Yay for Germany. Now what's going on in Alaska?

Making things up is your specialty. You're the best I've ever seen at it, and your post above one of your best efforts.

Yeah, then deny this, pal.


Remember, this is the guy who believes that Jesus God created billions and billions of human beings so that he could send them to his private torture chamber for all eternity. Their crime? They never heard of Jesus so they couldn't/didn't believe in what they never heard.

I wish I were making this up, but I'm not. It's a common belief among evangelicals.

I noticed you didn't deny it. You skipped right over it. Instead, you did your usual insult thing trying to deflect and get away from what you can't deny.

Tell us more about your Christianity. The one where you put hate in Jesus' message to replace love. We're listening.

Never said it. It’s just your make believe at work again.

Never said it. It’s just your make believe at work again.

Answer this:

Did God wipe out all humanity except for Noah et al?
Is Jesus God?
Did you quote the Gospel claiming there was hell waiting for those who did not accept Jesus?

Tell the truth, now. God is watching.

The Bible says He did.
the Bible teaches Jesus is God.
no. That was a quote from Jesus out of Mt. 25.
Yes, God is indeed watching us both.

The Bible says He did.
the Bible teaches Jesus is God.
no. That was a quote from Jesus out of Mt. 25.
Yes, God is indeed watching us both.

The question was Did you quote the Gospel? You said NO, and then you said That was a quote from jesus. So what is it - YES or NO?

Your attempts to get out of what you've been saying here for years are so transparent, I'm almost ashamed for you. ALMOST, but not quite!

Do you not believe the Bible? If so, then why do you try to avoid that, by always saying the Bible said so? Does that relieve you of any culpability? Say, for claiming God wiped out the entire human race in a flood?

Why can't you man up and just say what YOU believe? Not what the Bible says, but what YOU believe? You can't do it, can you?

You know it's ridiculous that God should send the majority of humanity to his own private torture chamber for eternity, but you can't bring yourself to admit that, can you? You'll just put it in the lap of the Bible.

Did you ever consider that the Bible has so many strange verses, that it can't possibly be literally true? You're a victim, Jl, of your own lack of discernment - a gift God gives to all of us.

Answer this:

Did God wipe out all humanity except for Noah et al?
Is Jesus God?
Did you quote the Gospel claiming there was hell waiting for those who did not accept Jesus?

Tell the truth, now. God is watching.

you know the answer stop avoiding the question

The question was Did you quote the Gospel? You said NO, and then you said That was a quote from jesus. So what is it - YES or NO?There is no book called "the Gospel", so it can't be quoted. I try to be careful with my words.


Your attempts to get out of what you've been saying here for years are so transparent, I'm almost ashamed for you. ALMOST, but not quite!I've changed nothing.


Do you not believe the Bible? If so, then why do you try to avoid that, by always saying the Bible said so? Does that relieve you of any culpability? Say, for claiming God wiped out the entire human race in a flood?

Why can't you man up and just say what YOU believe? Not what the Bible says, but what YOU believe? You can't do it, can you?Because it makes no difference what I believe. No one will be judged on the basis of what I believe. Truth is not established by what I believe. It is established by what the Bible says, and that's why I continually resort to the Bible, and it's why I continually encourage you to believe the Bible as do I.


Did you ever consider that the Bible has so many strange verses, that it can't possibly be literally true? You're a victim, Jl, of your own lack of discernment - a gift God gives to all of us.And so we arrive at the source of our disagreement. You consider that the Bible means...whatever you think it means. I believe it is a literal representation of God's will. So when Jesus said, "Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God," I think He literally meant what He said. What do you think of that?

you know the answer stop avoiding the questionRead more carefully. Think.

No, you think for a change, endless argument is not what Christians are intended to do, it is what the jews did and their religion wasn't spread as it was supposed to be. we present the truth, respond or don't respond, beyond that we cannot convince anyone

Are you following your own advice? (Hint: The answer is "no".) BTW, many people have been converted after long periods of discussion. C.S. Lewis comes to mind, for instance. With Athos I am trying to learn to be steady, truthful, and as kind as the situation allows. Wouldn't hurt things if you would jump in on the side of the truth from time to time. Your reluctance to do so is baffling.

With Athos I am trying to learn to be steady, truthful, and as kind as the situation allows. Wouldn't hurt things if you would jump in on the side of the truth from time to time. Your reluctance to do so is baffling.
Now you're becoming a bully.


No, you think for a change, endless argument is not what Christians are intended to do, it is what the jews did and their religion wasn't spread as it was supposed to be. we present the truth, respond or don't respond, beyond that we cannot convince anyone
I totally agree! There are better ways to win souls than with endless discussions and arguments.

Now you're becoming a bully.Remember, you have been disqualified from being the civility police here. Your own behavior did not measure up or even come close, and you would not even discuss it on a PM.

Remember, you have been disqualified from being the civility police here.
Who disqualified me? the bully?

Check your PMs, Bully Boy.

I think clete would be amazed to find out he is being bullied. He can handle himself and is not a dainty little flower. As for you, your tolerance and cheering for sickening comments on this board is legend. You have no credibility at all. It’s what happens when you lower your standards to accomplish a political objective. If you want respect, then let your outrage become objective.

The only person trying to bully me is you, schoolyard style, grow up jl

So you are a dainty little flower after all? Disappointing. You know full well I was not "bullying" you. Good grief.

So you are a dainty little flower after all? Disappointing.
Just so you get the message, POQ mate!

So you want to be treated daintily??? Oh well.

If you really believe that, " Wouldn't hurt things if you would jump in on the side of the truth from time to time. Your reluctance to do so is baffling," is some kind of "bullying", then you are a far different man than I had assumed. Here, that's tame. Here, that's just asking a simple question.

Talk to the hand

https://www.bing.com/th?id=OIP.XZD9Y5UXP93fJgTwYZyG2QHaHa&w=96&h=96&c=8&rs=1&qlt=90&dpr=1.5&pid=3.1&rm=2

No thanks.

Now you're becoming a bully.


I totally agree! There are better ways to win souls than with endless discussions and arguments.

I agree, WG. However, when I discovered Jl was bad-mouthing me and dissing me behind my back when I was not even on the board, I decided to give him a taste of his own medicine. Like all bullies, he doesn't like being on the receiving end.

Jl combines troll with stalker and, of course, denier of fact - his long-term character.

ok this is becoming a mob

There is no book called "the Gospel", so it can't be quoted. I try to be careful with my words.

What you mean is - You try to avoid answering the question at all costs, even to the absurdity that "there is no book called 'the Gospel'". That is about the dopiest statement you've ever made. And you've made some real lollapaloozas.


I've changed nothing.

Sorry I must have missed the part where you denied ever saying unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment. For the record, will you now state your belief about unbelievers going to hell for eternal punishment?


Because it makes no difference what I believe.

You certainly have my agreement on that!


Truth is not established by what I believe. It is established by what the Bible says, and that's why I continually resort to the Bible

You're avoiding the question afraid to put your answer in your own words - putting the onus on a book. Yet, you ask others not to provide quotes or books or links, but to put it in their own words. Smells of hypocrisy.


It's why I continually encourage you to believe the Bible as do I.

LOL. You have never "encouraged" me to read the Bible. You have THREATENED me to believe as you do since, as you claim, you have "the truth".


And so we arrive at the source of our disagreement. You consider that the Bible means...whatever you think it means.

Wrong! I believe the Bible has several ways of interpreting it, as I've explained to you. You have only one way, and a bad way at that.


I believe it is a literal representation of God's will.

That's the bad way.


So when Jesus said, "Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God," I think He literally meant what He said. What do you think of that?

I think you're cherry-picking again. I think you throw out quotes without context. I think the quote has nothing to do with the discussion. I think you're threatening again. What do you think of that?

Sorry I must have missed the part where you denied ever saying unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment. For the record, will you now state your belief about unbelievers going to hell for eternal punishment?I believe that what Jesus said in Matt. 25 about judgment is the truth. "41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’"

Now you can argue with Him. And please don't make your pitiful usual appeal to "cherry picking" and "context". It is a straightforward, clear statement. Context helps you none at all. As to cherry picking, as you well know I can supply more than twenty other passages which say the same thing.


Because it makes no difference what I believe.


You certainly have my agreement on that!Good. We agree. So why do you keep asking?


I believe it is a literal representation of God's will.


That's the bad way.As I said, we disagree.


I think you're cherry-picking again. I think you throw out quotes without context. I think the quote has nothing to do with the discussion. I think you're threatening again. What do you think of that?I think it has everything to do with the discussion.

So THIS amounts to, "...Jl was bad-mouthing me and dissing me behind my back when I was not even on the board." Wow. How sensitive you are. "With Athos I am trying to learn to be steady, truthful, and as kind as the situation allows."

THAT is dissing??? Really???

I believe that what Jesus said in Matt. 25 about judgment is the truth. "41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’"

Consider this: Christians believe God to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent. Right?

Let's take omnibenevolent. It means all-loving. Christians believe God's love is unconditional. Jesus even went so far as to say, "Love your enemy" - a shocking statement for the time.

Then there's omniscient. This means God is all-knowing. Before any of his creatures came to be, God knew what their lives would be. Obviously, we know that some of these creatures (actually, the great majority) do not/did not believe in Jesus, so God must have known this too. You still with me?

Now, take that passage from Matthew you quoted. Compare it to God's omniscience and omnibenevolence.

Which one is true - Matthew's passage or God's love? Both can't be true. Would an unconditionally loving God cast his creatures into his personal torture chamber for all eternity simply because they never heard of or believed in Jesus? Of course not!

That should lead you to questioning if your interpretation of the Bible is the correct one.

God’s love and goodness led Him to sacrifice His only Son so that people can avert judgment. Hard to imagine how you could find more goodness and love than that.

What about all those billions who never heard about that sacrifice?

What about all those billions who never heard about that sacrifice?
we are supposed to tell them, go ye into all the Earth

God’s love and goodness led Him to sacrifice His only Son so that people can avert judgment. Hard to imagine how you could find more goodness and love than that.

I knew you would avoid the question. You can't answer it, can you? I didn't think so.


What about all those billions who never heard about that sacrifice?

That's the question at issue which Jl is unable to answer. I'm not surprised. To answer would require Jl's rethinking the Bible. He wouldn't be the first one.


we are supposed to tell them, go ye into all the Earth

What about the ones ye haven't gotten to yet? And the ones who lived and died before Jesus lived? What did ye do about those folks?

'With Athos I am trying to learn to be steady, truthful, and as kind as the situation allows."

One of the great comic lines from Jl. When he says "steady and truthful", that means "consistently insulting" in Jl speak. Part of his habit of giving a different meaning to common words.

He is getting a taste of his own medicine. Like all bullies, he doesn't like being on the receiving end.

Jl combines troll with stalker and, of course, denier of fact - his long-term character.

I knew you would avoid the question. You can't answer it, can you? I didn't think so.I just did. You must learn to tell the difference between a non-answer versus an answer you simply don't like.



https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom/vgo/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Wondergirl https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom/vgo/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?p=3866458#post3866458)
What about all those billions who never heard about that sacrifice?




That's the question at issue which Jl is unable to answer. I'm not surprised. To answer would require Jl's rethinking the Bible. He wouldn't be the first one.I would be content to at least start with the position of Aquinas. "Men are bound to that without which they cannot obtain salvation. Now it is manifest that no one can obtain salvation but through Christ; wherefore the Apostle says (Rom. 5:18): "As by the offense of one unto all men unto condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men unto justification of life." But for this end is Baptism conferred on a man, that being regenerated thereby, he may be incorporated in Christ, by becoming His member: wherefore it is written (Gal. 3:27): "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ." Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be baptized: and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men."


