Quote:

---

My definition is the accepted definition. That is easily verified by checking any dictionary or any Bible site.

---

Laughable. If that was true you would have posted them. This is what is found on Wikipedia. Note that you left out quite a few details and mangled the part about how Evangelicals view the Bible. "Evangelicalism, evangelical Christianity, or evangelical Protestantism, is a worldwide trans-denominational movement within Protestant Christianity that maintains the belief that the essence of the Gospel consists of the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, solely through faith in Jesus's atonement. Evangelicals believe in the centrality of the conversion or "born again" experience in receiving salvation, in the authority of the Bible as God's revelation to humanity, and in spreading the Christian message. The movement has long had a presence in the Anglosphere before spreading further afield in the 19th, 20th and early 21st centuries." I might add that, rather amazingly, they found no need to mention, as you usually do, "white evangelicals". Wonder why?

The question of the resurrection is really the only important question to be asked or answered that I know of. If you answer "yes", then many other important questions arise, but if you answer "no", then important questions cease.

You are, as is frequently the case, afraid to answer.

Quote:

---

I have no desire to tarnish his reputation by him with you.

---

I fully understand. You said plenty to tarnish his reputation just speaking to him. I'm sure you feel his withdrawal from this board has accomplished your purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You said, and I quote, "God’s expression of His unconditional love is found throughout the Bible." Now you say it's not? Are you confused?

---

No, I did not say it's not. God's unconditional love. Is. Found. Throughout. The. Bible.

Yes, Athos is correct. You do have a reading comprehension problem.

Except..you..cannot..find..it..anwhere. Can...you...read..and...comprehend...that??? Enough of your blah blah. Put it on the site if you have it. If you don't, and you clearly don't, then move on and stop with the utterly foolish "reading comprehension" comments. The problem lies only with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Except..you..cannot..find..it..anwhere.

---

Can't find what? God's unconditional love? It begins in Genesis and goes throughout the Bible and ends in Jude.

And God loves me unconditionally every second of every day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Laughable.

---

Laughable?

WIKIPEDIA

In religion – that is characterized by a markedly strict Literalism as it is applied to certain specific scriptures, dogmas, or ideologies, and a strong sense of the importance of maintaining ingroup and outgroup distinctions.

Britannica

Fundamentalism - type of religious movement characterized by the advocacy of strict conformity to sacred texts. -


Merriam-Webster

Definition of fundamentalism

A movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching.

Other Religions

There is an inerrant holy book, to which literal obedience is mandatory.

The Indian holy books, the Vedas, are said to contain even scientific as well as spiritual truths; many Christian fundamentalists believe the same of the Bible.

Literal interpretations and obedience leave no room for uncertainty, no matter how uncertain the real world.


Still laughing?

No. You have provided definitions for fundamentalism. I gave you a definition for evangelicalism which is decidedly a different matter. Even worse, I have told you on multiple occasions that I am not a fundamentalist. So that's two strikes against you now. Watch the next pitch carefully.

To make matters worse, you have oversimplified your response. There is a good deal more to fundamentalism than what you have described. From Wikipedia. "Christian fundamentalism, also known as fundamental Christianity or fundamentalist Christianity, in its modern form, began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries among British and American Protestants[1][2] as a reaction to theological liberalism and cultural modernism. Fundamentalists argued that 19th-century modernist theologians had misinterpreted or rejected certain doctrines, especially biblical inerrancy, which they considered the fundamentals of the Christian faith.[3]Fundamentalists are almost always described as holding to the beliefs in Biblical infallibility and Biblical inerrancy.[4] In keeping with traditional Christian doctrines concerning biblical interpretation, the role of Jesus in the Bible, and the role of the church in society, fundamentalists usually believe in a core of Christian beliefs which include the historical accuracy of the Bible and all of the events which are recorded in it as well as the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.[5]"

And you are still afraid to answer the question about the resurrection. Shame. Mr. Evasion again?

WG.

Quote:

---

Can't find what? God's unconditional love?

---

Exactly. You can find no place in the Bible where it says God's love is unconditional. You're toast. I just told someone on the phone about you using a text that didn't have the word "love" in it and did not speak at all of love. It's just silliness. If you can find something, then get back with me.

