Відео

“I don’t think it’s a very important question” Richard Dawkins How about let us decide wether Jesus’s existence is of historical importance.

This is a good article for my atheists friends as you guys can’t distinguish between truth and false Christianity and throw all into the same pot. I simply refer to myself as a bible based born again Christian and my small group within the body of Christ(God’s church) doesn’t affiliate with any particular denomination much like the early church when they meet in houses. A born again Christian is simply someone who has received the supernatural gift of the Holy Spirit as mentioned in God’s word to mankind. “Unless a man is born again he cannot enter the kingdom of God” Unfortunately church”s like the Catholics Mormon SDA JW’s and others have unbiblical gospel messages and thus most within these groups never been born again with the Holy Spirit and aren’t actually Christians. A brief testimony. I myself grew up in an unbiblical liberal version of the Church of England and later for a few years a member of the Mormon church. Later I discovered the accuracy and reliability of God word and the gospel message and received the supernatural gift of the Holy Spirit via simply faith. The same Holy Spirit that was poured out since the day of Pentecost two thousand years ago. “The Gospel is the power of God unto Salvation” Basically anyone who accepts the gospel of Jesus will be supernaturally gifted with God’s Holy Spirit because of what God did when He entered His Creation in the person of Jesus. Through God’s word a person can actually know God supernaturally and begin a personal relationship😇 But we must follow God’s instruction manual as written and not deviate. “The sum of thy word is truth” Unfortunately God’s word is clear that few will accept the gospel message and be lost forever(hell) So I would say to you BE THE ONE and “Flee the wrath of God” that’s coming upon all sinners. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” There is only two types of people in God’s creation, those who seek and surrender to God and those who are resisting God. “He who is not with Me is against Me” The choice is ours to make as God gave us free will to choose or reject Him🤔

If DNA "proves" that humans are not an accident, then it also "proves" that the name of the one true god is GATTACA

so you're spam commenting with Christian propaganda. Nice. Anyone with two braincells has double yours.

John Lyle What is GATTACA?

@@stephenireland3816 GATTACA is a 1997 American dystopian science fiction film about genetic manipulation. The "name" in the film's title is based on the letters G, A, T, and C, which stand for guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine, the four nucleobases of DNA.

⁠@@John_Lyle”The “name” in the film's title is based on the letters G, A, T, and C, which stand for guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine, the four nucleobases of DNA.” nice plagiarism as Wikipedia says “The film's title is based on the letters G, A, T, and C, which stand for guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine, the four nucleobases of DNA.” You really don’t have integrity at your core.

genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.” - Richard Dawkins

“The information contained in an English sentence or computer software does not derive from the chemistry of the ink or the physics of magnetism, but from a source extrinsic to physics and chemistry altogether. Indeed, in both cases, the message transcends the properties of the medium.” Stephen meyer

“At the close of the nineteenth century, most biologists thought life consisted solely of matter and energy. But after Watson and Crick, biologists came to recognize the importance of a third fundamental entity in living things: information.” Stephen Meyer

"How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replication capabilities, and 'coded chemistry'? Here we are not dealing with biology, but an entirely different category of problem." "Flew said again that his deism was the result of his "growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical universe and my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself - which is far more complex than the physical Universe - can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source" Antony Flew ex atheist

Your OP confirms that Dawkins believes that life started through evolution “somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means”. Does this mean you stopped claiming to believe in a god as it is an odd post if not.

The biblical slavery that Christian apologists like to pretend was the entirety of slavery in the bible was in fact indentured servitude that *only applied to Hebrew males* Non-Hebrews were chattel slaves, bought, sold, and inherited in exactly the same manner that Negroes were in the ante-bellum Southern (Slave) states of the USA. The ones that temporarily formed the Confederate States of America. Hebrew females could be sold by their father to become a sex-slave, and that status was not limited to seven years, and even with male Hebrew indentured servants the bible gives the master a way to pressure and shame a Hebrew indentured servant into selling himself and any children he may father into eternal chattel slavery. And the people from outside Israel no more fled their countries than the African slaves were fleeing from Africa and took passage with the slave traders who sold them to the Europeans.

“Peter draws from Proverbs 3:34 to motivate Christian’s to adopt an attitude of humility.” Well at least we can see you aren’t Christian. “Peter draws from Proverbs 3:34 to motivate Christian’s to adopt an attitude of humility.” Well at least we can see you aren’t Christian. “God actively opposing the proud” well then this referenced god opposes you. This whole article shows why I have come to have evidence that you don’t believe in a god.

Trolling Jones “Peter draws from Proverbs 3:34 to motivate Christian’s to adopt an attitude of humility.” Yes correct and I’m glad to see you are reading God’s word and quoting God’s even to only troll me. “Well at least we can see you aren’t Christian.” I think you are using “we” to strengthen a claim you made without evidence. Like when a child says to another child in the playground, EVERYONE THINKS YOUR UNGLY. “”God actively opposing the proud” well then this referenced god opposes you.” Yet again no evidence provided just a claim. “This whole article shows why I have come to have evidence that you don’t believe in a god.” Yet you didn’t provide any, not a single quote of mine posted by you. Note also you are very much focused on me who didn’t make any statements and not on the actual subject matter(shooting the messenger) But let me post evidence, a quote of mine I post to you(on another thread) just hours before you post this message of your I’m responding too. “It’s a wonderful peaceful feeling to be in right standing with your Creator. “The peace of God which surpasses all understanding” If an idiot like me can right with God then anyone can.” 1. It’s clear I believe in God my Creator by simply looking at what I post (if it sound like a duck it’s usually strong evidence it’s a duck😂) 2. It’s clear by me referring to myself as an “idiot” that I’m not taking about myself from from a prideful place of superiority “then anyone can” Final thoughts: Pride and humility is on a spectrum and I suspect(based on past conversations) you are using black and white reasoning on the issue. Am I without pride, of course not and it would be prideful for me to believe so. For example are you absent of pride? See what I mean😂 I believe humility is admitting our own shortcomings before God and sometimes others. (Note I do this frequently) Unfortunately I know you don’t believe in your Creator but I’ve been working hard in the last two years to change that🙏 “God gives grace to the humble but resist the proud” Note even after we humble ourselves before God we still need his grace as will still aren’t perfect. Also I would point out that God in the person of Jesus died for prideful mankind. “All have sinned a fallen short of God’s glory” Look, although I believe your intentions are to troll me I’m always encouraged when any unbelievers are willing to read, quote and talk about God’s word as I believe God’s word has the power to change hearts. “The gospel is the power of God unto Salvation” The supernatural power of God at work in His natural physical universe. Ps. As you know this is a pretty common back and forth we have but I keep in mind the possibility others may possibly be observing and for their sake I am happy to repeat myself if it means they may possibly come to know their Savour.

@@stephenireland3816​​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​​⁠​​⁠​​⁠​​⁠​​⁠​​⁠​​⁠​​⁠”Trolling Jones” nice lie and projection. “Yes correct and I’m glad to see you are reading Gods word and quoting Gods even to only troll me.” Except I didn’t. Look at the quote again. You continue to be desperate and lie to try to create a story you so want to happen. But to me it’s not a big deal. “I think you are using “we” to strengthen a claim you made without evidence.” Nice lie as the quote I gave you was evidence. You continue to be desperate to lie. And no the we isn’t a strengthen item, it is that you post something that indicates you are not Christian. “Like when a child says to another child in the playground, everyone thinks your ungly.” Nice faulty analogy but note how I didn’t indicate everyone. You are so desperate that you cannot even make a valid analogy for your lie. “Yet again no evidence provided just a claim” another lie. You see the quote I gave you…that is evidence. You again are so desperate. “Yet you didn’t provide any, not a single quote of mine posted by you.” Nice moving the goal posts, evidence could be from you but it could also come from what you posted. And I gave you those quotes. Keep running. Note something as well, you aren’t denying any of this which gives me even more evidence. “Note also you are very much focused on me who didn’t make any statements and not on the actual subject matter (shooting the messenger)”. Nice lie and attempt to hide again. First hiding behind that they are others words, that is exactly what I have said you do and here you are spelling it out. Second I reflected on what you posted and the irony seeing it goes against who you are. And note something you lying as you did throughout this post, is evidence of your pride so again you just gave me more evidence. “But let me post evidence, a quote of mine I post to you (on another thread) just hours before you post this message of your I’m responding too”. I don’t recall receiving a notification of this supposed post, how old is the thread it’s on. “”It’s a wonderful peaceful feeling to be in right standing with your creator.” Which shows your pride, this bolsters my case. “If an idiot like me can right with God then anyone can.” And this again would be your pride. First because you are focusing on you. Second because you claim to have succeeded and pointing out someone else didn’t. Third it’s a lie twofold because you don’t think you are an idiot because you think you are so clever with your supposed game playing. It is also a lie because you have no idea if you are right with a god and that is even begging the question. This didn’t bode well for you as you just bolstered my case. And by the way, quoting yourself isn’t evidence, you need something independent otherwise, you can (which you virtually do) go around saying “I’m the greatest” and then quote that to pretend it is evidence you are the greatest. You are desperate in your lies. So I have plenty of evidence now of what I said was true. We can wait on the rest of your diversion and lies until you acknowledge that truth “1. it’s clear…their savour.”

If I am to believe the bible your deity not only commanded genocide, he carried out genocide. Killing not only entire nations of people, not only their livestock and crops but all wild animals and vegetation all around the world. And regarding the genocides carried out by people, we only have the victor's word that the victims of genocide deserved to be exterminated. I have read some of the propaganda put out by the British War Department in 1914 to whip up the frenzy of the British to go to war with Germany, laughable today with hindsight but it led to millions of deaths. And I have no doubt that the Germans were equally deceived. The famous Christmas truce of 1914 was ended by the Royal Artillery bombarding no-mans-land to force the troops back into the trenches because nobody wanted thousands of armed men to realise that they had more in common with their "enemy" than with their "lords and masters" The Israelites who wrote the Old Testament accounts justified their genocidal tendencies back then just the same as the Zionists and IDF today justify the bombing of hospitals, churches, and aid convoys in Gaza.

