These are some of the global reactions to Trump's incredibly moronic idea of doctors testing the injection of disinfectants into the human body to cure Covid-19.

The makers of Lysol had to go so far as to issue a statement that UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should any of their products be injected, ingested or by any other route into the human body.

At the same time Trump promoted this idea, he referred to himself, pointing to his head, as "I know things, I am very....." He was interrupted before finishing his statement with "smart".

God help us from this madman.

This is his quote. “I see that disinfectant knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that. By injection inside…or almost a cleaning. Cause you see it gets in the lungs and does a tremendous number on the lungs. It would be interesting to check that so you’ll have to use medical doctors,” he told Bryan following his presentation. “But it sounds interesting to me. We’ll see, but the whole concept of the light the way it goes in there in one minute. It’s pretty powerful.”

So at no place does he suggest that anyone inject themselves with Lysol. He was simply thinking out loud, which one could hope he would have learned by now not to do. It could certainly qualify as a dumb statement, but he did not say what you suggested. He did not tell anyone to do anything.

It could certainly qualify as a dumb statement, but he did not say what you suggested. He did not tell anyone to do anything.

To even suggest such a thing amidst this climate of fear and uncertainty is both preposterous and dangerous as well as totally bizarre and to pass it off as a dumb statement undermines his propensity for dumb statements EVERYDAY.

Injecting a poison is not a cure, there are other drugs that have been shown to be effective

ABC News reporter Jon Karl :“The president mentioned the idea of a cleaner, bleach and isopropyl alcohol emerging. There’s no scenario where that could be injected into a person, is there?”


Bryan:“No, I’m here to talk about the finds that we had in the study,” “We don’t do that within that lab at our labs.


”Trump :“It wouldn’t be through injections, you’re talking about almost a cleaning and sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work, but it certainly has a big affect if it’s on a stationary object.”


Only complete idiots believe he meant injecting bleach or Lysol. Which makes sense considering who’s claiming he said that.

and here is the technology for using UVA internally .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=RZHQbKe9TtI&feature=emb_logo

I will agree that Trump should defer to his medical experts when discussing medical issues.

Isn't it amazing how people on this board who endlessly accuse Trump of lying are so fast and loose with the truth?

Only complete idiots believe he meant injecting bleach or Lysol. Which makes sense considering who’s claiming he said that.

Isn't it amazing how people on this board who endlessly accuse Trump of lying are so fast and loose with the truth?


Two of them (Republicans) hit the news when they drank fish-tank cleaner that contains a chemical Trump talked about and hyped.


I will agree that Trump should defer to his medical experts when discussing medical issues.

I totally agree with you, tomder! In fact, he shouldn't even mention possible cures.

yup idiots Trump never suggested to anyone to drink fish tank cleaner ,just like he did NOT suggest that anyone should inject themselves with Lysol bleach or IPA .

Trump did what he always does: he played a single person game of telephone, in which somebody gave him information, he processed it, and it came out of his mouth in a completely different way.

circa 1928 . Coolidge asks one of his scientist 'would it be possible to target nuclear radiation at a patient to cure cancer ? '

or Lincoln asked his surgeon ; Can fox glove be used to treat heart disease ?

or maybe one day Trump could ask if using low dose arsenic can potentially cure leukemia .

can the venom of a yellow scorpion help cure brain cancer ?

I know hydrogen peroxide is used topically . What if we injected it into a tumor or cyst ?

yup idiots Trump never suggested to anyone to drink fish tank cleaner ,just like he did NOT suggest that anyone should inject themselves with Lysol bleach or IPA .

Trump did what he always does: he played a single person game of telephone, in which somebody gave him information, he processed it, and it came out of his mouth in a completely different way.


We all agree he should leave the scientific facts to his experts, then maybe we would have to be shocked at his 'injecting disinfectant" comments, but from Dr. Binx's reactions via body language and the reporting on the reaction of staff he should definitely stick to the script, or leave before he has to answer questions, or rift from the top of his head.

That would make for a dull presser no doubt and leave the media with NOTHING new.

@Tom. what a president and his staff and experts discuss should be between them, but like you said the dufus blurts out whatever his distorted brain comes up with because there was no suggestion of using disinfectants on people, just sufaces.

Two of them (Republicans) hit the news when they drank fish-tank cleaner that contains a chemical Trump talked about and hyped.Complete and total falsehood. Shame on you.


'injecting disinfectant"Why is that in quotes? He did not say that.

1. Wonder if they would be alive had they not listened to the dufus?

2. Yes he did in his NYy dialect.

Complete and total falsehood. Shame on you.
"An Arizona man died after swallowing a chemical used in fish tank cleaners...The man and his wife both ingested chloroquine phosphate, reportedly believing it to be a miracle cure for coronavirus."
https://reason.com/2020/03/24/chloroquine-phosphate-coronavirus-trump-arizona-death/

"The man who died ingesting fish tank cleaner thinking it was the drug championed by Donald Trump (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/donald_trump/index.html) to beat COVID-19 (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/coronavirus/index.html) has been remembered as a 'level-headed' engineer.

Gary Lenius and his wife Wanda, both in their 60s, took chloroquine phosphate, confusing it with hydroxychloroquine, last month. Gary died and Wanda was left in critical condition after drinking the chemical."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8255265/PICTURED-Man-died-ingesting-fish-tank-cleaner-thinking-malaria-drug-championed-Trump.html


''injecting disinfectant"

Why is that in quotes? He did not say that.
Yes, he did.

AYESHA RASCOE, NPR: Mr. President, can you clarify your comments about injections of disinfectant? They were quite provocative.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: No, I was asking a question sarcastically to reporters like you just to see what would happen.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/04/24/trump_remarks_on_injecting_disinfectant_were_sarca stic.html

Too many people don't recognize sarcasm when it comes from our dear leader, President Trump.

in light of today's statements I can no longer defend his comments . Also it is wise that they are pulling him back from the daily briefing .

Yes, he did.

AYESHA RASCOE, NPR: Mr. President, can you clarify your comments about injections of disinfectant? They were quite provocative.You say he did, and then you quote Ayesha Rascoe. So in what way does that show that Trump made the comment?

As to the fish tank cleaner, it has been hashed and rehashed on this board. If you are saying that an older couple made a tragic mistake, then that's fine, but then we have to ask why you would even bring it up. If you are suggesting that Trump was in any reasonable manner responsible for the man's death, the you are engaging in a falsehood.

I am not defending the president's comments. He needs to learn to keep his big mouth shut, but to give these fake quotes does not help matters any.

in light of today's statements I can no longer defend his comments . Also it is wise that they are pulling him back from the daily briefing .

President Donald Trump no longer calls his daily press conferences “Coronavirus Task Force briefings,” but up until Friday they still usually last up to two hours, including his robust attacks on the White House press corps. Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx were absent from Friday’s briefing, which lasted only about 21 minutes.

Clearly in response to Trump’s extremely dangerous remarks Thursday, suggesting doctors test the “injection” of disinfectants into the human body to try to cure coronavirus, along with dangerous quackery of inserting ultraviolet light or heat into the body to generate a miracle coronavirus cure, the White House decided to draw a line and stop the President from answering any more questions.



“A number of Trump’s most trusted advisers — both inside and outside the White House — have urged him to stop doing marathon televised briefings,” Axios reported minutes after the briefing ended.
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/04/trump-cuts-briefing-short-takes-no-questions-fauci-and-birx-absent-after-disinfectant-injection-crisis/

You say he did, and then you quote Ayesha Rascoe. So in what way does that show that Trump made the comment?
Here's Trump's quote plus the video is available to see if you click the link at the end of the quote:

Trump: "So I asked Bill a question some of you are thinking of if you're into that world, which I find to be pretty interesting. So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous, whether its ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said, that hasn't been checked but you're gonna test it. And then I said, supposing it brought the light inside the body, which you can either do either through the skin or some other way, and I think you said you're gonna test that too, sounds interesting. And I then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute, and is there a way you can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it'd be interesting to check that. So you're going to have to use medical doctors, but it sounds interesting to me, so we'll see. But the whole concept of the light, the way it goes in one minute, that's pretty powerful."
https://news.yahoo.com/see-full-video-transcript-trump-133316003.html

I have posted that quote myself. I have looked at it very carefully and do not see where Trump made reference to "injecting disinfectant". Tal made that a direct quotation, so the exact wording would have to be there. Correct?

I have posted that quote myself. I have looked at it very carefully and do not see where Trump made reference to "injecting disinfectant". Tal made that a direct quotation, so the exact wording would have to be there. Correct?
I bolded the "injecting disinfectant" part. Please put on your reading glasses.

instead of dissecting yesterday's statements I am concentration on his clear lies today in saying his comments were sarcastic. HE acted like he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar and still denying it while his hand is still in the jar . He lost all possible credibility on this issue . Someone in the White House made the call to limit the damage by reducing the time he has at these daily briefings . I'm betting that what he says going forward will be controlled . His tweets we shall see.

Isn't the resident "grammar expert" rather disgracing herself here? First you quoted someone other than Trump. When that failed, you put a passage in bold text. Well, I put your bold section below, and then put the two words in question in bold. Now surely a bonafide "grammar expert" can see very clearly that Tal's direct quote ("injecting disinfectant") is nowhere to be found in the passage. Honestly, I'm somewhat embarrassed for you.

And I then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute, and is there a way you can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it'd be interesting to check that. So you're going to have to use medical doctors, but it sounds interesting to me, so we'll see.

Isn't the resident "grammar expert" rather disgracing herself here? First you quoted someone other than Trump. When that failed, you put a passage in bold text. Well, I put your bold section below, and then put the two words in question in bold. Now surely a bonafide "grammar expert" can see very clearly that Tal's direct quote ("injecting disinfectant") is nowhere to be found in the passage. Honestly, I'm somewhat embarrassed for you.

And I then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute, and is there a way you can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it'd be interesting to check that. So you're going to have to use medical doctors, but it sounds interesting to me, so we'll see.
First of all, "injecting disinfectant" is tal's shortening of Trump's rambling and horrific suggestion that a disinfectant can be injected into a human body to cure covid-19. (From tal's post #10 in this thread: "We all agree he should leave the scientific facts to his experts, then maybe we would have to be shocked at his 'injecting disinfectant' comments....")

Be sure to watch Dr. Birx's face while he's babbling on and on about the UV light and the disinfectant as hopeful cures. Today he backtracked and said he was just being sarcastic toward a journalist (*giggle giggle*).

And be sure to read my post #16 and tomder's post #20.

Oh, and there's this:

In a letter, Mark Grenon* told Trump that chlorine dioxide – a powerful bleach used in industrial processes such as textile manufacturing that can have fatal side-effects when drunk – is “a wonderful detox that can kill 99% of the pathogens in the body”. He added that it “can rid the body of Covid-19”.

A few days after Grenon dispatched his letter, Trump went on national TV at his daily coronavirus briefing at the White House on Thursday and promoted the idea that disinfectant could be used as a treatment for the virus. To the astonishment of medical experts (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/23/trump-coronavirus-treatment-disinfectant), the US president said that disinfectant “knocks it out in a minute. One minute!”

*Dubbed the "archbishop” of Genesis II – a Florida-based outfit that claims to be a church but which in fact is the largest producer and distributor of chlorine dioxide bleach as a “miracle cure” in the US. He brands the chemical as MMS (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/19/church-group-to-hold-washington-event-despite-fda-warnings-against-miracle-cure), “miracle mineral solution”, and claims fraudulently that it can cure 99% of all illnesses including cancer, malaria, HIV/Aids as well as autism.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/revealed-leader-group-peddling-bleach-cure-lobbied-trump-coronavirus?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_News_Feed

along with dangerous quackery of inserting ultraviolet light or heat into the body to generate a miracle coronavirus cure,

that is not dangerous quackery . The technology is there and was in use in the 1940s and 50s . It was shelved and forgotten . But the treatment exists and is being reintroduced . It is new for this application . I had posted a YouTube that was taken down by the company . But I was able to retrieve a still shot .
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/APP-042420-UV-Light.jpg

It is from a company called Aytu Bioscience in partnership with
Cedars-Sinai- The machine is called
‘Healight’ Medical Device

https://apnews.com/b44f4531071e6204023f7b8e16f59d4b[/

First of all, "injecting disinfectant" is tal's shortening of Trump's rambling and horrificYou know full well what a direct quotation is, and I pointed that out from the outset. It is genuinely sad to see your political inclinations so extreme as to override your professed knowledge of basic grammar. The difference between what a person actually said (direct quotation) versus what you might think they meant is a wide, wide chasm.

Besides all of that, how could you possibly know what Tal's intent was? He never stated that. Check out posts 11, 12, and 13. When I pointed out his use of quotation marks, he simply doubled down and asserted it was true. I'm really astonished to see you continue this insane line of reasoning.

You know full well what a direct quotation is, and I pointed that out from the outset. It is genuinely sad to see your political inclinations so extreme as to override your professed knowledge of basic grammar. The difference between what a person actually said (direct quotation) versus what you might think they meant is a wide, wide chasm.

Besides all of that, how could you possibly know what Tal's intent was? He never stated that.
I repeat --

First of all, "injecting disinfectant" is tal's shortening of Trump's rambling and horrific suggestion that a disinfectant can be injected into a human body to cure covid-19. (From tal's post #10 in this thread: "We all agree he should leave the scientific facts to his experts, then maybe we would have to be shocked at his 'injecting disinfectant' comments....")

Yup, Athos is correct!!!

Yes, but when I pointed out that his use of a quote was wrong, he doubled down and said it was not. If he had simply claimed to be summarizing Trump's comments, then it would have been a different matter. I thought you understood grammar. Perhaps not? It's actually rather shocking to see you pursue this.

BTW, the quote came from Tal, and not from Athos. If he is correct, it is not in this matter.

Everybody is talking meanings and you are stuck on grammar. Even the brand companies are coming out and disavowing what the dufus said about their products, which have had warning labels since I was a kid and I bet you and your wife schooled your kids about what not to eat and drink no matter how good it looked.

Everybody thinks what the dufus said was BIZARRE, LUNACY, DANGEROUS, AND IDIOTIC, all over the freaking world and you trip off quotations? its like you proclaiming all those ancient scholars said one thing and the ones that disagreed were wrong, so in this case do those rules apply? If they do, that makes you dead wrong.

Geez can we move on to his being happy about just having 60,000 deaths projected (Instead of millions?), and we just crossed the 52,000 threshold? Still a week in April to go!

@Tom, anything to stop the infection from getting to the lungs I'm for. So catching it in time may be the key which means more early testing, and not just this rationing crap. I mean does anybody think this virus will stop at a million? If you don't have enough then you don't have enough, and given the hotspots. I suppose JL will argue that the dufus said we don't need no more tests, because we tests more than anybody in the world already.

Let's vote...is this guy a dufus or NOT?

Let's vote...is this guy a dufus or NOT?

it is a vote he wins hands down, we all know this, politics doesn't guarantee intelligence

Everybody thinks what the dufus said was BIZARRE, LUNACY, DANGEROUS, AND IDIOTIC, all over the freaking world and you trip off quotations? its like you proclaiming all those ancient scholars said one thing and the ones that disagreed were wrong, so in this case do those rules apply? If they do, that makes you dead wrong.You made a dumb comment so now it's my fault? I see.

"...all those ancient scholars said one thing and the ones that disagreed were wrong..." What???

Tom, anything to stop the infection from getting to the lungs I'm for. So catching it in time may be the key which means more early testing, and not just this rationing crap. I mean does anybody think this virus will stop at a million? If you don't have enough then you don't have enough, and given the hotspots. I suppose JL will argue that the dufus said we don't need no more tests, because we tests more than anybody in the world already.


What exactly do you hope to accomplish by early testing ? I did not have it one day and now I do. Had I stuck the alien probe up my nose the day before I was infected I would've tested negative . It is bizarre how this is being treated . It used to be that the sick were quarantined . Now we isolate the healthy. That is an unsustainable model. We already know which segments of the population are vulnerable to serious effects of the virus . They should possibly be singled out for special concern including frequent testing .A single one off test is a waste of resources . The young and healthy should be out there doing their jobs ;living a purpose driven life.
So if you think we need mass testing then it should be within the high risk population .


Now the antibody tests coming out are much more valuable .The virus came to California much sooner than to NY . Antibody tests are yielding some stats that are revealing . Stanford University Medical School tested

3,330 residents of Santa Clara county using blood tests to detect antibodies to determine whether or not they had been exposed to the coronavirus. Their study shows the percent of people infected with the disease who die is "A hundred deaths out of 48,000-81,000 infections corresponds to an infection fatality rate of 0.12-0.2%, That gives us roughly the same death rate as the annual flu.




While our study was limited to Santa Clara County, it demonstrates the feasibility of seroprevalence surveys of population samples now, and in the future, to inform our understanding of this pandemic's progression, project estimates of community vulnerability, and monitor infection fatality rates in different populations over time. It is also an important tool for reducing uncertainty about the state of the epidemic, which may have important public benefits.






https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1.full.pdf

Surely there would have to be different results in NYC then in Santa Clara . All the more reason for CDC to take Sanford's methods on the road for a nation wide test ;starting in the hardest hit areas .