One of the great comic lines from Jl. When he says "steady and truthful", that means "consistently insulting" in Jl speak. Part of his habit of giving a different meaning to common words.Comic lines? When this is referred to as "dissing" and "bad-mouthing", and was done supposedly "behind (your) back", then how comical is that? "With Athos I am trying to learn to be steady, truthful, and as kind as the situation allows."

Think maybe you're a little overly sensitive?

49336

wise words you should reflect on them

I just did.

No, you didn't. not even close. Here's the question again:

Which one is true - Matthew's passage or God's love? Both can't be true. Would an unconditionally loving God cast his creatures into his personal torture chamber for all eternity simply because they never heard of or believed in Jesus? Of course not!


I would be content to at least start with the position of Aquinas.

My Aquinas to your God who tortures his creation for all eternity.


With Athos I am trying to learn to be steady, truthful, and as kind as the situation allows.

When he says "steady and truthful", that means "consistently insulting" in Jl speak. Part of his habit of giving a different meaning to common words.


Think maybe you're a little overly sensitive?

No, but I do think you're stupid. ADS.

And here's my answer again. "God’s love and goodness led Him to sacrifice His only Son so that people can avert judgment. Hard to imagine how you could find more goodness and love than that."

I'll stick with Jesus in Matthew 25 and the many other passages where he speaks of eternal judgment.


When he says "steady and truthful", that means "consistently insulting" in Jl speak. Part of his habit of giving a different meaning to common words.
No, but I do think you're stupid. ADS.The only person being insulting here is you. I think I will not follow your example.

Uh Oh!!


https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/image/png;base64,iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAAEAAAABCAQAAAC 1HAwCAAAAC0lEQVR42mNkYAAAAAYAAjCB0C8AAAAASUVORK5CY II=Hunter Biden admitted the laptop whose hard drive contents were obtained by the media in late 2020 “certainly ... could be” his after all,"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hunter-biden-admits-laptop-certainly-could-be-his/ar-BB1ffd3R

What about the ones ye haven't gotten to yet? And the ones who lived and died before Jesus lived? What did ye do about those folks?
we are required to look after the living, Jesus said let the dead bury the dead, they are his concern not ours so stop being ridiculous as to the living all we can do is tell them the truth so no one said that this wasn't the responsibility of all, not jus one

we are required to look after the living, Jesus said let the dead bury the dead, they are his concern not ours so stop being ridiculous as to the living all we can do is tell them the truth so no one said that this wasn't the responsibility of all, not jus one

Avoiding the question, I see. You're all the same.

As to the living, do you seriously maintain everyone alive has known of Jesus and has decided not to believe in him? Thereby earning eternal punishment in hell?

What is wrong with you guys? Can you not understand the simplest of ideas?

And here's my answer again. "God’s love and goodness led Him to sacrifice His only Son so that people can avert judgment. Hard to imagine how you could find more goodness and love than that."That's not an answer - that's an evasion. A fact you know damn well, but cannot bring yourself to admit it.


I'll stick with Jesus in Matthew 25

Another evasion. You could not answer my post #277 citing Matthew 25 in this thread. It presents you with some home truths that make your position untenable.


and the many other passages where he speaks of eternal judgment.

You sound like a broken record - nothing new from you, just the same-old, same-old. #277 covers all your passages.


The only person being insulting here is you. I think I will not follow your example.

Another comedy! You are the one who began the whole insulting business. Now, getting burned on your own petard, you are whining about being on the receiving end. Poor baby - grow a pair!

You get the same answers because they are the correct answers. If Jesus is not good enough for you, then you'll just have to deal with Him about it.

Getting burned on my own petard??? Now I KNOW I won't follow your example.

You don't get burned on petards, you get hung and hoisted you have been

You get the same answers because they are the correct answers.

They are not remotely correct answers. They are EVASIONS! The truth is impossible for you to deal with.


If Jesus is not good enough for you

It's YOU the REAL Jesus is not good enough for. That's why you have him sending most of humanity to eternal torture. Think about that.


Then you'll just have to deal with Him about it.

Oh yeah, now THAT's some answer!! Anything to get out of answering, I see.


Getting burned on my own petard??? Now I KNOW I won't follow your example.

I never offered you an example, did I? If you object to being burned on your own petard, then answer the question. But you won't, will you?

You promote a monstrous, murderous Jesus who doesn't exist and never existed because you worship a book instead of Jesus. Think about THAT - and the First Commandment while you're at it.

John 8:24. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”

Mt. 25"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;

Mt. 10:15 Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.

Colossians 3:5,6. Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.

1 Thessalonians 1:10. “Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.”

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.

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.”

Matthew 8:11,12. 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, 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 13:30. (This is the conclusion of the parable of the wheat and tares.) “Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.”

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.”

Isaiah 45:21,22. Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the Lord? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. 22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

At some point your feeble protests get buried under an avalanche of scriptural evidence. We have reached, and passed, that point, for there are many others that could be posted as well. So I can believe you, or I can believe the Bible.

I would encourage you to seriously consider this last verse. It answers your question about a God of love and goodness who is also, as Abraham called Him, the "judge of the whole earth".

John 3:16. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have life everlasting.

It is true that I worship and follow the Jesus of the Bible. It would seem that you are following a Jesus of your own invention. Wherever your ideas come from, it is not from the Bible. That explains why you don't use scripture in your arguments.


you worship a book instead of Jesus. Think about THAT - and the First Commandment while you're at it.You mean the first commandment found in the same book that you just disparaged?

At some point your feeble protests get buried under an avalanche of scriptural evidence. We have reached, and passed, that point, for there are many others that could be posted as well. So I can believe you, or I can believe the Bible.For all your scriptural "evidence", I refer you to my post #277. That post covers everything you may offer as "evidence". It is noteworthy that you continue to refuse (or are not capable of) answering that post. I wonder why?


I would encourage you to seriously consider this last verse. It answers your question about a God of love and goodness

My question is COMPARING the God you claim is "all-loving" to the monstrous creation you have made of God who sends all those he doesn't like to an eternity of torture.


John 3:16. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have life everlasting.

Not even close to the issue at hand - just more of your throwing out Bible verses that you think is an answer. You're been doing this for at least a year. When will you finally discuss the issue without your faulty reading of the Bible?


It is true that I worship and follow the Jesus of the Bible.

No, what you are following is a bad understanding of Jesus that you have been handed since childhood. What you need to do is examine that belief - something you have never done.


It would seem that you are following a Jesus of your own invention. Wherever your ideas come from, it is not from the Bible.

My ideas about Jesus come from the Bible - where else could they come from? The invented Jesus is all yours - and others like you.


That explains why you don't use scripture in your arguments.I have used the Bible in these discussions. It's just that I don't use an "avalanche" to swamp the discussion like you do. Do you really think Bible verses showing the unconditional love of Jesus are necessary to quote? I should think you would be aware of them by now.


You mean the first commandment found in the same book that you just disparaged?

A - Yes, that commandment. B - I never disparaged the book. I informed you of the proper ways to read the Bible, but you denied that and said the ONLY way is the LITERAL way. You are, in effect, disparaging the book yourself.

There are 2 of us in this discussion. One constantly refers to scripture while the other, as in your last rambling post, never does. Pretty much says it all. You don’t because you have no support there. So if you want to appeal to a particular passage as a foundation for your ideas (whatever they are), then I’ll be glad to respond. Your beliefs hold no interest without Bible support

@jlisenbe: it is clear that some people believe Gods Word has been corrupted.

Jesus spoke about hell more than anybody...be a feared.
@Athos
Better check yourself before you wreck yourself.

@jlisenbe: it is clear that some people believe Gods Word has been corrupted.I really don't know what he believes. It's hard to figure out. But he is interesting to read, so I'll give him that.

@jlisenbe: it is clear that some people believe Gods Word has been corrupted.
Yes, it has been over the millennia -- there have been mistranslations and misinterpretations galore, many deliberate, some horrific, depending on the translators' and interpreters' motivations.

there have been mistranslations and misinterpretations galore, many deliberate, some horrific, depending on the translators' and interpreters' motivations.List some specific examples. Say, five??? And bear in mind that we're not concerned about interpretations since that is all subjective at some level, but rather translation errors.

List some specific examples. Say, five???
There are five flawed translation techniques: etymology, internal structure, cognates, old mistranslations, and misunderstood metaphors. Examples as per your request:
1. Arsenokoitēs
2. Acts 12:4 (KJV) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
3. I John 5:7-8 The latter part of verse 7 and the first part of verse 8 did not exist until they were inserted into the Vulgate.
4. Revelation 1:11 does not appear in any of the ancient Greek texts.
5. The Red Sea.

We have Jesus/Bible.

What we have today is the written and living Word of God.
You are in Error if you think God has allowed the living Word to be corrupted.
Believing God would give his Son/Word and then throw a monkey wrench in the mix?

We have Jesus/Bible.

What we have today is the written and living Word of God.
You are in Error if you think God has allowed the living Word to be corrupted.
Believing God would give his Son/Word and then throw a monkey wrench in the mix?
I thought God gave man free will! Of course, mankind can change and even corrupt when translating and reprinting God's Word -- and has, both accidentally AND deliberately. The original texts no longer exist, so then what?

Then I guess you believe using your own understanding.

For me, I believe the Bible is God's Word. The same today as yesterday.
The living word given to us by God himself.
Nothing has been lost in translation.

God/Bible can not be corrupted.
God didn't just Drop the Bible in our laps and head out.
God with us = Bible

Any other understanding would just create confusion.
Believing God isn't able to preserve his Word.

Then I guess you believe using your own understanding.

For me, I believe the Bible is God's Word. The same today as yesterday.
The living word given to us by God himself.
Nothing has been lost in translation.
Apparently, you haven't done any serious Bible study or compared the many versions. Yes, the Bible itself is God's Word, but we have only translations now, not the original manuscripts.

We have the Bible translation in the life of Jesus.

Consider the translations better than the original? The word of God none the less.
Trust in God.

I trust God has provided his word.

We have the Bible translation in the life of Jesus.
The translations have been corrupted here and there. Misunderstandings have resulted. Which translation do you use?

Consider the translations better than the original?the word of God none the less.
Trust in God.
No one has seen the originals for millennia.

1. ArsenokoitēsNo evidence whatsoever that the word is not translated properly to "homosexual". Your desire for it to be so does not count.

2. Acts 12:4 (KJV) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
3. I John 5:7-8 The latter part of verse 7 and the first part of verse 8 did not exist until they were inserted into the Vulgate.
4. Revelation 1:11 does not appear in any of the ancient Greek texts.
5. The Red Sea.The other four examples have no real significance and do not affect any major doctrine of scripture. In no way do they fit your description of, "mistranslations and misinterpretations galore, many deliberate, some horrific, depending on the translators' and interpreters' motivations." Perhaps your comment was more directed at "misinterpretations"?

Your example #3 is far from certain.

Your example #4 is a moot point. It pertains, as you should know, to only the first words of the verse, and not to the entire verse. It is translated correctly in practically all modern translations. You should also know that, "It should be noted that the phrases "Alpha and Omega," "the first and the last," and/or "the beginning and the end" are found in the original texts of Rev. 1:8, 1:17, 2:8, 21:6, and 22:13."


No one has seen the originals for millennia.Which is true for ALL ancient works. The textual evidence for the correct transmission is the NT is better than for any other work of antiquity.

No evidence whatsoever that the word is not translated properly to "homosexual".It was not translated as "homosexual" until 1946 in the RSV. Paul had coined the term and was referring to men who molest young boys, i.e., child molesters, pedophiles.

Your beliefs hold no interest without Bible support

A perfect example of your idolization of a book. Try to understand what you read.