Question which I'm sure will remain unanswered. Did Jesus show "unconditional love" to the rich young ruler when He told him to sell all that he had and follow Christ? Did He show "unconditional love" to the sellers in the Temple? Did He show unconditional love to Peter when He said, "Get behind me Satan?" Does He show unconditional love in the very plain and clear text in Matthew 25 when He condemns people to Hell? Does He show unconditional love when He pronounces judgment upon Jerusalem in Matthew 23 when He said, "“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

WG. Exactly. You can find no place in the Bible where it says God's love is unconditional.

---

Read your Bible. Start with John 3:16.

Quote:

---

You're toast.

---

Thanks! You know that means Truly Organized And Sagacious Trinitarian.

John 3:16 does not speak of unconditional love. It speaks of belief in Christ as the means of escaping perishing.

Reposted: Exactly. You can find no place in the Bible where it says God's love is unconditional. You're toast. I just told someone on the phone about you using a text that didn't have the word "love" in it and did not speak at all of love. It's just silliness. If you can find something, then get back with me.

Questions which I'm sure will remain unanswered. Did Jesus show "unconditional love" to the rich young ruler when He told him to sell all that he had and follow Christ? Did He show "unconditional love" to the sellers in the Temple? Did He show unconditional love to Peter when He said, "Get behind me Satan?" Does He show unconditional love in the very plain and clear text in Matthew 25 when He condemns people to Hell? Does He show unconditional love when He pronounces judgment upon Jerusalem in Matthew 23 when He said, "“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!"

You and I both know you will not answer those questions. You never do. Now I actually do believe that God's love is unconditional, but His acceptance is not, and that is where you are obstinately confused. Unlike you, I can demonstrate it in the Bible. In fact, your own John 3:16 example shows it clearly. That passage is the meeting point of God's love and mercy, but also judgment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

John 3:16 does not speak of unconditional love. It speaks of belief in Christ as the means of escaping perishing.

Reposted: Exactly. You can find no place in the Bible where it says God's love is unconditional. You're toast. I just told someone on the phone about you using a text that didn't have the word "love" in it and did not speak at all of love. It's just silliness. If you can find something, then get back with me.

Questions which I'm sure will remain unanswered. Did Jesus show "unconditional love" to the rich young ruler when He told him to sell all that he had and follow Christ? Did He show "unconditional love" to the sellers in the Temple? Did He show unconditional love to Peter when He said, "Get behind me Satan?" Does He show unconditional love in the very plain and clear text in Matthew 25 when He condemns people to Hell? Does He show unconditional love when He pronounces judgment upon Jerusalem in Matthew 23 when He said, "“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!"

You and I both know you will not answer those questions. You never do. Now I actually do believe that God's love is unconditional, but His acceptance is not, and that is where you are obstinately confused. Unlike you, I can demonstrate it in the Bible. In fact, your own John 3:16 example shows it clearly. That passage is the meeting point of God's love and mercy, but also judgment.

---

A deluge of verbiage.

I'm toast = a Truly Organized And Sagacious Trinitarian.

No answers as usual. It's because you don't really want to face the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

No answers as usual. It's because you don't really want to face the truth.

---

The truth of what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

No. You have provided definitions for fundamentalism. I gave you a definition for evangelicalism which is decidedly a different matter.

---

No, you said you were not an evangelical. Anyone who believes in talking reptiles is a fundamentalist. Evangelical, fundy, born again - all the same.

Quote:

---

Even worse, I have told you on multiple occasions that I am not a fundamentalist.

---

Your words are so riddled with changing horses in mid-stream, adding and deleting words and phrases to suit your opinion, insults and nastiness, misquoting others, and a striking weakness in understanding what is written, that a barrel of salt must be taken with whatever you are saying.

For the record, a reptile-speaking believer is a fundy. No way of getting around it.

Quote:

---

To make matters worse, you have oversimplified your response.

---

That sounds like you're agreeing with my definition, oversimplified as you think it is. In any case, my definition is the prime definition that sets you apart from non-fundys. You can add all you want to it, but it doesn't change the basic fact.

Quote:

---

And you are still afraid to answer the question about the resurrection.

---

Why is everyone who thinks differently than you think, said to be afraid? There's something Freudian about that.

Quote:

---

Shame. Mr. Evasion again?

---

Please tell as again how you hate insults and want this board to be civil and polite.

Quote:

---

No, you said you were not an evangelical. Anyone who believes in talking reptiles is a fundamentalist. Evangelical, fundy, born again - all the same.