[ The USS Theodore Roosevelt the infection rate should be higher but the lethality rate will be lower (much younger and healthier than the general population). The Navy tested the sailors and found that 14% (660) of the crew had the disease. There was one death. That is a mortality rate of 0.15%. Note that the infection rate does not include those that were infected and cleared the virus. They are starting to do antibody testing now. Assuming there will be a higher mortality rate from

Diamond Princess cruise line ]

Very good post, Tom. It is quite possible that when this whole thing is over, we will discover that we absolutely panicked and thus made poor decisions. If I read your post correctly, then you now have this virus? If that's the case, then take care of yourself and get well.


I suppose JL will argue that the dufus said we don't need no more tests, because we tests more than anybody in the world already.You're the one who makes up quotes, so now you think I'll copy you? You can be sure that is not going to happen.

You made a dumb comment so now it's my fault? I see.

"...all those ancient scholars said one thing and the ones that disagreed were wrong..." What???

Well excuse me for paraphrasing the dufus meandering comments and cutting to the chase. I blast you for semantic and grammar antics and you well deserved it.

The rest of the blast pertaining to ancient man comes from the very obvious fact there were many bibles and from which whomever had the best sway adopted as the official sanctioned version for the masses. Back (As NOW) then religious leaders were like politicians, always trying to keep ahead of the competition for followers and supporters. Indeed the whole history of religion is more domination and power than divinity.

I don't want to get into a religious discussion here, just point out how easy it is to prop up a dufus who clearly has no clue what he is talking about and thankfully the huge blowback to his commentary at this presser has reduced his face time big time for now. That's a good thing.

@TOM



What exactly do you hope to accomplish by early testing ?

For one, who can infect others, and those people can take the appropriate safety actions. One thing that has become painfully obvious, especially in nursing home, and confined close quarter populations, is this virus spreads fast and brought in often unknowingly from the outside. You have no choice I think, but to identify and isolate the healthy people since the virulence is so fast and pronounced. Maybe it's not sustainable, but fact is we just can't know who is healthy and who is not. That suggests regular health monitoring of darn near everybody and that is a huge undertaking considering we just don't have enough tests. Important though we make the most of what we have to learn everything we can so we can at least find a course of action that works.

As you've acknowledge before, those in a high risk group should be more cautious of contacts and those still working essential or soon to be workers are more likely to facilitate more infections than not for sure so the numbers will increase and not decrease. Just because we have few good options doesn't mean we just say screw it and go back to work since we know that even essentials get sick. Cops, nurses doctors, grocery workers, all are having increases.

I think we just have to recognize we are far behind the curb and playing catch up as we learn, and it's likely to be a while before business as usual is not a death defying event. We may have to adjust to a new normal for the foreseeable future. That's just reality as I take note of your numbers. They cannot be accurate without testing to verify the projections.

Personally I would be afraid to go to work and may sue the MF who makes me and I got sick. I cite the Amazon walkouts as a precursor to the concerns of those workers. Pay attention to those food processing plants, but give me masks and gloves and I'll hustle some haircuts. We just cannot predict what comes next Tom, but we better get better prepared to deal with it than we were when it hit.

In that we have NO choice, but to ramp up testing capabilities and capacity, and that requires a strong supply and delivery chain which we have already found to be lacking.

paraphrasing the dufusYou didn't paraphrase and you know you didn't. That was the whole point of my question that you and WG have practically exhausted yourselves denying. But at least you have now corrected yourself and admitted your mistake, so thank goodness for that.


there were many bibles and from which whomever had the best sway adopted as the official sanctioned version for the masses. There is some truth in that, but not in the way you think. It largely did not happen that way.

1. It's more like I had to clarify what you missed multiple times, but if your spin makes you feel better then okay, whatever. Just curious as to what your own perception of his comments were, and did it make sense to you?

2. I would much prefer we moved this part of the discussion to the proper place and will copy/paste to a more appropriate thread if that's okay as I am more than interested in your explanation.

It's more like I had to clarify what you missed multiple times,Tal, you're just being untruthful . Period. End of story. You were very clear with your direct quotation which I asked directly about and you affirmed. Maybe you don't know what that means?? At any rate, don't blame your falsehoods on me.


2. I would much prefer we moved this part of the discussion to the proper place and will copy/paste to a more appropriate thread if that's okay as I am more than interested in your explanation.OK with me.

Tal, you're just being untruthful . Period. End of story. You were very clear with your direct quotation which I asked directly about and you affirmed. Maybe you don't know what that means?? At any rate, don't blame your falsehoods on me.

I didn't assign the quotes and maybe it would be grammatically correct to do so, or stipulate I was paraphrasing but no excuse for you not to answer the question posed unless you are intentionally ducking it, or just missed (OMITTED) it as usual.

"Just curious as to what your own perception of his comments were, and did it make sense to you?"

"Just curious as to what your own perception of his comments were, and did it make sense to you?"I think he was doing what he frequently does which is "thinking out loud." It is extremely unwise. Probably the greatest disappointment I have with Trump is the fact that he has learned very little about how to deal with the public. He does not govern his mouth. Still, to say that he was suggesting that people go out and inject disinfectant into their veins is flatly untrue. But Trump should know by now that his dumb, thoughtless comments allow liberals who are largely unconcerned with being truthful to distort his statements. He is right in much of what he says about fake news, but when your house is one fire, you don't need to throw gasoline on it.


I didn't assign the quotes and maybe it would be grammatically correct to do soMaybe?

That suggests regular health monitoring of darn near everybody
so public health will be the pretext for the police state . Maybe those of us who were infected can have a tattoo so the public can know ?

As you've acknowledge before, those in a high risk group should be more cautious of contacts and those still working essential or soon to be workers are more likely to facilitate more infections than not for sure so the numbers will increase and not decrease. Just because we have few good options doesn't mean we just say screw it and go back to work since we know that even essentials get sick. Cops, nurses doctors, grocery workers, all are having increases.

I assure you the work place already is making adaptions . In my plant everyone is scanned with a thermometer before entering . We also follow CDC guidelines , Mercifully they have eased some of the more onereous ones like anyone who was potentially exposed had to self quarantine for 2 weeks with the company picking up the tab. When they ended that requirment and only workers with doctor's notes were permitted to take the time off using their own benefit time ,suddenly we had a lot fewer workers out .The attrition rate was horrible for a time with most of those out never getting sick



I think we just have to recognize we are far behind the curb and playing catch up
completely disagree .The only countries ahead of us initially was the ones in Asia who had gone through covid incidents before .We also fell behind because initial test kits were failures .



Personally I would be afraid to go to work and may sue the MF who makes me and I got sick
I tell my staff they have the option to resign .This is not a dicatorship . I know when this is done there is going to be a big pool of workers looking for the jobs my employer provides .



I cite the Amazon walkouts as a precursor to the concerns of those workers
I will also cite that and just imagine truckers deciding it is too risky to deliver goods into NYC .;or clerks in grocery stores refusing to stock shelves . Or pharmaceutical workers refusing to run the machines that make the medicines we need . I can do without your hair cut (and my clippers will be in next week .I figure using them 3 times will pay for them with the money I will no longer have to pay my hair dresser .)

I think he was doing what he frequently does which is "thinking out loud." It is extremely unwise. Probably the greatest disappointment I have with Trump is the fact that he has learned very little about how to deal with the public. He does not govern his mouth. Still, to say that he was suggesting that people go out and inject disinfectant into their veins is flatly untrue. But Trump should know by now that his dumb, thoughtless comments allow liberals who are largely unconcerned with being truthful to distort his statements. He is right in much of what he says about fake news, but when your house is one fire, you don't need to throw gasoline on it.

Yeah I can see commercials running all over the place of videos of his thinking out loud in public, at the podium. They are airing as I speak, so don't blame liberals for that, since he did it himself. He sets his own house on fire, and repubs would and have done the same thing to Biden. We could call this the year of politics in the middle of a pandemic.

Pretty catchy don't you think?

What they did is similar to what you did. Not trying to be ugly, but you concocted a fake quote by Trump ("injecting disinfectant") in an effort to distort what he actually said. Athos did the same thing is saying that Trump encouraged insurrection and called upon people to "storm statehouses", a comment he never made. So it's fine with me if people want to quote him. I just hope they do so accurately.

And remember that Biden is a factory of mass production when it comes to making dumb comments. I guess you can say that both sides will supply each other with plenty of ammo.

What they did is similar to what you did. Not trying to be ugly, but you concocted a fake quote by Trump ("injecting disinfectant") in an effort to distort what he actually said.
That is NOT what tal did!!!! You still don't understand, do you!

Oh stop with it. That's exactly what he did. He even admitted to it. Haven't you disgraced yourself enough?

Read it here. "I didn't assign the quotes and maybe it would be grammatically correct to do so, or stipulate I was paraphrasing..." So yeah, he was giving a direct quote and as you well know, you cannot give a direct quote and then say you were paraphrasing. Doesn't work that way, not even for liberal dems. You have officially vacated your "grammar expert" position. Sad.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WChTqYlDjtI

Oh stop with it. That's exactly what he did. He even admitted to it. Haven't you disgraced yourself enough?

Read it here. "I didn't assign the quotes and maybe it would be grammatically correct to do so, or stipulate I was paraphrasing..." So yeah, he was giving a direct quote which existed nowhere but in his own mind. And, I suppose, in your's as well, and that's a scary thought. You have officially vacated your "grammar expert" position. Sad.
He was paraphrasing!!!!

(Definition: a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning in another form, as for clearness; rewording.)

Sure he was. He was paraphrasing using quotation marks. Is that how it's taught in Chicago???

"Bizarre", "Lunacy", "Dangerous"

https://www.thoughtco.com/how-to-paraphrase-quotations-2831595


5. If you need to use an interesting word or phrase from the original text, use quotation marks (https://www.thoughtco.com/guidelines-for-using-quotation-marks-correctly-1691757) to indicate that it is not your own.

5. If you need to use an interesting word or phrase from the original text, use quotation marks (https://www.thoughtco.com/guidelines-for-using-quotation-marks-correctly-1691757) to indicate that it is not your own.

If you had taken the link to quotation marks, you would have discovered this. "Keep in mind that direct quotations repeat a speaker's exact words. In contrast, indirect quotations (https://www.thoughtco.com/indirect-quotation-writing-1691163) are summaries (https://www.thoughtco.com/summary-composition-1692160) or paraphrases (https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-paraphrase-1691573) of someone else's words. Don't use quotation marks around indirect quotations." (emphasis mine)

I can't believe we are even having this ridiculous conversation. I'll just do this. I will agree that in your world and your mind, a person can paraphrase by putting the words in quotation marks, thus making it only appear to everyone else on the planet that it is a direct quotation and not a paraphrase.

What do you expect from a blue collar worker?

Sure he was. He was paraphrasing using quotation marks. Is that how it's taught in Chicago???
Paraphrasing: a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning in another form, as for clearness; rewording.

And always a put-down....

I don't need to put you down. You're doing a great job of it yourself, but have it your way. Everyone in your world should use quotation marks to indicate a paraphrase. Fine. The rest of the world will do otherwise.


What do you expect from a blue collar worker?I understand your intent. No problem.

I can't believe we are even having this ridiculous conversation. I'll just do this. I will agree that in your world and your mind, a person can paraphrase by putting the words in quotation marks, thus making it only appear to everyone else on the planet that it is a direct quotation and not a paraphrase.
It. Was. Not. A. Direct. Quotation.

You are such a "cranky curmudgeon"! (Who am I quoting? No one. I am paraphrasing and sweetening up what I REALLY think.)

"injecting disinfectant"

You're right. That is certainly not a direct quotation. It's a "Chicago paraphrase". We'll just call it that from now on.

I might let you re-earn your "grammar expert" status. It'll really take some work.

It's a "Chicago paraphrase".

I might let you re-earn your "grammar expert" status. It'll really take some work.
I'm not from Chicago nor have I ever lived in Chicago.

Why are you even mentioning me as a grammar expert? If you look at my profile, these are my expert categories:
Careers, Customer Service, Interview Questions, Job Hunting, Learning Disabilities, Parenting, Resumes, Writing

But you have stated before you live near Chicago, so "Chicago paraphrase" it is. I like that.

But you have stated before you live near Chicago, so "Chicago paraphrase" it is. I like that.
Don't tempt me....

"injecting disinfectant"

It's called embalming.

A "committed grammarian" is the term you used of yourself a few months back. That's what I'm going on. Notice that I designated the two words as a Chicago paraphrase. Sadly, being recognized as a committed grammarian is off the table until you redeem yourself.

A "committed grammarian" is the term you used of yourself a few months back. That's what I'm going on. Notice that I designated the two words as a Chicago paraphrase. Sadly, being recognized as a committed grammarian is off the table until you redeem yourself.
Please PM me the entire quote. I don't remember ever describing myself that way.

Done.

Now you guys are talking behind my back! That's just great!

Now you guys are talking behind my back! That's just great!
He'd called me a "committed liberal". I had corrected him. I asked for a PM from him so this thread wouldn't go off-topic. Bwahahahahahaha!

Now you guys are talking behind my back!Not true. She had referred to herself as a "committed grammarian". I guess she didn't believe me, so I sent her the link to the post.

What exactly do you hope to accomplish by early testing ?

All due respect, Tom. Here's some good info from the American Heart Association.

When a communicable disease outbreak begins, the ideal response is for public health officials to begin testing for it early. Early testing helps to identify anyone who came into contact with infected people so they too can be quickly treated.

While we are obviously not in that ideal situation with COVID-19, testing remains critical.

It's crucial of course to help treat, isolate or hospitalize people who are infected. Testing also is important in the bigger public health picture on mitigation efforts, helping investigators characterize the prevalence, spread and contagiousness of the disease.

In comparison to China and South Korea, testing in the United States appears to have been insufficient for optimal early containment. And now we're seeing a rapid rise in hospitalizations that is overwhelming public health systems and clinical care systems.

There are more details at the link below.

( https://www.heart.org/en/news/2020/04/02/covid-19-science-why-testing-is-so-important)

you concocted a fake quote by Trump ("injecting disinfectant") in an effort to distort what he actually said. Athos did the same thing is saying that Trump encouraged insurrection and called upon people to "storm statehouses", a comment he never made


Huh? "Athos concocted a false quote in an effort to distort..."

Where (and what exactly) is the false quote?

While the Orange in Chief didn't specifically say to inject or ingest these agents the comments have been enough to cause the big manufacturers to issues statements advising against any such actions.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52411706

From an external to America viewpoint, the average Orange supporter, certainly the most vocal group, (I'm not talking party lines here) isn't renown for their common sense or actual inelegance..

"Trump calls for insurrection."

"Republicans will turn a blind eye. But history books will say: In April of 2020, when the pandemic had already claimed 35,000 lives, the President of the United States incited people to storm their statehouses with AR-15s and AK-47s."

Athos, granted that those are not quotes, but they are largely fabrications as to what the pres actually said. Now if you want to insist that you accurately reflected Trump's comments, then supply the quotes where he mentions insurrection, storming statehouses, or AK's.


isn't renown for their common sense or actual ineleganceInelegance? I'm not really what you would call a Trump supporter, but I did vote for him, so I suppose I lack elegance in many ways. Didn't even realize it was all that important.

inelegance.. I plead guilty . I am not inelegant .

Athos The value to testing is to determine a denominator .
As an example ; a new study out of USC has preliminary results that suggest the infection rate could be as high as 50x greater than has been reported ,
as many as 442,000 adult residents of Los Angeles County may have already been infected.

https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/CALACOUNTY/bulletins/2877402?reqfrom=share&fbclid=IwAR1aSkYQjJ_fpi8MXwmzqSAJNwtYjRdNxIXWN6k7i CBz9t2Nfe7sHskvjWQ
This is the second study in 2 days released that did antibody testing . The tests everyone says we are not doing enough of is a snapshot in time . The person tested negative today could be positive a week from now with exposure.
The link you gave shows that the antibody tests allows us to know who has been infected .With that information we know that person has immunity ;and plasma from them can be used treating other patients . That may also be the key to developing a vaccine .
Are you familiar with
Variolation ?
It was the 18th century equivalent to the small pox vaccine.
It was a method of removing a pox from one person and placing it on a scratch of another person. That person would get a mild case of small pox ,but then would have immunity for the rest of their lives . The Brits that came over to fight the Americans in 1777 generally had immunity to the small pox .But the Continental soldiers did not ;and small pox was in epidemic stages in some parts of the colonies . Washington made a decision in February 1777 to
Variolate the entire Continental Army. It was a success. Although surgeons had to deal with a variety of diseases throughout the war . One that was of little concern for the army was small pox .


Anyway ,The good news about both studies is that it confirms ;when factoring in the denominator ,that the virus is far less deadly than we thought . Protect the high risk and let the rest of the country go back to their lives .

Anyway ,The good news about both studies is that it confirms ;when factoring in the denominator ,that the virus is far less deadly than we thought . Protect the high risk and let the rest of the country go back to their lives .That was an interesting study and your conclusion seems sensible.

Anyway ,The good news about both studies is that it confirms ;when factoring in the denominator ,that the virus is far less deadly than we thought . Protect the high risk and let the rest of the country go back to their lives .

The problem with your news is you cannot say that recovered people have immunity for life and cannot be re-infected, or the degree of infection without testing everyone. How do you protect the high risk without testing everyone they come in contact with? How do you even know your death count is accurate without testing all the dead? Was it a heart kidney organ failure, or coronavirus as the root cause? Looks like we will have the opportunity though to observe what happens when we ease restrictions and allow people back to work in repub governed states and see how it works. We will know much more in 30 days so what's the real rush here.