I really don't know what he believes. It's hard to figure out

It's simple to figure out. Here it is - I do NOT believe Jesus sends millions of humanity to hell for eternal punishment. Now THAT wasn't hard to figure out, was it?

It was not translated as "homosexual" until 1946 in the RSV. Paul had coined the term and was referring to men who molest young boys, i.e., child molesters, pedophiles.Nice try but it won't work. Practically all modern translations render the word as "homosexual" or some synonym of the word as do all modern concordances and all major Greek lexicons. And prior to 1946, the word was rendered "abusers of themselves with mankind", which hardly gives you any help. So to say that your position is a minority one would be a dramatic understatement of your situation.

You must be a lot older than I thought to be able to state what Paul was referring to by the use of the word. Did he tell you that?

"That word is an unusual word. It’s a new word; we don’t know of any other instances of the word until Paul coins the word in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1. It’s a compound word: “arsen” means man and “koite” or “koitas” or “koitai”—depending on a verb or a noun—means bed. It’s men who bed with other men.

It’s quite clear that Paul has coined this word from Leviticus 18 and 20. Even if you don’t know any Greek, you could find online or pull up the Greek transliteration of these two verses. Look at the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and then just look at the Greek for the necessary passage in Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20 and you'll see there (and in fact the words are right next to each other in Leviticus 20) this word for man (“arsen”) and the word for bed (“koitai” or “koite”).

Paul is quite deliberately pulling from the Torah to make this new word. So he has in his mind all that was written in the Old Testament. And that’s part of the reason why we can’t just say, “Well Leviticus has a lot of strange things and so we shouldn’t pay attention to Leviticus.” Because Paul is explicitly drawing this teaching into the New Testament to coin this word which, given the context in Leviticus and how it’s used elsewhere after the New Testament, means men having sex with other men. And there is no real other interpretation that makes the best sense of the evidence both in the early Christian literature and especially in the Old Testament."

https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-does-arsenokoitai-mean/

I find the word arsen interesting in this context as arse today refers to the posterior, that which the homosexual seeks

I find the word arsen interesting in this context as arse today refers to the posterior, that which the homosexual seeks
And the pedophile....

So straight people who engage in anal sex are what exactly?

QUOTE] - I do NOT believe Jesus sends millions of humanity to hell for eternal punishment[/QUOTE]

So you understand there is a place called Hell?

Why would an all loving God allow somebody to suffer for one day (eternity is irrelevant)?

Should a Christian understand that God would allow his word (the word that we put our faith in) to be corrupted and looked on with doubt?

Is one denomination more Christian than another? Is one Bible interpolation more God than another?

So straight people who engage in anal sex are what exactly?
I know! I was thinking about that very thing!

QUOTE] - I do NOT believe Jesus sends millions of humanity to hell for eternal punishment

So you understand there is a place called Hell?

Why would an all loving God allow somebody to suffer for one day (eternity is irrelevant)?

Should a Christian understand that God would allow his word (the word that we put our faith in) to be corrupted and looked on with doubt?

Is one denomination more Christian than another? Is one Bible interpolation more God than another?

These are eternal questions, usually posed by those who don't believe and therefore face damnation


I know! I was thinking about that very thing!
deviant and equally condemned

I think the Creator has a sense of humor watching humans figure it out.

It's not the manner in which two people have sex that counts. It's the gender of the two people that counts, and then whether or not they are married. All pretty clear for those who take the time to read.

At any rate, this statement (there have been mistranslations and misinterpretations galore, many deliberate, some horrific, depending on the translators' and interpreters' motivations.) has fallen by the wayside as well it should have. There are no "horrific" mistranslations.

To Waltero -


So you understand there is a place called Hell?

Only in your fevered imagination.


Why would an all loving God allow somebody to suffer for one day

For the same reason a parent would.


(eternity is irrelevant)?

Which would you prefer? One day's suffering or an eternity of torture? Now answer your own question.


Should a Christian understand that God would allow his word (the word that we put our faith in) to be corrupted and looked on with doubt?

Should a Christian understand that God would allow his word to Cain to be corrupted and slay Abel? Should a Christian understand God would allow his word to humanity to be corrupted and slain in a flood? Now answer your own question.


Is one denomination more Christian than another?

See Religious Discussions for this question. It's answered there.


Is one Bible interpolation more God than another?

Rephrase this question so it makes sense.

God has provided us with the proper translation. The Bible and Jesus are one and the same.
A place has been prepared for fallen Angels.
A day is as 1000 years...Suffering for a day?
Different denominations are meat to some and milk to others.
If you don't understand Hell, speaking in tongues, healing, baptism, proof, evidence etc.

Know that God has provided.


Live for today and tomorrow will never Die.

God has provided us with the proper translation. The Bible and Jesus are one and the same.
A place has been prepared for fallen Angels.
A day is as 1000 years.
Different denominations are meat to some and milk to others.
If you don't understand Hell, speaking in tongues, healing, baptism, proof, evidence etc.

Know that God has provided.

I'm sorry, Walter. I shouldn't have bothered you. Best of luck to you.

God has provided us with the proper translation.
And that translation is...?

The Bible and Jesus are one and the same.
I don't know what that means.

So you understand there is a place called Hell?


Only in your fevered imagination.There and in a couple of dozen statements by Jesus to that effect, and then several others by the Apostles. Stange how widespread that "fevered imagination" is, isn't it?

There and in a couple of dozen statements by Jesus to that effect, and then several others by the Apostles. Stange how widespread that "fevered imagination" is, isn't it?

That fevered imagination belongs equally to you.

Why have you not answered the question posed in post #277? You can't evade it forever, as much as you would like to. Or will you just give us more evasions?

To help you, here it is again --

Which one is true - Matthew's passage or God's love? Both can't be true. Would an unconditionally loving God cast his creatures into his personal torture chamber for all eternity simply because they never heard of or believed in Jesus? Of course not!

Bring on the evasions.

First you need to make a Biblical case for God's love and acceptance being unconditional. If you can't do that, then your question becomes senseless. And please don't go down your usual path of monstrous beliefs, supposed evasiveness, and so forth. Simply make a case from the Bible for God's love and acceptance being unconditional.

Hint. Don't start in John 3:16. It works against your idea.
Also bear in mind that "Matthew's passage" shows the very words of Christ.

First you need to make a Biblical case for God's love and acceptance being unconditional. If you can't do that, then your question becomes senseless. And please don't go down your usual path of monstrous beliefs, supposed evasiveness, and so forth. Simply make a case from the Bible for God's love and acceptance being unconditional.

I sure as hell don't need you to tell me how to make "my case". Your need to have everything conform to your idea of the Bible is utter nonsense. I also do not need you to tell me to not refer to "monstrous beliefs", your evasiveness, and so forth. I see those comments are getting to you.

Best for all concerned is simply you answering the question posed in post #277. It's becoming more and more obvious you can't - or won't. Probably a little of each. Yet the question remains, as simple as can be. Stop evading.


Hint. Don't start in John 3:16.

I have no intention to.


Also bear in mind that "Matthew's passage" shows the very words of Christ.

Hint. Are you sure about that?

I sure as hell don't need you to tell me how to make "my case".It's not that you don't need to; it's that you can't, which is as I thought it was. The Bible does not present God's love and acceptance as unconditional, or at least not in the sense you want it to be. Anyone who wants to say it does should be able to present support for that. But at least your question has now been shown to be senseless. The Matthew 25 passage does not contradict the love of God.


Hint. Are you sure about that?Yes.

You sure get mad easily. You need to learn to chill a little.

What's senseless is seeing God thru the human eyes of ancient man!

The problem with the radical progressive left is that they are so quick to cancel culture and history that they fail to appreciate that a lot of wisdom came from the ancients .

Agreed. I don't think we should ignore the story of God raising a person from the dead.

It's not that you don't need to; it's that you can't,

Of course I can, and I've done it. Not my fault you can't comprehend.


The Bible does not present God's love and acceptance as unconditional, or at least not in the sense you want it to be. Anyone who wants to say it does should be able to present support for that.

Cite the conditions for God's love.


But at least your question has now been shown to be senseless.

Why? Because you say so? LOL. You will do and say ANYTHING to avoid answering the question.


The Matthew 25 passage does not contradict the love of God.

You didn't take my hint.


You sure get mad easily. You need to learn to chill a little.

You need to stop evading the question. You're mistaking mad for comic relief. Your evasions are getting funnier and funnier. They really are!

You Of course I can, and I've done it. Not my fault you can't comprehend.You have not. Period. End of story. You were asked to, and your reply was to curse and say, "I sure as hell don't need you to tell me how to make "my case"." So your question is simply foolish. The statements of Jesus don't need to fit into your erroneous, unbiblical understanding of God's love. And please don't try to say, "Oh, I posted that months ago." You have not. If you can defend your position, then have at it. We are all waiting. I posted more than a dozen scriptures to support mine. You have posted...zilch.

You have not. Period. End of story.

Sorry, but my question remains unanswered by you. Period. End of story.


You were asked to, and your reply was to curse

Curse? Hell is a curse? Did you really say that? Welcome to 2021 AD.


and say, "I sure as hell don't need you to tell me how to make "my case"." So your question is simply foolish.

You're making me laugh again. I tell you I don't need you to tell me how to make my case, therefore my question is "simply foolish"?? That's dopier than your usual dopiness.


The statements of Jesus don't need to fit into your erroneous, unbiblical understanding of God's love.

Sure they can, if I decide to do so. I asked you to cite God's conditions for love - you couldn't do it. "Unbiblical" just shows how dependant you are on a book. Will you ever learn to think for yourself? What would you do without Bible Bingo? (I love that phrase).

Of course your question is answered. Your incorrect understanding of unconditional love, completely unsupported by the Bible, needs to be adjusted to fit the clear statement of Jesus. It's really very simple, and it is now obvious to everyone here that your ideas are just that...your ideas.


"Unbiblical" just shows how dependant you are on a book. Will you ever learn to think for yourself? What would you do without Bible Bingo? (I love that phrase).Always the plea of those who do not know the Bible. "Oh! What! You dare to quote the Bible to challenge my preconceived notions! Don't you know that the unsupported views of Athos just have to be correct?"

Uhm...no.

Of course your question is answered.

Then repeat the answer right here. I'll wait.

You won't have to wait long. "Your incorrect understanding of unconditional love, completely unsupported by the Bible, needs to be adjusted to fit the clear statement of Jesus. It's really very simple, and it is now obvious to everyone here that your ideas are just that...your ideas."

But I'll make your life simple for you. You are asking how I think Mt. 25 fits into your idea of God's unconditional love, and it has just been answered. But you haven't been able at all to describe your version of unconditional love from the Bible. OK, let's go even more basic. Simply tell what unconditional love means to you. It's a term in your question, so it would be logical for you to simply describe it. Now this is REAALLLLYYY easy, so don't dodge it.

I'll wait...probably forever.

The Bible does not present God's love and acceptance as unconditional
We have to be a certain way before God is willing to love us?

Not according to the Bible. So WG, what do you think unconditional love and acceptance mean? Can you make any reference to the Bible to support your view? Athos can't, but perhaps you can.

Here's the question you continue to evade.

Which one is true - Matthew's passage or God's love? Both can't be true. Would an unconditionally loving God cast his creatures into his personal torture chamber for all eternity simply because they never heard of or believed in Jesus? Of course not!

Here's your non-answer.


"Your incorrect understanding of unconditional love, completely unsupported by the Bible, needs to be adjusted to fit the clear statement of Jesus. It's really very simple, and it is now obvious to everyone here that your ideas are just that...your ideas."

