgender individual who transitions via HRT, bottom surgery, voice coaching etc. to become their true gender.

Well, it has become apparent that no Biblical text is going to be forthcoming. That's actually a relief in a way. I'm pretty familiar with the Bible and yet it's possible that I might have overlooked the passage that spoke in favor of homosexual unions, but plainly that is not the case. One can only hope that in the future you will refrain from proclaiming that the Bible gives its consent to this lifestyle.

As to your ongoing wisdom about homosexuals, trans people, someone "becoming" his/her true gender, I would only comment that you seem to be saying that since these conditions exist, then it must be God's will and all is well. Does that also apply to compulsive thieves, or wife beaters, or drug pushers, or bullies, or any one of hundreds of other conditions that have been around forever and do seem to have some compulsive element to them, or does it only to those conditions approved by liberal orthodoxy?

W.G.: The general liberal line (I use "liberal" loosely because there are many people of all stripes saying this but I hear this idea come from liberals more often) is that homosexuality is not a "CHOICE", that you are born that way....so, I must ask this: If homosexuality is not a "CHOICE" and these people are born that way, how can you say: "Transgender has nothing to do with DNA, but a persons own psycology tied to feelings that are very strongly associated with how they see themselves and how others see them. That's why years of counseling comes first, before a final decision to proceed is made. You don't just wake up and find a surgeon and walk out a new male or female"? It seems from that quote that being a homosexual IS a choice.


Your logic is flawed in that you disregard the basic statement "That's why years of counseling comes first, before a final decision to proceed is made. You don't just wake up and find a surgeon and walk out a new male or female"?
​The patient already knows what they are, and a physician just verifies it before surgery or treatments begin. SOP!

Thanks WG. Obviously you know how the process works better than most.

Well, it has become apparent that no Biblical text is going to be forthcoming. That's actually a relief in a way. I'm pretty familiar with the Bible and yet it's possible that I might have overlooked the passage that spoke in favor of homosexual unions, but plainly that is not the case. One can only hope that in the future you will refrain from proclaiming that the Bible gives its consent to this lifestyle.

As to your ongoing wisdom about homosexuals, trans people, someone "becoming" his/her true gender, I would only comment that you seem to be saying that since these conditions exist, then it must be God's will and all is well. Does that also apply to compulsive thieves, or wife beaters, or drug pushers, or bullies, or any one of hundreds of other conditions that have been around forever and do seem to have some compulsive element to them, or does it only to those conditions approved by liberal orthodoxy?

None of us knows what the Creators masterplan is so who can say? Not all wisdom is found in scripture. I think no matter the religion, a personal relationship with your God is even more important than scripture. Anyone can read a book and mouth the words, but at some point you have to tap into the source of all things for yourself. Leave that orthodoxy alone for a change.

None of us knows what the Creators masterplan is so who can say? Not all wisdom is found in scripture. I think no matter the religion, a personal relationship with your God is even more important than scripture. Anyone can read a book and mouth the words, but at some point you have to tap into the source of all things for yourself. Leave that orthodoxy alone for a change.Funny. That's what just about everyone seems to say when they can't get the Bible to agree with their own ideas. I have that personal relationship with my God through Jesus. I know about him through the teaching of the Bible. He lives in my heart and it doesn't get any more personal than that, and I highly, highly recommend Him to anyone and everyone.


​The patient already knows what they are,Now I really hope you will answer this question, but I doubt that you will. If the patient knows he is a dog, then does that make it so? If he knows he is Jesus, or the devil, or a lovely swan, or any one of many other deceptions, then does that make it so, and should a doctor labor to make that, as much as he can, a reality?

Now I really hope you will answer this question, but I doubt that you will. If the patient knows he is a dog, then does that make it so? If he knows he is Jesus, or the devil, or a lovely swan, or any one of many other deceptions, then does that make it so, and should a doctor labor to make that, as much as he can, a reality?
You know darn well that's not what we're talking about. If you're going to play stupid games, I'm finished with this topic.