Obviously I take issue with less deadly, and minimizing the actual suffering. We can't treat this like the flu because it's NOT. I understand the desperation from those that suddenly ain't got no money, but part of protecting the high risk group is minimizing the spread of this virus in my opinion, and ignoring that fact puts us all at risk.

The problem with your news is you cannot say that recovered people have immunity for life and cannot be re-infected, or the degree of infection without testing everyone.
Tal there is no scenario where you are going to get EVERYONE to be tested . Even in a health emergency we still have rights . You protect the high risk similar to what we are doing now . Isolation during outbreaks ,and quarantine the sick (never before have we ever quarantined the healthy . )



How do you even know your death count is accurate without testing all the dead? Was it a heart kidney organ failure, or coronavirus as the root cause? You could always use il duce Cuomo's assumptions that all death of covid positive people is caused by the virus .

"Trump calls for insurrection."

"Republicans will turn a blind eye. But history books will say: In April of 2020, when the pandemic had already claimed 35,000 lives, the President of the United States incited people to storm their statehouses with AR-15s and AK-47s."

Athos, granted that those are not quotes, but they are largely fabrications as to what the pres actually said.
You sorta like liberally paraphrased what Athos had posted? And then put it inside quotation marks....

paraphrase
[ˈperəˌfrāz]
VERB
paraphrased (past tense) · paraphrased (past participle)


express the meaning of (the writer or speaker or something written or spoken) using different words, especially to achieve greater clarity.

Tal there is no scenario where you are going to get EVERYONE to be tested . Even in a health emergency we still have rights . You protect the high risk similar to what we are doing now . Isolation during outbreaks ,and quarantine the sick (never before have we ever quarantined the healthy . )

Never before have we had this virus. Sure we could test everybody once we settle on the best test. We'll probably get that before a vaccine. How else would you know who is sick, healthy, or asymptomatic without testing. Dangerous to assume a healthy looking person who may be asymptomatic can't infect someone unintentionally. To avoid assuming you quarantine as many as possible.

The real problem is that folks use to working and doing stuff are getting antsy and will take risks for the previous normal because they ain't got that money coming in. Our capitalist society, so highly prized is not solving this problem quickly enough, and the dufus weakened central government, prized by some is not helping either, and states ain't come up with a solution because they are basically playing catch up as a reaction. Even the dufus show failed to calm the masses and guide us through this thing.

The only good news for us is nobody else has really lapped the field and conquered this virus either.


You could always use il duce Cuomo's assumptions that all death of covid positive people is caused by the virus .

A practical assumption but did that 40 year old die from a stroke, or a virus induced heart attack? Not to long ago we classified things for example Aids related new pneumonia, or cancer related complications, but until you test the untested who die, we cannot know.


You sorta like liberally paraphrased what Athos had posted? And then put it inside quotation marks....

paraphrase
[ˈperəˌfrāz]
VERB
paraphrased (past tense) · paraphrased (past participle)


express the meaning of (the writer or speaker or something written or spoken) using different words, especially to achieve greater clarity.



We got the meaning and intent, but dufus supporter need exact language or any criticism gets dismissed. How convenient...on any topic.

You sorta like liberally paraphrased what Athos had posted? And then put it inside quotation marks....If you are going to keep posting, then PLEASE, PLEASE educate yourself enough to post accurately. I quoted Athos exactly. (Remember..."Chicago paraphrase"?) You are now the "committed UNgrammarian". It really gets sickening.


We got the meaning and intent, but dufus supporter need exact language or any criticism gets dismissed. How convenient...on any topic.I assure you if I am looking for exact language, I will likely look elsewhere.

Athos, granted that those are not quotes

That's all that needs to be said. If further explanation desired, see CurlyBen's post # 64.


I quoted Athos exactly.

Somebody is confused. His usual state of affairs


You are now the "committed UNgrammarian". It really gets sickening.

The only sickening thing here is your claim to be an educator. Why do you consistently bash WG?

Somebody is confused. His usual state of affairsI have posted below what I posted, and then I posted from your original post. Now maybe you're seeing something that the rest of the world is not seeing. I just don't know what your complaint is. The only thing I left out was the pic which is the norm for quoting. It is otherwise word for word what you stated, otherwise known as a direct quote. There was no paraphrase of your post.

Now complain if you want to that I referred to your comments as a quote. I'll take the blame for that, but it doesn't erase the fact that you misrepresented what the pres said. He said nothing that you could have honestly described in the way you did.


What I posted.

"Trump calls for insurrection."

"Republicans will turn a blind eye. But history books will say: In April of 2020, when the pandemic had already claimed 35,000 lives, the President of the United States incited people to storm their statehouses with AR-15s and AK-47s."

What you posted and I copied.

Trump Calls for Insurrection
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EV1SKI3XkAE5GFy?format=jpg&name=small

Republicans will turn a blind eye. But history books will say: In April of 2020, when the pandemic had already claimed 35,000 lives, the President of the United States incited people to storm their statehouses with AR-15s and AK-47s.


Why do you consistently bash WG?It's not my intention to "bash" anyone, but she knows what has caused this problem in the past few days. When she claims, for instance, that I "liberally" paraphrased you when in fact I copied and pasted your exact statement, then it has become past ridiculous.

maybe you're seeing something that the rest of the world is not seeing.

It's very apparent that the rest of the world is seeing EXACTLY what I'm seeing. The not-seeing is all yours.


There was no paraphrase of your post.

You are clueless in many things. As a literalist, there is much beyond paraphrasing that you miss. Trump communicates to his flock in more ways than one. Google "dog whistle" to learn one way.


it doesn't erase the fact that you misrepresented what the pres said.

After checking "dog whistle", come back here and admit that I represented EXACTLY what he said. Good grief! Did you look at the picture on the statehouse steps with armed protestors.?


He said nothing that you could have honestly described in the way you did.

My description was perfectly honest to anyone who can read and understand. Like a lot of Trump supporters, you're not among that group. You prove it here almost every time you post.


the President of the United States incited people to storm their statehouses with AR-15s and AK-47s.

"Incite" would have been a better choice of words, but "calls for" is essentially the same meaning here.


It's not my intention to "bash" anyone,

It sure looks like your intention. How is bashing not your intention when you do the bashing?


When she claims, for instance, that I "liberally" paraphrased you when in fact I copied and pasted your exact statement, then it has become past ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is someone who claims to be an educator cannot understand how the English language is written and spoken. Something WG knows far better than you.

If said protest were peaceful, why did they bring their guns?

OK. Have it your way, Athos. Evidently in your world copying and pasting exactly another person's words amounts to a liberal paraphrase. Just be aware that in the world outside of your head, it doesn't.


My description was perfectly honest to anyone who can read and understand. Like a lot of Trump supporters, you're not among that group. You prove it here almost every time you post. Of course you are right. Employing provocative and inaccurate descriptions of a person's words is completely honest...in your world, at least.

OK. Have it your way, Athos. Evidently in your world copying and pasting exactly another person's words amounts to a liberal paraphrase. Just be aware that in the world outside of your head, it doesn't.

Of course you are right. Employing provocative and inaccurate descriptions of a person's words is completely honest...in your world, at least.

1. A head count would settle this so My vote is for Athos.

2. If the dufus does it and YOU, why can't everybody else do it?

My vote is for Athos.He is correct in what way, that copying and pasting the exact words of a person is paraphrasing? Surely you are not going to go down that dark road of ignorance. But if you are, then be sure to also cast your vote for the proposition that 2 + 2 = 6. One is about as correct as the other.


If the dufus does it and YOU, why can't everybody else do it? People do it all the time, but you can't do it and then call it honest and accurate. Well actually, of course, you can, but then that makes you dishonest and inaccurate.

Sometimes we need a laugh on this board.

https://scontent.fmem1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/94766915_2670657139730416_6087084254712299520_n.jp g?_nc_cat=107&_nc_sid=110474&_nc_ohc=vlU30kFoQrUAX-qoty4&_nc_ht=scontent.fmem1-2.fna&oh=ec11f350ab7bb223769ff9f5568f52d6&oe=5ECC33D6

That was pretty good JL. Took a minute to soak in, but I got it! 8D

Post #79 response

1. You make a mountain from a molehill, and crazy to mix english standards with math standards. Dissapointing comparison.

2. It was my honest opinion, but more accurately Athos's honest opinion I agreed with. Thus my vote which I didn't have to hold my nose to make. Can't you just vote NO without the jibber jabber?

It was my honest opinion, but more accurately Athos's honest opinion I agreed with.Opinion about what? He had many of them. If you are agreeing with his opinion of Trump, then that's to be expected. Please, please tell me you are not agreeing with his ideas about direct quotations and paraphrasing.

Tell me again what the "8D" means. I am old.


You make a mountain from a molehill,You might be right about that. To explain, we have an old saying in Mississippi that I'm sure you are familiar with. "Don't pour water (we actually use a different word) out of your boot on my head and try to tell me it's raining." Well, don't use a direct quote and then try to tell me it's a paraphrase. The truth still matters.


crazy to mix english standards with math standards. Dissapointing comparison.Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill. Goodness.

Another laugh.


https://scontent.fmem1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/94580662_3467193583295866_2085237975469260800_n.jp g?_nc_cat=111&_nc_sid=110474&_nc_ohc=wUiHbwoQSNMAX-Zl719&_nc_ht=scontent.fmem1-2.fna&oh=334b91b495a477d1dcd284f12a2000a1&oe=5ECE6928

Now that was a hoot!



Tell me again what the "8D" means. I am old.

Turn your head sideways and see if it makes sense you old coot!

Smiley face???

Actually its a huge grin face. 8) is a smiley face.

Gosh!! It's all so complicated. 8D

{:()>

Evidently in your world copying and pasting exactly another person's words amounts to a liberal paraphrase.

Trouble reading? Here is what I said. If you had followed my instructions, you would learn something.

You are clueless in many things. As a literalist, there is much beyond paraphrasing that you miss. Trump communicates to his flock in more ways than one. Google "dog whistle" to learn one way.

Note: "...beyond paraphrasing..."


Employing provocative and inaccurate descriptions of a person's words is completely honest...in your world, at least.

I was describing Trump's incitement to his supporters to "liberate" Virginia. They obeyed, as the picture clearly shows, armed with AR-15s and AK-47s and toting pro-Trump signs. Reports from all over the country described the incident exactly as I did. Why you characterize my words as inaccurate is simply another indication of your inability (or refusal) to comprehend the obvious.

refusal to comprehend the obvious.

got it in one

It's alright Athos. I realize your world is a very different place. Hope you enjoy it. I'm just glad I don't live there where a paraphrase and a direct quote are interchangeable. For example, I stated, "I quoted Athos exactly." Your ridiculous reply was, ""Somebody is confused. " Well, you were write about somebody being confused. The somebody was you.

As to the pres, here is your QUOTE.

"Trump calls for insurrection."

"Republicans will turn a blind eye. But history books will say: In April of 2020, when the pandemic had already claimed 35,000 lives, the President of the United States incited people to storm their statehouses with AR-15s and AK-47s."

Never called for insurrection. Never called for guns. Never called for anyone to storm a statehouse. Your description was ridiculous.

Never called for insurrection. Never called for guns. Never called for anyone to storm a statehouse. Your description was ridiculous.

You still don't get it. I suggested you read up on "dog whistle"

It's alright Athos. I realize your world is a very different place. Hope you enjoy it. I'm just glad I don't live there where a paraphrase and a direct quote are interchangeable.
That is not what Athos and I have said. They are NOT interchangeable!

JL said -- As to the pres, here is your QUOTE.

"Trump calls for insurrection."

"Republicans will turn a blind eye. But history books will say: In April of 2020, when the pandemic had already claimed 35,000 lives, the President of the United States incited people to storm their statehouses with AR-15s and AK-47s."

Never called for insurrection. Never called for guns. Never called for anyone to storm a statehouse. Your description was ridiculous.
"Incite," according to Dictionary.com et al. is defined as "to stir, encourage, or urge on."

Trump definitely stirred and encouraged his base to "liberate," which they interpreted to mean make signs, pull their semi-automatics out from under the bed, flout social-distancing orders, eschew protective masks, and assemble with signs and guns (while coughing and sneezing on each other?) to storm government buildings.

(Haven't we already been down this road but with fish-tank cleaner. disinfectants, and UV light?)

They are NOT interchangeable!Well I'm glad you finally see the light. So when Tal puts words within quotation marks, he is not paraphrasing as you said he was in post 43. We are making progress at last.

Well I'm glad you finally see the light. So when Tal puts words within quotation marks, he is not paraphrasing as you said he was in post 43. We are making progress at last.
You really don't get it, do you.

I get this very well. "So when Tal puts words within quotation marks, he is not paraphrasing as you said he was in post 43." That I get very plainly.

I get this very well. "So when Tal puts words within quotation marks, he is not paraphrasing as you said he was in post 43." That I get very plainly.
Nope. You've missed the boat.

And do you see the mistake in this sentence of yours in your post I quoted in #43?

"And, I suppose, in your's as well, and that's a scary thought."

What you posted and I copied.

Trump Calls for Insurrection


Republicans will turn a blind eye. But history books will say: In April of 2020, when the pandemic had already claimed 35,000 lives, the President of the United States incited people to storm their statehouses with AR-15s and AK-47s.

It's not my intention to "bash" anyone, but she knows what has caused this problem in the past few days. When she claims, for instance, that I "liberally" paraphrased you when in fact I copied and pasted your exact statement, then it has become past ridiculous.

You claimed I quoted Trump. I did no such thing. You insisted. So I went back and re-read the entire two threads - this one and the one about insurrection. What you claimed was my quoting Trump were MY OWN WORDS. You then copied those charging me with quoting Trump.

At one point (already pointed out to you) you even denied that I quoted Trump. Your anger is leading you far astray and into the world of self-delusion.

Jl, this discussion on quotation and paraphrase, etc., among you and WG and Tal has become another obsession by you. They are both correct on the issue but you just can't let it go.

You are the King of nit-pickers.

You are the King of nit-pickers.

No, he is the king of nits, he just likes to argue, and to do so he will twist what you say. It is useless debating him

You claimed I quoted Trump. I did no such thing. You insisted.That's already been straightened out. This discussion is not about that. If any of you want to believe that a quote is a paraphrase, then go for it. When WG claims that words within quotation marks are a paraphrase, and you consider that to be correct, then that's a fantasy world I don't want to live in.

I reserve the right to express myself as best I can. If you want to flunk my grammar, go ahead teach, hardly would be my first grammar error or last if indeed it's a error or me just being me! Doesn't change the fact that the dufus has yet again sparked controversy and contention with LAST WEEKS bizarro lunatic dangerous comments fueled by a lack of knowledge. That was last week! Did you see his presser yesterday from the WH with Pence by his side?

This dude learned nothing, so he just straight up blows his own horn with the usual lies and blame game misdirection's and distractions. If anybody can tell me what true thing this dude has said or done since this crisis started, I would love to hear it so I can blast you back to reality!

PS, We have already discussed the slow full of holes travel ban was after the airlines stopped flights.

That's already been straightened out. This discussion is not about that. If any of you want to believe that a quote is a paraphrase, then go for it. When WG claims that words within quotation marks are a paraphrase, and you consider that to be correct, then that's a fantasy world I don't want to live in.

Then please go to another world of your choosing. We'll be glad to see you go. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

That's already been straightened out. This discussion is not about that. If any of you want to believe that a quote is a paraphrase, then go for it. When WG claims that words within quotation marks are a paraphrase, and you consider that to be correct, then that's a fantasy world I don't want to live in.
JL claims words within quotation marks "can't be a paraphrase."

JL claims words within quotation marks "can't be a paraphrase."I haven't said exactly that. I can quote another person's paraphrase and that's fine, but it must be his/her exact words. But I'll tell you what. If you know of some way to paraphrase another person's words and put that within quotation marks, thus misrepresenting your own paraphrase of that person's statement as being that person's exact words, the tell us all how it works. I'm all ears. Let's hear it. Not copying and pasting something from the internet, but your own explanation.

Athos, if you don't want to read my posts, then block them. Fine with me, but I'm not going to live in that make believe world you have in your head. I'm not going to simply bow low and accept what you say. You have to make some appeal to authority.

I'm still convinced you are running from the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

I haven't said exactly that. I can quote another person's paraphrase and that's fine, but it must be his/her exact words. But I'll tell you what. If you know of some way to paraphrase another person's words and put that within quotation marks, thus misrepresenting your own paraphrase of that person's statement as being that person's exact words, the tell us all how it works. I'm all ears. Let's hear it. Not copying and pasting something from the internet, but your own explanation.
I did.

You said: When WG claims that words within quotation marks are a paraphrase....

I said: JL claims words within quotation marks "can't be a paraphrase."

I didn't quote you exactly but paraphased what you had said and enclosed that paraphrase in quote marks.

1. So when we break, bend, or change the rules, you get to punish us in forever? Boy you need a life.

2. Get a room!

3. WOW, truly fascinating how you make a different point of view into a judgmental condemnation the inquisition would be proud of.

I didn't quote you exactly but paraphased what you had said and enclosed that paraphrase in quote marks.

"A direct quotation is a report of the exact words of an author or speaker and is placed inside quotation marks in a written work."

www.thoughtco.com/direct-quotation-composition-1690461 (http://www.thoughtco.com/direct-quotation-composition-1690461)

You did exactly what you are not supposed to do. And if you look at your quoted paraphrase, you will note that you misrepresented my statement. That's why you don't represent a paraphrase as being a direct quote.