NOTE: There's no answer there in your "answer". Only in your foggy mind is that an answer. You skated around, talking Bible and Jesus and then saying "It is now obvious to everyone here that your ideas are just that...your ideas". OBVIOUS? TO EVERYONE HERE? Where's the answer? My ideas are just that - my ideas. Wow, how long did it take you to come up with that one about my ideas being my ideas? BRILLIANT!


But I'll make your life simple for you.

I'll make it even simpler for you. Drop unconditional love. It's not critical to the question. Plain old "love" will do. Is that easier for you?


You are asking how I think Mt. 25 fits into your idea of God's unconditional love, and it has just been answered.

I have just explained to you that it has NOT been answered. Then I made it easier for you since you are so hung up on the word "unconditional". Another semantic roadblock you love so well to delay and deflect.


But you haven't been able at all to describe your version of unconditional love from the Bible.

I don't need a Bible to describe love - unconditional or otherwise. It's a pretty common term. If you're confused about it, google it. Oh, I forgot, you don't google.


OK, let's go even more basic. Simply tell what unconditional love means to you. It's a term in your question, so it would be logical for you to simply describe it.

You're a master at delaying an answer to a simple question. I wonder why?


I'll wait...probably forever.

"Tis a consummation, devoutly to be wished"

Not according to the Bible. So WG, what do you think unconditional love and acceptance mean?
It means we don't have to do anything to be loved by God -- we don't have to behave a certain way or think a certain way or talk a certain way. God's love is agape, perfect love. It’s independent of our mistakes or life situation. We can't experience the fullness of God's freedom, peace, and joy until we fully give Him our hearts in return. BUT, whether we do that or not, He still loves us and won't dump us, as it says in Hebrews 13:5. God’s unconditional love for us is the love that gives us the model for our own lives. If we could master this kind of love, our world would be hate-free. I Cor. 13:4-7. In thanks to God for His amazing love, we will heed Micah 6:8.

Many words don’t hide your non-understanding. Mt 25 is correct and your understanding of unconditional love is faulty...whatever it is. You plainly cannot even describe it yourself. So you are asking, “How does Mt. 25 agree with my flawed, non-specific, unsupported, unbiblical, foggy, vague understanding of unconditional love?”

It means we don't have to do anything to be loved by God -- we don't have to behave a certain way or think a certain way or talk a certain way. God's love is agape, perfect love. It’s independent of our mistakes or life situation. We can't experience the fullness of God's freedom, peace, and joy until we fully give Him our hearts in return. BUT, whether we do that or not, He still loves us and won't dump us, as it says in Hebrews 13:5. God’s unconditional love for us is the love that gives us the model for our own lives. If we could master this kind of love, our world would be hate-free. I Cor. 13:4-7. In thanks to God for His amazing love, we will heed Micah 6:8.


WOW! Impressive.

Jl will probably say it's unbiblical. Or wrong. Or incorrect. He does things like that when he's at a loss.


Many words don’t hide your non-understanding. Mt 25 is correct and your understanding of unconditional love is faulty...whatever it is. You plainly cannot even describe it yourself. So you are asking, “How does Mt. 25 agree with my flawed, non-specific, unsupported, unbiblical, foggy, vague understanding of unconditional love?”

Woops - I missed this. I almost had you right, didn't I? Whatever.

You don't know what unconditional love is - "whatever it is" - yet you accuse WG's description as "faulty"? I give you 4 Pinocchios. And one great big CHUTZPAH!

Athos, my response was to you, and not to her. She, unlike you, has the courage to give an answer.


It means we don't have to do anything to be loved by God -- we don't have to behave a certain way or think a certain way or talk a certain way. God's love is agape, perfect love. It’s independent of our mistakes or life situation. We can't experience the fullness of God's freedom, peace, and joy until we fully give Him our hearts in return. BUT, whether we do that or not, He still loves us and won't dump us, as it says in Hebrews 13:5My congratulations to you. You made a good effort. However, what you are missing is this. "I will never leave you or forsake you." Who is the "you" in that text? Is it everyone, or those who have committed to Christ as Lord and Savior? The answer is in verse 6. "So we say with confidence, “The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can mere mortals do to me?” He is not your Lord until you make Him your Lord. Now when you see that, it fits perfectly into John 3:16. They are in perfect harmony.

You are confusing unconditional love with unconditional salvation. "All who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Who will be saved? "All who call upon the name of the Lord." Or again, "Behold, I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious corner stone, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed." Who will not be disappointed? "He who believes in Him."

God's unconditional love is stunning in its perfection, that He would send, "His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have life everlasting."

It is true that, " we don't have to do anything to be loved by God." But to be accepted by God, and to enter His family and Kingdom? Different story. "to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved. 7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, 9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself,"

I commend you for your courage and willingness to answer a simple question. There is much in your answer I agree with.

It is true that, "we don't have to do anything to be loved by God." But to be accepted by God, and to enter His family and Kingdom? Different story. "
Nope. Same story. If I cursed Him from now until my dying day, He would not reject me, but would continue to love me. That sounds like unconditional love to me. God doesn't say, "I love you IF ..."

To be accepted is not the same as to be loved. They are not synonymous. John 3:16 spells it out very clearly. "For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have life everlasting." He loves everyone, but His love does not rescue people. It makes the way of rescue accessible. And yet many still perish because they will not come to Him in the only manner acceptable to Him, and that is through believing in His Son.

If you don't find that agreeable, then please give me your view of that verse.

To be accepted is not the same as to be loved.
You must not have children.


He loves everyone, but His love does not rescue people.
What about Adam and Eve? Noah and his family? Baby Moses? the thief on the cross? Doubting Thomas? Did God rescue them or still love them because of their goodness, good behavior, their belief?

And yet many still perish because they will not come to Him in the only manner acceptable to Him, and that is through believing in His Son.

Bumper sticker popular back in the '80s: "I found God!"
Nope. It should have said: "God found me!"

Have 3.

Read Hebrews 11:39,40 to get your answer. How did those OT saints gain approval?

Have 3.
You stop loving them after they do a bad thing? Then, they must re-earn your love?

Read Hebrews 11:39,40 to get your answer. How did those OT saints gain approval?
No approval otherwise? The burden was on them? They had to earn it? (Sounds like school)

Faith doesn’t earn.

Faith doesn’t earn.
I have no clue what that means.

Read Romans, the first four chapters.

Read Romans, the first four chapters.
No. Tell me in your own words.

No. Do the work. If you want to know, you will.

No. Do the work. If you want to know, you will.
I want the explanation coming out of your brain, in your own words.

“I want.” It’s our great downfall.

“I want.” It’s our great downfall.
Stop beating around the bush! Produce an explanation in your own words, please.

I went to Bible College for two years. I have read that passage probably a hundred times and studied it repeatedly. If you want to know something, then put out some effort. Nothing worthwhile is cheap.

I will give you this much help. "Salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone."

I went to Bible College for two years. I have read that passage probably a hundred times and studied it repeatedly. If you want to know something, then put out some effort. Nothing worthwhile is cheap.

I will give you this much help. "Salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone."
I went to a Bible college for FOUR years.

We're not talking about salvation. We're talking about God's unconditional love for us.

I want the explanation coming out of your brain, in your own words.

why would you want that, do you really want insight into how he thinks

I went to a Bible college for FOUR years.And you don't know how faith does not earn??? Really???


We're not talking about salvation. We're talking about God's unconditional love for us.We are talking about both and how God loves everyone but does not save everyone.

why would you want that, do you really want insight into how he thinks
I'm getting a sense of that. We started with peanut butter crackers and are moving along the snack table toward the braunschweiger dip.


We are talking about ... how God loves everyone but does not save everyone.
That's not very loving.

free will

free will
God gave us that. And He's going to send people to hell for using it?

Read your Bible and find out.

Read your Bible and find out.
So you have no answer.

You first need to find out why faith does not earn. Don’t get ahead of yourself. Romans 1-4.

Incredible how Jl changes the topic and goes off on a wild goose chase into the weeds of the Bible where nothing will ever be agreed to in the mind of Jl unless it conforms to his belief. A dead giveaway is his refusal to answer anything in his own words.

His deflection away from the main issue has now gone on for hours. He cannot or will not answer the question in his own words. Love and/or unconditional love has been his deflection du jour.

Here's the question at issue (for the 4th or 5th time!).

Which one is true - Matthew's passage or God's love? Both can't be true. Would an unconditionally loving God cast his creatures into his personal torture chamber for all eternity simply because they never heard of or believed in Jesus? Of course not!

To help Jl in his inability to answer this simple question, and to eliminate his ability to deflect, I will allow the "unconditionally loving" phrase to be omitted. It is not needed and its omission does not change the question one iota.

I'm sure Jl will come up with something else to evade answering.

Here’s the answer for the tenth time. Your question is based upon your foolish misunderstanding of God’s unconditional love. Fix that and you will see for yourself how silly it is. Your lack of knowledge has betrayed you.

Here’s the answer for the tenth time. Your question is based upon your foolish misunderstanding of God’s unconditional love. Fix that and you will see for yourself how silly it is. Your lack of knowledge has betrayed you.

LOL. It's getting too easy to predict what Jl will say. I guess he missed the part about dropping unconditional love since he's still harping on that - "...foolish misunderstanding of God's love". That's his "answer". Funny kind of answer that doesn't address the question.

Jl, are you aware that this is a public forum, and you are being observed? Aren't you at least a little ashamed with your constant evasions?

Athos no Trumpster is ashamed of evasion

You’re done Athos. Your question is answered and your lack of knowledge is in the public domain. Too bad for you. You could not even begin to defend your vague, undefined, foggy position. Better luck next time.

You’re done Athos. Your question is answered and your lack of knowledge is in the public domain. Too bad for you. You could not even begin to defend your vague, undefined, foggy position. Better luck next time.

Getting a bit steamed, eh, Jl? Your slobber is showing, and it ain't pretty.

Here's the question in case you missed it.

Which one is true - Matthew's passage or God's love? Both can't be true. Would an (unconditionally loving) God cast his creatures into his personal torture chamber for all eternity simply because they never heard of or believed in Jesus? Of course not!

To make it easy for you, I put in parens the offending phrase. Now, instead of casting insults, how about answering?

Here’s the answer for the tenth, or rather eleventh, time. Your question is based upon your foolish misunderstanding of God’s unconditional love. Fix that and you will see for yourself how silly it is. Your lack of knowledge has betrayed you. Your understanding is so bad that you can't even define your own conditions. It's laughable except that it's so pathetic.

Here’s the answer for the tenth, or rather eleventh, time. Your question is based upon your foolish misunderstanding of God’s unconditional love. Fix that and you will see for yourself how silly it is. Your lack of knowledge has betrayed you. Your understanding is so bad that you can't even define your own conditions. It's laughable except that it's so pathetic.

You already said that in the previous post. Repeating yourself is proof positive you have nothing to offer but hackneyed insults that convince nobody. Repeating a non-answer is worse. But you just keep rolling along in your frustrated nastiness.

Repetition is a wonderful tool for teaching. Just consider this to be the twelfth posting of my answer. You'll catch on sooner or later. I guess better late than never.

I would ask you to repeat your answer, but you haven’t given one. Here is the question again in very simple terms. What do you consider unconditional love to be? Wonder girl jumped right in. Why not you? And if you would, you would likely see the fatal flaw in your question that's giving you so much trouble.

Gosh. For someone who claimed to have me on his ignore list, you sure do follow right along with my posts.

What do you consider unconditional love to be?
We know God's love is unconditional. Let's pare that down to "God's love".

I used that term because it was part of his question.

I do agree with your point.

I'll leave you with this. How do you believe God's love factored into this event in the history of Israel found in 2 Kings 21?