---

I said I was not both, and I certainly am not bound by your ridiculous definitions held by no one but you, and especially when you frequently insist on attaching racial descriptions to it, a habit you have also been too hesitant to explain.

Quote:

---

Why is everyone who thinks differently than you think, said to be afraid? There's something Freudian about that.

---

I have no idea what you think of the resurrection since you are apparently too fearful to express your opinion. You have a point, I think, about my use of "Mr. Evasion". Perhaps in the future I shall simply say that your refusal to express your view seems to me to be evasive. That would seem civil enough.

WG

Quote:

---

The truth of what?

---

The truth of our topic of discussion. But you can have another shot at it. This is what you replied to with the thoughtful comment of, "A deluge of verbiage." Your refusal to express your view seems to me to be evasive.

"Questions which I'm sure will remain unanswered. Did Jesus show "unconditional love" to the rich young ruler when He told him to sell all that he had and follow Christ? Did He show "unconditional love" to the sellers in the Temple? Did He show unconditional love to Peter when He said, "Get behind me Satan?" Does He show unconditional love in the very plain and clear text in Matthew 25 when He condemns people to Hell? Does He show unconditional love when He pronounces judgment upon Jerusalem in Matthew 23 when He said, "“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!"

You and I both know you will not answer those questions. You never do. Now I actually do believe that God's love is unconditional, but His acceptance is not, and that is where you are obstinately confused. Unlike you, I can demonstrate it in the Bible. In fact, your own John 3:16 example shows it clearly. That passage is the meeting point of God's love and mercy, but also judgment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Your refusal to express your view seems to me to be evasive.

---

When I've expressed my view (oooooo, I'm evasive like Athos is???), you've told me I'm wrong and/or shot down with insults and nastiness.

You've answered no questions at all. Honest is not the same as insulting and nasty. You are both simply the most difficult people to discuss anything with I've seen in a long time because you will not answer simply questions, and then you want to blame your reluctance on someone else instead of being honest and taking some responsibility.

Good night guys. Wifey is flying in tonight so I'm going to pick her up. It's been a long five days. She's been visiting the grandbaby. Glad to have her back home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I said I was not both, and I certainly am not bound by your ridiculous definitions held by no one but you

---

Held by me and Encyclopedia Britannica, and Merriam-Webster dictionary, and Wikipedia and dozens of others.

Quote:

---

and especially when you frequently insist on attaching racial descriptions to it

---

No idea what you mean.................

Quote:

---

I have no idea what you think of the resurrection since you are apparently too fearful to express your opinion.

---

Here's the "fearful" business again. Is that the only insult you carry in your purse? I notice you employ it against others, too.

Quote:

---

your refusal to express your view seems to me to be evasive.

---

I have expressed my views here as much as anyone has and more than most.


(The following comment is addressed to WG)

Quote:

---

Your refusal to express your view seems to me to be evasive.

---

I had to laugh at this comment. It's addressed to WG but is the same comment addressed to me. I guess the purse is full.

Quote:

---

Held by me and Encyclopedia Britannica, and Merriam-Webster dictionary, and Wikipedia and dozens of others.

---

Ridiculously untrue. This lunacy is found in none of those. "Anyone who believes in talking reptiles is a fundamentalist. Evangelical, fundy, born again - all the same." That only comes from you. No reputable person would dare put such silliness out for public consumption.

Quote:

---

and especially when you frequently insist on attaching racial descriptions to it

---

Quote:

---

No idea what you mean.................

---

You know exactly what I mean. "White evangelicals"

Quote:

---

Here's the "fearful" business again. Is that the only insult you carry in your purse? I notice you employ it against others, too.

---

Prove me wrong. Summon up your courage and answer. Do you believe in the resurrection? You really humor me with your responses. "Oh, he's trying to trick me! I wonder about his motives in asking such a question! Where is he going with that?" (Note to non-thinkers. The quotation marks are meant to be humorous.) You'd think you are a member of the CIA being interrogated by a Russian operative and you have to think it all through at great length. It's just a question!

Quote:

---

I had to laugh at this comment. It's addressed to WG but is the same comment addressed to me. I guess the purse is full.

---

You two are the Cheech and Chong of this board. Anytime I can get either one of you to answer a question, I feel it's been a VERY good day. Sadly, they are few and far between.