This is such a stupid discussion. Surely we can drop this now. Next we'll discuss how you can put a comma in place of dollar sign.


1. So when we break, bend, or change the rules, you get to punish us in forever? Boy you need a life.Why do you insist at directing such a sarcastic comment only at me? Are you so blind you cannot see that several people are keeping this alive? I'm perfectly happy to let them believe their strange grammar ideas. By all means let's let it go.


WOW, truly fascinating how you make a different point of view into a judgmental condemnation the inquisition would be proud of.You mean a judgmental comment like this one you just made? If it's OK for you, then why not for everyone else?

You know I take most digs and slaps as humor, but I have been told that I'm not very sensitive or empathetic, which is strange for those that say I'm a bleeding heart liberal. Go figure. I think though that anyone who stands alone against popular wisdom will be a target, and on these topics that's you.

You have to see us two are not the only ones here who know how to throw rocks. Plus you're easy, you never duck, even when we yell DUCK!



You mean a judgmental comment like this one you just made? If it's OK for you, then why not for everyone else?

You can chunk your rocks any time. I know how to duck.

I would not accuse you of being insensitive or unsympathetic. I do think you care about people.


I think though that anyone who stands alone against popular wisdom will be a target, and on these topics that's you.Yeah. It's just me and the entire internet. Somehow I feel like a super-majority!

The rocks you guys throw are mere grains of sand. There is no reason to duck.

1. I have limitations.

2. You're not!

3. Noted, so stop complaining!

OK

I'm pretty sure I am.

I will if you will.

Athos, if you don't want to read my posts, then block them.

Then I and others would not be able to correct you.


not going to live in that make believe world you have in your head.

As much as you would like, you can't create worlds (make believe or real) simply by wishing it. When you can't reply in a civil or logical fashion, you start again with your insults. Your reputation suffers with such posts.


I'm not going to simply bow low and accept what you say.

I never asked you to. Any beliefs I may have will be revealed as necessary in these discussions.


You have to make some appeal to authority.

Ah, there's your major problem. Your dependence on the authority of a literal interpretation of the Bible. I, and others, have been saying that very thing for months now. Someday, you may listen.


I'm still convinced you are running from the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

Sorry, but I don't buy into this fundamentalist jargon. They are trigger words for your ilk - used to exclude.

I'm still convinced you are running from the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

Careful Jl, blasphemy. Why would you bring the Holy Spirit into this? are you losing the argument with an unbeliever?

Ah, there's your major problem. Your dependence on the authority of a literal interpretation of the Bible. I, and others, have been saying that very thing for months now. Someday, you may listen.You posted earlier that the NT teaches love for God, love for others, and love for self. That is based upon a completely literal acceptance of the words of Jesus. Why is it that you accept literally the parts you like, and completely reject the notion of coming judgment which is clearly spelled out (every bit as clearly as love for God, neighbor, and self) in Matthew 25? What objective standard are you applying?


Sorry, but I don't buy into this fundamentalist jargon. They are trigger words for your ilk - used to exclude.The conviction of the Holy Spirit is "fundamentalist jargon"? Huh. I thought it was the words of Christ. I suppose that's another NT concept you don't accept as literal since you don't like it?

I am tempted to say that your approach to the acceptance of the words of the Bible is inconsistent, but then it occurred to me that it actually is very consistent. When you read a passage which agrees with your ideas and strikes you as reasonable, then you accept it as true. When you read a passage which does not agree with your ideas, well then it must be taken metaphorically, or the text had been corrupted, or hundreds of thoroughly professional Bible translators all got it wrong, or the NT canon was politically motivated, or someone else is stupid and a fundamentalist, and on and on it goes. So I will say that it certainly seems that at least you are consistent in your inconsistency.

We all can make our own choices about faith in the words of ancient man and voice them. You have so why can't others. I mean are we required to recognize the legitimacy and authority of the NT to have a personal relationship with a God that we understand? Or is it blasphemy to even question ancient man and his writings?

How do you square your faith with acceptance and support for a cruel unrepentant liar? That I still don't get. Just yesterday he removed liability for meat packing plants so could stay open despite the ravages of corvid19 on the workers and their families while the CDC, and OSHA while suggesting safety measures not requiring compliance to stay open. Seems sort of strange to me.

You have so why can't others.When have I sad you can't? We are questioning each other here, just as you have just now.


I mean are we required to recognize the legitimacy and authority of the NT to have a personal relationship with a God that we understand? Or is it blasphemy to even question ancient man and his writings?You have to recognize the authority of something. Take your pick, but you better pick wisely. If I understand correctly, you have recognized the authority of your own ideas about a god. Make sure you're right. For me, after decades of study, I have come to love the Bible for its accuracy and its clear and logical message of a God who is saving undeserving sinners (like me) from judgment.


How do you square your faith with acceptance and support for a cruel unrepentant liar? That I still don't get. Just yesterday he removed liability for meat packing plants so could stay open despite the ravages of corvid19 on the workers and their families while the CDC, and OSHA while suggesting safety measures not requiring compliance to stay open. Seems sort of strange to me.Oh stop the holier than thou stuff. There was no bigger, "unrepentant liar" out there than HC. Biden doesn't even know where he is half the time, and his life is littered with wrong doing. Disagree with his policies if you want to, but the business of politics is a dirty one and you know it. How do you support a political party that proudly flies the flag of unrestricted abortion up to nine months of pregnancy? Nearly a million deaths a year of the unborn, but you want to complain about keeping meat facilities open? How is that consistent?

When have I sad you can't? We are questioning each other here, just as you have just now.

It was my turn! 8D


You have to recognize the authority of something. Take your pick, but you better pick wisely. If I understand correctly, you have recognized the authority of your own ideas about a god. Make sure you're right. For me, after decades of study, I have come to love the Bible for its accuracy and its clear and logical message of a God who is saving undeserving sinners (like me) from judgment.


I do recognize something greater than myself, and I hope you understand I can put NOTHING between my self and that authority. I believe I have chosen wisely in that.


Oh stop the holier than thou stuff. There was no bigger, "unrepentant liar" out there than HC. Biden doesn't even know where he is half the time, and his life is littered with wrong doing. Disagree with his policies if you want to, but the business of politics is a dirty one and you know it.

I disagree with his policies his cruelty his incompetence, his lies, and his cheating. I judge him hardest by his never admitting his wrongs and doubling down on them. Let's see HC, Biden, and the dufus and everybody is worse than the dufus in your view.


How do you support a political party that proudly flies the flag of unrestricted abortion up to nine months of pregnancy? Nearly a million deaths a year of the unborn, but you want to complain about keeping meat facilities open? How is that consistent?

A misrepresentation of facts and exaggeration to boot, and your usual lumping different subjects together makes you very consistent for sure, but abortions are lawful with restrictions, and the meet supply and the virus are happening NOW! I will never be holier than thou, nor do I try too be.

I do recognize something greater than myself, and I hope you understand I can put NOTHING between my self and that authority. I believe I have chosen wisely in that.How did you come to know of the existence of that god? How do you know that god's will?


Let's see HC, Biden, and the dufus and everybody is worse than the dufus in your view.
I didn't say that.


A misrepresentation of facts and exaggeration to boot,
In what way? My statement was entirely accurate.

I never cease to be amazed at your attempts to justify abortion by saying that, after all, it is "lawful". Slavery was legal for decades. Jim Crow laws were legal. School segregation was legal. White political dominance was legal. Would you have suggested everyone back then just accept that because, after all, it was lawful? Does being lawful equate to being right? What a strange position you hold on that. It strikes me as the political position of convenience. "It might be a moral outrage, but its lawful, so its OK." Is that your thinking?

1. FAITH, just like yours. I looked within through prayer and meditation, and started listening and recognizing the blessings that I had been ignoring a long time. Changed my whole perspective and my life.

2. I stand corrected as you said HC was a bigger unrepentant liar, and Biden was old and clueless. We don't know what kind of president HC would have been nor Biden will be if he wins but we know what kind of prez the dufus has been. Good or bad depending on which side of the fence you're on.

3. There was NO accuracy at all in your rather broad statement, and like me saying all conservatives are racist slugs. Untrue, unproven, and false as all get out.



I never cease to be amazed at your attempts to justify abortion by saying that, after all, it is "lawful". Slavery was legal for decades. Jim Crow laws were legal. School segregation was legal. White political dominance was legal. Would you have suggested everyone back then just accept that because, after all, it was lawful? Does being lawful equate to being right? What a strange position you hold on that. It strikes me as the political position of convenience. "It might be a moral outrage, but its lawful, so its OK." Is that your thinking?

Minorities back then as now, had no choice but accept those things they could not control, and while lawful was felt as wrong, and I respectfully submit that changing the laws is a helluva struggle that still goes on. Changing minds and hearts is even harder, so be aware of those truths in your struggles at the changes you want to see.

Practical EXPERIENCE is what guides my thinking. I have no need to justify anything, and that includes abortion, and admit I do struggle to deal with it's reality, and recognize I cannot control others, only MYSELF. I do object to your constant yammering about the million abortions a year by women in dire straits, and inadequately resourced, but say nothing of the 10's of millions that have the resources to pursue their options privately and safely with their own OBYGYN provider. That makes you a bully in my book who targets the least, and most defenseless amongst us, that you justify with your concern for the unborn which you quickly abandon after they are born. You whine all the time about being forced to support them, just like a deadbeat dad!

That's my think that I have consistently expressed.

FAITH, just like yours. I looked withinBut another person could "look within" and come up with ideas completely the opposite of yours about god. Is there any authority outside of your own ideas and impressions you appeal to?


Minorities back then as now, had no choice but accept those things they could not control, and while lawful was felt as wrong, and I respectfully submit that changing the laws is a helluva struggle that still goes on.Of course they had a choice! They marched in the streets. They appealed to the government. They changed laws. Why do you just accept abortion as fine since it's "lawful", but not other areas?


There was NO accuracy at all in your rather broad statement,What was inaccurate?


I do object to your constant yammering about the million abortions a year by women in dire straits, and inadequately resourced, but say nothing of the 10's of millions that have the resources to pursue their options privately and safely with their own OBYGYN provider.You have no idea what you're talking about. Both groups are part of the nine hundred thousand. In your mind protesting the destruction of innocent human life is "yammering". That's really sad.


That makes you a bully in my book who targets the least, and most defenseless amongst us, that you justify with your concern for the unborn which you quickly abandon after they are born.Completely, totally, 100% false. We have talked about this repeatedly in the past. Practically every PRIVATE organization set up to support single moms is conservative based, many of them Christian. In my own area there are MANY churches that are willing to reach out and help single moms. Your statement is just despicable.

1. You can just as easily look without ones self and form whatever ideas you want and many people with reference books can have their own ideas separate and apart from others readings of the same book/bible. I can respect that and have no control over others, just MYSELF. I guess that's between the individual and his God. My own relationship with a God that I understand gives me much peace and understanding as well as guidance through this reality. What more should I want?

2. True of course the struggles to gain freedom, equality, and that struggle continues after all of those changes in law, many years and decades after the civil war, as it was with abortion becoming legal. That's just a fact of reality, right or wrong. You make your own call and follow your own actions as you struggle to change the laws you disagree with. That doesn't mean I take abortion as fine, just take a different tact than yours.

3. You may believe in what you wrote, but I do not and you can blast me for it, but that's okay, nothing new there, but changing your mind about it is pretty useless as a point of discussion at this time.

4. Are procedures done within the first month or too in a private doctors office considered an abortion?

5. LOL, Clinics for women's heath are basically non-partisan because who cares about party or church affiliations. Not saying churches and conservatives don't give as good a care just because of those affiliations, nor would they turn away anyone because of race religion or party affiliation.

Your not saying that only Christian churches and conservatives run clinics for women are you? Just seems that way in your area right?

3. You may believe in what you wrote, but I do not and you can blast me for it, but that's okay, nothing new there, but changing your mind about it is pretty useless as a point of discussion at this time.I haven't blasted you. You stated that what I wrote was not accurate. So for the third time, what was inaccurate?


4. Are procedures done within the first month or too in a private doctors office considered an abortion?Yes. I was at the clinic today and thought about you. You should have seen the cars coming and going. They were not the cars of the poor.


5. Not saying churches and conservatives don't give as good a care just because of those affiliations, nor would they turn away anyone because of race religion or party affiliation.That is actually exactly what you said. I'm glad to see you don't really believe it.


Your not saying that only Christian churches and conservatives run clinics for women are you? Just seems that way in your area right?I was replying to your contention that conservatives don't care about women after the baby is born. That is just flatly untrue. In fact, I would argue that outside of bragging about what the feds do with other people's money, liberals do very little to help single moms. That might be an overstatement, but conservative Christian churches are generally very ready to help single mothers.

How do you support a political party that proudly flies the flag of unrestricted abortion up to nine months of pregnancy? Nearly a million deaths a year of the unborn, but you want to complain about keeping meat facilities open? How is that consistent?


A misrepresentation of facts and exaggeration to boot, and your usual lumping different subjects together makes you very consistent for sure, but abortions are lawful with restrictions, and the meat supply and the virus are happening NOW! I will never be holier than thou, nor do I try too be.

That's what you wrote and my response.

As a party the dems don't support abortion up to nine months though some individuals do, but most late term proponents recognize and support the mothers life be saved if life threatening complications happen. A nuanced caveat, but an important one. Hope that explains my position and response better.

As a party the dems don't support abortion up to nine months though some individuals do, but most late term proponents recognize and support the mothers life be saved if life threatening complications happen. A nuanced caveat, but an important one. Hope that explains my position and response better.

Can you name a single major democrat who has called for making late term abortions illegal, or who has introduced legislation to prevent those?

They are already illegal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States_by_state

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act

This can be found in the link you provided that supposedly shows late term abortions to be illegal. "Since 1995, led by Congressional Republicans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Republican_Party), the US House of Representatives (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives) and US Senate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate) have moved several times to pass measures banning the procedure of intact dilation and extraction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction), also commonly known as partial birth abortion. After several long and emotional debates on the issue, such measures passed twice by wide margins, but President Bill Clinton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton) vetoed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto) those bills in April 1996 and October 1997 on the grounds that they did not include health exceptions."

So in what possible way do you think they are illegal???

President Bill Clinton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton) vetoed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto) those bills in April 1996 and October 1997 on the grounds that they did not include health exceptions."

So in what possible way do you think they are illegal???
Clinton vetoed them?

This can be found in the link you provided that supposedly shows late term abortions to be illegal. "Since 1995, led by Congressional Republicans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Republican_Party), the US House of Representatives (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives) and US Senate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate) have moved several times to pass measures banning the procedure of intact dilation and extraction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction), also commonly known as partial birth abortion. After several long and emotional debates on the issue, such measures passed twice by wide margins, but President Bill Clinton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton) vetoed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto) those bills in April 1996 and October 1997 on the grounds that they did not include health exceptions."

So in what possible way do you think they are illegal???

Did you even read the second link?

Did you read the final paragraph of the second link?

"In response to this statute, many abortion providers have adopted the practice of inducing fetal demise (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feticide#Use_during_legal_abortion) before beginning late-term abortions. Typically, a solution of potassium chloride or digoxin is injected directly into the fetal heart using ultrasound to guide the needle.[29] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act#cite_note-29)[30] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act#cite_note-30) This is often done by providers who do not perform intact dilation and extraction procedures (as well as by those who do) because they feel the broad wording of the ban compels them "to do all they can to protect themselves and their staff from the possibility of being accused."

So does it really sound to you like late term abortions are not being performed??? Read the description of that procedure several times. If it doesn't make you sick, then your humanity is suspect. Of all the dem candidates, only Tulsi Gabbard came out against late term abortions, and she was kicked repeatedly by other dems for doing so.

In addition, as far as I could figure it out, the PBAB only applies to abortions performed on women crossing state lines to get it done. What occurs within a state is still subject to state law. "Inducing fetal demise" is, of course, a euphemism for killing the baby in the womb so the staff can deliver a guaranteed dead child. I'm happy to report that those options are illegal in Mississippi.

Eight states presently allow abortion through nine months: Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Vermont, along with Washington, D.C. And guess who controls Washington, D.C.? If you said the feds, then you got it right.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/7-states-already-allow-abortion-up-to-birth-not-just-new-york.html


Clinton vetoed them?

Twice.

Former Pres Obama goes golfing a day after Michelle (and others) put out PSA's reminding people (black people specifically) how important it was to shelter in place. He and his entourage were the only ones on the course. It must be nice being part of the chosen few with no sense of the importance of setting a good example for others. You guys don't like to admit it, but he and Trump are just two peas in a pod. https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/04/29/barack-obama-goes-golfing-during-coronavirus-quarantine-n386764?fbclid=IwAR2KOXckWCbgJaGRbxYaYs6afT56VPelY JxYi5XK2PKzp7ZePc2A4Qtutyo

https://pjmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/AP_16220658154619-1-730x400.jpg

What do you think is the rationale for those RARE late term abortions? Do you also consider the procedure most women with resources have done by an OBYGYN in her office very early on in possible pregnancies to be a procedure to be banned also?

You did read the entire history of abortions that point out that Bush signed legislation that banned the procedure that Clinton vetoed, on the grounds on health considerations, didn't you? Even your own previous links point out that abortions in America are declining mostly because science is providing better options that are safer, as seen in the links that evolve the trimester restrictions to viability, effectively shrinking the window in which an abortion can be legally done.