“Because Manasseh king of Judah has done these abominations (he has acted more wickedly than all the Amorites who were before him, and has also made Judah sin with his idols), 12 therefore thus says the Lord God of Israel: ‘Behold, I am bringing such calamity upon Jerusalem and Judah, that whoever hears of it, both his ears will tingle. 13 And I will stretch over Jerusalem the measuring line of Samaria and the plummet of the house of Ahab; I will wipe Jerusalem as one wipes a dish, wiping it and turning it upside down. 14 So I will forsake the remnant of My inheritance and deliver them into the hand of their enemies; and they shall become victims of plunder to all their enemies, 15 because they have done evil in My sight, and have provoked Me to anger since the day their fathers came out of Egypt, even to this day.’

You guys are off the rails.

let your hope rest in the LOVE that IS God, embody that LOVE so that we might become whole

we are god's glory, god's glory is returning back to himself.

Repetition is a wonderful tool for teaching. Just consider this to be the twelfth posting of my answer.

Nope, this is the twelfth posting of your NON-answer.


I would ask you to repeat your answer, but you haven’t given one.

You're deflecting again, Jl.


Here is the question again in very simple terms.

Thanks for imitating me - it's very flattering.


What do you consider unconditional love to be?

Why do you ask? Doncha love answering a question with a question?


Wonder girl jumped right in.

She gave a great description. I was impressed.


Why not you?

Why me? It has nothing to do with my question. You're deflecting again.


Gosh. For someone who claimed to have me on his ignore list, you sure do follow right along with my posts.

As I stated more than once, I choose to engage whenever I want. Your lack of comprehension re this may explain a lot about you. That might be the key to your evasions.

Here's a question right out of your deflection school. Do you think God/Jesus ENJOYS the millions being tortured in hell? Does he make time out of his busy day to look in at the suffering? Which do you think he most freaks on - little kids or old people? Please provide Bible support for your reply.

Heaven and Hell are simply the complete opposites of one another. As Heaven (as in God) is the Source of life, then Hell is the consumer of life.

Heaven gives, Hell takes…

Jesus described Hell like this dump in which there was fire that was always burning, because it was constantly being heaped up with trash. So what does a fire do? It consumes everything… That's what Hell is- a place that consumes everything, even your soul. It is a place that does not have the ability to produce, so in order for it to exist it has to consume.

People mostly think of Hell as eternal torture, and in a way it is, but way worse than you think. Yes, eternal torture is bad, but becoming non-existent is worse. We may not think much of it now because we don't have full awareness of our state of existence, but to lose your soul or existence is most horrible, especially when you are acutely aware of it- as in being present as it is happening and not being able to do anything about it

This has become unproductive. I've answered very satisfactorily. You have chosen not to. Should you change your mind, then perhaps we can continue. Until then, I will continue to believe the Bible rather than you, and will continue to pray that you will see the truth at some point.

Walter, I'll give you the same challenge that Athos could not accept. Where does the Bible support your ideas about hell?

Hell, Hell is for Children!

We Don't have to believe in Hell to be saved.

Believe, Don't believe. I see no reason for those who don't believe in a Hell, to fight against it's existence?
And in all reality It will be wiped away and will be remembered no more.

The same with speaking in tongues, Faith healers etc. It is a reality for some. Why fight against it if it brings those closer to God?
Why Lambast other believers/Churches?

let your hope rest in the LOVE that IS God, embody that LOVE so that we might become whole

we are god's glory, god's glory is returning back to himself.

The same with speaking in tongues, Faith healers etc. It is a reality for some. Why fight against it if it brings those closer to God?

Why bring up something you have no faith for

Walter...Where does the Bible support your ideas about hell?Another challenge bites the dust.

This has become unproductive.

Only because you continue to refuse to answer the question.


I've answered very satisfactorily.

Not even close. Here's the question for you -

Which one is true - Matthew's passage or God's love? Both can't be true. Would an (unconditionally loving) God cast his creatures into his personal torture chamber for all eternity simply because they never heard of or believed in Jesus? Of course not!

Here's your answer -

Here’s the answer for the tenth time. Your question is based upon your foolish misunderstanding of God’s unconditional love. Fix that and you will see for yourself how silly it is. Your lack of knowledge has betrayed you.

Some answer, huh Folks? Especially after I fixed it by putting "unconditional love" in parens. Doesn't look silly to me.



I will continue to pray that you will see the truth

Do you pray for the folks in hell suffering through no fault of their own?

Did you ever consider that the Bible has so many strange verses, that it can't possibly be literally true?

Luke 19:40  "I tell you," He replied, "that if *they* became silent, the very stones would cry out." 

One reason we should take the Bible literally is because the Lord Jesus Christ took it literally. Whenever the Lord Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, it was always clear that He believed in its literal interpretation. As an example, when Jesus was tempted by Satan in Luke 4, He answered by quoting the Old Testament.


It's ridiculous that God should send the majority of humanity to his own private torture chamber for eternity.

The Bible says “The wages of sin is death,” and ours is the cup of God’s wrath. We merit eternal separation from God. The cup of God’s just wrath against sin is both physical and spiritual death. It is eternal death, eternal separation from the blessing of God’s presence.

There is a wonderful statement in Isaiah 51:22. Mark this verse, and memorize it, because if you are a child of God, this is your inheritance. “This is what the Sovereign Lord says, your God who defends his people: ‘See, I have taken out of your hand the cup that made you stagger; from that cup, the goblet of my wrath, you will never drink again.'”
What a wonderful, glorious exchange! All our sins are taken, our guilt is removed, our hell is taken, and all the wrath due us was endured by him. Based on the work of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53, God states, “from that cup, the goblet of my wrath, you will never drink again.”

The Bible emphasizes
that we are called to a relationship with God by God’s love for us. 
The death of Jesus on the cross shows God’s incredible and almost "impossible
to understand" love for us.

One reason we should take the Bible literally is because the Lord Jesus Christ took it literally. Whenever the Lord Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, it was always clear that He believed in its literal interpretation. As an example, when Jesus was tempted by Satan in Luke 4, He answered by quoting the Old Testament.
We do not have the same scriptures Jesus had. The ones we have have been translated many times from ancient languages and unconsciously and even deliberately changed. Words have been changed because of personal, ecclesiastical, and cultural demands and preferences and even errors, plus because of incorrect language understandings.

We do not have the same scriptures Jesus had. The ones we have have been translated many times from ancient languages and unconsciously and even deliberately changed. Words have been changed because of personal, ecclesiastical, and cultural demands and preferences and even errors, plus because of incorrect language understandings.You keep saying that, and yet you have no evidence it is true, and you have no significant examples. I mean, "Red Sea, Reed Sea". Really?

Walter's statement is a good one.

The Bible emphasizes
that we are called to a relationship with God by God’s love for us.
The death of Jesus on the cross shows God’s incredible and almost "impossible
to understand" love for us.
So God calls us and if we say, "Thanks, but not now," God dumps us and eventually sends us to a fiery hell?

You keep saying that, and yet you have no evidence it is true, and you thave no significant examples. I mean, "Red Sea, Reed Sea". Really?
One example --
In the original Hebrew, Joseph’s famous coat is said to be “ketonet passim.” “Passim” can be used to mean “colorful” but the phase is also used to describe a long garment that came down to a person’s hands and feet. Such garments were made of fine wool or silk and normally worn by royalty. Most importantly, this was not a garment that could be worn while working. As such, by giving Joseph such a garment, Jacob essentially declared that Joseph was too good to work in the fields. Joseph’s brothers took issue not with some colorful cloth, though dyed fabric would be very expensive and valuable, but with the clear declaration that he was of such a high station that he no longer had to join them in the fields.
From https://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/christianity/biblical-translations-we-keep-screwing-up.aspx#:~:text=As%20such%2C%20one%20of%20the%20be st%20known%20phrases,tirtsah.”%20The%20verb%20“rat ash”%20does%20not%20mean%20“kill.”

You see such things are a debate about nothing, since it was Joseph's attitude that was the problem not his clothing

You see such things are a debate about nothing, since it was Joseph's attitude that was the problem not his clothing
How about this one --
The sixth commandment is written in Hebrew as “lo tirtsah.” The verb “ratash” does not mean “kill.” It means “murder.” There is a world of difference between forbidding any sort of killing and outlawing murder.

Had this verse been meant to refer to any sort of killing, the word “harag” would likely have been used. Between the choice of word and the repeated discussions in the Bible of capital punishment, war and manslaughter, proscribing any sort of killing would make no sense. It would also be a death wish in the ancient world when survival often relied on very literally living out the proverb “if someone comes to kill you, rise early and kill him first.”

How about this one --
The sixth commandment is written in Hebrew as “lo tirtsah.” The verb “ratash” does not mean “kill.” It means “murder.” There is a world of difference between forbidding any sort of killing and outlawing murder.

Had this verse been meant to refer to any sort of killing, the word “harag” would likely have been used. Between the choice of word and the repeated discussions in the Bible of capital punishment, war and manslaughter, proscribing any sort of killing would make no sense. It would also be a death wish in the ancient world when survival often relied on very literally living out the proverb “if someone comes to kill you, rise early and kill him first.”

Excellent examples.

The Bible has been translated into almost 700 languages, 3000+ if counting partial translations.

The number of versions in English alone is in the hundreds beginning in the 7th century. Are we to believe we have the precise Bible as it was first written down? Like any book or series of books it has been subject to the biases and the culture and speech patterns of the era in which it was translated.

The basic message hasn't changed, but many of the details have, influenced by the agenda of the existing "authorities" of the day.

Joseph's coat? Really? You think that's a real problem? And the sixth commandment is generally translated as "murder" in nearly every modern translation including the New King James Version.

But even those two examples amount to mistranslations. You still have offered nothing to demonstrate that, "We do not have the same scriptures Jesus had." Do you have evidence at all to support that?

WG, if you have no evidence to support that statement, then perhaps you should ask yourself why you made it.


The Bible emphasizes
that we are called to a relationship with God by God’s love for us.
The death of Jesus on the cross shows God’s incredible and almost "impossible
to understand" love for us.That's well said, Walter. It's why the love of God is the answer to, and not a contradiction of, the justice of God for all who accept it.

the sixth commandment is generally translated as "murder" in nearly every modern translation

Just about everybody learned it as Thou shalt not kill - not "murder". Either way, it's ironic that the guy who commanded that is the biggest mass murderer in human history.

Even if everything you say is true and significant (it's not), it still does not provide support for WG's statement that Jesus was reading a different OT than we have.

I don't really have issue with that, Jesus had the text in the original Hebrew with all the cultural nuance's. We don't

We have the same Hebrew He had. That is not really an issues since the Dead Sea Scrolls settled that. And the cultural nuances He was surrounded with was one of the great problems He constantly addressed. "And he continued, 'You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!'"

my 2 cents . If the Bible is of human construct then it could've been written in the Tower of Babel if the validity depends on what language you are reading it . Our belief is that the Bible is God's word . Language would not be too significant if at all .

The issue is reliability. WG is essentially saying that the OT text has been corrupted so much in the 2 millennia since Jesus that He was reading a greatly different OT than we have. That's what I have asked her to provide evidence for. She can't because the whole suggestion is simply untrue. Are there some relatively small issues of translation? Sure, but they don't amount to anything even approaching a major concern.

my 2 cents . If the Bible is of human construct then it could've been written in the Tower of Babel if the validity depends on what language you are reading it

I don't think anyone is saying that. I'm not even sure what you mean. Do you really think the Tower of Babel was the origin of different languages?


Our belief is that the Bible is God's word . Language would not be too significant if at all .

That's fine for you to believe that. And your comment on language would therefore (probably) be true. I inserted probably because we don't know what God's plan would have been. After all, one of his plans went so badly he had to destroy everybody living in a big flood.