Now I really hope you will answer this question, but I doubt that you will. If the patient knows he is a dog, then does that make it so? If he knows he is Jesus, or the devil, or a lovely swan, or any one of many other deceptions, then does that make it so, and should a doctor labor to make that, as much as he can, a reality?

No doctor I know of concedes to whatever a patient wants without a comprehensive verification process so your answer is NO, and WG and I already pointed that out. Did you miss it?

I'm finished with this topic.Yes!!


No doctor I know of concedes to whatever a patient wants without a comprehensive verification process so your answer is NO, and WG and I already pointed that out. Did you miss it?If a man can think he's a woman, then why can't he think he's a dog? Aren't they both equally outrageous?

Maybe to you, but that would be up to a therapist to decide wouldn't it?

Yes!!
I changed my mind.


If a man can think he's a woman, then why can't he think he's a dog? Aren't they both equally outrageous?
You need to meet a few transgender individuals. Did you read any of the links I posted? No?

My apologies, WG. My "yes" comment was rude.

I need to meet some mentally ill people?

My apologies, WG. My "yes" comment was rude.
Thank you.

I need to meet some mentally ill people?
You need to meet and honestly talk with intersex people whose mothers were given DES during the pregnancy. That would be a good start.

There was a family in my county growing up....the father was a farmer...he had three kids....they were all older than me....the oldest child was a homosexual.....the middle kid was a lesbian.....The farmer was inconsolable and he confided in many about how wrecked he felt, how inept he felt as a parent and how much he felt an utter failure as a father....he and his wife had another child, a boy: When this third child was 17 years old, he took the boy to an Asian prostitute to "prevent" the youngest boy from becoming a homosexual: This boy became the biggest womanizer in the county....he was married three times and cheated on every one of his wives and ended up dying of a drug overdose while in the presence of a married woman other than his wife. Answers to these kinds of problems aren't found in solutions generated by man, they are found in commitment unto God. The farmer wanted to save his youngest boy but he very well may have played a part in sending him to hell.

I don't know the answers to the questions around sexuality but God does.

Answers to these kinds of problems aren't found in solutions generated by man, they are found in commitment unto God. The farmer wanted to save his youngest boy but he very well may have played a part in sending him to hell.

I don't know the answers to the questions around sexuality but God doesVac, that's a pretty good statement. At the core of the Christian faith is a living relationship with God through His Son Jesus that is of far greater value than any sexual sin we can cook up.

My life has become so simple since I accept that I have no control over what others do, and only control what I do. It got even easier when I started to treat all as I want to be treated, and let the God that I grow to understand do the judging. He knows better than I what is in their hearts, and why they do what they do. I guess that's why I cannot just rail on the sins of others, especially the least of us, because that could easily be me being judged by others be it for a sin, or circumstance.

So being forced to help others is not an issue, as that's just a function of our society that also buys guns and boats and stuff, so why begrudge milk for kids and shelter for poor families? I mean it's just such a pittance in the grand scheme of the other stuff money can buy. Heartbreaking story Vac, what a waste of not loving your kids for what they are, and that it lead to such a decision to attempt to change what was out of the hands of any father, for a very tragic end.

Just makes me grateful for the parents that raised me in unconditional love, and showed me how to give that unconditional love to my kids, no matter what they do. I don't have to like it, but they are still my kids. I'm just as grateful, maybe more so, that I get the same unconditional love back from them...and the grandkids! 8)

Have a good day ALL!

My life has become so simple since I accept that I have no control over what others do, and only control what I do. It got even easier when I started to treat all as I want to be treated, and let the God that I grow to understand do the judging. He knows better than I what is in their hearts, and why they do what they do. I guess that's why I cannot just rail on the sins of others, especially the least of us, because that could easily be me being judged by others be it for a sin, or circumstance.That might be nice if you actually did it, but you rail against the sins of Trump, McConnell, the repubs, white supremacists, and many others all the time on this board. Why is that?

For instance: "So call me a liberal all you want but the fix has been in for so long even conservatives are so dependent on bending the knee to the one that finances their slow trickle so they can essentially reap huge profits for their own personal use. They refuse to see that their liberty and freedom has been subverted by the oligarchs that control the flow of money and the government of the people, and make the least the cause of the problems.