It must be nice being part of the chosen few with no sense of the importance of setting a good example for others. You guys don't like to admit it, but he and Trump are just two peas in a pod. https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politic...7ZePc2A4Qtutyo (https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/04/29/barack-obama-goes-golfing-during-coronavirus-quarantine-n386764?fbclid=IwAR2KOXckWCbgJaGRbxYaYs6afT56VPelY JxYi5XK2PKzp7ZePc2A4Qtutyo)



At least you have stopped blasting Obama for his handling of the flu epidemic on his watch, and given the dufus handling now, nobody is giving him high marks as more is revealed about it, and as his antics become more prevalent. I like Obama you like the dufus, sounds like partisan opinions clashing as usual.

Do you also consider the procedure most women with resources have done by an OBYGYN in her office very early on in possible pregnancies to be a procedure to be banned also?Why wouldn't they be banned? Is a baby any less human because of its age? I've included a pic of a baby at eight weeks. Look nonhuman to you?

https://assets.babycenter.com/ims/2015/01/pregnancy-week-8-brain-nerve-cells_square.jpg?width=600


You did read the entire history of abortions that point out that Bush signed legislation that banned the procedure that Clinton vetoed, on the grounds on health considerations, didn't you? Even your own previous links point out that abortions in America are declining mostly because science is providing better options that are safer, as seen in the links that evolve the trimester restrictions to viability, effectively shrinking the window in which an abortion can be legally done.The "shrinking" of the window has been accomplished by restrictive state laws advocated by people like me and opposed by the party you support. The viability argument is balogna. A baby is perfectly viable in his/her mother's womb. It is only when a "doctor" kills the baby that viability is threatened.


At least you have stopped blasting Obama for his handling of the flu epidemic on his watch,You have me confused with someone else. I haven't blasted Obama for that. I would think he probably did fairly well, just like I think Trump is doing fairly well.

I'm still waiting for you to take up the banner of justice for Biden's accuser in the same way you did for Kavanaugh's accuser. You do apply your standards uniformly, don't you?

Interesting that for 2,500 years (as far back as possible to know) abortion was not considered murder or illegal. Around the late 19th century, it started to be thought of as murder and early in the 20th century, it became illegal in the industrialized countries.

Are you ignoring my questions or have no answers?


What do you think is the rationale for those RARE late term abortions? Do you also consider the procedure most women with resources have done by an OBYGYN in her office very early on in possible pregnancies to be a procedure to be banned also?

Interesting that for 2,500 years (as far back as possible to know) abortion was not considered murder or illegal. Around the late 19th century, it started to be thought of as murder and early in the 20th century, it became illegal in the industrialized countries.The same could basically be said of slavery or the rule of kings. The same could be said of the theory of evolution or of the nature of matter.

I'd still like to know why you accept some of the words of Christ but not all of them. What is the standard you are applying?


What do you think is the rationale for those RARE late term abortions?I don't think there is an acceptable rationale for killing a 9 month fetus. Can you think of one?


Do you also consider the procedure most women with resources have done by an OBYGYN in her office very early on in possible pregnancies to be a procedure to be banned also?I've already answered that, so I'll just copy and paste my answer which you missed. "Why wouldn't they be banned? Is a baby any less human because of its age? I've included a pic of a baby at eight weeks. Look nonhuman to you?" I even included a picture of an eight week fetus and asked if it looked nonhuman to you. Does it?

I don't think there is an acceptable rationale for killing a 9 month fetus. Can you think of one?

The mother's life becomes an issue.

At nine months that is extremely rare, but I would certainly agree it would be valid.

I don't think there is an acceptable rationale for killing a 9 month fetus. Can you think of one?

I've already answered that, so I'll just copy and paste my answer which you missed. "Why wouldn't they be banned? Is a baby any less human because of its age? I've included a pic of a baby at eight weeks. Look nonhuman to you?" I even included a picture of an eight week fetus and asked if it looked nonhuman to you. Does it?

1. Serious life threatening health complications to mother or child, or both.

2. Just want to clarify your life begins at conception position, for future reference as I return to the topic.

1. Serious life threatening health complications to mother or child, or both.
Well, that is extremely rare, but I would agree with that for the mom, but on what planet would you justify an abortion for fear of a health complication for the child??? I would think an inhumane death is about as big a health complication as you can fine.


2. Just want to clarify your life begins at conception position, for future reference as I return to the topic.That's fine. Why don't you clarify (and justify!!) your position on when life begins.

1. Modern science can identify many catastrophic health conditions of life in the womb.

2. When it can live independently on its own. Evolved from when it's born/at birth.

The real question is when can a woman decide to terminate a pregnancy, in which 4 to 6 weeks seems reasonable to me.

1. Modern science can identify many catastrophic health conditions of life in the womb.
Modern science can identify many catastrophic health conditions of life post-birth. So can we continue to kill them then?


2. When it can live independently on its own. Evolved from when it's born/at birth.So you would not allow abortions after 6 months?


The real question is when can a woman decide to terminate a pregnancy, in which 4 to 6 weeks seems reasonable to me.Why 4 to 6 weeks? Is the baby less human at that point? What happens at six weeks that would cause you to now allow abortions after that point?



This is the baby at six weeks. Legs, arms, head, eyes, heartbeat, brainwaves, etc.
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/fY7x2hsazTU/hqdefault.jpg

The same could basically be said of slavery or the rule of kings. The same could be said of the theory of evolution or of the nature of matter.

How is slavery the same as abortion? How is the rule of kings the same as abortion? Evolution? The nature of matter?


I'd still like to know why you accept some of the words of Christ but not all of them. What is the standard you are applying?

This was from another thread. I will now go and find it and answer it there. Give me a little time. In the meantime, I would like to hear your explanation of what you wrote above re abortion.

How is slavery the same as abortion? How is the rule of kings the same as abortion? Evolution? The nature of matter?They all represent conditions or ideas which changed the past two centuries, just like you said was true of abortion. So a change of perspective doesn't indicate falsehood like you certainly seemed to indicate was the case with abortion. Ideas change all the time. It was certainly never true, however, that abortions took place by the millions, nor were they ever as commonplace as they have become.


This was from another thread. I will now go and find it and answer it there. Give me a little time. In the meantime, I would like to hear your explanation of what you wrote above re abortion.Yeah. Right. It was post 114 from this thread which was YESTERDAY. But I'll wait patiently as I always do for you to answer a question.

1. They probably were never as public as they are today.

2. I would rather talk about the dufus ordering meat packing plants opened (https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/meatpacking-coronavirus-class-war/) without enforcing guidelines to protect workers, or help for the rising virus infections in those communities. Between those plants, prisons, and nursing homes we have several hotspots while in some places they have run out of places to put the dead bodies.

I figured it wouldn't be too long before you were back on your pet bashing project.

1. They probably were never as public as they are today.
Nope. There were fewer people back then, and Granny Jones or Aunt Maude or the neighbor lady or anyone who "knew how" initiated abortions.

From https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-bad-old-days-abortion_b_6324610

"Abortion isn’t new
Abortion has been widely used in America since its earliest days. In the 1950s, estimates of numbers of illegal, unsafe abortions ranged widely, from 200,000 to 1.2 million (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5524615) per year. The methods used were often ineffective and dangerous. Desperate women were driven into the back alley, where they endured danger and abuse, sometimes sexual.

Tools of the trade
Surveys in New York City in the mid-1960s revealed the variety of methods (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/939286)used. Treatments women took by mouth included turpentine, bleach, detergents and a range of herbal and vegetable teas. Quinine and chloroquine (malaria medicines) were ingested, and potassium permanganate was placed in the vagina, often causing chemical burns. Toxic solutions were squirted into the uterus, such as soap and turpentine, often causing kidney failure and death...Insertion of foreign bodies was common and more effective than oral agents. Objects included a coat hanger, knitting needle, bicycle spoke, ball-point pen, chicken bone and rubber catheter. Some women threw themselves off of stairs or roofs in an attempt to end a pregnancy."

From 1970-2016 there were 46,413,319 abortions reported to the CDC. (Wikipedia, Abortion Statistics). Roe vs. Wade was passed in 1973.

You posted earlier that the NT teaches love for God, love for others, and love for self. That is based upon a completely literal acceptance of the words of Jesus. Why is it that you accept literally the parts you like, and completely reject the notion of coming judgment which is clearly spelled out (every bit as clearly as love for God, neighbor, and self) in Matthew 25? What objective standard are you applying?[An objective standard would presume a standard against which the Bible could be compared for its accuracy. The Bible consists of 70+ books written by almost as many authors in source languages in original books that are no longer available for comparison to apply a measurement. The result is that an objective standard does not exist. What is left is hermeneutics and exegesis.

The Catholic Church has an approach as good as any. It understands the Bible in a literal sense, a moral sense, an allegorical sense and a mystical sense. The point being - there are a number of ways to interpret the Bible.

Literalists (speaking for myself, not the Catholic Church) give the words their meaning without applying any connotations or deeper levels the words may have - in other words; strictly - according to the basic primary meaning of the words.

For example the literalist believes that a talking snake tempted Eve in the garden, that God created the world in six days, and that Noah built an ark that carried all the living creatures during a global flood so that the animals would repopulate the planet after the waters receded. These are creation myths - stories that have useful points (morals) but not to be taken literally.

To answer your question - Jesus' words of love are taken as written since they are wholly consistent with his message and with the message of both Old and New Testaments. Matthew 25 as you interpret it is wholly inconsistent with Jesus.


The conviction of the Holy Spirit is "fundamentalist jargon"? Huh. I thought it was the words of Christ. I suppose that's another NT concept you don't accept as literal

I don't think those are the exact words of Christ but I have no argument with it.


When you read a passage which agrees with your ideas and strikes you as reasonable, then you accept it as true.

This is not a bad argument. Don't you do the same thing? Doesn't everybody do the same thing? We apply our brains and reasoning power to make decisions, even of faith - especially of faith!


When you read a passage which does not agree with your ideas, well then it, etc., etc., etc.

This, of course, has been my argument against your interpretation of Bible verses which you have simply turned around and used the same argument against me. (This is a typical tactic of Trump).

Your argument boils down to, "The Bible is true". Why? "Because the Bible says it's true". I hope you see the faulty logic there.

They all represent conditions or ideas which changed the past two centuries, just like you said was true of abortion. So a change of perspective doesn't indicate falsehood like you certainly seemed to indicate was the case with abortion.

I NEVER indicated what you say I did. Your hostility is getting the best of you.


It was certainly never true, however, that abortions took place by the millions, nor were they ever as commonplace as they have become.

WG disagrees. How do you come by that information about abortion in the past?


Yeah. Right. It was post 114 from this thread which was YESTERDAY. But I'll wait patiently as I always do for you to answer a question.

More nastiness. I don't spend my life here, as you apparently do.

To answer your question - Jesus' words of love are taken as written since they are wholly consistent with his message and with the message of both Old and New Testaments. Matthew 25 as you interpret it is wholly inconsistent with Jesus.Since the Bible is, in your view, unreliable and certainly not, itself, an objective standard, then aren't you left in the position of basically guessing which statements of Christ to accept and which to reject? How would you possibly know what His message was if the NT is not reliable?


This is not a bad argument. Don't you do the same thing? Doesn't everybody do the same thing? We apply our brains and reasoning power to make decisions, even of faith - especially of faith!You are making two arguments at once. It is one thing to suggest that we only accept the ideas of the Bible we agree with. A person who does so sets him/herself above the Bible and becomes, in effect, its judge. Now to apply our brains and powers of reason to understand the Bible is proper. It is two entirely different concepts.

But I'm glad you have finally "gone public" and admitted that you basically have no objective standard to apply to the Bible than your own personal tastes. What I find surprising is that you have no inclination to allow others to do the same.


"Abortion isn’t new
Abortion has been widely used in America since its earliest days. In the 1950s, estimates of numbers of illegal, unsafe abortions ranged widely, from 200,000 to 1.2 million (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5524615) per year. The methods used were often ineffective and dangerous. Desperate women were driven into the back alley, where they endured danger and abuse, sometimes sexual.

Tools of the trade
Surveys in New York City in the mid-1960s revealed the variety of methods (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/939286)used. Treatments women took by mouth included turpentine, bleach, detergents and a range of herbal and vegetable teas. Quinine and chloroquine (malaria medicines) were ingested, and potassium permanganate was placed in the vagina, often causing chemical burns. Toxic solutions were squirted into the uterus, such as soap and turpentine, often causing kidney failure and death...Insertion of foreign bodies was common and more effective than oral agents. Objects included a coat hanger, knitting needle, bicycle spoke, ball-point pen, chicken bone and rubber catheter. Some women threw themselves off of stairs or roofs in an attempt to end a pregnancy."

So? Tragedies happened. Women and babies died. You feel better now that only the babies die? Is that really your point???

Since the Bible is, in your view, unreliable and certainly not, itself, an objective standard, then aren't you left in the position of basically guessing which statements of Christ to accept and which to reject? How would you possibly know what His message was if the NT is not reliable?
You have totally missed Athos' (not Athos's!) point.

So? Tragedies happened. Women and babies died. You feel better now that only the babies die? Is that really your point???
I was actually responding to your recent comment (via tal's response), "It was certainly never true, however, that abortions took place by the millions, nor were they ever as commonplace as they have become."

The statistics refute that.
"In the 1950s, estimates of numbers of illegal, unsafe abortions ranged widely, from 200,000 to 1.2 million (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5524615) per year.

You have totally missed Athos' (not Athos's!) point.Fine. Summarize it for us and tell me where I missed it specifically, but don't put the summary in quotes! I will warn you that I'm pretty sure I didn't miss it at all. And remember that you are no longer the grammar guru. 8D 8D


I was actually responding to your recent comment (via tal's response), "It was certainly never true, however, that abortions took place by the millions, nor were they ever as commonplace as they have become."You do realize that the context was relative to centuries ago, not 1950. But even at that, I hope you understand that your estimate came from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a research arm associated with Planned Parenthood. In fact they characterize themselves as, "a leading research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights in the United States." So I very much doubt those figures.

You did not answer this. "You feel better now that only the babies die? Is that really your point???"

Hate to break up boble scholars but we do have current events!

https://www.foxnews.com/us/michigan-lansing-coronavirus-protest-capitol-guns-rifles

https://pbs.twimg.com/ext_tw_video_thumb/1255901590030094338/pu/img/GwQNg9G2Hu8bFi7f?format=jpg&name=900x900 (https://twitter.com/RodMeloni/status/1255901755474403328)

Fine. Summarize it for us and tell me where I missed it specifically, but don't put the summary in quotes! I will warn you that I'm pretty sure I didn't miss it at all. And remember that you are no longer the grammar guru. 8D 8D
I'll let Athos follow up. :D

You do realize that the context was relative to centuries ago, not 1950. But even at that, I hope you understand that your estimate came from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a research arm associated with Planned Parenthood. In fact they characterize themselves as, "a leading research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights in the United States." So I very much doubt those figures.
They're probably higher. Remember your not knowing (or believing) how we females passed along information to each other about abortions by females we knew or heard about?

I'll let Athos follow up. :DHmmm.


They're probably higher. Remember your not knowing (or believing) how we females passed along information to each other about abortions by females we knew or heard about?So now you're appealing to anecdotal information? Hmmm again.

http://dailytorch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Hypocrats-Ad-600.jpg

So now you're appealing to anecdotal information? Hmmm again.
Our menfolk weren't interested. Apparently, they still aren't....

Our menfolk weren't interested. Apparently, they still aren't....

You have heard the one about the one who cried wolf, well we heard the cry of wolf too many times and so we remain sceptical because little girls caught in the act used the excuse

You have heard the one about the one who cried wolf, well we heard the cry of wolf too many times and so we remain skeptical
The cries by the women you wolves got pregnant on those hot dates?

The cries by the women you wolves got pregnant on those hot dates?
I never got anyone pregnant on a hot date, not all of us live our life the way the americans do

The cries by the women you wolves got pregnant on those hot dates?You must have had some kind of really different childhood. That kind of thing, in my day, was RARE.

You must have had some kind of really different childhood. That kind of thing, in my day, was RARE.
You have no clue. There weren't cornfields and haylofts and lake bluffs where you lived as a teen and young adult?

Pastures, cotton fields, and corn fields were all around. So girls got pregnant by harvesting corn and hay?

Pastures, cotton fields, and corn fields were all around. So girls got pregnant by harvesting corn and hay?
Wolves with their dates drove their cars into the cornfields and disappeared from public view. Haylofts and lake bluffs need no explanation.

Like I said. You either had a really strange childhood or a wildly overactive imagination.

Like I said. You either had a really strange childhood or a wildly overactive imagination.
Not my childhood. My teenage date life. Beating off the wolves.

In my youth, even before the teen age stuff, there were nice girls and naughty girls, bad boys and scared innocent KIDS! Looking back, those innocent kids had it right.

Literalists (speaking for myself, not the Catholic Church) give the words their meaning without applying any connotations or deeper levels the words may have - in other words; strictly - according to the basic primary meaning of the words.I suppose that would be true for an absolutely strict literalist. I've never met that person. Everyone I've ever met realizes there are passages of the Bible which should be taken figuratively, and in the same way I doubt that anyone takes all parts of the Bible to be metaphorical. So the question becomes one of deciding how to go about applying a standard.


When you read a passage which agrees with your ideas and strikes you as reasonable, then you accept it as true.