But let's examine your premise. If, say, language WOULD be significant because of various versions and translations, what does that do to the Bible being God's word? We know that language IS significant concerning the Bible (see WG's examples above), so is the Bible therefore, according to your statement, NOT God's word?

The darkness of the world cannot defeat the Word, because the Word created the world and understands everything that has gone into it. The Word did not just appear to be human; the Word became flesh. The incarnation of Christ silences the fraudulent voices of the world.

As believers, it’s imperative that we trust God’s Word to be true. We must trust that Scripture is God’s written/living word.

The darkness of the world cannot defeat the Word, because the Word created the world and understands everything that has gone into it. The Word did not just appear to be human; the Word became flesh. The incarnation of Christ silences the fraudulent voices of the world.

As believers, it’s imperative that we trust God’s Word to be true. We must trust that Scripture is God’s written/living word.

Which Christian SECT do you belong to? Christian Branches and the Evolution of Denominations (learnreligions.com) (https://www.learnreligions.com/christian-denominations-700530)


Initially, Christianity was considered a sect of Judaism (https://www.learnreligions.com/judaism-4684864) (Acts 24:5). Denominations began to develop as the history of Christianity progressed and adapted to the differences of race, nationality, and theological interpretation.

The issue is reliability. WG is essentially saying that the OT text has been corrupted so much in the 2 millennia since Jesus that He was reading a greatly different OT than we have. That's what I have asked her to provide evidence for. She can't because the whole suggestion is simply untrue. Are there some relatively small issues of translation? Sure, but they don't amount to anything even approaching a major concern.
I'm always amazed at how you embroider my and others' posts.

"She can't"??? -- she's been a bit busy because her husband has been in the hospital since Tuesday morning.

"She can't"??? -- she's been a bit busy because her husband has been in the hospital since Tuesday morning.Sorry to hear about your husband. I do hope he recovers quickly.

However, you attempted to support your statement twice, but in both cases (Joseph's coat and the sixth commandment) you gave examples that did nothing to lend support to your idea that, "We do not have the same scriptures Jesus had." Both of your examples simply had to do with translating Hebrew to English which do not relate to the "scriptures" Jesus had.

translating Hebrew to English which do not relate to the "scriptures" Jesus had.
1. When was the OT written?
2. When did Jesus live?
3. What year is this?

1. When was the OT written?
2. When did Jesus live?
3. What year is this?THAT'S your EVIDENCE???

Well, I feel compelled to tell you this. The Hebrew text that was used for centuries to translate to English (or whatever) was the Masoretic text. It is dated about 950 A.D. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are dated prior to the birth of Christ, it has been discovered that the MT is remarkably similar to the DSS and differs in no way that would support your contention that Jesus had a different OT than we have today. The book of Isaiah is particularly useful since two intact copies of that book were found. They are incredibly similar to the MT and nearly all differences are due to changes in spelling and grammar, and obviously accidental slips of scribal pens. It in no way supports your view.

So questions 2 and 3 become plainly spurious. Question 1 had no impact whatsoever of the question of Jesus having a different OT than we have today.

Should a Christian understand that God would allow his word to Cain to be corrupted and slay Abel? Should a Christian understand God would allow his word to humanity to be corrupted and slain in a flood? Now answer your own question.

The Difference being, God's Word (AKA the Bible) is incorruptible. God is the Author of the Bible. He didn't just lay it in our lap and say good luck- See you later! God was able to preserve Jesus Body, he Certainly is able to preserve his Word. If you believe the Bible has been Corrupted then you might as well throw it out the window. 

What do you mean in saying God was able to preserve the body of Jesus? Just asking.

What do you mean in saying God was able to preserve the body of Jesus? Just asking.

Jesus Christ, His body would not be dead long enough to decay or be corrupted.

You do realize the body of Jesus is alive and well as...Jesus?

What do you mean in saying God was able to preserve the body of Jesus? Just asking.

Jesus Christ, His body would not be dead long enough to decay or be corrupted.

So easy to get sidetracked.


@Athos/WG

Why base your point of view on something that is fallible?

If you believe the Bible has been Corrupted then you might as well throw it out the window.

Don't try to understand, simply believe. You think as if "you choose God." You had nothing to do with it...there is nothing in us that is capable of loving God.

Jesus Christ, His body would not be dead long enough to decay or be corrupted.Got it. Thanks.

Walter, "following God" is detailed in I Corinthians 13.

"following God" is detailed in I Corinthians 13.

You think you can run with that?

But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.

Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

You think you can run with that?
Yup! Even Jesus said so: Matthew 22:37-40.

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

We are just back to defining love.

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

You think you can run with that?

Yup!

I'm Guilty. No matter how hard I try, I haven't been able to love God with all my heart, soul, mind and strength.

Hmmm, could it be the Translation that is at fault?
If I could only find a translation that says "Love God with all your mind," than I'm in like Flynn!!!
(Maybe I shall look up the Book Of Mormon...It works For Athos)

Beware humans!! You have a long history of screwing things up, even with the best of intentions!

Sorta the progressive playbook IMO

Historically, imo, it's the right-wing fascist playbook, although never with the best intentions.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”(CS Lewis)

Two concepts which depend on each other are freedom and personal responsibility. It's what no liberal dems and distressingly few repubs talk about.

Freedom is like truth, it is in the eye of the beholder

Freedom is like truth, it is in the eye of the beholderSo if you believe what you just wrote, to you it's true, but if I don't believe it, then to me it is not true??? You really believe that? Surely you misstated something, or I misread it.

So if you believe what you just wrote, to you it's true, but if I don't believe it, then to me it is not true??? You really believe that? Surely you misstated something, or I misread it.

Your sarcasm antennae are switched off

Two concepts which depend on each other are freedom and personal responsibility. It's what no liberal dems and distressingly few repubs talk about.

Says the guy who voted for the devil to get what he wants at the expense of the freedom of others. Will you take personal responsibility for that? Conservatives have not so far, and I doubt repubs ever will.

Your sarcasm antennae are switched offI am relieved to hear that.

Read this tonight by Douglas Groothusis. "Truth is a daunting, difficult thing; it is also the greatest thing in the world. Yet we are chronically ambivalent toward it. We seek it...and we fear it. Our better side wants to pursue truth wherever it leads; our darker side balks when the truth begins to lead us anywhere we do not want to go."

True indeed

40% of American adults have now received at least one vaccine shot. The figure in Europe is 11%. Why? Because Operation Warpspeed provided an effective vaccine far more quickly then the Europeans did. Our Covid cases are dropping while theirs is still high. Just giving credit where credit is due.

Hear you have the same problems with blood clots as we do

I think that has been the case along with a runaway pneumonia that can be hard to treat.

https://scontent.fmem1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/174013059_10220296881274117_7312391661615018644_n. jpg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=i41wSe4X5mkAX91u2fd&_nc_ht=scontent.fmem1-1.fna&oh=5cdd04713533c98a82a3c8995c145e0b&oe=609EB3A5

Don't you know Earth is the centre of the universe

Is this Maxine Waters openly calling for violence?

"U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters (https://www.foxnews.com/category/person/maxine-waters), D-Calif., showed up at an anti-police (https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/crime/police-and-law-enforcement) brutality protest (https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/us-protests) in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/us-regions/midwest/minnesota), on Saturday evening, saying demonstrators needed to "stay on the street," demanding justice until police reform becomes a reality."I’m going to fight with all of the people who stand for justice," Waters told reporters shortly before an 11 p.m. curfew. "We’ve got to get justice in this country and we cannot allow these killings to continue."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/maxine-waters-urges-minnesota-anti-police-crowd-to-stay-on-the-street-if-chauvin-acquitted-in-floyd-case

No. That's you being obstinate.

"We’ve got to get justice in this country and we cannot allow these killings to continue."Rather sad that she has no concern whatsoever for the thousands of black people killed every year by other black people. It's not politically appealing, so she says nothing about it, just like the liberal dems on this board say nothing about it. She has no concern about the hundreds of black children killed in abortion DAILY and, in fact, celebrates it.

"Strain out a gnat and swallow a camel."

You certainly swallowed that camel, but why single out black people?

but why single out black people?

Because Black lives Matter, man!
It's all about 'Black lives'...you fail to recognize.

Is this Maxine Waters openly calling for violence?
Pretend you have the very rare anemia called aplastic anemia, JL. You're in the ICU, getting your first transfusion. I'm your hematologist and say, "I'm going to fight for you, JL! We will do our best to get you feeling better and back home!"

Do you see a gun in my hands? Am I pulling the medical staff together to commit violence?


but why single out black people?
They've been singled out and denigrated since the first slave ship left Africa for America in the early 1600s. After centuries of being told you don't matter, you believe it and don't care about yourself or anyone else.

Pretend you have the very rare anemia called aplastic anemia, JL. You're in the ICU, getting your first transfusion. I'm your hematologist and say, "I'm going to fight for you, JL! We will do our best to get you feeling better and back home!"Huh. That same argument could have been used for Mr. Trump. Unsurprisingly, you didn't bother to make it, despite the fact that he plainly advocated for a peaceful gathering. I wonder why you apply that logic to Waters, who is as unhinged as they get, and not to Trump. Political prejudice???

Huh. That same argument could have been used for Mr. Trump. Unsurprisingly, you didn't bother to make it, despite the fact that he plainly advocated for a peaceful gathering. I wonder why you apply that logic to Waters, who is as unhinged as they get, and not to Trump. Political prejudice???
I have no idea what you're talking about. And you totally missed my point.

I have no idea what you're talking about.
Agreed.


And you totally missed my point.I understood your point exactly.

Because Black lives Matter, man!
It's all about 'Black lives'...you fail to recognize.

All lives matter, when you grasp that, you see the problem in a different light. How come no one is chanting kids lives matter

That same argument could have been used for Mr. Trump ............... he plainly advocated for a peaceful gathering.

That comment couldn't be more ignorant or more ridiculous. It ignores months of inciting and rhetoric to his followers that the election would be rigged if he lost. When he did lose, Trump went on a tear - still going on by that sociopath - that the election was stolen, a mantra heard loudly and often from the insurrectionists.


I wonder why you apply that logic to Waters, who is as unhinged as they get, and not to Trump. Political prejudice???

No, political REALITY! Maxine Waters is a passionate advocate for her side and always has been. Her use of the word fight means she will work on behalf of those in question, as anybody with eyes can clearly see. Your comment shows that you are only semi-literate and cannot process language.

A Trump devotee calling Waters unhinged is an incredible feat of upside-down-ism.

All lives matter, when you grasp that, you see the problem in a different light. How come no one is chanting kids lives matter

Because no kids are available to do chanting. But Democratic Party adults have been metaphorically chanting louder and louder for decades. Every time they chant (try to pass gun legislation) the Republicans (an arm of the NRA) shoot them down (pun intended).

For your information, Black Lives Matter does NOT mean other lives don't matter. It means it's high time to acknowledge that Blacks are treated differently by the police than others. Often shot and killed for no legitimate reason. Don't believe me? Watch and listen to the media.

All lives matter, when you grasp that, you see the problem in a different light. How come no one is chanting kids lives matter.We don't always agree, but I completely agree with that. The very people who celebrate abortion want to wake up the next day and profess their supposed concern for life.

The very people who celebrate abortion want to wake up the next day and profess their supposed concern for life.

The very people who fail to speak out against the police taking of black life, wake up the next day and complain about the termination of a fetus while ignoring the fully human lives ended.

The very people who fail to speak out against the police taking of black life, wake up the next day and complain about the termination of a fetus while ignoring the fully human lives ended.I haven't met those people. I have met the others.

I haven't met those people.

I have. YOU.

