[jlisenbe]

You will visit him, send him upbeat cards and letters, make sure he gets any needed counseling, be in touch with his lawyer(s), right?

Yes, but I would not approve of his conduct or justify it. God did the same thing with Israel in the OT by sending prophet after prophet with the same message. "Repent and turn to God." When they repeatedly refused to do so, He sent judgment.

I'm not a "fundie".

Of course you are. And a literalist.

A completely foolish comment by you. Are you the all-knowing one?

You have asked many questions, all of which have been answered. Now it's your turn.

You claimed that we had no "recording somewhere" of Jesus speaking on hell in Mt. 25. The last time I checked, we don't have any recordings of anyone speaking in the Bible. In other words, the evidence for any one statement is the same as for the others. So that being the case, how do you accept ANYTHING said in the Bible? By your standard, how can you believe any part of Scripture?

[Wondergirl]

A completely foolish comment by you. Are you the all-knowing one?

You have asked many questions, all of which have been answered. Now it's your turn.

Aren't you proud of me for the cherrypicking I've been doing?! And so on target! (Yes, she really knows her Bible.)

You claimed that we had no "recording somewhere" of Jesus speaking on hell in Mt. 25. The last time I checked, we don't have any recordings of anyone speaking in the Bible. In other words, the evidence for any one statement is the same as for the others. So that being the case, how do you accept ANYTHING said in the Bible? By your standard, how can you believe any part of Scripture?

Oh, for pete's sake! Stop nitpicking and obsessing over my sarcastic comment. Sheesh!

[jlisenbe]

(Yes, she really knows her Bible.)

Only if silence equates to knowledge. Sadly for you, it does not.

Oh, for pete's sake! Stop nitpicking and obsessing over my sarcastic comment. Sheesh!

OK. I'll rephrase it. You rejected what Jesus said about hell because you claimed there was insufficient proof that He spoke the words. But the same level of evidence is what supports everything else including anything said about love. So why do you accept one and not the other. What is your standard?

[Wondergirl]

Only if silence equates to knowledge. Sadly for you, it does not.

I know the Bible better than you do! Ha! I've had tons more instruction during my very long lifetime. Plus, just being a PK poured the foundation.

OK. I'll rephrase it. You rejected what Jesus said about hell because you claimed there was insufficient proof that He spoke the words. But the same level of evidence is what supports everything else including anything said about love. So why do you accept one and not the other. What is your standard?

Stop being discombobulating. Jesus said to love one another. And since you didn't read the link I had posted about hell, this "discussion" is over.

[jlisenbe]

I know the Bible better than you do! Ha! I've had tons more instruction during my very long lifetime. Plus, just being a PK poured the foundation.

Does that explain why you cannot support your beliefs with the Bible? And why are you judging me? Aren't you supposed to accept me as I am?

Stop being discombobulating. Jesus said to love one another. And since you didn't read the link I had posted about hell, this "discussion" is over.

The usual non answer. You paint yourself into a corner, and then are afraid to try to defend your plainly wrong position. It would be much better to simply admit you messed up. Instead, you want to just back out and label the discussion as "over".

[Wondergirl]

Does that explain why you cannot support your beliefs with the Bible? And why are you judging me? Aren't you supposed to accept me as I am?

The usual non answer. You paint yourself into a corner, and then are afraid to try to defend your plainly wrong position. It would be much better to simply admit you messed up. Instead, you want to just back out and label the discussion as "over".

Can you sing "Twist and Shout"?

[jlisenbe]

You might as well admit that you are afraid to answer the question lest the foolishness of your position become even more apparent than it already is. But I'll post it again just in case.

You rejected what Jesus said about hell because you claimed there was insufficient proof that He spoke the words. But the same level of evidence is what supports everything else including anything said about love. So why do you accept one and not the other. What is your standard?

[Wondergirl]

You might as well admit that you are afraid to answer the question lest the foolishness of your position become even more apparent than it already is. But I'll post it again just in case.

You rejected what Jesus said about hell because you claimed there was insufficient proof that He spoke the words. But the same level of evidence is what supports everything else including anything said about love. So why do you accept one and not the other. What is your standard?

You have shown us that you have no idea what hell is. Or unconditional love.

[jlisenbe]

Uh oh. You are judging again! So is Mt. 7:2 the "for everyone except WG" passage now?

[Wondergirl]

Uh oh. You are judging again! So is Mt. 7:2 the "for everyone except WG" passage now?

You have shown us. No judging was necessary.

[jlisenbe]

You have shown us.

And there you go, judging again. Amazing how many of your standards are for every one but you. Why is that?

And even this, "No judging was necessary," is itself a judgment. I think you have painted yourself into a corner. But there is a way out, if you can see it.

[Wondergirl]

My most favoritest verse: "He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."

[jlisenbe]

Why are you changing the subject?

I like that scripture as well. There are many good ones.

And this was another VERY judgmental remark, not to mention being pretty prideful.

I know the Bible better than you do! Ha! I've had tons more instruction during my very long lifetime. Plus, just being a PK poured the foundation.

How could you know that? Do you know how much instruction I've had during my also very long lifetime? And being a preacher myself would give me, I think, and advantage, would it not?

I hope you know I'm just trying to illustrate how unworkable your understanding of Mt. 7:2 is. You judge, I judge, and everyone on this site judges. You can't live without making judgments concerning right and wrong. I don't think Jesus meant it the way you think He did.

[Athos]

They translated the NT and rendered agape simply as love. Case closed.