No poor person has ever laid off workers, shut down factories and built new ones somewhere else, or tanked the economy. That's the exclusive domain of the uber rich and the governments they control. Even close examination of wars and trade wars is the underlying international corporate interest doing what it does to make MO'MONEY, and put profits over people and no people are exempt from being exploited for that profit."

Sure sounds like judging to me.

That might be nice if you actually did it, but you rail against the sins of Trump, McConnell, the repubs, white supremacists, and many others all the time on this board. Why is that?

For instance: "So call me a liberal all you want but the fix has been in for so long even conservatives are so dependent on bending the knee to the one that finances their slow trickle so they can essentially reap huge profits for their own personal use. They refuse to see that their liberty and freedom has been subverted by the oligarchs that control the flow of money and the government of the people, and make the least the cause of the problems.

No poor person has ever laid off workers, shut down factories and built new ones somewhere else, or tanked the economy. That's the exclusive domain of the uber rich and the governments they control. Even close examination of wars and trade wars is the underlying international corporate interest doing what it does to make MO'MONEY, and put profits over people and no people are exempt from being exploited for that profit."

Sure sounds like judging to me.

Is it judging or just statement of FACTS as I see them. You are free to correct my facts anytime you want.

So it's judging if someone else does it, but "just statement of facts" when you do it. Interesting, but this part, "conservatives are so dependent on bending the knee to the one that finances their slow trickle so they can essentially reap huge profits for their own personal use," sure sounds awfully judgmental to me.

Will be interesting to see how Pelosi responds to this. Will they call in Dersh and Obama to testify?

"Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said Sunday he has proof that former President Barack Obama (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-campaign-fires-back-after-obama-claims-credit-for-economic-boom) "personally asked" the FBI to investigate someone "on behalf of George Soros," the liberal billionaire megadonor. (https://www.foxnews.com/tech/facebook-soros-special-relationship-trump-zuckerberg)"

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alan-dershowitz-obama-george-soros

So it's judging if someone else does it, but "just statement of facts" when you do it. Interesting, but this part, "conservatives are so dependent on bending the knee to the one that finances their slow trickle so they can essentially reap huge profits for their own personal use," sure sounds awfully judgmental to me.

I guess it would sound that way to one stuck in his own ideology. Easy for you to enjoy your crumbs I suppose and not understand the starving man who needs more and can't get it. Sin that statement of fact as I ignore your right wing attempts to inject more election crap into an attack on your perceived liberal enemies which Pelosi will likely ignore.

I guess it would sound that way to one stuck in his own ideology. Easy for you to enjoy your crumbs I suppose and not understand the starving man who needs more and can't get it. Sin that statement of fact as I ignore your right wing attempts to inject more election crap into an attack on your perceived liberal enemies which Pelosi will likely ignore.Sure sounds awfully judgemental. "stuck in his own ideology" "not understand the starving man" "attempts to inject more injection crap into an attack on your perceived liberal enemies" Oh well. I guess as long as you can call it mere "statements of fact", then you let yourself off the hook. How generous.

It just all sounds like the same old liberal "holier than thou" approach I've been hearing for a long time.

Sure sounds awfully judgemental. "stuck in his own ideology" "not understand the starving man" "attempts to inject more injection crap into an attack on your perceived liberal enemies" Oh well. I guess as long as you can call it mere "statements of fact", then you let yourself off the hook. How generous.

It just all sounds like the same old liberal "holier than thou" approach I've been hearing for a long time.

Well, we are the same age there about, so no surprise we have both heard our fair share of what we deem partisan holier than thou BS!

Well, we are the same age there about, so no surprise we have both heard our fair share of what we deem partisan holier than thou BS!

Yes we have all heard it, Obama, Trump, Bush, Clinton and many, many, many more, it seems there are now three things that are inevitable; death, taxes and B/S

BS isn't just confined to us Clete, all nations have a degree of BS to deal with. No exceptions. Some have more than others.

agreed. some have more than others