The very people who fail to speak out against the police taking of black life, wake up the next day and complain about the termination of a fetus while ignoring the fully human lives ended.
Ignoring the fully human lives ended because ... um, they weren't white....

I have. YOU.If you can show that to be true, then fine. Otherwise it's another Aquinas statement of yours. (Hint. It's another Aquinas statement.)


Ignoring the fully human lives ended because ... um, they weren't white....A completely racist statement, especially coming from someone who doesn't give a rat's rear end about the three hundred thousand black babies killed in abortion every year. Are they somehow not "fully human"? What a wildly bizarre statement. Can you explain why you apparently believe some people are less than "fully human"? Are you suggesting that unborn children are not "fully human"? And if so, and I fully suspect it is so, then in what way are they less than "fully human"???

If you can show that to be true, then fine. Otherwise it's another Aquinas statement of yours. (Hint. It's another Aquinas statement.)

I'm happy to associate it with the Aquinas statement since both are true. You seem obsessed with Aquinas.

A completely racist statement, especially coming from someone who doesn't give a rat's rear end about the three hundred thousand black babies killed in abortion every year.
And you know this about me how?

You seem obsessed with Aquinas.Nah. Just remember the lying fashion in which you quoted him. It's a matter of record.


A completely racist statement, especially coming from someone who doesn't give a rat's rear end about the three hundred thousand black babies killed in abortion every year.

And you know this how?It was a racist statement in that it was directed only at whites. You have passed on multiple opportunities to oppose abortion, so that's an easy one. But you can correct that now, and you can also answer what it means to be less than "fully human".

But you can correct that now, and you can also answer what it means to be less than "fully human".
You sound threatening, like a 3rd grade teacher.

Nah. Just remember the lying fashion in which you quoted him. It's a matter of record.

My Aquinas statement was explained to you since you didn't seem able to comprehend the point. It's a matter of record.

I notice that you deflected (avoided) from answering the Black Lives Matter explanation I made, the Trump rhetoric, the Maxine Waters use of "fight", and the Democratic response to the mass shootings while the Republicans did NOTHING.

Par for the course.

I comprehended that your “explanation” was a bunch of unsupported garbage with no other intention than to excuse what you did.

Your long winded statement was nonsense.

I comprehended that your “explanation” was a bunch of unsupported garbage with no other intention than to excuse what you did.

Your long winded statement was nonsense.

As I wrote, par for the course. No cogent responses.

Nothing cogent to respond to.

Another cry for peace from that famous peace-nik, Maxine Waters. "Asked about the Chauvin murder trial in nearby Minneapolis, Waters told reporters if the former police officer isn't found guilty of murdering Floyd, "We've got to stay on the street and we've got to get more active, we've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business."

Judged in the court of public opinion, hard to see how he could get a fair trial even if he were innocent

Nothing cogent to respond to.

There was plenty there. Read it again.

I see the problem! Some people don't know bad behavior let alone murder when they see it. Go ahead ask for evidence and show your utter ignorance.

I know and respect good cops, but the bad ones need prosecution. Like the female in Minnesota who mistook her own gun for a taser, and the cop in Chicago who shot a kid.

That just this week.

Another cry for peace from that famous peace-nik, Maxine Waters. "Asked about the Chauvin murder trial in nearby Minneapolis, Waters told reporters if the former police officer isn't found guilty of murdering Floyd, "We've got to stay on the street and we've got to get more active, we've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business."

What do you suggest we do if he's not found guilty of murder - a murder witnessed by millions of people. Confrontation is mild. What is really needed is a revamping of police policies and procedures in every state in the union. And less idiocy from people like you.


Judged in the court of public opinion, hard to see how he could get a fair trial even if he were innocent

The court of public opinion does not bring accused criminals to trial. As to the actual trial, it has been as fair as possible. The verdict is expected next week.

What do you suggest we do if he's not found guilty of murder - a murder witnessed by millions of people. Confrontation is mild. What is really needed is a revamping of police policies and procedures in every state in the union. And less idiocy from people like you.So you're agreeing with MW that it would be OK to have riots if the verdict is innocent?


As to the actual trial, it has been as fair as possible.You have no idea if that is true or not.

So you're agreeing with MW that it would be OK to have riots if the verdict is innocent?

She did not say that and you know she did not. Stop twisting words and their meanings to suit your bias.


Fm Athos: As to the actual trial, it has been as fair as possible.


Fm Jl: You have no idea if that is true or not.

Of course, I do. I have an excellent idea. I've watched it every day. Sidebars with the Judge, witness testimonies, prosecutor's questions, defense questions, cross and re-direct examinations, videos of the murder, and the accused invoking the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination.

Ensuring fairness is a huge reason it is being televised.

Now I'll give you my opinion: The evidence is overwhelming that Chauvin is guilty as charged, way beyond a reasonable doubt.

So you're agreeing with MW that it would be OK to have riots if the verdict is innocent?

You have no idea if that is true or not.

You would have to be dense or very biased to equate confrontation with rioting.


She did not say that and you know she did not. Stop twisting words and their meanings to suit your bias.





Of course, I do. I have an excellent idea. I've watched it every day. Sidebars with the Judge, witness testimonies, prosecutor's questions, defense questions, cross and re-direct examinations, videos of the murder, and the accused invoking the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination.

Ensuring fairness is a huge reason it is being televised.

Now I'll give you my opinion: The evidence is overwhelming that Chauvin is guilty as charged, way beyond a reasonable doubt.

Dead on to ALL the points.

She did not say that and you know she did not. Stop twisting words and their meanings to suit your bias.It worked well enough for you guys with Trump. You had no problem in twisting his words to suit your bias, despite the fact he plainly spoke of a peaceful protest. Besides, say anything you want, but this does not sound peaceful to me. "We've got to stay on the street and we've got to get more active, we've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business."


Of course, I do. I have an excellent idea. I've watched it every day. Sidebars with the Judge, witness testimonies, prosecutor's questions, defense questions, cross and re-direct examinations, videos of the murder, and the accused invoking the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination.Then why is it you were so certain of this? "Not a single witness testified that Floyd likely would have survived if not for several underlying med conditions. NOT ONE! You're making this up out of whole cloth." How is it you were totally unaware that, as CNN reported, "Maryland's former chief medical examiner testified for Derek Chauvin's defense on Wednesday that George Floyd died due to his underlying heart disease -- not the police restraint." How did you manage to not know that, having watched it everyday as you claim to have done?


Now I'll give you my opinion: The evidence is overwhelming that Chauvin is guilty as charged, way beyond a reasonable doubt.You are certainly welcome to your opinion.

It worked well enough for you guys with Trump. You had no problem in twisting his words to suit your bias, despite the fact he plainly spoke of a peaceful protest.
His aides pleaded with him to say that AT THE END as his supporters were already headed toward the Capitol. For weeks NO! for MONTHS he had been whipping them up and being anything but peaceful in his rages and shouting.

Takeaways from Day 13 of the Derek Chauvin Trial - The New York Times (nytimes.com) (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/14/us/takeaways-day-13-derek-chauvin-trial.html)


Dr. David Fowler, a former chief medical examiner of Maryland who has testified in numerous high-profile police use-of-force cases, told jurors that he believed Mr. Floyd died after a combination of factors — including pre-existing heart conditions, drug use and exposure to vehicle exhaust from the police cruiser that he was next to — caused his heart to stop.
“You put all of those together, it’s very difficult to say which of those is the most accurate,” he said, characterizing Mr. Floyd’s cause of death as “undetermined.”



Dr. Fowler’s testimony pointed to multiple possible causes of death other than Mr. Chauvin’s restraint: drug use, pre-existing heart conditions, even the exhaust from the vehicle that Mr. Floyd was pinned next to. Still, the prosecution came away with some victories, including that Dr. Fowler said sudden cardiac arrest is often reversible and that Mr. Floyd should have been given medical attention.

It worked well enough for you guys with Trump. You had no problem in twisting his words to suit your bias, despite the fact he plainly spoke of a peaceful protest. Besides, say anything you want, but this does not sound peaceful to me. "We've got to stay on the street and we've got to get more active, we've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business."
This is fully answered in post # 449 - both the Trump business and Maxine waters.


Then why is it you were so certain of this? "Not a single witness testified that Floyd likely would have survived if not for several underlying med conditions. NOT ONE! You're making this up out of whole cloth." How is it you were totally unaware that, as CNN reported, "Maryland's former chief medical examiner testified for Derek Chauvin's defense on Wednesday that George Floyd died due to his underlying heart disease -- not the police restraint." How did you manage to not know that, having watched it everyday as you claim to have done?

This one is answered in Tal's post #475.

His aides pleaded with him to say that AT THE END as his supporters were already headed toward the Capitol. For weeks NO! for MONTHS he had been whipping them up and being anything but peaceful in his rages and shouting.Oh please. His rhetoric was no more aggressive than MW's. In fact, hers was moreso, or at least I think it was.


This one is answered in Tal's post #475.I don't read Tal's posts. You're the one who made the mistake. You need to clean it up. Just being honest enough to admit you missed it would be a good start.

Oh please. His rhetoric was no more aggressive than MW's. In fact, hers was moreso, or at least I think it was.
From newsweek.com fact check:
"Since the election in November, Trump and many of his allies have touted the unproven claims of mass election fraud. Former U.S. Attorney General William Barr (https://www.newsweek.com/topic/william-barr) announced in December that the Department of Justice uncovered no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the 2020 election. All of the evidence Trump's team presented to try to prove voter fraud has been dismissed and he lost 61 of the 62 lawsuits filed challenging the presidential election results.

Still, up until the official certification of election results, Trump continued to push this false narrative to his most ardent supporters."

Then:
Trump reiterated "false claims that 'we won this election and we won it in a landslide'" and "willfully made statements that, in context, encourages and foreseeably resulted in lawless action at the Capitol." These statements include: "if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore."

The president did say that the crowd was going to march peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol. After the attack, Trump said he does not condone violence.

However, it does not necessarily mean the president did not incite violence with the rest of his speech or in his rhetoric prior to January 6.

"if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore."

Sounds a lot like this, doesn't it? "“They’re not going to be able to go to a restaurant, they’re not going to be able to stop at a gas station, they’re not going to be able to shop at a department store,” Waters said. “The people are going to turn on them, they’re going to protest, they’re going to absolutely harass them.”

Want to guess who said that?

I don't read Tal's posts.

If you don't read, you don't get your answer. Simple as that.

It seems you're not man enough to defend your own mistakes instead of depending on someone else to do it for you, and that's of no surprise to anyone. Simple as that. But I'll post it again just to be as fair as possible.

But to be very clear, I don't care if you respond or not. You were simply wrong as anyone can see below. The only question to be answered is if you are honest enough to admit to it. Yet even at that, this is a public forum, and you can post as you please. It's completely up to you.

Then why is it you were so certain of this? "Not a single witness testified that Floyd likely would have survived if not for several underlying med conditions. NOT ONE! You're making this up out of whole cloth." How is it you were totally unaware that, as CNN reported, "Maryland's former chief medical examiner testified for Derek Chauvin's defense on Wednesday that George Floyd died due to his underlying heart disease -- not the police restraint." How did you manage to not know that, having watched it everyday as you claim to have done?

Oh please. His rhetoric was no more aggressive than MW's. In fact, hers was moreso, or at least I think it was.

One of the more absurd posts here. Comparing Maxine Waters as worse that Trump rhetoric. I repeat - You are semi-literate and cannot process language.

"if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore."

Sounds a lot like this, doesn't it? "“They’re not going to be able to go to a restaurant, they’re not going to be able to stop at a gas station, they’re not going to be able to shop at a department store,” Waters said. “The people are going to turn on them, they’re going to protest, they’re going to absolutely harass them.”
Sounds like the world and times I grew up in. And unfortunately it's still true in too many places.