@@John_Lyle Thanks for those facts. It seems both the Axis Germans and Japanese military men were somewhat indoctrinated into believing their leader had God on his side "Good Christian soldier" -- Hitler and Hirohito was believed to be a living god. The fighters were often called to fight to the death, and they believed the enemy fighters were barbaric demons, or at least sub-human/inferior. Also, Christian settlers in North America invented "divine providence", a doctrine designed to mitigate the genocide of 10's of millions of native americans.

Bible "facts" scientists agree with? Please give examples right here. Your pleas for more viewers don't seem to be working very well. Maybe what you are calling "truth" has not been demonstrated as such. Today's scientists are leaving religious affiliation even faster than non-scientists. Public acceptance of evolution is up, church attendance is down. How can "free will" exist if God sends strong lies and delusions to damn men? Did you finally learn what is a theory in science (the highest rung, which incorporates facts, laws, confirmed hypotheses and other theories)? In short, it looks like you have learned very little from the best comments on your videos, and your apologetics have basically been refuted a thousand times.

Your videos are five brief videos where you show that you slept through any science class you ever attended. A scientific theory summarises a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step - a theory - in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and *repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.*

@@John_Lyle Hey, John: No theories on my part; just scientific facts. I will provide an example below of one of many scientific facts contained in the Bible. Please review it and then let me know your thoughts: The writers of the Books of the Bible lived thousands of years ago and could not have known that the scientific facts they wrote down were true without divine inspiration given to them by Jesus Christ / The God of the Bible. For example: Moses was an isolated sheepherder who knew absolutely nothing about the geologic history of the Earth, which occurred over billions of years by time as we experience it here on Earth. Yet, Moses wrote correctly in Genesis that during the Earth’s development there was a time when it was totally covered with water and then the dry land appeared in one place (the supercontinent that existed before tectonic plate movement began, of course). Scientists today agree that the Earth was once covered with water and that land initially appeared in one place, just as the Bible says. Here are a few links to scientific sites that agree with the Bible that the Earth was at one time a water world: astronomy.com/news/2020/03/ancient-earth-may-have-been-a-water-world-without-any-dry-land news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/04/harvard-scientists-determine-early-earth-may-have-been-a-water-world/ www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/03/ancient-earth-was-water-world www.livescience.com/waterworld-earth.html Again, thanks for helping to make my point that the writers of the Bible could not have written scientific facts, which we know today to be true, without divine inspiration from God. Take care.

@@thetruthaboutscienceandgod6921 Before the Earth was (evidently) covered with water, it was a globe of molten rock. Where can we read about that in scripture? And how long ago was the Earth a 'water-world' - was it few generations before Adam? Nothing in scripture points to 4+ billion years. Dr Dawkins wrote "I believe that an orderly universe, one indifferent to human preoccupations, in which everything has an explanation even if we still have a long way to go before we find it, is a more beautiful, more wonderful place than a universe *tricked out with capricious ad hoc magic.* Did scripture lead any of the scientists to whom you linked, discovering evidence of a water-world billions of years ago? You'll say yes, but backed by what evidence? "Tricked out with capricious ad hoc magic"? Can you kindly name one scientific discovery that scripture directly led to? Avoiding my first post is the Christian _cherry-picking_ way?

@@thetruthaboutscienceandgod6921 Thank you for once again demonstrating your absolute ignorance of the difference between a theory and a fact. I will try to explain the differences between facts, laws, and theories, using gravity as the example. The fact of gravity is that gravity sucks! The law of gravity is a mathematical equation that can be used to find out how much gravity sucks. The theory of gravity is an evidence based explanation of *why* gravity sucks. Now let us take a look at your bible fantasy. The genesis myths tell two conflicting accounts of the sequence in which stuff came into existence. Genesis starts with darkness and water, so water exists before light (energy). Then genesis says light was made, even though there is as yet no light source (No sun, moon, or stars) Then day and night are separated even though there is still no light source nor any mechanism to blank out the non-existent light source to make it become night. The bible then separates the land from the water and has grasses seeding vegetation and fruit trees (implying flowering plants) in the absence of a light source or insects topollinate the flowersto produce the fruits. Tell me, how do we have three days and nights pass without any light coming from the sun? The bible claims that the earth was a water world *before the sun existed,* so what scientists agree with that insane proposition?

“For the attention of T(heist) Jones…”. You again start with a lie. You just cannot help yourself. I’ve challenged you to provide evidence of this indoctrinated belief of yours and you didn’t have supporting evidence. What we discovered is that when I say evidence, you automatically assumed I meant proof due to your indoctrination. But when you say evidence (related to the possibility of a god) you assume you simply mean pieces of evidence not necessarily convincing and definitely not proof. You need to stop trying to throw in lies and lies that have plenty of evidence showing they are lies. We will wait on the other topics in this thread until you can do this “The topic…shut up.”

And I will be extra kind for you. The statement of “Mr. Ireland says the Bible considers homosexuality to be “abomination” and has nothing positive to say about homosexuals or homosexuality while referring to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 as his evidence” is untrue in several ways. Those were your items you referenced, I don’t believe they are what Stephen directly referenced. In addition, it is not what Stephen said, it is what he claimed. In addition, he made, even according to you, an absolute statement meaning he cannot just provide evidence, he needs to provide proof to meet the burden. He never did. In addition, that’s not what he said. You see if you want to really have this discussion, you need to stop lying about who made a claim, need to stop lying about what Stephen said and actually quote the discussion and related discussions, etc. Until that time you are deliberately taking things out of context because you want to have a different argument, one where you lie and say I made some claim when I didn’t, I just refuted Stephen’s unsupported claim. So do some digging if you want but your attempt to move the goal posts and strawman will not be entertained.

@@tjones5719 You are the liar. Your challenge to me was issued by you as a result of me challenging you to provide evidence that the chapter and verse references I had listed as showing that the bible has a negative disposition towards homosexuality were "Cherrypicked" and that _"The Bible does not say that about having sex with men, "_ when I cited Leviticus 18: 22 and Leviticus 20: 13 Your challenge was _"Here is the challenge for John. List out at least a dozen separate books chapters and verses from the Bible that have some influence (direct or indirect) on the views on homosexuality. Six of them should be negative, six of them should be positive."_ and you skewed the playing field such that you would be the judge of my success in producing the twelve chapter and verse references knowing already that there are no references however vague and indirect in which the bible has any positive influence on or representation of homosexuality, and that you would "win" if you made a single claim that made no reference to the subject matter but that you could convince yourself was an overwhelming victory so that you could start a new thread bragging of your defeat of John Lyle aka ergonomover, aka Nehemiah Scudder, aka Ω, aka Scientist Flanders etc ad nauseam. Instead I called for an independent jury to decide the victor, that "jury of our peers" to include anybody who has posted in this video in the year preceding your acceptance of my terms, and for you to post all six of the chapter and verse references that you falsely claim have a positive influence on the subject.. From that point on you have ducked the issue, preferring to hide behind a smokescreen of lies and misdirections. You keep attacking the preamble in my posts as the most important issue even in this thread, in which I clearly state that the issue is your dishionesty over whether or not the bible condemns homosexuality as an abomination and whether or not the text of Leviticus 20: 13 includes a mandatory death penalty for homosexuals. You have provided no evidence that the _"“What does the Bible say about homosexuality?” article doesn’t even describe what your book says accurately. "_ as you claimed to Mr Ireland, nor have you provided any evidence to support your claim that _"The Bible does not say that about having sex with men, the lust is about forcing their sexual desires onto someone outside of a loving relationship, it had nothing to do with them being men."_ In reality the bible only mentions lust in reference to same sex activity in that the lust is directed "unnaturally" towards the same gender, not that it is directed other than in a loving relationship. Leviticus contains no exception for "a loving relationship" while imposing a mandatory death penalty "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman," I have listed no fewer than eight chapters and verses from the bible that have some negative influence (direct or indirect) on the views on homosexuality including a mandatory death penalty for any participant, with no mitigating circumstance (ranging from "rape victim" to "in a loving relationship"), and now challenge you to list your six chapters and verses from the bible that have some positive influence (direct or indirect) on the views on homosexuality. Put up or shut up.

@@tjones5719 You are the liar. Your challenge to me was issued by you as a result of me challenging you to provide evidence that the chapter and verse references I had listed as showing that the bible has a negative disposition towards homosexuality were "Cherrypicked" and that _"The Bible does not say that about having sex with men, "_ when I cited Leviticus 18: 22 and Leviticus 20: 13 Your challenge was _"Here is the challenge for John. List out at least a dozen separate books chapters and verses from the Bible that have some influence (direct or indirect) on the views on homosexuality. Six of them should be negative, six of them should be positive."_ and you skewed the playing field such that you would be the judge of my success in producing the twelve chapter and verse references knowing already that there are no references however vague and indirect in which the bible has any positive influence on or representation of homosexuality, and that you would "win" if you made a single claim that made no reference to the subject matter but that you could convince yourself was an overwhelming victory so that you could start a new thread bragging of your defeat of John Lyle aka ergonomover, aka Nehemiah Scudder, aka Ω, aka Scientist Flanders etc ad nauseam. Instead I called for an independent jury to decide the victor, that "jury of our peers" to include anybody who has posted in this video in the year preceding your acceptance of my terms, and for you to post all six of the chapter and verse references that you falsely claim have a positive influence on the subject.. From that point on you have ducked the issue, preferring to hide behind a smokescreen of lies and misdirections. You keep attacking the preamble in my posts as the most important issue even in this thread, in which I clearly state that the issue is your dishionesty over whether or not the bible condemns homosexuality as an abomination and whether or not the text of Leviticus 20: 13 includes a mandatory death penalty for homosexuals. You have provided no evidence that the _"“What does the Bible say about homosexuality?” article doesn’t even describe what your book says accurately. "_ as you claimed to Mr Ireland, nor have you provided any evidence to support your claim that _"The Bible does not say that about having sex with men, the lust is about forcing their sexual desires onto someone outside of a loving relationship, it had nothing to do with them being men."_ In reality the bible only mentions lust in reference to same sex activity in that the lust is directed "unnaturally" towards the same gender, not that it is directed other than in a loving relationship. Leviticus contains no exception for "a loving relationship" while imposing a mandatory death penalty "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman," I have listed no fewer than eight chapters and verses from the bible that have some negative influence (direct or indirect) on the views on homosexuality including a mandatory death penalty for any participant, with no mitigating circumstance (ranging from "rape victim" to "in a loving relationship"), and now challenge you to list your six chapters and verses from the bible that have some positive influence (direct or indirect) on the views on homosexuality. Put up or shut up.