Any of you guys hearing anything out of Tal? Haven't seen a post from him lately. I don't read his posts, but I do notice them. Assume he is OK?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You two are the Cheech and Chong of this board. Anytime I can get either one of you to answer a question, I feel it's been a VERY good day. Sadly, they are few and far between.

---

Ask me a question.

"Questions which I'm sure will remain unanswered. Did Jesus show "unconditional love" to the rich young ruler when He told him to sell all that he had and follow Christ? Did He show "unconditional love" to the sellers in the Temple? Did He show unconditional love to Peter when He said, "Get behind me Satan?" Does He show unconditional love in the very plain and clear text in Matthew 25 when He condemns people to Hell? Does He show unconditional love when He pronounces judgment upon Jerusalem in Matthew 23 when He said, "“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!"

You and I both know you will not answer those questions. You never do. Now I actually do believe that God's love is unconditional, but His acceptance is not, and that is where you are obstinately confused. Unlike you, I can demonstrate it in the Bible. In fact, your own John 3:16 example shows it clearly. That passage is the meeting point of God's love and mercy, but also judgment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Ridiculously untrue.

---

What Jl calls "ridiculously untrue" is taken word-for-word from the Encyclopedia Britannica, Merriam-Webster Dictionary and Wikipedia. Interested parties may review these definitions at my post #245.

Quote:

---

This lunacy is found in none of those. "Anyone who believes in talking reptiles is a fundamentalist.

---

Jl believes in talking reptiles as he has stated on this board. The lunacy is all his.

Quote:

---

Evangelical, fundy, born again - all the same."

---

There's actually a liberal wing of evangelicals - they're not included in my statement. That was obvious - but not to Jl.

Quote:

---

That only comes from you. No reputable person would dare put such silliness out for public consumption.

---

Jl has a habit of insulting others instead of presenting his position on any issue. It satisfies his anger at being bested.

Quote:

---

You know exactly what I mean. "White evangelicals"

---

No, I don't. The evangelicals I've been referring to are white. That's to ensure people don't think I'm including Black evangelicals when I cite Trump's core support. Another obvious point missed by Jl.

Quote:

---

Prove me wrong.

---

You've already been proven wrong - several times.

Quote:

---

Summon up your courage and answer. Do you believe in the resurrection?

---

When Jl doesn't get an answer he demands, he reverts to fear as the reason for not answering. This is his constant refrain even though it has been explained to him many times that his questions are not honest questions. They are designed (admitted by Jl) to find areas for him to criticize and, believe it or not, opportunities to threaten the person with hellfire.

Quote:

---

You really humor me with your responses.

---

Jl is trying here to be clever. But all he's achieving is showing how truly desperate he's become after being on the losing side of so many discussions with members. Jl inadvertently reveals himself in his own posts, especially when he's so blinded by the comments from others that he has to cast insults in place of reasoned arguments.

I'm not happy saying these things but they have to be said.

Quote:

---

What Jl calls "ridiculously untrue" is taken word-for-word from the Encyclopedia Britannica, Merriam-Webster Dictionary and Wikipedia. Interested parties may review these definitions at my post #245.

---

What is ridiculously untrue is his absurd characterization. "Anyone who believes in talking reptiles is a fundamentalist. Evangelical, fundy, born again - all the same." It is flatly untrue and not in agreement at all with the partial definitions he pulled from those sites. None of them agrees with him. After you read his cherry-picked partial quotes, note my full definition at the bottom. In doing so you will clearly see his deceitful approach.

As for talking reptiles, Athos is referring to the serpent used by Satan in Genesis 3. I have said before that if God can raise Jesus from the dead, then having a serpent speak in the Garden seems to be unremarkable. He, of course, is too fearful to post his view on the resurrection, so that cannot be pursued further.

Quote:

---

Evangelical, fundy, born again - all the same."

---

Athos' statement is simply ridiculous and inaccurate in the extreme. There is no other way to put it, and no reputable person would say such a thing in public for fear of the public ridicule he or she would rightly receive.

Quote:

---

When Jl doesn't get an answer he demands, he reverts to fear as the reason for not answering. This is his constant refrain even though it has been explained to him many times that his questions are not honest questions. They are designed (admitted by Jl) to find areas for him to criticize and, believe it or not, opportunities to threaten the person with hellfire.

---

Athos has been asked a simple question. Does he believe in the resurrection. He refuses to answer. To cover up his refusal, he, of course, tries to shift the blame elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Jl is trying here to be clever. But all he's achieving is showing how truly desperate he's become after being on the losing side of so many discussions with members. Jl inadvertently reveals himself in his own posts, especially when he's so blinded by the comments from others that he has to cast insults in place of reasoned arguments.