Only in your closed mind is the case closed.

It is absurd to think that the "discussions" they had are accessible

Then don't quote them as if you know what they discussed or did not discuss.

The usual well-reasoned, logical response.

Your ridiculous invites my ridicule. Get used to it. It ain't going away.

I already did and included the quote in my response.

WHY did you include it in your quote? Are you now saying the nation was NOT founded on Christianity? You are very confused, my friend.

Might add that the Christian trinity does not put forward the idea of three Gods.

Sure looks that way to reasonable people who do not profess the Christian faith.

the first passage is not from me. It was a quote from someone else. And that quote was what I said I did not agree with.

Then why did you post it? What was your point? Are you retracting your belief that the nation was founded on Christianity? We all await your answer.

I do tend to pay attention to how hundreds of Greek scholars render a Greek word. The term is modern and not within the purview of the translators? I laughed out loud at that one

Well, laugh at this one. The term I referred to is NOT the Greek word, it is the modern term "unconditional love" that your scholars never considered in connection with the Bible. Still laughing?

. "Hey dude! Don't you realize that the Greek term you are translating, written two thousand years ago, is 'modern' and not within your 'purview'." Oh brother. Desperation, thy name is Athos.

You claim that is a quote from me, yet anyone can refer to my post #58 and see how badly you have misquoted me since you have no idea how to quote anyone. Normally, your plagiarism is limited to what I have previously posted and which you copy for your own purposes without attribution. You have two related diseases, shoot-in-foot and foot-in-mouth. Idiot, thy name is Jlisenbe.

I'm not a "fundie".

If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck........................(It's probably a fundie).

Can you sing "Twist and Shout"?

ha ha - good one!

[jlisenbe]

Then don't quote them as if you know what they discussed or did not discuss.

I haven't quoted them. That "quoted" thing gives you trouble, doesn't it?

WHY did you include it in your quote? Are you now saying the nation was NOT founded on Christianity? You are very confused, my friend.

It's what I've said from the beginning.

Sure looks that way to reasonable people who do not profess the Christian faith.

But those who understand the Christian faith know the truth. I realize that seems not to include you.

Well, laugh at this one. The term I referred to is NOT the Greek word, it is the modern term "unconditional love" that your scholars never considered in connection with the Bible.

How do you know they never considered it? Besides, the ESV is VERY recent, and it also did not render agape as "unconditional love". The NASB was updated in 1995. Pretty sure the term "unconditional love" was around then, but they likewise did not use it. Sorry, but you're out on that one as well.

You claim that is a quote from me, yet anyone can refer to my post #58 and see how badly you have misquoted me since you have no idea how to quote anyone. Normally, your plagiarism is limited to what I have previously posted and which you copy for your own purposes without attribution. You have two related diseases, shoot-in-foot and foot-in-mouth. Idiot, thy name is Jlisenbe.

No I didn't. I never attributed the quote to anyone, so would that make you the "idiot"? This business of "quotes" just gives you fits. Did you fail fourth grade?

If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck

Oh? So I can call you an atheist now? Well, that makes life a little easier and certainly clearer.

[Athos]

I haven't quoted them. That "quoted" thing gives you trouble, doesn't it?
It's what I've said from the beginning.

Not a bit. You can quote someone without putting it in quotes. Go back to school.

But those who understand the Christian faith know the truth. I realize that seems not to include you.

Other faiths make the exact same claim - including you.

How do you know they never considered it?

How do you know they did? Please cite chapter and verse showing their discussion.

but they likewise did not use it. Sorry, but you're out on that one as well.

They did not use it because they did not consider it. Sorry, but you're batting ZERO.

Did you skip fourth grade?

Don't try to be funny. You're not equipped. Witty from you is even worse.

Oh? So I can call you an atheist now?

It matters not what you call me. What matters is the truth - a quality that gives you fits.

[jlisenbe]

Not a bit. You can quote someone without putting it in quotes. Go back to school.

I never quoted them in any way. You are making it up again as you go. That's a bad habit you have.

Other faiths make the exact same claim - including you.

No, they don't.

How do you know they did? Please cite chapter and verse showing their discussion.

I didn't comment either way. You did, so it's up to you to support your hilariously foolish comment which you promptly, right on cue, repeat below.

They did not use it because they did not consider it.

And again, how do you know that? Pretty sure you weren't there.

It matters not what you call me.

Good. From now on, you are the site atheist. Come to think of it, "athos" and "atheist" sure do look a lot alike, don't they? Freudian slip?

Actually, I'm not going to call you the site atheist. It's too serious an issue to make fun of, and it would make me like you and WG in insisting that someone is something he claims he is not.

[Wondergirl]

Actually, I'm not going to call you the site atheist. It's too serious an issue to make fun of, and it would make me like you and WG in insisting that someone is something he claims he is not.

Plus, you'd be judging.

You don't know who Athos was?

[jlisenbe]

Plus, you'd be judging.

You don't know who Athos was?

You mean like when you called me a "fundie"??? That kind of judging? So again, why is it OK when you do it? Now I know you won't answer that since you never do, but it is quite a mark against you.

You mean the Athos of the Three Musketeers? There is also a Mount Athos. I'd be amazed if there was not a city or village named "Athos". And then, of course, there is the famous Athos of Persian mythology who was bedeviled by a strange inability to understand direct quotations! (For the humor impaired, that was a joke.)

[Wondergirl]

You mean like when you called me a "fundie"???

Aren't you? I used to be one and know what they look and sound like.