@@tjones5719 And again you lie. Both Mr Ireland and myself have referred to Leviticus 18: 22 and 20: 13 as well as several other chapter and verse references. The article he copied fromfocuses on Romans 1:26-27 and First Corinthians 6:9, but Mr Ireland has also referenced both of the Leviticus verses as well as several others while debating the biblical stance on homosexuality. But again, the topic of discussion in this particular thread is the bible's attitude towards homosexuality, not what Mr Ireland said, or what he deleted. I have listed no fewer than eight chapters and verses from the bible that have some negative influence (direct or indirect) on the views on homosexuality including a mandatory death penalty for any participant, with no mitigating circumstance (ranging from "rape victim" to "in a loving relationship"), and now challenge you to list your six chapters and verses from the bible that have some positive influence (direct or indirect) on the views on homosexuality. Put up or shut up.

I started saying to Stephen “Giving you a heads up that you plagiarized again. You said it was helpful when I pointed it out previously “My bad you are right I didn’t add the authors/pastors name to this article.””

Stephen responded “Yes thx again for keeping on my toes I will have to find the source of this article or knowing you, you have already google it so can post so can post the source on this thread please. (I had this article in notes without the source.) While your here what is your position on wether Jesus existed?” Now note how he makes an excuse (he did the same thing in two other threads) about not having the source. Note also how in the recent past he used the fact he plagiarized (that’s not in question) as a reason he had to delete the thread but he makes no such suggestion here and in fact hasn’t deleted for that reason. This is big lie one of his. He lies why he deletes. Instead the evidence shows he is running or wanting more attention. This is the other thread where he deleted supposedly because of plagiarism ““My bad you are right I didn’t add the authors/pastors name to this article. I think I know what happened. As I was copying a pasting articles into notes(on iPhone) I inevitably delete irrelevant stuff added. Like photo’s, adds etc When removing Kyle’s photo I also removed his name which I’ve now added back in to the article and will repost and delete this thread. And you say there’s not practical reasons to delete threads and repost”.

Then he proceeds before I responded “Trolling Jones I just remembered why I didn’t put the source with this material in my notes. When I post anything with the source it auto removes the whole post. I’ve already tired to post it twice and it gets removed. I’ll try again posting on 3 separate lines and see if it stays. Ps. I do notice when I have any little drama like this you see it as an opportunity to troll me and make out like I have some sort of weird sinister motive Maybe stating this pattern of behaviour by you may stop you gaslighting here. Let’s see” Note again he makes excuses again trying to protect the image of himself. This is consistent with his NPD. Note he is saying he will try to post the source. Note also how on a perfectly legitimate statement that he plagiarized (he didn’t dispute it and actually said thanks and took action to delete a thread supposedly because of it) he now turns negative by both name calling me as well as saying I am coming up with weird motives of his when it is this post of his that has him coming up with weird motives like lying that I troll him. Just his typical projection of his flaws.

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ Stephen then posted four different posts that has him saying he is trying to get the source posted - you can see these on the video I just posted on my channel but they started 1) “Note I was in the midst of problem solving…” 2) “Put source on 3 separate lines and still didn’t work…” 3) “Source…” where he actually listed the source backwards 4) “Wow even backward didn’t work…” Note this all shows he was not only claiming to have worked on sourcing but also placed the source in the thread so actually did it.

After all his dragging of feet and making so many excuses but after he posted the source, I wanted to put to rest just how easy it is to post sources. I posted for all three threads all in one post. “you whine and complain so much and then feign incompetence. Look here are sources for the three threads Did Jesus say he’d return in the disciples lifetime - source The Gospel Coalition. Slavery in the Old Testament - source Australia Christian Alliance 55 Old Testament Prophecies About Jesus - source Jesus Film Project Not too difficult is it.”

“Over the past year, Stephen Ireland has opened and deleted several threads discussing the biblical attitude towards homosexuality and in those threads has cited chapter and verse to where it does precisely that while expressing his total support for that stance.” Nice lies and projection of your flaw. 1) Note how you do the same pointing out of Stephen deleting several threads (you don’t truly believe that is a good or normal thing so pointing it out is according to you negative). Yet you complain I point this out when you do the same. 2) It is incorrect as the posts I have referenced did not give chapter and verse in most cases. 3) It is also incorrect as any chapter and verse happened to be given in some cases actually contradicted the point that Stephen claimed. 4) None of what was provided conveyed other than cherry picks rather than the full biblical view. So the stance Stephen has taken was never supported. 5) Some of Stephen’s arguments like “One clue is in the way God created us and the function of our bodies. Did you notice the plumbing. Men are certainly encouraged to love each other but without sexual intimacy.” Is easily debunked because of the erogenous zone being the prostate for men. And I have refuted these poor arguments that are inaccurate. What is ironic in all of this, your support of Stephen’s stance on this and acting like what he has presented is solid means you are supporting a god. Because if you don’t disagree like about the plumbing then you are claiming a gods design is a reasonable conclusion. It is not that you really believe that but you need to argue, you need to be negative because you are hurt, so you are lashing out. Notice all the threads you have disengaged from (and that’s not negative that’s a fact). You couldn’t support all your lies, you couldn’t take the challenge to show you truly analyzed the Bible on this topic, etc. You fall flat on your face and you are more than just frustrated, you are furious. Calm down and have a logical and evidence based discussion with me, that will be much more successful than what you have tried the past year or more. We will wait on the rest of your rant “T. Jones has…adherents.”

@@tjones5719 _"1) Note how you do the same pointing out of Stephen deleting several threads (you don’t truly believe that is a good or normal thing so pointing it out is according to you negative). Yet you complain I point this out when you do the same."_ Irrelevant and a red herring. Mr Ireland posted that the bible opposes homosexuality, you said _"The Bible does not take issue with homosexuality but rather lust."_ Where did you get this information, or did you make it up like your list of stances on religion? _"2) It is incorrect as the posts I have referenced did not give chapter and verse in most cases"_ So what chapter and verse reference did you give to support your claim that the Bible does not take issue with homosexuality but rather lust which would lead people to believe that the death penalty imposed in Leviticus 20: 13 would not apply if the act were engaged in inside of a loving relationship. _"3) It is also incorrect as any chapter and verse happened to be given in some cases actually contradicted the point that Stephen claimed."_You haven't cited any chapter and verse, or any other evidence to support your claim, making you a liar. _"4) None of what was provided conveyed other than cherry picks rather than the full biblical view."_ Cherrypicking is the suppression of evidence, usually stronger evidence than that supporting the claim. I have frequently cited the example of Dr Andrew Wakefield ignoring all studies that showed there to be no causal link between the MMR Vaccine and Autism while claiming the few flawed studies that indicated the possibility of a link to be overwhelming and valid. You still haven't shown a preponderance of bible verses dealing directly or indirectly with the subject that are in any way supportive towards homosexuals or homosexuality. Therefore the eight chapter and verse references I have cited are not "Cherrypicked, and neither are they "Cherrypicked" as a consequence of Mr Ireland citing the same evidence from the same source, that source being the bible. _"5) Some of Stephen’s arguments like “One clue is in the way God created us and the function of our bodies. Did you notice the plumbing. Men are certainly encouraged to love each other but without sexual intimacy."_ The bible asserts that we are "designed" and for anybody working on the assumption that the bible is correct, the reference is extremely indirect but is a criticism of homosexuality. The "debunk" is not of the biblical attitude towards homosexuality but a debunking of the idea that we were designed. If the hypothetical "designer" were as homophobic as verses like Leviticus 18: 22 and Leviticus 20: 13 claim, that designer would certainly not put an erogenous zone just there. Put it up a woman's ringpiece so that when the river runs red a man can take the dirt road instead, and she can still get her jollies, but leave it out of a man's anatomy. _"What is ironic in all of this, your support of Stephen’s stance on this"_ And now you resort to downright lies and libel. Quote where I said that Homosexuality is an abomination or apologise for lying. Just to hammer home the point about you being a liar I will repost my own stance on the issue in bold text. *My stance is that Yes, the bible condemns homosexuality but while Mr Ireland approves that condemnation, I oppose it.* And just so that there can be no ambiguity I will resort to repetition as a form of reinforcement, something that you despise. *My stance is that Yes, the bible condemns homosexuality but while Mr Ireland approves that condemnation, I oppose it.* Mr Ireland posted that the bible opposes homosexuality, and you claimed that you know better, that the bible does not take issue with homosexuality, and that both Mr Ireland and his various sources are wrong, and that the article doesn’t even describe what the book says accurately. despite this, you cannot refute the fact that the contents of Leviticus 18: 22 and Leviticus 20: 13 exist. Unlike Mr Ireland, I am not arguing that the contents are absolutely correct but unlike you I am not trying to pretend that those verses do not exist. _"It is not that you really believe that but you need to argue,"_ It is not a matter of "belief" I know that the verses I cited are exactly where I said they are, you however are the one making stuff up while ignoring anything that goes against your preconceived notion of what the bible *should* say. I stood back from the previous thread because you had fixed your focus on a comment in the preamble and had refused to move on from the preamble to the relevant points, that the bible does condemn homosexuality and that you are not able to cite the six separate books chapters and verses from the Bible that have some positive influence (direct or indirect) on the views on homosexuality that you have implied exist. I am calm, despite you having libelled me. I will await your apology and your six bible references that are positive towards homosexuals and homosexuality.