This is not a bad argument. Don't you do the same thing? Doesn't everybody do the same thing? We apply our brains and reasoning power to make decisions, even of faith - especially of faith!Does everyone agree with the agreeable and disagree with the disagreeable? That's an easy one. NO! I don't like at all the idea of a coming day of judgment, but I agree with it since it's clearly Biblical. Over the years there have been many times I wanted to do something but didn't because of the Bible.

1. You could say that about almost any writings of man past and present, but a person should be able to come to their own conclusions on what fits them best. What do you tell people who have taken another path to God besides the one you are proposing?

2. I rejoice when one finds what works for them and gives them peace and purpose. I would hope you do the same.

What do you tell people who have taken another path to God besides the one you are proposing?If they are right in finding "another path to God," then Jesus was wrong when he said, "No man comes to the Father but by me." Take your pick. I know who I'm going to believe.


gives them peace and purpose.If that's what you're shooting for, then go for it.

I suppose that would be true for an absolutely strict literalist. I've never met that person.

I've met many born-again fundamentalists who believe literally in Genesis. Do you believe literally in Genesis?


So the question becomes one of deciding how to go about applying a standard.

No argument there. A standard is applied by an examination of the Bible - it's culture, it's historical times, it's various languages, and much more. Not simply by taking its words at face value - especially in light of the many translations it has gone through over the centuries.


Does everyone agree with the agreeable and disagree with the disagreeable? That's an easy one. NO!

No one is saying that. The discussion is about the reasonable, not the agreeable.


I don't like at all the idea of a coming day of judgment, but I agree with it since it's clearly Biblical.

The day of judgement was originally believed to be during the time of the Apostles. That was 2,000 years ago. Many have said the day of judgment is near, even recently a board member here who disappeared when the day never came as he predicted. Then that other guy who made the national news a few years ago and was shocked when his prediction failed. And all the others down the years who have predicted and failed. You may believe it as you will but those events should, at least, provide food for thought.


Over the years there have been many times I wanted to do something but didn't because of the Bible.

Good for you. No one denies the Bible is a good book, inspired, and worthy of guidance. The law has probably prevented you from doing something also.

I've met many born-again fundamentalists who believe literally in Genesis. Do you believe literally in Genesis?But you've never met a fundamentalist who took every passage of the Bible literally, just like I've never met an agnostic who took every passage to be metaphorical. Do you believe that all of Genesis is figurative?


No one is saying that. I think that is basically what you are saying. If Jesus makes a statement that strikes you as reasonable, then you accept it, but if otherwise then you reject it. You are taking the same approach the rich young ruler took.


The day of judgement was originally believed to be during the time of the Apostles. That was 2,000 years ago. Many have said the day of judgment is near, even recently a board member here who disappeared when the day never came as he predicted. Then that other guy who made the national news a few years ago and was shocked when his prediction failed. And all the others down the years who have predicted and failed. You may believe it as you will but those events should, at least, provide food for thought.A lot of fluff. The apostles believed it. Luther believed it. Wesley believed it. Moody and Spurgeon believed it. The church today, both Protestant and Catholic, believe it. The prophets of the OT believed it. Jesus certainly believed it, and that's good enough for me.


Good for you. No one denies the Bible is a good book, inspired, and worthy of guidance. The law has probably prevented you from doing something also.If the Bible is inaccurate and unreliable, then it is good only for starting camp fires. What should we do with a book that tells us to follow Christ even through persecution and death? What would you tell the suffering Christians of the world who persevere because that's what the Bible tells them to do? Should they quit and give it up because, after all, the Bible is only partially true and basically unreliable? Should they forfeit their lives for a book like that?

[
Good for you. No one denies the Bible is a good book, inspired, and worthy of guidance. The law has probably prevented you from doing something also.

The Bible is not just a good book, if that were so it would have been abandoned long ago, It is God inspired and records many words spoken by God through his prophets and through Jesus. Unfortunately, there are those who think it a metaphor

Since the Bible is, in your view, unreliable

I did NOT say the Bible is unreliable. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I said it needed to be interpreted.


(You say the Bible is)) certainly not, itself, an objective standard,

An objective standard is one in which the Bible (or anything) can be measured. You cannot measure the Bible against the Bible. That makes no sense. It's like measuring the color of an orange against an orange. It must be measured against something that is not itself. In Biblical terms, that means contemporary history, language, culture, archeology, etc., etc.


then aren't you left in the position of basically guessing which statements of Christ to accept and which to reject?

Not at all! Biblical interpretation is based on the scholarship and efforts of others down the centuries. Many have been experts in the fields mentioned above. No one is required to believe everything they say, but they are good for study. Guesswork is very limited.


How would you possibly know what His message was if the NT is not reliable?

Logical fallacy. You posit in your premise that I claim the Bible is not reliable. I never claimed that so your conclusion is in error.


You are making two arguments at once.

No, I'm not. See immediately below.


It is one thing to suggest that we only accept the ideas of the Bible we agree with.

I never said that. You may be conflating "agreeable" with "reasonable".


A person who does so sets him/herself above the Bible and becomes, in effect, its judge. Now to apply our brains and powers of reason to understand the Bible is proper. It is two entirely different concepts.

NOT SO! It is one concept - the one following the other. You agree that applying reason to the Bible is proper. Yet, you deny applying that reason to the Bible since the person sets himself up as judge of the Bible. You can't have it both ways.


and admitted that you basically have no objective standard to apply to the Bible

I didn't ADMIT anything. I've tried to explain to you about an "objective standard". If you can't (or won't) understand it. I don't know how I can make it any simpler than I've already done.


What I find surprising is that you have no inclination to allow others to do the same.

I have no power to allow or disallow what others do.

Wow. Perhaps this can all be settled by two simple questions.

1. Do you consider the Bible to be completely authoritative, or only in some passages?

2. Do you believe that the text we have now is substantially what was written centuries ago? In other words, there might be some scattered passages that are in question, but the great bulk of the Biblical text corresponds with the original autographs.

=jlisenbe;3852377]Wow. Perhaps this can all be settled by two simple questions. 1. Do you consider the Bible to be completely authoritative, or only in some passages?

You'll have to define what you mean by authoritative.


2. Do you believe that the text we have now is substantially what was written centuries ago? In other words, there might be some scattered passages that are in question, but the great bulk of the Biblical text corresponds with the original autographs.

In general, yes. Again, you'll have to define what you mean by "great bulk".

I've answered yours. Why haven't you answered mine?

1. Do you believe Genesis is literal?

2. I do not believe Jesus condemned to eternal punishment in hell unbelievers and/or sinners. Can you present your belief in this matter clearly and simply without linking to Bible verses? In other words, just in your own words.

Keep in mind, #2 above has been the original dispute. All the rest has been nothing more than distractions/diversions on both sides.

You'll have to define what you mean by authoritative.The power (authority) to tell us what to believe and what to do, even should it seem unreasonable to us.

1. Do you believe Genesis is literal? Yes. I don't believe that the "days" of creation were 24 hour days, nor would it be necessary to believe that to take the passage literally.


2. I do not believe Jesus condemned to eternal punishment in hell unbelievers and/or sinners. Can you present your belief in this matter clearly and simply without linking to Bible verses? In other words, just in your own words.I believe what Jesus said in Matthew 25. There is a great day of judgment coming, and he will be the judge. There will be those who go to hell for eternity, and those who go to heaven for eternity. John 3:16 makes it plain that belief in Christ is the way to escape judgment.

I find it beyond astonishing that you would find it desirable to not link Bible passages. You want to discuss the Bible but not refer to Bible passages?

OK. My turn. You made a very strange statement earlier. It was this: "To answer your question - Jesus' words of love are taken as written since they are wholly consistent with his message and with the message of both Old and New Testaments. Matthew 25 as you interpret it is wholly inconsistent with Jesus." Now where Jesus agrees with you, you refer to it as "Jesus' words". But when the very plain statement of Jesus in Matthew 25 does NOT agree with you, suddenly it is not "Jesus' words" (which clearly is the case), but rather it becomes "as you interpret it". So why do you accept the words of Jesus in one passage, but not in the other passage? The words are equally plain in both places.

The power (authority) to tell us what to believe and what to do, even should it seem unreasonable to us.

Your answer is troubling.

Do you believe that God killed all those soldiers who were enemies of the Israelites even though it would seem "unreasonable" to us. And what about killing the entire human race except for Noah and his family? Is that part of your "unreasonable" belief? (I like how you changed “disagreeable” to “unreasonable” - LOL. You should thank me).

Is this the same God who gave Moses the Ten Commandments, one saying “Thou shalt not Kill”?



1. Do you believe Genesis is literal? Yes. I don't believe that the "days" of creation were 24 hour days, nor would it be necessary to believe that to take the passage literally.

You believe in talking snakes, Adam and Eve, Noah and the flood, men living for 900 years, and yet you balk at 24 hour days in Genesis? Wow!



I believe what Jesus said in Matthew 25. There is a great day of judgment coming, and he will be the judge. There will be those who go to hell for eternity, and those who go to heaven for eternity.

In Matthew 25, (btw, your Matthew here is NOT what is written in that Gospel - you changed it to suit your argument), the translation by Jerome from the earlier Latin and Greek mistranslated the Greek to mean eternal where it meant a period of longer or shorter duration and complete in itself. The mistranslation gave rise to the idea of an “eternal hell” which was followed by the subsequent editions. Jerome was not a Greek scholar, only learning the language late in life.

Additionally, you previously contrasted eternal "punishment" (not "hell") with eternal "life" not "heaven". The opposite of life is death. It is eternal since death lasts forever. Either position will cover either of your positions.


I find it beyond astonishing that you would find it desirable to not link Bible passages. You want to discuss the Bible but not refer to Bible passages?

I find it astonishing you can make such a statement after so many months discussing the Bible on these pages with seldom linking to the Bible. Were there some? Yes, but far more without them.

When I asked you to put your belief in your own words, one reason was to prevent you from hiding behind Bible verses. I find it further astonishing that you can't manage this simple task of using your own words without the Bible.


OK. My turn. You made a very strange statement earlier. It was this: "To answer your question - Jesus' words of love are taken as written since they are wholly consistent with his message and with the message of both Old and New Testaments. Matthew 25 as you interpret it is wholly inconsistent with Jesus." Now where Jesus agrees with you, you refer to it as "Jesus' words". But when the very plain statement of Jesus in Matthew 25 does NOT agree with you, suddenly it is not "Jesus' words" (which clearly is the case), but rather it becomes "as you interpret it". So why do you accept the words of Jesus in one passage, but not in the other passage? The words are equally plain in both places.

WHOA! Your turn? You already had your turn by starting the questions. But I will answer.

My statement wasn't a bit strange. Only to you was it strange. I previously explained to you the differences between the two passages which was one word, not "the words" of Jesus. I have done it again above more fully. What is confusing you?

It seems like your nit-picking again. You strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

Do you believe that God killed all those soldiers who were enemies of the Israelites even though it would seem "unreasonable" to us. And what about killing the entire human race except for Noah and his family? Is that part of your "unreasonable" belief? (I like how you changed “disagreeable” to “unreasonable” - LOL. You should thank me).I asked if you think the Bible is authoritative. You became evasive and acted like you didn't know what the word means, so I gave you a definition, and this is what you come up with? I guess that means we are not going to get an answer.


In Matthew 25, (btw, your Matthew here is NOT what is written in that Gospel - you changed it to suit your argument), the translation by Jerome from the earlier Latin and Greek mistranslated the Greek to mean eternal where it meant a period of longer or shorter duration and complete in itself. The mistranslation gave rise to the idea of an “eternal hell” which was followed by the subsequent editions. Jerome was not a Greek scholar, only learning the language late in life.

Additionally, you previously contrasted eternal "punishment" (not "hell") with eternal "life" not "heaven". The opposite of life is death. It is eternal since death lasts forever. Either position will cover either of your positions.You've tried this explanation before. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. No translation agrees with you. When you contend that you have somehow solved the mystery of the meaning of eternal, and hundreds of highly skilled and knowledgeable Bible translators got it wrong, then you are on the thinnest of thin ice.

I see this tried from time to time. On the one hand is a small group of people who claim to have discovered the truth. The Greek word xxxxxx actually means something other than what practically everyone thinks it means. On the other hand is an irresistible avalanche of Biblical scholarship represented by dozens of translations that completely disagree with their view. The truth is, you simply don't like what Jesus said. No amount of verbal gymnastics will conceal that simple truth.


My statement wasn't a bit strange. Only to you was it strange. I previously explained to you the differences between the two passages which was one word, not "the words" of Jesus. I have done it again above more fully. What is confusing you?

It seems like your nit-picking again. You strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.Once again you have no answer. Even if you want to continue with your fantasy about the meaning of the Greek for "eternal", you have to either accept what Jesus said or reject it. You have chosen to reject it. Just so everyone else can see your evasiveness, I'll repost the words of Christ below.

"“But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; 33 and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.34 “Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38 And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39 When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’
41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 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; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44 Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not [e (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=NASB#fen-NASB-24053e)]take care of You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

While you're trying to explain away that, you might want to look at these as well.




Matt. 25:31-48. This lengthy passage clearly sets forth the existence of a fiery hell. The people sent to hell were judged, not for what they did, but for what the neglected to do. The inference is that Christ was not Lord.
Matthew 13:49,50. “This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Matthew 10:28. “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
Matthew 18:8. “It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.”
Luke 3:17. “His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
Luke 16:19ff. “In Hades, where he (the rich man) was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’”
1 Thessalonians 1:10. “Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.”
1 Thessalonians 5:9. “For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
2 Thessalonians 1:8-10. “He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our LORD Jesus. 9They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the LORD and from the glory of his might…”
Rev. 20:11ff. Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
Matthew 5:22. “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.”
Jude 7. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
2 Peter 2:4ff. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment… if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.
Psalm 21:8-9. You will capture all your enemies. Your strong right hand will seize all who hate you. You will throw them in a flaming furnace when you appear. The LORD will consume them in his anger; fire will devour them.
Matthew 3:12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
Hebrews 10:31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
John 8:24 “I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.” What a powerful statement concerning the necessity of faith in Christ.

jl, athos, a reminder, this is not the religious discussions page

I asked if you think the Bible is authoritative.

Correct.


You became evasive and acted like you didn't know what the word means

Acted like? Your answer was so vague, I couldn't use it so I asked you to define your answer. Something wrong with that? Nothing evasive about it.


so I gave you a definition,

Yes, it was all about you being told what to believe which you obey even if it makes no sense (unreasonable).


I guess that means we are not going to get an answer.

My answer was spot on, putting you in that uncomfortable position you Bible quoters fear when the murderous God of the OT is brought up representing that authority you so deeply believe in. Not easy to chew on that, is it? So, in desperation, you declare it a non-answer.


You've tried this explanation before. It didn't work then, and it won't work now.

Hell, even here in your previous post quoting the Gospel, you put in your own words to make a point that were not the words of the Gospel. What makes you think others couldn't have done the same thing centuries ago? You proved MY point! That's a GOTCHA!


No translation agrees with you. When you contend that you have somehow solved the mystery of the meaning of eternal, and hundreds of highly skilled and knowledgeable Bible translators got it wrong, then you are on the thinnest of thin ice.

I didn't contend I solved anything. Others did. Maybe you don't know that Biblical studies have evolved and much has been discovered in the last two centuries. You should look into it rather than just exercising an "authority" that you don't have.


I'll repost the words of Christ below.

They are the words that an anonymous author wrote at least several decades after Christ's death and who never knew Jesus. They were not confirmed until three centuries later!!

Why are you so afraid of examining the Bible? Nothing but good can come of it.

Your long list of verses has already been vetted and found wanting in terms of eternal punishment for unbelievers in an unending hell. You have an unfortunate habit of repeating yourself as though mere repetition is a proof of truth.




jl, athos, a reminder, this is not the religious discussions page

I know - sorry.

Hell, even here in your previous post quoting the Gospel, you put in your own words to make a point that were not the words of the Gospel. What makes you think others couldn't have done the same thing centuries ago? You proved MY point! That's a GOTCHA!What a ridiculous argument. Someone might have done something, so there's your proof of your point? A maybe, might have? Try that in any court of law and see how far you get.

But it did prove one thing. You are convinced that people corrupted the text of the Bible. I can't imagine why anyone would appeal to a corrupted, unreliable text.


I didn't contend I solved anything. Others did. Maybe you don't know that Biblical studies have evolved and much has been discovered in the last two centuries. You should look into it rather than just exercising an "authority" that you don't have.Is that your explanation of why no translation agrees with your idea? Hmmm.


They are the words that an anonymous author wrote at least several decades after Christ's death and who never knew Jesus. They were not confirmed until three centuries later!!Matthew never knew Jesus? Interesting. Yet another confirmation of your belief that the Biblical text is unreliable, and raises again the question of why you would pay any attention at all to it.


Why are you so afraid of examining the Bible? Nothing but good can come of it.
You are the one who asked that I not refer to Bible passages earlier.

Your long list of verses has already been vetted and found wanting in terms of eternal punishment for unbelievers in an unending hell. You have an unfortunate habit of repeating yourself as though mere repetition is a proof of truth.Sure they have. In the meantime, we wait for any text at all from to verify your ideas.

How is even rewriting what a disciple wrote or anecdotal witnesses proof of accuracy? I think the acceptance of ultimate authority of any bible would be in the eyes of the beholder. I mean if a dude walked up to you now and claimed to be the 2nd coming of Christ would you just believe him or question him pretty much as the ancient Jews did? Ones faith is unique to them, and for many using what's in the bible as proof of its authority is not enough, nor is the finding of ones faith tied to a book even if others believe it so.