For your viewing pleasure -



It seems you're not man enough to defend your own mistakes instead of depending on someone else to do it for you, and that's of no surprise to anyone. Simple as that. But I'll post it again just to be as fair as possible.

Then why is it you were so certain of this? "Not a single witness testified that Floyd likely would have survived if not for several underlying med conditions. NOT ONE! You're making this up out of whole cloth." How is it you were totally unaware that, as CNN reported, "Maryland's former chief medical examiner testified for Derek Chauvin's defense on Wednesday that George Floyd died due to his underlying heart disease -- not the police restraint." How did you manage to not know that, having watched it everyday as you claim to have done?


Dr. David Fowler, a former chief medical examiner of Maryland who has testified in numerous high-profile police use-of-force cases, told jurors that he believed Mr. Floyd died after a combination of factors — including pre-existing heart conditions, drug use and exposure to vehicle exhaust from the police cruiser that he was next to — caused his heart to stop.
“You put all of those together, it’s very difficult to say which of those is the most accurate,” he said, characterizing Mr. Floyd’s cause of death as “undetermined.”


Dr. Fowler’s testimony pointed to multiple possible causes of death other than Mr. Chauvin’s restraint: drug use, pre-existing heart conditions, even the exhaust from the vehicle that Mr. Floyd was pinned next to. Still, the prosecution came away with some victories, including that Dr. Fowler said sudden cardiac arrest is often reversible and that Mr. Floyd should have been given medical attention.


https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/clear.gif (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3867389&noquote=1)

Your contention was this. "Not a single witness testified that Floyd likely would have survived if not for several underlying med conditions. NOT ONE!"

That was incorrect as the testimony of a chief med examiner showed clearly. Was his conclusion correct? I don't know, but that's not the point. The issue is that your statement was flat wrong and you are too fearful to simply admit to it. Pitiful.

Your contention was this. "Not a single witness testified that Floyd likely would have survived if not for several underlying med conditions. NOT ONE!"
Sometime this week, ask a 160-pound friend or neighbor to cuff your hands behind your back, toss you onto your concrete or asphalt driveway face down, and then kneel on the side of your neck for 9 minutes, 29 seconds. Then please report back to us.

Sometime this week, ask a 160-pound friend or neighbor to cuff your hands behind your back, toss you onto your concrete or asphalt driveway face down, and then kneel on the side of your neck for 9 minutes, 29 seconds. Then please report back to us.That has absolutely nothing to do with the mistake Athos made. He contended, "Not a single witness testified that Floyd likely would have survived if not for several underlying med conditions. NOT ONE!" That was incorrect as the testimony of a chief med examiner showed clearly. Was his conclusion correct? I don't know, but that's not the point. The issue is that Athos was wrong in what he said. He's not going to admit it, so we might as well just move on.

I really have no idea what point you are trying to make. I've already said I think DC could be found guilty of manslaughter and that his actions were wrong. What exactly are you after?

That has absolutely nothing to do with the mistake Athos made.
Athos made a mistake???

I really have no idea what point you are trying to make.
Just wondering if you'd survive what GF went through.

Just wondering if you'd survive what FG went through.It was GF, but I have no idea if I would, so if that's really the weak as water point you are trying to make, then mission accomplished.

I can say I would not have resisted arrest to begin with.


Athos made a miistake???I'll say one thing for you liberal dems. You stick together even when sticking together means accepting an outrageous, foolish premise. I would encourage you to accept a higher regard for truth.

Uh oh. Chauvin trial judge critical of Auntie Maxine. He clearly does not agree with the liberal dems on this board.

"Judge criticizes Waters for remarks during Chauvin trial"

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/image/png;base64,iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAAEAAAABCAQAAAC 1HAwCAAAAC0lEQVR42mNkYAAAAAYAAjCB0C8AAAAASUVORK5CY II=Hennepin County District Judge Peter Cahill criticized Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) for her comments over the weekend regarding the trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, who's charged with the murder of George Floyd.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/{"default":{"load":"default","w":"80","h":"45","sr c":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB1c8HTk.img?h=450&w=799&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=457&y=374"},"size3column":{"load":"default","w":"62"," h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB1c8HTk.img?h=351&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=457&y=374"},"size2column":{"load":"default","w":"62"," h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB1c8HTk.img?h=351&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=457&y=374"}}© Greg Nash Judge criticizes Waters for remarks during Chauvin trial"I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function," Cahill said after the jury had been sequestered to begin deliberations on Monday.
"If they want to give their opinions they should do so ... in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution," Cahill continued.
The judge's comments came after Chauvin defense attorney Eric Nelson argued that Waters' comments could have prejudiced the jury and was grounds for a mistrial.

"We have U.S. representatives threatening acts of violence in relation to this specific case, it's mind boggling," Nelson said to Cahill.
Cahill denied Nelson's motion for a mistrial, but said that Waters' weekend remarks could give the defense "something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-criticizes-waters-for-remarks-during-chauvin-trial/ar-BB1fPjj8?ocid=uxbndlbing

The jury is not sequestered, so her incendiary remarks could well result in a mistrial. Perhaps it would teach her to control her mouth. And yes, that is a lesson Trump needs to learn as well. No doubt about it.

@JL

How convenient to hide behind the idiocy of your own flaws by ignoring me. Cool, your call, but don't think you can ignore verified facts and make wild statements. For example it takes less than a minute to choke someone into unconsciousness. After that the risk of death or permanent brain damages increase exponentially every MINUTE. Maybe you don't know if you would survive 9 minutes of a knee to the neck while hands cuffed behind your back with 2 other dudes on your back while prone on the ground but I do. YOU'D BE DEAD FOR FACT!

GF didn't resist arrest. He was distressed and said as much from the confines of the squad car and a few minutes to gather himself would probably have saved his life.

In addition consider the black experience in this country has made the words actions and behavior of some white people suspect and dangerous as well as frustrating when other white people just don't see that.

This means you JL, the self proclaimed Christian with no empathy or sympathy except for those you choose. Maybe that's the best you can do, and that's okay if it is...no big deal. I know where your head is at whether you admit it or NOT!

I completely understand your dilemma, but can't help someone who doesn't want it. Please reconsider as it only takes grabbing your ankles and tugging mightily, and freeing you from the dark abyss you are stuck in and freeing you to the reality of fresh air and cleansing sunlight.

DISCLAIMER; No sexual context intended nor should be construed!

Your contention was this. "Not a single witness testified that Floyd likely would have survived if not for several underlying med conditions. NOT ONE!"

That was incorrect as the testimony of a chief med examiner showed clearly. Was his conclusion correct? I don't know, but that's not the point. The issue is that your statement was flat wrong and you are too fearful to simply admit to it. Pitiful.

I should have said not a single CREDIBLE witness testified that Floyd could have survived. Fowler was a mess testifying.

He had zero credibility. Considering the causes of death, he ultimately concluded they were “undetermined”, NOT homicide!! He claimed Chauvin leaning on Floyd was NOT the cause of death.

The possibilities he listed were drugs, cardiac arrest, heart problems, even the exhaust from the car. Under cross, Fowler admitted he had not seen any data re carbon monoxide poisoning from the vehicle exhaust. Apparently, he just made that up.

Credible witnesses demolished his bizarre testimony.

Also of note is Fowler's work as a medical examiner in Baltimore. He is either racist or incompetent. His Baltimore experiences as medical examiner were off limits in the Chauvin trial. Fowler is currently named in a lawsuit brought by the family of a black man killed by police in Baltimore. Fowler is charged with complicity in that case as the medical examiner creating a false narrative and not calling the death a homicide. The case is eerily similar to the George Floyd murder.

https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2021/04/14/dr-david-fowler-former-maryland-chief-medical-examiner-called-to-stand-for-defense-in-derek-chauvin-murder-trial/
(https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2021/04/14/dr-david-fowler-former-maryland-chief-medical-examiner-called-to-stand-for-defense-in-derek-chauvin-murder-trial/)
Another link with Fowler's admissions under cross.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/14/derek-chauvin-trial/
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/14/derek-chauvin-trial/)
Mr. Nitpick, Jl, has freaked out calling me all sorts of names for not specifying “credible”. His specialty is finding errors in plain language that he does not comprehend. It's an ongoing issue with Mr. Nitpick and does not appear to be going away.

I should have said not a single CREDIBLE witness testified that Floyd could have survived. Fowler was a mess testifying.But you didn't. At least now you are approaching honesty, sadly accompanied by the usual whining, complaining, name calling, and griping. "Mr. Nitpick, Jl, has freaked out calling me all sorts of names for not specifying “credible”. His specialty is finding errors in plain language that he does not comprehend. It's an ongoing issue with Mr. Nitpick and does not appear to be going away." I have called you no names. I have not "freaked out". I did not even mention you not specifying credible, so those are all either errors or lies. Your pick.

Do you ever take responsibility for your actions? Why is it always someone else's fault? Well, I will be happy that you at least came near to honesty. It's progress. But still, your statement was VERY clear and VERY definite. "Not a single witness testified that Floyd likely would have survived if not for several underlying med conditions. NOT ONE!" And then you claimed that you knew the trial was fair because, after all, you had watched it EVERY DAY. Now you're mad because it has become clear you didn't know what you were talking about.

See why I have problems with believing you??? See??

See why I have problems with believing you??? See??

Is that why you have problems

your statement was VERY clear and VERY definite. "Not a single witness testified that Floyd likely would have survived if not for several underlying med conditions. NOT ONE!"

Read my reply again re credible. If you needed that, you sure weren't watching the guy. But, in your case, I'll give you "credible" not being there. If only to calm you down.


And then you claimed that you knew the trial was fair because, after all, you had watched it EVERY DAY.

Yup, you got that right. The trial has been eminently fair. Does that bother you?


Now you're mad because it has become clear you didn't know what you were talking about.

Are you the same guy that just whined about insults and name-calling? You have a propensity to think anyone who challenges you is mad or angry or pitiful. See WG. She tries to engage with you and all you do in return is cast nastiness her way.


See why I have problems with believing you?

Oh, I know all too well why you have problems believing me (and others). Simple. It's because you don't like to be contradicted. It bruises your vanity.

Contradicted? Your latest post had at least three lies. Remember? " I have called you no names. I have not "freaked out". I did not even mention you not specifying credible, so those are all either errors or lies. Your pick."

Try that "contradiction" on for size.

This is so funny. You made an incorrect statement. Rather than simply admit it, you have gone on a journey to rival the one Columbus made. You even wanted Tal to answer for you! And all because you couldn't bring yourself to admit the blindingly obvious. Well, at least you made a correction of sorts, so that's something to be thankful for. Why you simply couldn't have done that from the beginning I don't know.

Contradicted? Your latest post had at least three lies. Remember? " I have called you no names. I have not "freaked out". I did not even mention you not specifying credible, so those are all either errors or lies. Your pick."

Nonsense. You're hardly the one to criticize others. Get a grip. Your blood pressure is rising.


Try that "contradiction" on for size.

I would if I knew what you meant.


This is so funny. You made an incorrect statement. Rather than simply admit it, you have gone on a journey to rival the one Columbus made.

You can't give it up, can you? Btw, that Columbus business is quite a stretch - very lame. Clever writing is not your forte.


you made a correction of sorts, so that's something to be thankful for.

I have dedicated my life for you to be thankful.

give up now and see a reduction in BP

give up now and see a reduction in BP

From your fingers to Jl's ears!

You lied again. You were caught again. You're mad again. Simple truth.

As Lincoln once said, "If you're going to lie, you need to have a good memory." You really should stop. You're not good at it.