⁠@@John_Lyle​​⁠​⁠”Irrelevant and a red herring”. If that is true then you committed the red herring and were bringing up irrelevant topics to discuss. What you really mean is “yep I don’t have a leg to stand on and shouldn’t have mentioned it so I want to now call this irrelevant.” We will wait for you to your own admission, stop bringing up red herrings and irrelevant items “Mr Ireland…homosexuality.”

@@tjones5719 It is irrelevant and a red herring because the topic of this thread is not Mr Ireland's habit of deleting threads for whatever his reason may be. The topic of this thread is your false claims that the bible does not take issue with homosexuality when there are multiple chapter and verse references where it absolutely *does* take issue with homosexuality, and so far you have been completely unable to show evidence supporting your assertions that _"The Bible does not say that about having sex with men"_ when in reality it absolutely *does* say that about having sex with other men. *Leviticus 18: 22* Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. *Leviticus 20: 13* If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Now cite your chapter and verse references where the bible has some positive influence (direct or indirect) on the views on homosexuality. You have indicated that there should be six from your challenge to me to provide six such chapter and verse citations, so what are they?

@@John_Lyle “It is irrelevant and a red herring because the topic of this thread is not Mr Ireland's habit of deleting threads for whatever his reason may be.” Nice lie but the topic of the thread is anything you stated as well as context for the thread and you started off this thread with “Over the past year, Stephen Ireland….” So the only one who would be bringing up what you now claim is irrelevant and a red herring is you. We will wait on the rest while until you stop lying, acknowledge your lie and take ownership for your inconsistency “The topic of…are they?”

2/7 So they’d contract themselves out, working in the households-often in apprentice-like positions-until they paid back their debts. One-half to two-thirds of white immigrants to Britain’s colonies were indentured servants. Likewise, an Israelite strapped for shekels might become an indentured servant to pay off his debt to a “boss” or “employer” (’adon). Calling him a “master” is often way too strong a term, just as the term ‘ebed (“servant, employee”) typically shouldn’t be translated “slave.” John Goldingay comments that “there is nothing inherently lowly or undignified about being an ‘ebed.” Indeed, it is an honorable, dignified term. Even when the terms buy, sell, or acquire are used of servants/employees, they don’t mean the person in question is “just property.” Think of a sports player today who gets “traded” to another team, to which he “belongs.” Yes, teams have “owners,” but we’re hardly talking about slavery here! Rather, these are formal contractual agreements, which is what we find in Old Testament servanthood/employee arrangements. One example of this contracted employer/employee relationship was Jacob’s working for Laban for seven years so that he might marry his daughter Rachel. In Israel, becoming a voluntary servant was commonly a starvation-prevention measure; a person had no collateral other than himself, which meant either service or death. While most people worked in the family business, servants would contribute to it as domestic workers. Contrary to the critics, this servanthood wasn’t much different experientially from paid employment in a cash economy like ours.” P124-125 What do the Old Testament Scriptures say about ‘slavery’? First, one must appreciate that much of the narrative of the Pentateuch or the Torah ie the first 5 books of the OT revolves around Yahweh actually delivering His people FROM slavery in Egypt rather than instructing His people TO enslave others. It is not logical that the same God that spends most of the Torah freeing slaves and taking them to the ‘promised land’ would then promote slavery. Second, one must clarify what one means by ‘slave’. The word rendered ‘slave’ in the OT is the Hebrew word ‘ebed’. This word has multiple means, just like most Hebrew words. The Biblical Hebrew vocabulary is much smaller than the modern English one and the same word usually had many different meanings depending on context and type of literature. The most common usage for this word was in the context where a ‘servant’ or ‘employee’ type relationship would be described. When one examines the Hebrew text in detail, it is very clear that the Bible speaks of a master- servant relationship where the servant is to be well-treated, released after 6 years and even blessed with material possessions after release. Let us look at Deuteronomy 15:1-18. I have placed emphasis on parts that highlight this. ““At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release of debts. And this is the form of the release: Every creditor who has lent anything to his neighbor shall release it; he shall not require it of his neighbor or his brother, because it is called the LORD’s release. Of a foreigner you may require it; but you shall give up your claim to what is owed by your brother, except when there may be no poor among you; for the LORD will greatly bless you in the land which the LORD your God is giving you to possess as an inheritance- only if you carefully obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe with care all these commandments which I command you today. For the LORD your God will bless you just as He promised you; you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow; you shall reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over you. “If there is among you a poor man of your brethren, within any of the gates in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand from your poor brother, but you shall open your hand wide to him and willingly lend him sufficient for his need, whatever he needs. Beware lest there be a wicked thought in your heart, saying, ‘The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand,’ and your eye be evil against your poor brother and you give him nothing, and he cry out to the LORD against you, and it become sin among you. You shall surely give to him, and your heart should not be grieved when you give to him, because for this thing the LORD your God will bless you in all your works and in all to which you put your hand. For the poor will never cease from the land; therefore I command you, saying,

3/7 ‘You shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor and your needy, in your land.’ “If your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you and serves you six years, then in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. And when you send him away free from you, you shall not let him go away empty-handed; you shall supply him liberally from your flock, from your threshing floor, and from your winepress. From what the LORD your God has blessed you with, you shall give to him. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this thing today. And if it happens that he says to you, ‘I will not go away from you,’ because he loves you and your house, since he prospers with you, then you shall take an awl and thrust it through his ear to the door, and he shall be your servant forever. Also to your female servant you shall do likewise. It shall not seem hard to you when you send him away free from you; for he has been worth a double hired servant in serving you six years. Then the LORD your God will bless you in all that you do.” Deuteronomy 15:1-18 NKJV Third , the Hebrew text actually had a whole series of complex laws that ensured that servants in Israel had significant rights. These included: A. Dignity as people created in the image of God. ““You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether one of your brethren or one of the aliens who is in your land within your gates. Each day you shall give him his wages, and not let the sun go down on it, for he is poor and has set his heart on it; lest he cry out against you to the LORD, and it be sin to you.” Deuteronomy 24:14-15 NKJV Paul Copan notes on page 129 that Muhammed Dandamayev’s addresses this in his essay on slavery and the Old Testament for the Anchor Bible Dictionary “We have in the Bible the first appeals in world literature to treat slaves as human beings for their own sake and not just in the interests of their masters.” Protection from abuse or harm ““And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property. Exodus 21:20-21 The word rendered ‘punish’ actually means to take vengeance, to avenge and was often associated with the death penalty. Some may look at verse 21 and say that it condone treating people as ‘property’. A deeper analysis offers an alternative view: that the ‘property’ being discussed is the money or time lost by the owner because of the injury to his servant. Again Paul Copan discusses this on page 136 Ancient Near Eastern scholar Harry Hoffner (a Hittitologist at the University of Chicago) rejects the common rendering “he [the servant] is his money” in favor of this one: “that [fee] is his money/ silver.” This “fee” reading is based on the context of Exodus 21:18-19 (part of a section on punishments dealing with quarrels and accidental killing): “If men have a quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but remains in bed, if he gets up and walks around outside on his staff, then he who struck him shall go unpunished; he shall only pay for his loss of time, and shall take care of him until he is completely healed.” Like the modified Hittite law that required masters who had harmed their slaves to pay a physician to provide medical treatment, so here the employer had to pay the medical bills for the servant he had wounded. In verse 21, the Hebrew pronoun hu refers not to the servant (“he”) but to the fee (“that”) paid to the doctor tending to the wounded servant. Hoffner writes, “The fact that the master provided care at his own expense would be a significant factor when the judges respond to a charge of intentional homicide.”Are these Exodus laws perfect, universal ones for all people? No, but in this and other aspects, we continually come across improved legislation for Israelite society in contrast to surrounding ancient Near Eastern cultures. As the Jewish scholar Nahum Sarna observes about this passage, “This law-the protection of slaves from maltreatment by their masters-is found nowhere else in the entire existing corpus of ancient Near Eastern legislation.”

4/7 Were released if injured “If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth.” 26-27 NKJV Were not sent back to their masters if they escaped You shall not give back to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you. He may dwell with you in your midst, in the place which he chooses within one of your gates, where it seems best to him; you shall not oppress him.” Deuteronomy 23:15-16 NKJV Were not kidnapped or kept against their will. ““If a man is found kidnapping any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and mistreats him or sells him, then that kidnapper shall die; and you shall put away the evil from among you.” Deuteronomy 24:7 NKJV Even foreigners or non Israelites were protected. There were laws that gave them a similar status as ‘refugees’ or ‘illegal aliens’ in US today. This is vastly different to being treated as a chattel slave. “‘And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” Leviticus 19:33-34 NKJV ““You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”Exodus 22:21 NKJV ““Also you shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the heart of a stranger, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”Exodus 23:9 NKJV “‘When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corners of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather every grape of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger: I am the LORD your God.” Leviticus 19:9-10 NKJV “‘If one of your brethren becomes poor, and falls into poverty among you, then you shall help him, like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with you.” Leviticus 25:35 NKJV Some of these ‘foreigners’ could actually get very rich and this is not possible if you are a chattel slave. “‘Now if a sojourner or stranger close to you becomes rich, and one of your brethren who dwells by him becomes poor, and sells himself to the stranger or sojourner close to you, or to a member of the stranger’s family, after he is sold he may be redeemed again. One of his brothers may redeem him;” Leviticus 25:47-48 NKJV Finally, servitude was TEMPORARY not permanent and was VOLUNTARY not involuntary. Every 7 years debts were forgiven and every 50 years, in the year of Jubilee, mortgages were cancelled with land returned to the original owners. Therefore, anyone going into indentured servitude for a debt KNEW that this would be a temporary situation.