I have always felt personally that asking a person to follow a book or suffer consequences was a threat rather than an invitation. Yeah, I know, I'm just a heathen, damned to hell for no faith in the words of ancient man, scholars (Flawed humans that could read and write), or true believers. How dare I question the veracity and intent of such a dedicated lot.

How is even rewriting what a disciple wrote or anecdotal witnesses proof of accuracy? I think the acceptance of ultimate authority of any bible would be in the eyes of the beholder. I mean if a dude walked up to you now and claimed to be the 2nd coming of Christ would you just believe him or question him pretty much as the ancient Jews did? Ones faith is unique to them, and for many using what's in the bible as proof of its authority is not enough, nor is the finding of ones faith tied to a book even if others believe it so.

1. Every document we have from the ancient world is a copy. The evidence for the accurate transmission of the NT is very considerable.
2. I couldn't possibly disagree more strongly than I do with this statement: "I think the acceptance of ultimate authority of any bible would be in the eyes of the beholder." It's not a beauty contest.
3. "...for many using what's in the bible as proof of its authority is not enough." Now there we agree.

1. I can go with accurate copying, but selective selection and in fairness every book is done that way.

2. Where and what to put ones faith into is probably the most important choice an individual could make.

2. Where and what to put ones faith into is probably the most important choice an individual could make.Couldn't agree more.

You know you're scary when you're agreeable.

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB13qwKW.img?h=416&w=799&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

1. Every document we have from the ancient world is a copy.

Good you're finally admitting this. A step in the right direction.


The evidence for the accurate transmission of the NT is very considerable.

I agree, but the transmission is not perfect - never has been. If you truly desired to understand and correctly interpret the Bible, you would have made a study of it as it evolved and changed over the millenia. Especially in the first few centuries (NT) when there were many competing versions. The information is readily available, but not for those who won't see.


2. I couldn't possibly disagree more strongly than I do with this statement: "I think the acceptance of ultimate authority of any bible would be in the eyes of the beholder."

THERE! You have put your finger on the problem. Unwittingly, of course. The ultimate Bible acceptance is ALWAYS the "eye of the beholder". There is simply no other way for a rational human.

( A fascinating thing about you is how your own words frequently betray your own positions on the Bible. )


3. "...for many using what's in the bible as proof of its authority is not enough." Now there we agree.

You said, "Now there we agree". You don't agree with that one iota. You cite the Bible itself as proof of itself. That's already been pointed out to you. You still don't get it.



Tal - those cartoon re bleach are precisely what happened. Better than a thousand words.

Good you're finally admitting this. A step in the right direction.It was only in dispute in your mind. I never contended otherwise, so there is nothing to admit to. You must concentrate. Honestly, I frequently sit here in amazement at where you get these crazy ideas from.


Especially in the first few centuries (NT) when there were many competing versions.Oh? Tell us about those "competing versions" that had textual differences of any great concern.


You cite the Bible itself as proof of itself. That's already been pointed out to you. You still don't get it.I've never done that in regard to the historical accuracy of the Bible. Now I would contend that the Bible has internal consistency, but that of itself would not be regarded as "proof", and yet it is weighty nonetheless.


THERE! You have put your finger on the problem. Unwittingly, of course. The ultimate Bible acceptance is ALWAYS the "eye of the beholder". There is simply no other way for a rational human.That is certainly the core of our disagreement. You consider the Bible to be authoritative wherever you think it is so, but not in any area that strikes you as not being "reasonable". The result, of course, is that you really consider yourself to be the ultimate authority. So when I appeal to nearly twenty passages of scripture that support clearly the concept of hell, well that strikes you as not being "reasonable", so you reject it. When Jesus refers to an "eternal" hell, you are forced to appeal an extreme minority position regarding the meaning of aionios, a position held by virtually no one of consequence in the world of Bible translations. In essence you have become your own Bible.

Now I would suggest you appeal to specific scriptures which tell us there is no hell, that no one will ever go there, or that they will only go for a short period. I will wait patiently for that revelation as I always do with you.

hell
So most of the approximately 108 billion people who've ever lived on earth, as well as all the aborted and miscarried babies (especially the unbaptized ones) are destined for hell?

So most of the approximately 108 billion people who've ever lived on earth, as well as all the aborted and miscarried babies (especially the unbaptized ones) are destined for hell?Depends on whether or not you accept the authority of scripture. Do you?

You do realize this is about the tenth time you have asked this? Could you not simply go back and look at other times you have asked this and been answered?

Oh? Tell us about those "competing versions" that had textual differences of any great concern.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_ante-Nicene_period

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac66

Depends on whether or not you accept the authority of scripture. Do you?
I accept the correct translation and interpretation of scripture.

You do realize this is about the tenth time you have asked this? Could you not simply go back and look at other times you have asked this and been answered?
No, I haven't. That was Athos you wrangled with.

No, I haven't. That was Athos you wrangled with.No. It was you.

Tal, I took a look at your second link. There was nothing about any competing versions of the NT. Why I bothered to even look, I don't know.


WG, take a look at the scriptures you say you believe on post 177 and let me know what you think.

No. It was you.
Nope. I KNOW the answer. I don't have to post the question here.

WG, take a look at the scriptures you say you believe on post 177 and let me know what you think.
I have nothing to do with, am not involved in post #177.

Instead, ask me if there should be apostrophes in possessive pronouns.

The second link goes more to the process of one scholar than differing versions, but the first clearly shows those versions by multiple sources. In addition there are links within those links to provide additional information. Sorry you think information is a waste of time and coupled with ignoring my historical evidence provided in the first link you loose all credibility to objective discussion.

Nope. I KNOW the answer. I don't have to post the question here.Good. I'm glad you have the answer.


but the first clearly shows those versions by multiple sources.No, it doesn't. I don't think you even read those links.

Good. I'm glad you have the answer.
No apology regarding post #177?

No, it doesn't. I don't think you even read those links.

Obviously you did not, or have no understanding of what you read.
Or maybe you had trouble navigating the link as it does show the progress of Christianity and the Euro influence. I doubt those scholars and translators argued much with the head of the church which was the king.

No apology regarding post #177?Yes. I'm sorry you refused to even look at the scriptures. I'm also sorry you could evidently not understand that no one was suggesting that post had ever involved you. It was simply a request to look at the scriptures posted there.


it does show the progress of Christianity and the Euro influence.Go back and look at the post again. It was in reference to the supposed competing versions of the NT. Your links had nothing to do with any of that.

Yes. I'm sorry you refused to even look at the scriptures. I'm also sorry you could evidently not understand that no one was suggesting that post had ever involved you. It was simply a request to look at the scriptures posted there.
I'm starting to worry about you. You said to me:

WG, take a look at the scriptures you say you believe on post 177 and let me know what you think.

Where did I ever say anything like that??? (And that's a very twisted sentence with a misplaced prepositional phrase, plus a comma is missing.)

Where? How about this statement? "I accept the correct translation and interpretation of scripture." You said you accept the scriptures. I asked you to look at about fifteen of them and comment on them. You declined which is fine. I was just interested in what your response would be.

give it up , jl, it has become boring

Where? How about this statement? "I accept the correct translation and interpretation of scripture." You said you accept the scriptures. I asked you to look at about fifteen of them and comment on them. You declined which is fine. I was just interested in what your response would be.
That request was as clear as mud.

I told you I accept the correct translation and interpretation of scriptures. You can't just fling a list of verses at me without any mention of which version they're from. Plus, I had no idea that was what you wanted of ME. That was always your poke at Athos. And in #177 those verses were listed as your response/challenge to his comment to you.

WG, take a look at the scriptures you say you believe on post 177 and let me know what you think.

I would have thought that was pretty clear, but perhaps not. It's fine with me if you don't want to address it. I was just asking. Good night, all.

I would have thought that was pretty clear, but perhaps not. It's fine with me if you don't want to address it. I was just asking. Good night, all.
That was long after post #177!!!

=jlisenbe;3852462 Good night, all.

If only. jl, these endless enforcements of your opinion become tiresome, and I know you won't answer me, nevertheless it is so

That was long after post #177!!!

Another GOTCHA for the Girl of Wonder.

Good luck getting the got to admit he got got. While he ignore the lumps upside his head the many rocks and boulders are but sands in the wind. The conversations would be dull without him, so let's give the old coot his props for consistent opposition to reality that lends entertainment to the lives of us here that enjoy having a target that refuses to duck. (Nothing personal, just an observation...HEHEHE!)

This against the backdrop of a health crisis the dufus puts on the back burner to the economic crisis it has caused, who drops the ball on the health part, and wants us to ignore the growing sick and dying and get back to work. Can we blame JL for seeking the comforts zone of the bible amid this chaos and confusion? I certainly do not. The dufus has shaken everybody's faith in our country, and society to deal with this current crisis.

No doubt we should prepare for more chaos and confusion as the repubs go for the profits over the people like they always do, and ignore the sick and the dying whose numbers will no doubt rise faster.

Tal, no one is asking the obvious, why so many deaths in what is supposed to be the most advanced economy, with magnificent hospitals and doctors? Meanwhile, across the world, in another advanced economy, it didn't happen. Was it the Trump factor as you seem to think? or is it that the B/S finally came home to roost?

Tal, no one is asking the obvious, why so many deaths in what is supposed to be the most advanced economy, with magnificent hospitals and doctors? Meanwhile, across the world, in another advanced economy, it didn't happen. Was it the Trump factor as you seem to think? or is it that the B/S finally came home to roost?

The per capita deaths from confirmed cases is among the lowest in the industrialized world. As testing increases identifying more cases, the rate of deaths should stay the same. This indicates strong hospitals and medical staff.

The Trump factor plays a role due to the relatively fewer number of tests performed and the late delay in federal government intervention.

The per capita deaths from confirmed cases is among the lowest in the industrialized world. As testing increases identifying more cases, the rate of deaths should stay the same. This indicates strong hospitals and medical staff.

The Trump factor plays a role due to the relatively fewer number of tests performed and the late delay in federal government intervention.

Could not have said it better or more accurately, and can only add the dufus adherence to repub small government trickle down economics is at the heart of economic suffering felt by the least and most essential of us during this crisis. Case in point the slow provision of PPE for those essential workers as well as lack of support, and enforcement of his own released government guidelines as a requirement for reopening.

The lack of distributing funds for those suffering because of the shutdown is a documented and shameless example of failed incompetent fiscal policy, and claims of an excellent job amid that failure is the biggest dufus factor on display...HE LIES!

That was long after post #177!!!

OK. Real slowly this time. WG--- take---a---look---at---the---scriptures---you---say---you---believe---on---post---177---and---let---me---know---what---you---think. Perhaps this would have been clearer. "WG, why don't you take a look at the scriptures (which you say you believe) I posted on post 177 and let me know what you think."

I would have thought that it was plain that there was no suggestion that post 177 was directed at you. You were merely being asked to look at something posted earlier as a point of reference, but next time, and just for you, I will repost the entire text AGAIN so that it will not be confusing.

What is it about you guys and the Bible? I would think, being interested in the truth as you say you are, that you would be happy to do so. For me, I love it, but you seem to be absolutely terrified if anyone suggests that you do. All of sudden the emotional, "Terrain! Terrain!" warning goes off in your heads. And the next thing we know, we are in a grammar school discussion kind of like, "I wasn't in post 177! That was someone else! Oh please, please don't ask me to comment on a verse of scripture! It was like mud!"

OK. Real slowly this time. WG--- take---a---look---at---the---scriptures---you---say---you---believe---on---post---177---and---let---me---know---what---you---think.
Now had that been typed in correct English, I might have understood what you were asking. Your misplaced prepositional phrase makes all the difference in how that sentence is understood.

...being interested in the truth as you claim to be...
Yes, I am, but knowing how it goes when I respond to your questions or requests, I really don't care to be put down, shamed, made fun of.

...the emotional, "Terrain! Terrain!" warning....
Is this a Mississippi thing?

Is this a Mississippi thing?
No. It's an aircraft pilot's thing.


Yes, I am, but knowing how it goes when I respond to your questions or requests, I really don't care to be put down, shamed, made fun of.You mean like you just did with me. Like that? "Now had that been typed in correct English, I might have understood what you were asking. Your misplaced prepositional phrase makes all the difference in how that sentence is understood."

What you call being put down, shamed, or made fun of is just the give and take of discussion. When you try to appeal to a hugely minority position such as the meaning of the Greek for "homosexual", or positively state that Paul himself was a homosexual, or try to change the meaning of the word "eternal" when no responsible Bible translator agrees with you as Athos did, then you have to be able to respond to that. It's just discussion. I would expect you to do the same thing to me.

Hmmm. Still no comment on those texts. Oh well.

Hmmm. Still no comment on those texts. Oh well.
That is not proper exegesis. You can do better than this. What exactly do you want to know? What is your REAL question?


No. It's an aircraft pilot's thing.

You mean like you just did with me. Like that? "Now had that been typed in correct English, I might have understood what you were asking. Your misplaced prepositional phrase makes all the difference in how that sentence is understood."
I did not shame you!

That is not proper exegesis. You can do better than this. What exactly do you want to know? What is your REAL question?I never suggested the simple listing of scriptures was in any way exegetical. That would be foolishness. It is a simple sampling (alliteration!!) of NT texts concerning hell.

Perhaps I can frame the question this way. Considering such an avalanches of scriptures which clearly reference hell, would you hold that there is no such place as hell, or do you agree that hell does exist as a place of eternal torment?

I never suggested the simple listing of scriptures was in any way exegetical. That would be foolishness. It is a simple sampling (alliteration!!) of NT texts concerning hell.

Perhaps I can frame the question this way. Considering such an avalanches of scriptures which clearly reference hell, would you hold that there is no such place as hell, or do you agree that hell does exist as a place of eternal torment?
During my long life and after many, MANY hours of study and discussion, I am leaning strongly towards "hell" either as a dysphemism for a place we wish all the people who are evil and whom we hate will be sent when they die OR as a place for retraining (cf. Purgatory). God loves ALL His children. I cannot accept that He would send any of them, no matter how mentally ill or unbelieving or even evil they are (think hereditary vs. environment -- is anyone evil "just because"?), just so they can be eternally tormented.

You make no appeal to scripture. That is my biggest problem with your belief. It's also interesting that you want to send people you hate to hell, but your hating them does not seem to make you evil. Where are we told to hate people?

You make no appeal to scripture. That is my biggest problem with your belief. It's also interesting that you want to send people you hate to hell, but your hating them does not seem to make you evil. Where are we told to hate people?
I didn't say I want to send people I hate to hell!

Your response totally floors me! Did you actually read what I wrote?

I read this. Seems pretty clear. You are trying to hide behind the pronoun "we", but don't include me in that. That is your philosophy you are describing. This is all on you.


we wish all the people who are evil and whom we hate will be sent when they die

And there is still no appeal to scripture.

I read this. Seems pretty clear. You are trying to hide behind the pronoun "we", but don't include me in that. That is your philosophy you are describing. This is all on you.

we wish all the people who are evil and whom we hate will be sent when they die

And there is still no appeal to scripture.
The "we" is generic, not you and me and Fred. You've never told anyone (or whispered under your breath), "Go to hell!"?

I'm supposed to duel proof-passages with you?

What a weak defense. You make a statement about sending people "we" hate to hell, and state that "we wish" it to happen, and then somehow try to suggest that it's not really YOUR wish, but it's that wicked Mr. Generic's fault! Oh please.

And besides, do you have any scripture whatsoever about hell being this "training ground" (which actually made me laugh), or a place just for wicked people that "we hate"? Anything at all? You say you studied this. Well, surely some passages of scripture stood out to you. I gave you fifteen or so. Do you have anything at all?

You argue, but it makes no difference, this is purgatory, or perhaps hell on Earth

Why would anyone respond to your queries since we all know you're ready to pounce on them. 'Cept me who don't give a crap.

'Cept me who don't give a crap.That's what I like about you. You've got some fight in you.

I'm not trying to be ugly, but remember what I told you last week about pouring water out of a boot?

A little light-hearted start for the day.

https://scontent.fmem1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/95532769_10163763971490651_8867720994962276352_n.j pg?_nc_cat=111&_nc_sid=110474&_nc_ohc=4bja4ntXG6wAX_qFJI3&_nc_ht=scontent.fmem1-2.fna&oh=a6b276842d43f9152dfd2e3790d29529&oe=5ED65003

You are a challenge I look forward to. I love it when you bring it! Haven't had enough coffee yet so refresh me about pouring water from a boot.

The old saying I mentioned last week was this: Don't pour water (or some other liquid) out of your boot on my head and then try to tell me it's raining.

We say don't pee on my head and tell me it's raining. I should point out though I'm not the one peeing on your head. I'm the guy willing to share his umbrella. Doesn't matter if it's pee, or rain. We can still keep our head dry.

I like your version better!! We still need to share that cup of coffee.

It was only in dispute in your mind. I never contended otherwise, so there is nothing to admit to. You must concentrate. Honestly, I frequently sit here in amazement at where you get these crazy ideas from.

Your amazement is equalled by your ignorance.


Oh? Tell us about those "competing versions" that had textual differences of any great concern. In the 4th century, St. Jerome was asked to make a copy of the entire Bible. What became known as the Old Testament (the Jewish "Bible"), he translated from the Hebrew. The existing sources of the New Testament, however, were a mess. Jerome complained that there were almost as many versions as copies. The Gospels were in Old Latin and Greek. There were also copies in Syriac and in Coptic. Jerome translated from the Old Latin and Greek into then New Latin which became the Vulgate, the definitive version for the Catholic Church.

