[jlisenbe]

For every expert the dufus has multiple idiots around him, diluting common sense, and decisive actions,

Who?

Clinical trials even fast tracked are early in the process, but of course you can't wait to taut their success. Even a Martian would know that. Or a Chinaman, who has lied before, and a dufus who has lied bef

You must begin to keep up. The latest completed trial I posted was from France. Can't wait to taut their success? Wow. Would you feel better if hundreds of thousands died just so you could use that to advance your hatred of all things Trump?

[talaniman]

Good for France, after a sufficient verification process we're good to go, but don't tell me to celebrate the end of this dilemma until then. Can't I cross my fingers, but remain neutral till then?

[jlisenbe]

don't tell me to celebrate the end of this dilemma until then.

I haven't told you to.

Can't I cross my fingers, but remain neutral till then?

I would hope you would be more than neutral, but I get your point. It's still a wait and see game. The hard part is going to be when the time comes to pay for all of this. Every level of government is going to be short of funds and long on expenses so figuring out how to pay for this is going to be tough.

[talaniman]

Yeah we will see what happens when the bills come due.

[jlisenbe]

Yeah we will see what happens when the bills come due.

I think that will prove to be the worst part of this whole deal.

[jlisenbe]

Just for a laugh.

[talaniman]

Had to laugh. Good one.

[paraclete]

Yes it happened here over night

[talaniman]

Silly signs or rain?

[paraclete]

That sign is probably one of ours but both

[Athos]

Was your blatant misrepresentation of the views of Aquinas part of that great concern your "side" has for the truth? You need to be careful with what you post. Some of us remember your past posts quite well. How about your claim that Matthew contained 660 of Mark's 661 verses? Was that the truth?

JL, you're a bigger moron than I thought. Maybe it's just laziness – probably a little of each.


From your bizarre belief in eternal punishment for anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus, and your insistence in refusing to believe the US Navy spoke out against Trump re his visit to the USS John McCain, and to your inability to understand Thomas Aquinas, you never disappoint with your stupidity.


I won't touch on your uninformed belief on taxes other than to refer to your own Bible for guidance on this matter.


The eternal punishment business which you defended for months with numerous Bible verses was thoroughly rebutted in every case, until you yourself fell into confusion as you tried to fit your new understanding into a modified position considering, for example, that newborn babies were not subject to your monstrous penalty.

After the changes you made, you finished with eternal punishment for “SINNERS” with Christ being unnecessary. You even included a Buddhist "sinner" which was a far cry from your original position. However, your newfound belief is so vague as to be meaningless. You've shown constant difficulties with your reading of the Bible, going so far as to characterize those who disagree with you as “amateurs”. Having been taught since childhood your bizarre Biblicisms, you present as quite a bit less than “amateur”. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.


When you insisted the US Navy made no response to Trump's comments on the USS McCain in Yokohama, I pointed out that you were 100% wrong. You demanded I prove what I was claiming, calling me a liar. (A habit of yours – calling those who disagree with you, liars.) If memory serves, I said I would prove it if you met certain conditions. You failed to do so, and continued with your insults. Therefore, I kept that knowledge to myself. Now, I'll give it to you – Vice Admiral Phillip Sawyer, when asked by the White House to obscure the USS John McCain during Trump's visit, said “NO WAY”. Here's the link --https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/06/03/admiral-squashes-white-house-request-to-hide-uss-john-mccain/ You lacked the skill to find it for yourself.


Finally, Thomas Aquinas. You couldn't find this either, probably because it's not contained in your three minute study of the saint at Wikipedia. He added the clause in question because of pressure from the Church hierarchy. In the 13th century, the Catholic Church had much more power (secular and religious) than it does today. It was common to exert pressure on scholars when they came up with something the Church found heretical. Heresy then was a SECULAR crime against the state. (Galileo is a more famous example when he was silenced by the Church for teaching the earth was not the center of the universe.) Ultimately, Aquinas found exceptions in those who lived before Christ and those after him who were “made fit for heaven without it.”


That silliness about Matthew and Mark doesn't deserve a response. Yes, the number of verses should have been 601, not 660. A typo hardly enough to get you so excited like it was the second coming.


(If you don't like insults and name-calling, then don't start it).

[jlisenbe]

Many words but no quotes, so no, I don't trust your recollection of any of our discussions.

As to Aquinas, you posted only a portion (deceitfully??) of what Aquinas wrote. When I supplied the remainder, it completely changed his meaning. It was such a pathetic attempt at deceit that I have it in a Word doc to use with youth groups. I can use it to show them how to deal with people who consider themselves to be intellectuals by simply double checking their claims. That's why I was so easily able to reproduce your post. I'll be happy to send the doc to you if you'd like it. It's instructive.

The Matthew/Mark problem was that you never simply came back and said, "My bad." I even posted that I suspected you were mistaken, but you never owned it.

I never changed my position of sinners. You just can't read.

And then there is, of course, the four unanswered questions. Months and months later, you cannot answer them. That's why I really have come to find this board so boring. At least two people who love to argue and yet cannot summon the simple courage to answer questions. It's too frustrating for my tastes. You can't really call it a discussion when only one person (me) is willing to answer questions.

[Athos]

Many words but no quotes

So what?

As to Aquinas, you posted only a portion (deceitfully??) of what Aquinas wrote

I said, "...he added the clause in question". Trouble reading?

......people who consider themselves to be intellectuals ....

Never wade in water over your head.

The Matthew/Mark problem was that you never simply came back and said, "My bad." I even posted that I suspected you were mistaken, but you never owned it.

Wow! That must be the sin against the Holy Ghost!

I never changed my position of sinners. You just can't read.

That was NOT what I said. Who can't read now? Your change of position referred to belief in Jesus.

And then there is, of course, the four unanswered questions.

The questions were answered and some were answered more than once due to your habit of claiming answers you don't like are not answers. Good luck with that!

[jlisenbe]

The questions were answered and some were answered more than once due to your habit of claiming answers you don't like are not answers. Good luck with that!

Nope. Asked many, many times, but never answered.

The rest of your post is meaningless.

[Athos]

The rest of your post is meaningless.

Proves my point. Whatever you disagree with is "meaningless". You're imitating Trump who uses different words for the identical idea. Whatever he disagrees with is "fake news".

Aren't you the one who said imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?

[talaniman]

You could always give us the real answers JL. Then we would all know. 8D

[paraclete]

No he can't do that Tal, he isn't interested in answers, just in arguing

[jlisenbe]

Just to prove the point, here are the four unanswered questions. At this point I don't care if you answer them or not as it's an old topic. I do care when you state you already have when, in fact, I posted them close to a dozen times in an effort to get at least one answered and you never would.

1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?

[talaniman]

There is a very acceptable place for this discussion that doesn't hijack this thread topic.

[Athos]

Just to prove the point, here are the four unanswered questions. At this point I don't care if you answer them or not as it's an old topic. I do care when you state you already have when, in fact, I posted them close to a dozen times in an effort to get at least one answered and you never would.

1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?

Jl, you are really pathetic. For the last time.

1. Your "every translation" is sourced in a copy that made the initial error long ago.

2. That's called Purgatory.

3. Those scriptures have been responded to in the many months when you were defending your non-belief-in-Jesus-eternal-punishment-in-hell business. If you need to see them again, check the archives.

4. No, I prefer my interpretation which is far more consistent with the Bible overall (and earlier than many of yours) than your sick interpretation which demonizes Jesus and comes from somewhere inside you.


Have you checked out your Bible yet and what it says about taxation as I told you?

(sorry, Tal, maybe this will end it).