5/7 “But if he is not able to have it restored to himself, then what was sold shall remain in the hand of him who bought it until the Year of Jubilee; and in the Jubilee it shall be released, and he shall return to his possession.” Leviticus 25:13 NKJV Leviticus 25:28 NKJV “As a hired servant and a sojourner he shall be with you, and shall serve you until the Year of Jubilee. And then he shall depart from you-he and his children with him-and shall return to his own family. He shall return to the possession of his fathers.” Leviticus 25:40-41 NKJV Conclusion What is sometimes called ‘slavery’ in the OT is actually much more like ‘indentured servitude’. It was a voluntary and temporary solution to a long term problem ie poverty. It is much like the role of employees today and the OT has what we may regard as the world’s first occupational health and safety (OH&S) code. The treatment of ‘servants in the Old Testaments is nothing like the chattel slavery that applied in the Antebellum South of the US. Hebrew scholar J.A.Motyer sums this up as follows: ‘Hebrew has no vocabulary of slavery, only of servanthood. (The Message of Exodus’,2005, p239).Therefore any comparison between the OT and the Antebellum South is a false one and the proposal that protecting religious freedom would allow Christians to own slaves is just as fallacious. Slavery in the New Testament Context The New Testament (NT) is different to the OT in that there is no Theocracy and the Christians are not the ruling class. They are outcasts and operating within a pagan, pluralistic society. They are also operating under a government system that condoned and promoted slavery. Some have estimated that in the first century 85-90% of the population of Imperial Rome consisted of slaves (A. A Ruprecht, A dictionary of Paul and his letters, 1993) Therefore, what the early Church could or could not do about slavery living in the Roman Empire would have been very different to what the people of ancient Israel could do living under the law of Moses under a king anointed by Yahweh. What does the New Testament say about ‘slavery’ The New Testament is very clear in stating that all men are equal before God and that all disciples of Jesus are equal ‘in Christ’. This is summed up very well by the following verses: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28 NKJV “Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s slave.” I Corinthians 7:20-22 NKJV Nonetheless, the early Christians had to accept that the ‘law of the land’ under Rome allowed for slavery. Just as the Bible is ‘counter-cultural’ on other ethical matters, it promotes treating ‘slaves’ and ‘servants’ very differently than the way they would be treated under the average pagan Roman. The Bible exhorts Christians to actually be kind to servants and slaves and to give them the same justice that Christians would want, because The Lord is watching their conduct. We see this in the following verses.

6/7 “Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ; not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, with goodwill doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.” Ephesians 6:5-9 NKJV “Masters, give your bondservants what is just and fair, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.” Colossians 4:1 NKJV In Paul’s letter to Philemon he encourages Philemon to be kind to a ‘runaway slave’ and to receive him as a ‘brother’. “For perhaps he departed for a while for this purpose, that you might receive him forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave-a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.” Philemon 1:15-16 NKJV In Paul’s first letter to Timothy, we see Paul stating that kidnapping or taking people into forced slavery listed among a number of behaviours that were contrary to the teachings of Christ. “knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,” I Timothy 1:9-10 NKJV At the end of Paul’s letter to the Romans he mentions individuals who were ‘co-workers’ or ‘fellow slaves’ for the sake of Gospel with Paul. Their names were Andronicus and Urbanus and those were ‘common slave names’ according to Paul Copan (p 153) “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. Greet Urbanus, our fellow worker in Christ, and Stachys, my beloved.” Romans 16:7, 9 NKJV Conclusion When one examines the text of the NT regarding slavery, the position of the NT writers becomes clear: whilst they could not prevent slavery from occurring, they categorically condemned it as behaviour worthy of a disciple of Jesus Christ. Despite this, while the NT authors could not eliminate slavery in the Roman Empire they did the best they could which was to exhort and encourage Roman citizens to treat their slaves well. In this sense they were truly ‘counter-cultural’ and true ‘social revolutionaries.

2/2 “Did Jesus Say He’d Return within His Disciples’ Lifetimes?” “This observation makes the “meeting up with the apostles before their mission trip was over” interpretation unlikely, along with various other interpretations. For example, some have suggested that the coming of the Son of Man could refer to Jesus’s resurrection, to his sending of the Spirit at Pentecost, or to his invisible coming in judgment against Israel with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Sometimes interpreters have tried to strengthen their case for one of these by reinterpreting one or more of the other occurrences of the Son of Man’s coming in Matthew in the same way. Better Approach A better approach pays more attention to the larger context of verse 23 within Jesus’s discourse on mission in Matthew 10. For starters, verses 5-15 seem limited to the immediate circumstances of Jesus sending out the Twelve without accompanying them. Many of the teachings in these 11 verses cannot refer to the longer-term mission of Jesus’s followers. Most notably, Jesus rescinds the restriction to going nowhere among Samaritans and Gentiles but only to the lost people in Israel (vv. 5-6) when he gives his Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20). Nor is it likely that Jesus intended his followers to never take money or extra provisions with them (vv. 9-10) in their later missionary activity, nor always to rely on others’ hospitality for their room and board (vv. 11-12). As far into his message as verse 15, he is still speaking of literal towns in first-century Israel. In verse 16, however, he transitions to a longer-term perspective. While it is perennially true that Christ’s followers should be as “shrewd as snakes” yet “as innocent as doves” (v. 16), this is particularly appropriate for their ministry after his death and resurrection. Verses 17-42 are regularly punctuated by warnings against rejection, persecution, hostility, arrest, imprisonment, beatings and even martyrdom for allegiance to Jesus (see esp. vv. 17-23a, immediately preceding our mysterious half-verse). Most of this didn’t begin until after Jesus’s death, resurrection, and sending of the Spirit, and it has continued in various parts of the world ever since. The Great Commission to make disciples of all nations includes Israel just as much as the rest of the world’s nationalities. Since verse 23b appears in this precise context, within the same verse as prediction of persecution, it’s best to understand Jesus as teaching the perennially incomplete nature of the mission to the Jews, with “cities of Israel” understood both literally and (by extension) to refer to all Jewish people everywhere. After all, the Great Commission to make disciples of all nations (or people groups) includes Israel just as much as the rest of the world’s nationalities. So the practical upshot of Matthew 10:23 is simply to get busy. Until the Son of Man comes, all of us who bear his name have more work to do.”

Giving you a heads up that you plagiarized again. You said it was helpful when I pointed it out previously “My bad you are right I didn’t add the authors/pastors name to this article.”

@tjones5719 Yes thx again for keeping on my toes I will have to find the source of this article or knowing you, you already google it so can post the source on this thread please🙏 (I had this article in notes without the source😔) While your here whats your position on the subject matter?

@@stephenireland3816 “Trolling Jones”. Nice lie and projection. You just told me “Yes thx again…” but yet you come back and name call your classic lie and projection. “I just remembered why I didn’t put the source with this material in my notes. When I post anything with the source it auto removes the whole post. I’ve already tired to post it twice and it gets removed. I’ll try again posting on 3 separate lines and see if it stays.” Nice inability to problem solve by you. Just whining and making excuses by you. “Ps. I do notice when I have any little drama like this you see it as an opportunity to troll me and make out like I have some sort of weird sinister motive”. Nice lie as I told you that you had plagiarized, that’s a fact not some type of troll or looking at all at motive. You really want to avoid blame for something you did. “Maybe stating this pattern of behaviour by you may stop you gaslighting here. Let’s see”. Nice lie as there is no gaslight by me but you pretending I made up some type of motive is the gaslight. This is the key to you. Any blame you cast onto someone is really you admitting you know that flaw is within you, you just cannot handle it so you project. And other times you will “predict” something I will call out because again you know it’s true and you want to defuse it. It’s all pretty sad behavior by you.

@@stephenireland3816​​⁠you whine and complain so much and then feign incompetence. Look here are sources for the three threads Did Jesus say he’d return in the disciples lifetime - source The Gospel Coalition. Slavery in the Old Testament - source Australia Christian Alliance 55 Old Testament Prophecies About Jesus - source Jesus Film Project Not too difficult is it.

_"It seems that Stephen needs to run each time he ends up looking bad"_ Another session of gloating by T.Jones to match her usual triumphalism and need to be recognised for her superiority over all others. _"We see that AMT is the latest in an unfortunate list of those who run rather than have a discussion."_ _"Do I know melters or do I know melters (I do). I predicted Tore Jens Oftenæs was “going to run away”"_ _"There has been quite a few who failed to acknowledge my discussions with a user starting with “jj” so I decided to repost one of those items. "_ For somebody who claimed to be willing to treat people with respect you certainly have a hard time not being a nasty piece of work. You even preceded your claim to be reasonable and assertion that you would treat people with respect with a disrespectful take-down. _"2) I am neither a theist nor an atheist. (And if you cannot wrap your head around that, you probably shouldn’t bother responding as you do not have the questioning and critical thinking skills needed for our discussion.)"_

@@John_Lyle “Another session of gloating by T.Jones”. Nice lie. Note something, you don’t deny that it is a fact that Stephen runs. Me merely pointing out that which Ergo, you and I likely agree is not gloating. Note also that you don’t deny the content of the post supports this statement as well. Again this shows this is not gloating but rather a proper introduction to what follows. You also don’t acknowledge the context of the original thread and because you don’t have that context you cannot accurately evaluate my statement aside from it being supported by the evidence. You seem to be really desperate to support theism and Stephen (more than I ever have) which is showing how much you project that flaw onto me. Now does that make me think you are a theist. No that would be a non sequitur but seeing you have even less examples of that for me, your concluding differently is just your indoctrination speaking. You can go on your long whine session about other items but it doesn’t stick as it just is an outlet for complaining about your failures “to match…discussion.)””

But if gods end goal was to sacrifice himself, you cannot claim murder, more like assisted suicide or pulling the plug according to instructions.