The word "Hell" never appears in either the Old or New Testaments. "Sheol" in the Old T meant the abode of the dead. It had nothing to do with eternal punishment. Jerome translated it as "inferno" meaning "the lower world". Later, inferno took on the connotation of "fiery place", from "Gehenna"(below), never eternal punishment. For the Gospels Jerome translated "Hades" (from Sheol) meaning "the hidden place" or "underworld", never eternal punishment. Hades did not have any connection to fire or eternity. "Tartarus" was translated once by Jerome as hell. No connection to anything. Finally, "Gehenna" was translated as Hell. Gehenna is the most common and was an actual garbage pit outside the walls of Jerusalem which was more or less constantly on fire or smoldering. Its use in the Gospels is figurative since it is hardly the place for eternal punishment of the body/soul.

When Catholic Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, hell as a place of punishment became current as a means of coercing converts and encouraging people to be good and not sin. Even so, it was never a major theological position.

It all changed with Dante's poem "The Divine Comedy" (Inferno, Purgatorio, Paradiso) when it exploded into the European consciousness with the "Inferno" showing the fantastic tortures of the damned. Dante intended the work to be an allegory - popes and bishops are in hell - but it became the definitive picture of a hell where the wicked suffer.

The word "hell" is an Old English word first appearing in English in the Bible translations. It was the English translation for Jerome's "inferno".

Every use of the English word hell as a place of eternal punishment is a mistranslaton of the Hebrew or the Greek.


So when I appeal to nearly twenty passages of scripture that support clearly the concept of hell, well that strikes you as not being "reasonable", so you reject it.

No, I reject it because it is a mistranslation.


When Jesus refers to an "eternal" hell, you are forced to appeal an extreme minority position regarding the meaning of aionios, a position held by virtually no one of consequence in the world of Bible translations.

It is held by those of enormous importance. Namely the original writers of the Gospels (and the Old and New Testaments). Aionios - this Greek word means A) a period of time that never ends, forever, or eternal, OR B) a period of time that begins and ends, an age, age-lasting.

The word in the Gospel context means an age, not eternal. See the next paragraph.

The context of Matthew 25 is in the word "kolasis". The phrase is "aionios kolasis". To the Greeks of the day, kolasis meant a corrective or redemptive process. In Greek outside of the Bible, it means "to prune", i.e., as in a garden, to fix or correct the desired growth. When the phrase is translated as "eternal punishment, it is not faithful to the original Greek. Eternal correction is worse. This mistranslation was energetically supported by Augustine and the English KJV and maybe two other English Bibles. For proof of this, all one has to do is research the original Greek for the meanings of the two words and how they are used in context. Matthew's 25 is impossible. Why so many later versions copied this mistranslation is another question.

As to the 17 verses from your post claiming proof of eternal punishment in hell, every one can be debunked.


Now I would suggest you appeal to specific scriptures which tell us there is no hell, that no one will ever go there, or that they will only go for a short period.

Let me get this straight. You want me to tell you of a scripture that says there is no hell - a concept that is not there in the first place? Did you ever learn that a negative cannot be proved? Another idea for you to research.

Let me get this straight. You want me to tell you of a scripture that says there is no hell - a concept that is not there in the first place? Did you ever learn that a negative cannot be proved? Another idea for you to research.About what I figured. You love to blow and shout, but when it's time to actually demonstrate any knowledge of the Bible, you fail miserably. 17 verses can, you say, be debunked. You have mystery translations of Greek words that no translation of the Bible agrees with. When you say, "Why so many later versions copied this mistranslation is another question," you have hit the nail on the head at last. The answer to your question is simple. You don't know what you're talking about. "Maybe two other English translations" support your position? You don't know? Watching your mental gymnastics leaving you twisted like a pretzel is a sad sight.

In Matthew 25 Jesus used the greek word "pyr" which translates "fire". It is immediately followed by "eternal", and is a place, he says, prepared for the devil and his angels. People are plainly sent there. You are greatly mistaken.

About what I figured. You love to blow and shout, but when it's time to actually demonstrate any knowledge of the Bible, you fail miserably.
I agree with Athos. He nicely sums up what I learned in college theology classes, discussed in Bible study groups and themed workshops, and learned during private research and reading on the subject.

I agree with Athos. He nicely sums up what I learned in college theology classes, discussed in Bible study groups and themed workshops, and learned during private research and reading on the subject.First of all, you would agree with Athos if he said you are a man or a bird. You will agree with him on anything and everything. If he is summing up what you learned in theology classes, then he is evidently summing up what you learned outside of the Bible. Neither of you can ever refer to scriptures to support your positions. I posted nearly twenty scriptures on hell. You refuse to even comment on them. For him, it's always a minority position based on highly questionable translations of Greek words that no Bible translations agree with it. You are as far out in left field as you can get, and you are largely alone.

He must be nicely summing up what you learned outside of the Bible. Neither of you can ever refer to verses to support your positions. It's always a minority position based on highly questionable translations of Greek words that no Bible translations agree with it. You are as far out in left field as you can get, and you are largely alone.
Do a bit of study. You have a huge advantage that I never had. Please open your mind!

You said you did MUCH study, and yet you have no scripture to support your position. Now you think I need to do a "bit" of study? I ask you again. Look at the scriptures I posted. Study them. Ask yourself if they seem to be referring to a place like what you described earlier. Clearly they don't.

A really good place to start is Isaiah's experience with God in Isaiah 6. It will give you a fresh look at the intense holiness of God.

My mind is wide open. I don't tend to adopt beliefs because someone else says I am supposed to. I read my Bible a great deal and do my own thinking and praying. Above all else, I avoid reading my own prejudices into it. I am convinced that is what you are doing.

You said you did MUCH study, and yet you have no scripture to support your position. Now you think I need to do a "bit" of study? I ask you again. Look at the scriptures I posted. Study them. Ask yourself if they seem to be referring to a place like what you described earlier. Clearly they don't.

A really good place to start is Isaiah's experience with God in Isaiah 6. It will give you a fresh look at the intense holiness of God.
Which version? Or maybe the JW Bible or the Mormon version? The Vulgate? Better yet, please point me to the original manuscripts.

Which version? Or maybe the JW Bible or the Mormon version? The Vulgate? Better yet, please point me to the original manuscripts.If you really believe all of that, then why do you bother with it? The New World Translation (JW) is clearly skewed to reflect their beliefs. The Mormons don't have their own translation. They use the KJV. Point you to the original autographs? Come on. You know that's a foolish comment. No original manuscripts of antiquity survive for any works.

I think your problem is that you want to read your prejudices into the Bible rather than letting the Bible read it's truth into you. That's why you cannot use the Bible to support what you believe.

I'm very disappointed that you refuse to simply read and comment on a group of scriptures.

Just as a point of conversation, I have started something new. In addition to my other Bible reading, I'm taking one book a month in the mornings. This month it's Colossians. I'm reading it in Biblegateway.com, though there are other options. I like that because it let's me set up a parallel Bible. I'm using the Living Bible, NASB, NET (first time with that one), and the Expanded Bible. I read one chapter a day. It's been interesting.

If you really believe all of that, then why do you bother with it? The New World Translation (JW) is clearly skewed to reflect their beliefs. The Mormons don't have their own translation. They use the KJV. Point you to the original autographs? Come on. You know that's a foolish comment. No original manuscripts of antiquity survive for any works.

I think your problem is that you want to read your prejudices into the Bible rather than letting the Bible read it's truth into you. That's why you cannot use the Bible to support what you believe.

I'm very disappointed that you refuse to simply read and comment on a group of scriptures.
I am not going to fence with you, each parrying and thrusting with our hand-picked proof passages.

You can't refer to "our hand-picked proof passages" as you have not had any. The correct pronoun would have been "your".

Please read the post right above your most recent one above. I posted it about the time you posted yours so you might have missed it. You might want to try it.

Good night, all.

I really don't know if you deserve Kudos for keeping the parameters of this discussion strictly within the confines of the version of the bible you follow, or whether you should be chastised for ignoring the history of your religion and it's evolution. I can see imposing limits for which one to choose responses from, and that certainly weighs the conversation your way, but is that a fair point of reference when there are obviously other ways besides yours to make this rather ridiculous claim about the afterlife and the rules for getting there?

Even Jesus' frame of reference was limited to the language of the people he was speaking to, as were his followers after him, and to the same extent today by modern man. The flaw in the discussion though is while you quote scripture, WG, and Athos examine history, and the men who made it and the obvious difference will always be your narrow focus without the greater context of that history. Maybe you can get away with the painting of the scholars being such dedicated learned men, but in truth they were working for the learned men who were putting together a product for public consumption. The goal was converts followers readers supporters in a competition with other learned men doing the same thing.

So I guess I should be chastising you for trying to lead a very narrowly focused discussion of YOUR bible as you see it, when the conversation is how it was put together. Absent a miracle worker man, both ancient and modern, is left with the only device he has and that's language to make his point fire bad, listen to me good, invoking a deity as the main point. All the religions do that. How else could they shepherd their sheep?

Now you can quote scripture all you want and try to force others to quote it too, likely that's what you have always done, and claim yourself the victor by default on that basis, but you lose the history of man and how those scriptures were put together in the first place and the important who and why. Maybe it's just the politics of it you're trying to ignore, giving you the benefit of a doubt here, but the whole Christian religion, as are other religions to be fair, was all about the politics of the day.

So kudos for trying to quote scripture without history or politics, but you cannot have an honest discussion without them. You end up preaching not discussing.

WG and Tal - Your posts were quite good and informative. It's not easy to discuss a big subject on these internet pages, but you both focused where focus belongs.

I am sorry that JL got so frantic as he screeched against WG with little more than, "IT'S MY BIBLE. AND MY BIBLE IS THE RIGHT BIBLE. YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING".

Screeching is the last resort when someone is so angry in losing an argument that spittle becomes his argument. Jl can overcome his reticence simply by researching the issues on the internet. It's all there for the researching and reading.

The flaw in the discussion though is while you quote scripture, WG, and Athos examine history, and the men who made itI'm glad you see that those two love to discuss the teaching of the Bible without making any reference to the Bible. As to examining history, the examining they do must be taken with the greatest caution. It is frequently wrong.


within the confines of the version of the bible you follow,
That is a vastly overrated issue. I read from several Bible translations. You can get from any one of them what you can get from another. There are some I prefer over others, but it's not like you are reading from a different story when you change from one to another.


Maybe you can get away with the painting of the scholars being such dedicated learned men, but in truth they were working for the learned men who were putting together a product for public consumption. The goal was converts followers readers supporters in a competition with other learned men doing the same thing.So how do you account for the thousands of Greek manuscripts which, in the vast part of the text, agree with each other? If what you say is true, then after centuries of copying, the NT should have gone off in a myriad of directions. That is not the case. Your statement, while no doubt true in some cases, paints an incorrect picture of the truth.


Now you can quote scripture all you want and try to force others to quote it too, likely that's what you have always done, and claim yourself the victor by default on that basis,Can you see what a foolish statement that is? What do you want, a discussion of the Bible where the Bible is never referred to??? It is like taking an English Lit course that does not involve any reading or discussion of English literature.


but you lose the history of man and how those scriptures were put together in the first place and the important who and why. Maybe it's just the politics of it you're trying to ignore, giving you the benefit of a doubt here, but the whole Christian religion, as are other religions to be fair, was all about the politics of the day.No it was not. My goodness what a foolish statement that is! Read the Bible for yourself and see if you can find those places where the NT believers followed "the politics of the day." I'm sorry, but that statement would seem to show that you know but little of the NT. The early Christian church was as counter cultural and non-political as it gets. They suffered greatly because of their non-conformity.

There is very little concern about the reliability of the NT text. If you really would like to know about this, look for yourself. Here is a good place to start.

https://normangeisler.com/a-note-on-the-percent-of-accuracy-of-the-new-testament-text/

"IT'S MY BIBLE. AND MY BIBLE IS THE RIGHT BIBLE. YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING".Another of the Chicago paraphrases!! That one made me laugh.

Still waiting for you to make any appeal, no matter how small, to scripture to support your views. If the past is a good indicator, I suspect I will be waiting a long time.


Jl can overcome his reticence simply by researching the issues on the internet. It's all there for the researching and reading.I do that frequently. That's how I easily discovered your dishonest use of the Aquinas quote, a abuse that would have stood if we had waited around for you to be honest and give the full text.

I'm glad you see that those two love to discuss the teaching of the Bible without making any reference to the Bible. As to examining history, the examining they do must be taken with the greatest caution. It is frequently wrong.

If someone's account of history is WRONG, then part of the discussion is to point that out and correct it. How would we know it's wrong if you bring to facts to the table?


So how do you account for the thousands of Greek manuscripts which, in the vast part of the text, agree with each other? If what you say is true, then after centuries of copying, the NT should have gone off in a myriad of directions. That is not the case. Your statement, while no doubt true in some cases, paints an incorrect picture of the truth.

The ancient scholars were not independent nor could they go in different directions even if they wanted to. Even today we have publishers and editors to guide the process of putting any book together.


Can you see what a foolish statement that is? What do you want, a discussion of the Bible where the Bible is never referred to??? It is like taking an English Lit course that does not involve any reading or discussion of English literature.

Do you realize how foolish your own analogy is? Why does a discussion of the bible in an historical sense preclude the bible itself? That would be crazy, and sounds like an excuse to keep the focus very narrow, on your own comfort zone.


No it was not. My goodness what a foolish statement that is! Read the Bible for yourself and see if you can find those places where the NT believers followed "the politics of the day." I'm sorry, but that statement would seem to show that you know but little of the NT. The early Christian church was as counter cultural and non-political as it gets. They suffered greatly because of their non-conformity.

You sound like a fool yourself denying that the non conformity of this new counter culture wasn't the politics of that day. Bucking the system is always about the politics. Jesus himself was bucking the system and his whole story is about changing the politics of his day. Come on man.


There is very little concern about the reliability of the NT text. If you really would like to know about this, look for yourself. Here is a good place to start.

https://normangeisler.com/a-note-on-the-percent-of-accuracy-of-the-new-testament-text/

Your argument of content has nothing to do with the broader sense of CONTEXT. The discussion of history doesn't question accuracy of words or language, but INTENT of the time, a concept that seems to elude you. Reliability is only established by that intent that you ignore. The basics who, how, why, and what.

So what are you afraid of that you need a narrow discussion as opposed to an broad honest one?

Or is it a matter of you being right, by making everybody else wrong?

Even Jesus' frame of reference was limited to the language of the people he was speaking to,

Tal I know these discussions can become emotive, but it is your frame of reference that is limited, not Jesus. If anyone was limited it is those who documented Jesus but he left his Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. So, in light of that, endless arguments over the meanings of words and interpretation of the Bible don't serve anyone. Athos is obviously a scholar with a point of view, which seems to be to disprove traditional interpretations so arguing with him or jl is worthless

I find myself in the most absurd discussion a person can imagine. We are supposedly discussing the teachings of the Bible, and yet we are to do so without actually discussing the text of the Bible. We can discuss and, for some, misrepresent the history of the Bible, or the significant individuals in the history of Christianity, or even the meanings of individual words, but it is "verboten" to actually make any reference to the text of the Bible. It is the strangest conversation one can imagine, and is much like a person going to law school and studying everything except the written law. And even worse, it is presented as being the sensible thing to do.


Jesus himself was bucking the system and his whole story is about changing the politics of his day. Come on man.His whole story is about changing the politics of his day? What??? Now I know we are trying to discuss the Bible without actually quoting the Bible, but where on earth did Jesus advocate for political change? "Come on man", tell us about it. You remember where he said this? "Jesus said, 'My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.'" So in what way do you think he was advocating for a political change in this world?

And I do apologize being so bold as to refer to a passage in the NT. My bad. 8D for the sarcasm impaired.

You hurt me Clete! 8O I don't argue! I exchange ideas in the discussion! 8(

Okay, I got no life, no friends and nothing better to do! You happy now?

I find myself in the most absurd discussion a person can imagine. We are supposedly discussing the teachings of the Bible, and yet we are to do so without actually discussing the Bible. We can discuss and misrepresent the history of the Bible, or the significant individuals in the history of Christianity, or even the meanings of individual words, but it is "verboten" to actually make any reference to the text of the Bible. It is the strangest conversation one can imagine, and is much like a person going to law school and studying everything except the written law. And even worse, it is presented as being the sensible thing to do.

Relax dude, nobody is excluding the bible just your demand that only the bible can prove the bible. Now you can assert any misrepresentation you perceive, but back it up like everybody else who asserts stuff! If you cannot then your claim of misrepresentation is a false one.


His whole story is about changing the politics of his day? What??? Now I know we are trying to discuss the Bible without actually quoting the Bible, but where on earth did Jesus advocate for political change? Come on man, tell us about it. You remember where he said this? "Jesus said, 'My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.'" So in what way do you think he was advocating for a political change in this world? Come on, man!

This is what I actually wrote: "
You sound like a fool yourself denying that the non conformity of this new counter culture wasn't the politics of that day. Bucking the system is always about the politics. Jesus himself was bucking the system and his whole story is about changing the politics of his day. Come on man."

You can always just tell me what the conflicts or actions were that lead to his arrest. Pure religious politics.