[Athos]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Prove me wrong.

You've already been proven wrong - several times.

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.

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.

[jlisenbe]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]"

[jlisenbe]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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???

[jlisenbe]

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!"

[jlisenbe]

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

[Wondergirl]

No effluvium, please. Just ONE question.

[jlisenbe]

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.

[Wondergirl]

ONE question. No parenthetical verbiage.

[jlisenbe]

"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.

[Wondergirl]

ONE question. No parenthetical verbiage

[jlisenbe]

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.

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.

[Wondergirl]

ONE question. No parenthetical verbiage

[jlisenbe]

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.

[Wondergirl]

ONE question. No parenthetical verbiage.

[jlisenbe]

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?"

[Wondergirl]

ONE question. No parenthetical verbiage.

[jlisenbe]

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.

[Athos]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

He will not answer if he believes in the resurrection

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

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

Same dog, same bone.

We have an old saying where I live.

Where do you live?

[Athos]

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.