2/7 Point #1: Did Caesar Augustus ever issue a decree around this time? He did indeed. Multiple historians record it: Historians have not been able to find any empire-wide census or registration in the years 7-5 B.C., but there is a reference to such a registration of all the Roman people not long before 5 February 2 B.C. written by Caesar Augustus himself: “While I was administering my thirteenth consulship [2 B.C.] the senate and the equestrian order and the entire Roman people gave me the title Father of my Country” (Res Gestae 35, italics added). This award was given to Augustus on 5 February 2 B.C., therefore the registration of citizen approval must have taken place in 3 B.C. Orosius, in the fifth century, also said that Roman records of his time revealed that a census was indeed held when Augusts was made “the first of men” -an apt description of his award “Father of the Country” -at a time when all the great nations gave an oath of obedience to Augustus (6:22, 7:2). Orosius dated the census to 3 B.C. Josephus substantiates that an oath of obedience to Augustus was required in Judea not long before the death of Herod (Antiquities I7:4I-45). This agrees nicely in a chronological sense with what Luke records. But more than that, an inscription found in Paphlagonia (eastern Turkey), also dated to 3 B.C., mentions an "oath sworn by all the people in the land at the altars of Augustus in the temples of Augustus in the various districts." And dovetailing precisely with this inscription, the early (fifth century) Armenian historian, Moses of Khoren, said the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was conducted by Roman agents in Armenia where they set up "the image of Augustus Caesar in every temple.'' The similarity of this language is strikingly akin to the wording on the Paphlagonian inscription describing the oath taken in 3 B.C. These indications can allow us to reasonably conclude that the oath (of Josephus, the Paphlagonian inscription, and Orosius) and the census (mentioned by Luke, Orosius, and Moses of Khoren) were one and the same. All of these things happened in 3 B.C." [Ernest Martin, Chrons Kristos Cairos: 89-90] Thus we have our first criterion met. Caesar Augustus did indeed issue a decree in 3 B.C. that all the world should be registered. So far, Luke is spot-on.

3/7 Point #2: Did Quirinius hold a high office in Syria at this time, such that he could be referred to as hēgemoneuontos of Syria? He did indeed. The historians Tacitus and Strabo record that Quirinius led a campaign against the Homonadenses from 12 to 1 B.C. This tribe lived in the Taurus Mountains in Asia Minor, which was then a part of Syria. Quirinius led this campaign as a legate sent by the Roman Senate, a diplomatic representative with military authority. This gave Quirinius political power on par with a local governor. (Strabo, Geography 12.6.5; Tacitus, Annals 3.48). Luke assigns Quirinius the position of hēgemoneuontos, often translated “governor.” Yet the word refers simply to a high office denoting a local ruler. The word is not a precise identification of which office the person held, but rather that they ruled from a high position of power in general. Thus, history places Quirinius exactly where Luke says he was: occupying one of the most powerful offices in Syria in the final years of Herod’s reign. So far, Luke is 2 for 2.

4/7 Point #3: Did two registrations occur under Quirinius, such that one could be said to be “the first?” Indeed they did. Quirinius’ well-known census occurred in 6/7 A.D. It nearly led to the Jewish people revolting, as they held that a census ran contrary to God’s commands. A few years after the census concluded, Quirinius’ tenure as legate of Syria ended. Where, then, is the first census? Right in 3-2 B.C., as point #1 demonstrates. Some have speculated that the Greek word protos should not be translated “first,” but rather “before.” Thus, instead of Luke saying that this was the first census under Quirinius, it happened before the census of Quirinius. It’s a neat idea, but it doesn’t matter much in the end. Either way, Luke is recording that the events leading Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem occurred before the 6/7 A.D. census. Given that Quirinius was a hēgemoneuontos in Syria during the 3-2 B.C. registration, we know exactly when Luke was referring to.

5/7 Point#4: Did Rome ever take a census in subject kingdoms like Israel? Despite the objections of many skeptics today, Rome did precisely this. Tacitus tells us plainly: [Augustus] ordered a document to be produced and read. This contained a description of the resources of the State, of the number of citizens and allies under arms, of the fleets, subject kingdoms, provinces, taxes, direct and indirect, necessary expenses and customary bounties. All these details Augustus had written with his own hand, and had added a counsel, that the empire should be confined to its present limits, either from fear or out of jealousy." [Tacitus, Annals 1.11] Further: “Schürer did not think that Augustus would have a census taken in Palestine during Herod’s reign. Certainly Herod had enough autonomy as indicated by his being allowed to mint coins. However, the Romans did take a census in vassal kingdoms. In fact, in Venice a gravestone of a Roman officer was found which states that he was ordered by P. Sulpicius Quirinius to conduct a census of Apamea, a city of 117,000 inhabitants, located on the Orontes in Syria, which was an autonomous city-state that minted its own copper coins. In A.D. 36 under Tiberius a census was imposed on the client kingdom of Archelaus of Cappadocia. Again, the powerful Nabatean kings in Petra, who had the right to mint coins were, it seems, obliged to have the Roman financial officers in their domain.” [Hoehner, Harold W. (2010-06-29). Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Kindle Locations 105-124). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.] If the clear evidence of history tells us that Rome indeed conducted censuses in their subject kingdoms, we have no reason to doubt it.

6/7 Point #5: Did Rome require people to return to their hometowns to be registered? Indeed Rome did. Critics attack Luke’s record constantly over this detail. Why would Rome require people to go to their ancestral hometowns? Why would Rome care whether a person was registered in Nazareth or Bethlehem? Critics claim that Rome would never require such a thing, so Luke must have been mistaken. But archaeology is Luke’s greatest advocate. Many documents relating to censuses and registrations have been uncovered. They shed light on the subject, like Papyrus 904: Gaius Vibius Maximus, Praefect of Egypt, states: “The enrollment by household being held, it is necessary to notify all who, for any cause whatsoever, are outside their homes to return to their domestic hearths, that they may also accomplish the customary dispensation of enrollment and continue steadfastly in husbandry that belongs to them.” Roman Census Edict in Egypt (Papyrus 904) Rome commanded people to return to their “domestic hearths” for the purpose of registration. Why? A few reasons pop to mind: * It reduces the risk of counting people twice due to their movements. * It reduces the chances of people hiding from the census, as their family can testify to a person’s presence or absence. * It would be a nightmare of administration to try to figure out whether you’ve counted people twice in a land where people used common names constantly, and families used the same names generation after generation. Requiring people to return to their hometown reduces the complexity of the data recorded, making it easier to facilitate.

What a load of twatwaffle! Your video states that there were more censuses than the one by Quirinius, and that is indeed correct, but let me as you a question. _When was the last time the People's Republic of China carried out a census in Taiwan? they didn't and there would be a war if they tried to do that. Maybe in a few years time there will be such a war, and China will find itself in a position to carry out a census of Taiwan, but until then there are no PRC censuses of Taiwan. Prior to AD6, Archelaus was king in Judaea, Samaria, and Idumaea, but importantly *NOT* Galilee. So even in AD6, there would have been no census of people living in Galilee. The video claims 3 censuses 28BC, 8BC, and AD14 so let us take a look at those censuses and where Quirinius was at the time. In 28BC Octavian became a Consul, which was the highest elected position in the empire *below that of emperor* meaning that as one of a few people of the same rank, Octavian would not have been in a position to order an empire-wide census. That census would have been limited to assessing the newly captured territory of Egypt after the civil war and Cleopatra's intervention on the losing side. That census did not include Herod's kingdoms because while he spoke favourably of Anthony and Cleopatra he didn't commit any troops or resources and was able to convince Octavian that he would be more useful ruling a nominally independent satellite kingdom. The tributes Herod paid to Octavian, later titled "Augustus", came from Herods ownership of mining operations on Cyprus, not from taxes levied either by Herod or the Romans on Judaea.The census of 8BC was an empire wide census, but at that time Herod was still a client king of an independent nation, and since no Roman taxes were levied there were no Roman bureaucrats assessing Herod's kingdoms for taxes just as there are no Beijing bureaucrats assessing Taiwan for taxes. The census 0f AD14 was carried out at the death of Augustus so that his heir, Tiberius could rule more effectively. During the census of 28BC, Quirinius was not highly enough ranked to supervise any census, since he didn't become a Consul until 12BC. Once Quirinius rose to the rank of Consul Augustus appointed him as governor of Galatia and Paphlagonia (central Turkey), not Syria as Jacques More asserted in his video. Quirinius held the same rank as Varus, but was appointed to run a different province, not as a subordinate to Varus but as an equal in a different part of the empire. Quirinius intervening in Varus' administration of the province of Syria would be like George Patton intervening in Douglas MacArthur's troop deployments in WWII. More also misrepresents the status of Quirinius, claiming that Luke depicts Quirinius as "acting" leader. Luke 2:2 says _"2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)"_ or in the original koine Greek _"αυτη η απογραφη πρωτη εγενετο ηγεμονευοντος της συριας κυρηνιου"_ which again fails to indicate any "acting" rank. Ironically by citing Luke 3 and Pilate being governor More also shows another failure in Luke's ability as a historian since Pilate was never elevated to Consul rank and was never "ηγεμονευοντος" or governor, he was Praefect under first the absentee governor of Syria Lucius Aelius Lamia, and then for four years under Lucius Pomponius Flaccus, before being recalled to Rome and finally dismissed from office with his dismissal confirmed by Caligula. More tries and fails to redefine "being the governor" as only having "acting" authority, this is not correct. Joseph Biden *"being the President of the USA"* doesn't mean that he is only filling in for somebody else in their absence, just as Charles "being the king of England" indicates that Charles *IS* the king of England, not that he is a substitute standing in for king James during an extended illness.