---

This is just more excuse making from Athos. He will not answer if he believes in the resurrection, so he attempts to deflect attention away from that. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Quote:

---

I'm not happy saying these things but they have to be said.

---

Poor unhappy Athos could actually avoid saying "these things" by simply answering a question. Do you believe in the resurrection? A one word answer would do, but since he is reluctant to answer, we have to plow our way through these long diatribes. It's all so needless.

We have an old saying where I live. "Put up or shut up." Athos should take that to heart.

I'm not sure why we are speaking in the third person. Athos seems to prefer that, so I try to humor him.

From Wikipedia. "Christian fundamentalism, also known as fundamental Christianity or fundamentalist Christianity, in its modern form, began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries among British and American Protestants[1][2] as a reaction to theological liberalism and cultural modernism. Fundamentalists argued that 19th-century modernist theologians had misinterpreted or rejected certain doctrines, especially biblical inerrancy, which they considered the fundamentals of the Christian faith.[3]Fundamentalists are almost always described as holding to the beliefs in Biblical infallibility and Biblical inerrancy.[4] In keeping with traditional Christian doctrines concerning biblical interpretation, the role of Jesus in the Bible, and the role of the church in society, fundamentalists usually believe in a core of Christian beliefs which include the historical accuracy of the Bible and all of the events which are recorded in it as well as the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.[5]"

Yesterday I posted, "You two are the Cheech and Chong of this board. Anytime I can get either one of you to answer a question, I feel it's been a VERY good day. Sadly, they are few and far between." WG replied, "Ask me a question." I did, but so far no response. It would seem the prospect of this being a VERY good day is pretty slim. Sigh. Her usual approach is to post an answer to a question not asked, thus avoiding answering the questions that WERE asked. Perhaps this day will see a more forthright approach by her. I certainly hope so.

This third person business seems awfully artificial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

WG replied, "Ask me a question." I did, but so far no response.

---

No, you didn't. Only a vomitus of repeat verbiage followed.

It had happened earlier in history, but became evident especially during the early part of and throughout Trump's campaign when fundamentalists decided "evangelicals" was a much nicer and more acceptable noun that shows their deep devotion to spreading the Gospel instead of just shouting out Bible verses that threaten hellfire, meanwhile thumping Bibles on the foreheads of non-Christians. Hey, that's mission work, right???

I hit the nail on the head!! "Yesterday I posted, 'You two are the Cheech and Chong of this board. Anytime I can get either one of you to answer a question, I feel it's been a VERY good day. Sadly, they are few and far between." WG replied, "Ask me a question." I did, but so far no response. It would seem the prospect of this being a VERY good day is pretty slim. Sigh. Her usual approach is to post an answer to a question not asked, thus avoiding answering the questions that WERE asked. Perhaps this day will see a more forthright approach by her. I certainly hope so.' "

In a spirit of cooperation, I will repost, for the third time, the questions. I separated them this time for convenience sake. Five questions, all of which can be answered with a simple yes or no. I'll give her some time, and then, as I oftentimes have to do with my two friends here, I will answer them myself.

Did Jesus show "unconditional love" to the rich young ruler when He told him to sell all that he had and follow Christ?

Did He show "unconditional love" to the sellers in the Temple?

Did He show unconditional love to Peter when He said, "Get behind me Satan?"

Does He show unconditional love in the very plain and clear text in Matthew 25 when He condemns people to Hell?

Does He show unconditional love when He pronounces judgment upon Jerusalem in Matthew 23 when He said, "“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!"

I do believe in the resurrection. WG has said she does as well. Athos has said...nothing.

No effluvium, please. Just ONE question.

OK. I'll just pick one of the above for the reluctant lady from Illinois. As I'm sure you are well aware, they are all going down the same logical trail, and could have been accompanied by hundreds of other examples from the Bible, all of which illustrate the same point.

Does He show unconditional love when He pronounces judgment upon Jerusalem in Matthew 23 when He said, "“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!"

Bear in mind that this came tragically and horribly true when Titus besieged and overcame Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

ONE question. No parenthetical verbiage.

