 |
I said "thus" because I had just quoted this from Tom's article:Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
"Studies and investigations of outbreaks all point to the majority of transmissions occurring as a result of infected people spewing out large droplets and small particles called aerosols when they cough, talk or breathe. These can be directly inhaled by people close by."
Those droplets are inhaled by people who have had both shots and, in turn, spew them at unvaccinated people.
WG, your FACTS will never penetrate the thick skull of Jl. He's one of those people who are self-obsessed with his own "truth".Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
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.
That was indeed in the article.Quote:
I said "thus" because I had just quoted this from Tom's article:
"Studies and investigations of outbreaks all point to the majority of transmissions occurring as a result of infected people spewing out large droplets and small particles called aerosols when they cough, talk or breathe. These can be directly inhaled by people close by."
That is your wild guess conjecture. Thus your "thus" is completely ridiculous. I don't think there is anything out there to support that. If there is, bring it forward. So far you most definitely have not.Quote:
Those droplets are inhaled by people who have had both shots and, in turn, spew them at unvaccinated people.
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.Quote:
I wish I were making this up,
Here's one of many:Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
https://news.yahoo.com/covid-19-vacc...100051308.html
Wow! Such nastiness -- and at Easter no less!Quote:
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.
Truthfulness is not nastiness. And remember that you have abrogated your position as the civility police. It takes a good example to do that.Quote:
Wow! Such nastiness -- and at Easter no less!
As to your article, it says this. "Preliminary information from Israel found people who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine did not develop COVID-19 symptoms or transmit the disease, according to a Pfizer statement released March 11." So is that the support you were referring to? Do you even read these links you post???
Still cherry-picking, I see. Why do I bother???Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
If you'd read the entire article, you would have read this:
"And while transmission may be greatly reduced by vaccines, the chances of spreading the virus is not zero, said Michael Mina, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
People should continue to diligently wear their masks, regardless of vaccination status, until cases are low."
Why do you bother to use an article that directly contradicts your premise??? Now that's a great question.Quote:
Still cherry-picking, I see. Why do I bother???
BTW, you need to learn the difference between "cherry-picking" and contradicting. They are not the same thing.
That does not even come close to supporting your wild idea.Quote:
"And while transmission may be greatly reduced by vaccines, the chances of spreading the virus is not zero, said Michael Mina, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
Nope, you didn't read it. I added to my previous post.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The very first three paragraphs say:
"When COVID-19 vaccinations began, U.S. health officials encouraged vaccinated Americans to continue wearing masks in public because scientists were still unsure if they could carry the virus that causes the disease after being inoculated.
Recent results from real-world studies show the COVID-19 vaccines protect against asymptomatic infection, suggesting they also drastically reduce virus transmission.
But health experts still recommend wearing masks in public, regardless of vaccination status, as more research is needed to confirm whether vaccinated people can spread the virus and as variants become more prevalent in the U.S. and states see cases spikes."
And I replied to your reply.
Not real sure what part of this your are struggling to understand. ""Preliminary information from Israel found people who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine did not develop COVID-19 symptoms or transmit the disease,"
And nothing there supported your wild conjecture that vaccinated people would inhale droplets from infected people and then pass those on to healthy people. It is not there.Quote:
"When COVID-19 vaccinations began, U.S. health officials encouraged vaccinated Americans to continue wearing masks in public because scientists were still unsure if they could carry the virus that causes the disease after being inoculated.
Recent results from real-world studies show the COVID-19 vaccines protect against asymptomatic infection, suggesting they also drastically reduce virus transmission.
But health experts still recommend wearing masks in public, regardless of vaccination status, as more research is needed to confirm whether vaccinated people can spread the virus and as variants become more prevalent in the U.S. and states see cases spikes."
Yay for Israel. Now, what's going on in the U.S.???Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Yay for Germany. Now what's going on in Alaska?
Yeah, then deny this, pal.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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.Quote:
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.
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.
Answer this:Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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 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?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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.
you know the answer stop avoiding the questionQuote:
Originally Posted by Athos
There is no book called "the Gospel", so it can't be quoted. I try to be careful with my words.Quote:
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?
I've changed nothing.Quote:
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!
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.Quote:
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?
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?Quote:
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.
Read more carefully. Think.Quote:
you know the answer stop avoiding the question
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.
Now you're becoming a bully.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I totally agree! There are better ways to win souls than with endless discussions and arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
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.Quote:
Now you're becoming a bully.
Who disqualified me? the bully?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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.
Just so you get the message, POQ mate!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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.XZD9Y...5&pid=3.1&rm=2
No thanks.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Jl combines troll with stalker and, of course, denier of fact - his long-term character.
ok this is becoming a mob
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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?Quote:
I've changed nothing.
You certainly have my agreement on that!Quote:
Because it makes no difference what I believe.
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.Quote:
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
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".Quote:
It's why I continually encourage you to believe the Bible as do I.
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.Quote:
And so we arrive at the source of our disagreement. You consider that the Bible means...whatever you think it means.
That's the bad way.Quote:
I believe it is a literal representation of God's will.
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?Quote:
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 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.’"Quote:
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?
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.
Good. We agree. So why do you keep asking?Quote:
Because it makes no difference what I believe.
You certainly have my agreement on that!
As I said, we disagree.Quote:
I believe it is a literal representation of God's will.
That's the bad way.
I think it has everything to do with the discussion.Quote:
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?
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???
Consider this: Christians believe God to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent. Right?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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?
we are supposed to tell them, go ye into all the EarthQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:08 PM. |