John Lyle This link I posted is pretty short so I have post a more detailed article for you and possibly others atheists that addresses this common topic of contention. I often choose short video links because most people generally won’t invest time watching long video links (in my experience) I think it’s great we have this open forum of free speech to nut these things out. God says to humanity: “Come let us reason together” Ps. I find it interesting how differently you and Jones go about dealing with the material I post. Jones for the most part attacks me personally by continually calling into question my morality. You on the other hand focus primarily on the subject matter which I respect far more. I notice I’m far more serious in dealing with you and the more serous issues you raise. With Jones I’m far less serous and enjoy messing with her as you know😂 With combating Jones’s personality type I find not taking myself so seriously and humour an effective way I disarm their consistent negativity and personal attacks. I will confess I knew early on which buttons to push with our angry friend Jones😂

1/7 How was Jesus born in both Herod the Great's reign and Quirinius, Governor of Syria's rule if they were at least one year apart? Kyle Davison Bair Author/Pastor This is one of the most frequent attacks against Luke’s credibility. Attackers claim that Luke blundered massively, trying to set Jesus’ birth both during the time of Herod (Luke 1:5) and ten years later during Quirinius’ census (Luke 2:1). Yet the problem with the attack is simply this: History proves that Luke knew exactly what he was talking about. Quirinius indeed held a high office in Syria during the last few years of Herod’s reign. An Empire-wide registration was indeed held at this time. All the historical details Luke includes in the narrative of Jesus’ birth are true. Let me prove it to you. First, let’s look exactly at what Luke says, so we know precisely what to corroborate: In the days of Herod, king of Judea […] a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor [hēgemoneuontos] of Syria. And all went to be registered, each to his own town. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. (Luke 1:5, 2:1-5, ESV) Thus, we need to see verified: 1. Caesar Augustus decreeing that all the world (under his control) should be registered 2. Quirinius occupying a high office [hēgemoneuontos] in Syria 3. Two registrations occurring while Quirinius is in high office, such that one can be said to be “the first” 4. Rome including subject kingdoms like Israel in this registration 5. Rome requiring people to return to their hometowns to be registered 6. Herod dying after these events took place Easy enough.

2/7 Point #1: Did Caesar Augustus ever issue a decree around this time? He did indeed. Multiple historians record it: Historians have not been able to find any empire-wide census or registration in the years 7-5 B.C., but there is a reference to such a registration of all the Roman people not long before 5 February 2 B.C. written by Caesar Augustus himself: “While I was administering my thirteenth consulship [2 B.C.] the senate and the equestrian order and the entire Roman people gave me the title Father of my Country” (Res Gestae 35, italics added). This award was given to Augustus on 5 February 2 B.C., therefore the registration of citizen approval must have taken place in 3 B.C. Orosius, in the fifth century, also said that Roman records of his time revealed that a census was indeed held when Augusts was made “the first of men” -an apt description of his award “Father of the Country” -at a time when all the great nations gave an oath of obedience to Augustus (6:22, 7:2). Orosius dated the census to 3 B.C. Josephus substantiates that an oath of obedience to Augustus was required in Judea not long before the death of Herod (Antiquities I7:4I-45). This agrees nicely in a chronological sense with what Luke records. But more than that, an inscription found in Paphlagonia (eastern Turkey), also dated to 3 B.C., mentions an "oath sworn by all the people in the land at the altars of Augustus in the temples of Augustus in the various districts." And dovetailing precisely with this inscription, the early (fifth century) Armenian historian, Moses of Khoren, said the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was conducted by Roman agents in Armenia where they set up "the image of Augustus Caesar in every temple.'' The similarity of this language is strikingly akin to the wording on the Paphlagonian inscription describing the oath taken in 3 B.C. These indications can allow us to reasonably conclude that the oath (of Josephus, the Paphlagonian inscription, and Orosius) and the census (mentioned by Luke, Orosius, and Moses of Khoren) were one and the same. All of these things happened in 3 B.C." [Ernest Martin, Chrons Kristos Cairos: 89-90] Thus we have our first criterion met. Caesar Augustus did indeed issue a decree in 3 B.C. that all the world should be registered. So far, Luke is spot-on.

3/7 Point #2: Did Quirinius hold a high office in Syria at this time, such that he could be referred to as hēgemoneuontos of Syria? He did indeed. The historians Tacitus and Strabo record that Quirinius led a campaign against the Homonadenses from 12 to 1 B.C. This tribe lived in the Taurus Mountains in Asia Minor, which was then a part of Syria. Quirinius led this campaign as a legate sent by the Roman Senate, a diplomatic representative with military authority. This gave Quirinius political power on par with a local governor. (Strabo, Geography 12.6.5; Tacitus, Annals 3.48). Luke assigns Quirinius the position of hēgemoneuontos, often translated “governor.” Yet the word refers simply to a high office denoting a local ruler. The word is not a precise identification of which office the person held, but rather that they ruled from a high position of power in general. Thus, history places Quirinius exactly where Luke says he was: occupying one of the most powerful offices in Syria in the final years of Herod’s reign. So far, Luke is 2 for 2.

Too bad he is wrong.

Trolling Jones Immediately back to trolling I see. Nice lies. It’s simply business as usual for me as I post and new threads regularly. If I get the attention of my atheists friends that’s great as it gives me an opportunity to share my faith with them and the good news of the gospel😇 You being a trolling want to apply a negative shallow motivations behind my actions. You made a claim my observational experiment had ceased but once again provided no evidence to support your claim. Your claim of me not accompanied by evidence can be immediately dismissed without prejudice.

@@stephenireland3816”Trolling Jones”. Nice lie and projection. “Immediately back to trolling I see.” Nice lie as I don’t troll that’s you. “Nice lies.” Yet you cannot refute a thing I said nor the evidence. “It’s simply business as usual for me as I post and new threads regularly.” And this is what I said, you do this regularly where you are desperate and seeking attention. I don’t think you intended to agree so adamantly but this statement by you shows that I didn’t lie. “If I get the attention of my atheists friends that’s great as it gives me an opportunity to share my faith with them and the good news of the gospel”. Except you don’t as it is all about you not about some god you don’t believe in. But again you admit you are getting attention as I said you were, you just tried to lie and say “if”. Again this shows I didn’t lie. “You being a trolling want to apply a negative shallow motivations behind my actions.” Your actions consistently reveal what I point out. It isn’t about negative or positive, it’s just what you do. “You made a claim my observational experiment had ceased but once again provided no evidence to support your claim.” Nice lie as there was no 2/30 post, go try to find it as you won’t. But here is more important, you don’t deny that it did cease. You unwittingly just gave me positive evidence that the experiment ended as I said. “Your claim of me not accompanied by evidence can be immediately dismissed without prejudice.” No it cannot because you just confirmed through lack of denial that you did end the experiment. And you have no evidence to refute it.

@@stephenireland3816​​⁠You just gave more evidence that the experiment had ended as you just posted 12 minutes ago “3/30 DNA proves humans are not an accident” to pretend it was still active. I really am not trying to pull your strings but yet at every turn it seems you succumb to your NPD and cannot control it yourself.

@@stephenireland3816 “Trolling Jones” nice lie and projection. Look again how you avoid where the context and evidence are and tried to post elsewhere. You show your weakness all the time it seems. “This is not evidence to support your claim.” Nice lie but the lack of presence of a thread is evidence that the thread doesn’t and didn’t exist. You have a bee in your bonnet and are showing how upset you are that I called you out on the failed experiment (but you failing supposed experiments is pretty old news). “As o stated in the parameters..” which means that you need control and that you can make up anything to avoid showing you failed. “The preceding day is deleted” but there never was one. Give evidence that there was. I have presented evidence there wasn’t and you quickly posting the 3/30 after I called you on it is even more evidence on my side. “We are in day 3/30 so 2/30 no longer exists.” You mean never existed. Give evidence otherwise. I can point to it is not there, so I have evidence. “So this is a sneaky maneuver on your part.” Me having evidence isn’t sneaky at all. You not having evidence is inconvenient for you to say the least. “Also I never stated the new days post would immediately follow the preceding days post.” Look how you are backpedaling, making up rules and other things you never said. The 2/30 post was not there and still isn’t. “Maybe when you were searching for 2/30 I possibly hadn’t posted it at the time of you didn’t look hard enough. That’s on you!” Note how you dole out the emotional response to cast blame but all you are doing is making up things to build an excuse but the excuse of yours isn’t evidence. Give evidence. “But of course you want to make out I fail again and you push your petty narrative.” I don’t have to “make out” because you failed genuinely. I don’t have to make things up for that to be true. Again the additional evidence against you is that you quite quickly posted 3/30 after I called you out for the supposed experiment being done. So no petty narrative by me just the truth about your actions. “One thing you quickly do is try to undermine the parameters of experiments that I lay out ahead of time.” Nice lie as I just observe what happens and report it. Note how in this post you had to make up supposed rules to try to make your excuse. That’s not me going back undermining parameters but you making them up. “I don’t need to deny a lies.” You in fact do and I almost forgot that you didn’t deny it, which is even more evidence on my side. “So here you are supporting one lie with another lie.” You aren’t pointing out any lies by me. You just got flustered that you shouldn’t have had to deny so that statement confirms you didn’t deny. “You did present evidence for me to refute”. While I think you wanted to lie and say “didn’t” I have at least three pieces of evidence - your non denial, you quickly posting the 3/30 after I called you out and the lack of presence of a 2/30 post. “It’s would be a full time job for me to deny every lie you tell about me.” Notice how you are shifting the focus to the absurd to try to minimize that you didn’t deny that you had ended the experiment. “One tactic (I have mentions previously) is you like me chasing my tail and wasting time dealing with your endless gaslighting negative claims about me.” Nice lie and big projection. Note this post of yours is filled with what you are claiming but it’s you doing the gaslight. Your only response if you weren’t doing that would have been “here is my evidence 2/30 did exist” that’s it. Everything else is you whining and trying to shift blame and burden of proof. “If I feel the desire or have some time in my hand I will call out your BS”. There is no BS to call out besides your own so unless you start addressing your BS, you have no work to do with my statements. “So TJ30 is still very much active despite your lies.” Nice lie but the evidence shows you are wrong. Again, you didn’t deny it ended. You can do all the gaslighting you want but nothing changes that you realized I was right.

I hope there is more to your belief than this because the Boys Scouts and Girls Scouts have some type of credos as well.

There were over five and a half million Jews exterminated by Christians in death camps around Europe who never bowed the knee or "confessed" that Jesus is lord, and they are a tiny fraction of the people who have throughout history refused to submit to your dead god. According to Christian dogma, those people are now all "burning in Hell" because they failed to acknowledge Jesus, while the ones responsible for their deaths are joyful in Heaven because they "believed" and are therefore forgiven by their imaginary friend. If the Morons are the one true faith then those killed in the Shoah are now gods of their own planets because they were all baptised post-mortem.