"Yesterday I posted, 'You two are the Cheech and Chong of this board. Anytime I can get either one of you to answer a question, I feel it's been a VERY good day. Sadly, they are few and far between." WG replied, "Ask me a question." I did, but so far no response. It would seem the prospect of this being a VERY good day is pretty slim. Sigh. Her usual approach is to post an answer to a question not asked, thus avoiding answering the questions that WERE asked. Perhaps this day will see a more forthright approach by her. I certainly hope so.' "

It was, it appears, a vain hope.

ONE question. No parenthetical verbiage

On any planet in the universe, this is one question followed by a comment. If trying to comprehend the comment confuses you, then just ignore it.

Quote:

---

Does He show unconditional love when He pronounces judgment upon Jerusalem in Matthew 23 when He said, "“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate?"

Bear in mind that this came tragically and horribly true when Titus besieged and overcame Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

---

My new prediction. There will still be no answer. We will hear an utterly foolish appeal to "cherry-picking" or an appeal to context which would be equally foolish. I still think there will be no answer, but rather just another dodgy excuse. We'll see.

ONE question. No parenthetical verbiage

Right again!! What a day. "I still think there will be no answer, but rather just another dodgy excuse."

So we have a retired librarian who cannot recognize when she is faced with a single question. Rather alarming, I would think.

ONE question. No parenthetical verbiage.

Oh for goodness sake. It's like trying to deal with a first grader. I don't know how to get any more simple than this. If this doesn't work, then it's back to Watch The Two Children Run for you.

Does He show unconditional love when He pronounces judgment upon Jerusalem in Matthew 23 when He said, "“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate?"

ONE question. No parenthetical verbiage.

Forget it. Some people love ignorance too much to help. It's as I've been saying. Two people here are fearful of answering questions. Sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

What is ridiculously untrue is his absurd characterization. "Anyone who believes in talking reptiles is a fundamentalist. Evangelical, fundy, born again - all the same." It is flatly untrue and not in agreement at all with the partial definitions he pulled from those sites.

---

I repeat - anyone who believes in talking reptiles is a fundamentalist. It is a perfect example of reading the Bible literally when it's obviously not literally true. Jl is one of those. Evangelicals, fundys and born agains all believe in the talking reptile. Facts are facts, and Jl can't deny he is what he is.

Quote:

---

None of them agrees with him. After you read his cherry-picked partial quotes, note my full definition at the bottom. In doing so you will clearly see his deceitful approach.

---

Every source cited agrees with me. One has only to read my post #245 to see the truth. Jl thinks that adding details changes the basic principle. He doesn't understand that the principle of literal remains. In his frustration, he charges cherry-picking and deceitful - they are obviously not reasoned arguments but more of his anger getting control of him. I'm genuinely sorry Jl has sunk to such a low.

Quote:

---

As for talking reptiles, Athos is referring to the serpent used by Satan in Genesis 3. I have said before that if God can raise Jesus from the dead, then having a serpent speak in the Garden seems to be unremarkable.

---

By that reasoning, Jl can claim anything at all he wants to believe. Say, speaking trees. Using a faulty comparison, he shows once again his failure to think logically.

Quote:

---

He, of course, is too fearful to post his view on the resurrection

---

Jl's favorite mantra (one of them) is - fear explains a member's disagreement with him. He has used it more than once about more than one member here. He knows his question is dishonest (previously explained at length) but he has nowhere else to go, so he repeats and repeats and repeats.

Quote:

---

Athos' statement is simply ridiculous and inaccurate in the extreme. There is no other way to put it, and no reputable person would say such a thing in public for fear of the public ridicule he or she would rightly receive.

---

A literal Bible reading is common to all three - evangelicals, fundys, and born agains. Jl's denying it won't change that. Reputable persons believe that and have said it in public without fear of ridicule. In fact, they are applauded for saying it.

Quote:

---

Athos has been asked a simple question. Does he believe in the resurrection. He refuses to answer.

---

I have explained my reasons over and over. No use in stating them again. They're not getting through. It's that reading comp problem again.

Quote:

---

He will not answer if he believes in the resurrection

---

Like a dog on a bone, Jl just can't let this go.

Quote:

---

Athos could actually avoid saying "these things" by simply answering a question. Do you believe in the resurrection?

---

Same dog, same bone.

Quote:

---

We have an old saying where I live.

---

Where do you live?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I do believe in the resurrection. Athos has said...nothing.

---

Actually, I've said plenty. It's just that you won't accept what I've said. Your problem, not mine.