@@John_Lyleconsidering you supported the extermination of religious people (as both Jews and Christians were killed) by your atheist doctrine executed by an atheist leader with way too much power, you really don’t get a say on good or bad of the concept of a heaven or hell. You supported ending their lives just because they had religion. Now you and I have gone back and forth on many items and your failed views are more sad than amusing. This one though, your refusal to denounce the atheistic reasoning used by Hitler to commit these acts and your continued refusal to acknowledge what those creating the OSS report, the witnesses at the Nuremberg Trials said, that all of this was to achieve hitlers goal of wiping out all theist religion is fairly despicable of you. You wouldn’t even show empathy for Christians (you couldn’t even in most cases if not all being yourself to acknowledge it) who were targeted for their religion as well. You are a sad and angry old man who realizes way too late that you didn’t learn to question to break free of your continued indoctrinated state, you traded one indoctrination for another. And your complete lack of empathy as you focus on making sure your self centered view is supported no matter how many lies or projections you have to tell (and you’ve told likely hundreds just with me) shows you will not be missed. That’s your doing so don’t blame anyone else. And if you think someone thinks otherwise, keep in mind you lie and likely have surrounded yourself by people who willingly lie right back to you. In short, no matter what they tell you, they won’t miss you because they follow the path you have led which says to care about no one other than yourself.

Here is your problem, if you are hanging your hat on that law, then that law would also preclude a god. Instead you are doing a special exception and saying you can refute someone else’s argument using that law but then when they apply the law to your argument you say “oh, it doesn’t apply to my view”. Now why may that law not apply at the start of the universe, maybe there is something we don’t yet know about the start and some exception to that law. We are only human and don’t know everything.

@@tjones5719Friend, don’t believe the lies of this world. Turn from your sin and repent. Please don’t go to hell like this arrogant fool. All Christians love you, we don’t want you to lose your eternal life with Jesus.

⁠@@AndrewHollywoodconsidering you know nothing about me, the only arrogant fool would be you as you try to make assumptions. I made a logical argument that you cannot refute and this upsets you. Instead of expressing your feelings in a healthy way, you get hateful and project your emotions and flaws. Now that would be a sure fire way according to the Christian Bible for you to be the one going to hell. Ironic you pretend to want to save me and it’s you who needs that savings. As you would say…repent.

There is no debate here at all. Everlasting salvation from sin by grace through faith in the only-begotten Son of God testifies of His eternal holiness. η χαρις του κυριου ημων ιησου χριστου μετα παντων υμων αμην Translated flawlessly, the original Biblical text reads: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen" (Revelation 22 : 21). Even the senseless title of this absurd video is completely misleading, and modern geologists describe hell as the molten core of the center of the Earth past, present and future. Charles Lyell's geological deceptions set the stage for Darwinism, a Satanic fantasy couched in obscurantist jargon. The veracity of the Gospel, confirmed by the fulfillment of prophecy over the millennia, speaks for itself. No species of plant or animal living anywhere on Earth came from another genus, and Christianity has nothing to do with "religion" as it is a personal relationship to the Saviour at its onset. Solid evidence based on more than 5,000 extant manuscripts established the integrity of the inerrant King James Bible long before C. R. Darwin succumbed to his diseases in 1882. Born of a virgin in Bethlehem, the only-begotten Son of God is the Prince of Peace, and the Lord Jesus Christ averred the Hebrew Tanakh consistently as a documented matter of immutable fact. It was very sad and indeed pathological that the alcoholic Trotskyite blasphemer "Hitch" deliberately lied in Sin City and elsewhere for decades, but he also died hopeless and unconscious on 15 December 2011 A. D. at an outstanding hospital in Texas after a long illness. No offense is intended since his fatuous "argument" had no substantial basis in ecclesiology, ontology, cosmology, historiography, epistemology, classical literature, archaeological discoveries, unadulterated linguistic derivations, British Common Law, or the scientific method. Logic guarantees that any "commitment to a certain kind of dialectic" inevitably results in circular reasoning, and the crackpot fabrication that "Jesus of Nazareth is a myth" has been summarily dismissed by sane people everywhere. I never converse with inanimate objects, and rational exegetes worldwide proved that the jailbird "FFreeThinker" website is a gauche Marxist cyber fraud operated by worthless spambots daily (ever since its unauthorized origin as that illicit nonentity a la mortemain). It often deletes important and truthful comments because such Internet hacker software cannot be formatted to perceive authenticity per se in a realistic context.

@@AndrewHollywood Thank you for your prompt reply. There was no debate here. The only-begotten Son of God is the Prince of Peace, and the Saviour averred the Hebrew Tanakh. λεγω δε υμιν οτι πολλοι απο ανατολων και δυσμων ηξουσιν και ανακλιθησονται μετα αβρααμ και ισαακ και ιακωβ εν τη βασιλεια των ουρανων Translated into the infallible King James Bible, those ancient Koine Greek words of the Lord Jesus Christ read: "And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 8 : 11). Eternal salvation from sin by grace through faith in Him alone testifies of His holiness. Intelligent minds want to know what happened after the Saviour arose from the dead almost two millennia ago. Darwinism is a vile anti-Semitic fairy tale, and Rome is still the Mother of Harlots and Abominations according to Revelation 17 and 18 in any ancient or modern language. The historicity of Noah’s Flood is well beyond any legitimate biological or geological dispute. Solid evidence based on more than 5,000 extant manuscripts established the integrity of the Holy Scriptures long before C. R. Darwin succumbed to his various diseases in 1882. "Hitch" lied. but he died. Academic frauds who reject creationism are narcissistic liars and witless bores, and none of the revisionist fools holding tenure at a university wants those character flaws to be exposed by the chronological accuracy of the inerrant King James Bible in Modern English--especially since they are totally illiterate in the original languages of the Old and New Testaments. παρακαλω δε υμας αδελφοι σκοπειν τους τας διχοστασιας και τα σκανδαλα παρα την διδαχην ην υμεις εμαθετε ποιουντας και εκκλινατε απ αυτων Translated into the international language of the world today, that Koine Greek text reads: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them" (Romans 16 : 17). Even the senseless title of this absurd video is completely misleading, and modern geologists describe hell as the molten core of the center of the Earth past, present and future. No species of plant or animal came from another genus living anywhere on Earth, and Christianity has nothing to do with "religiion" as it is a personal relationship to the Saviour at its onset. I never converse with inanimate objects, and rational exegetes worldwide proved that the jailbird "FFreeThinker" website is a gauche Marxist cyber fraud operated by worthless spambots daily (ever since its unauthorized origin as that illicit nonentity a la mortemain). It often deletes important and truthful comments because such Internet hacker software cannot be formatted to perceive substantive facts in a realistic context.

One of T.Jones' earliest posts shows just how much of a hypocrite she is. She starts her post _"Nehemiah Scudder, ergonomover, and John Lyle._ _I received a message from Stephen Ireland as follows “There’s three very passionate die hard atheists that I feel deserve your special and unique attention. Nehemiah Scudder ergonomover John Lyle”_ _I’ll give you a few things about myself in case you do what to discuss._ _1) I am a woman._ _2) I am neither a theist nor an atheist. (And if you cannot wrap your head around that, you probably shouldn’t bother responding as you do not have the questioning and critical thinking skills needed for our discussion.)_ ... _6) I am a reasonable person, so if you stick to a respectful discussion, I too will stay very respectful."_ My response to T. Jones 1) Nobody cares where you store your reproductive organs, although you seem to think it makes you superior to other people for some reason. 2) Your item 2) belies your item 6) before you even write item 6) down. You disrespected people before they ever had the opportunity to disrespect you. Also, you were highly disrespectful to Pamela H by saying that she "had a bit of NPD", based on a comment made by somebody who she later called "a wild unsolicited referee". You also disrespected Christopher Hitchens by your incorrect use of his given name, disrespected Crispybits by quotemining his comment to pretend he had said something that was not what he had said, then disrespected "EMT" and Tore Jens Oftenæs, to name just a few _"Do I know melters or do I know melters (I do). I predicted Tore Jens Oftenæs was “going to run away”"_ _"We see that AMT is the latest in an unfortunate list of those who run rather than have a discussion."_

“Several times in the last year Stephen Ireland has opened threads debating the Bible’s attitude towards homosexuality. Most of those posts were cut&pasted from a “GotQuestions article, as T9heist) Jones took great delight in revealing” Note a few things 1) You point out it is several posts. 2) Your quotes from me give no indication of delight let alone “great delight” so that is a lie by you. 3) Stephen’s argument was about the “Bible’s attitude” towards homosexuality and not select passages, the entire book. “And once Mr Ireland had deleted his original (ish) threads Jones chose to repost them to boast of her glorious victories over hapless Mr Ireland” Note some more things 4) Stephen deleted several threads. 5) Your quotes from me do not show any boasting or glorious victories as you claimed, so those as well are lies. “with comments like “Stephen also deleted one on homosexuality and the Bible The article doesn’t even describe what your book says accurately. You realize if you are going to try to evangelize, you need to have accurate messages connected to the audience and in your own words. You don’t have any of that. The Bible does not say that about having sex with men, the lust is about forcing their sexual desires onto someone outside of a loving relationship, it had nothing to do with them being men. You don’t even know your own book.”” Note more 6) I do not know at this moment if this is accurately quoted. 7) Note how it doesn’t say only lust as you claimed like here to Stephen “For example your ex-wife once claimed that the Bible has no issue with homosexuality, only lust” So this confirms you lied. 8) This is focusing on the claims of the article and what Stephen said which you fail to present which means you have no context. “”He was plagiarizing back at the time of this post. More plagiarism by you and what is worse the “What does the Bible say about homosexuality?” article doesn’t even describe what your book says accurately. You realize if you are going to try to evangelize, you need to have accurate messages connected to the audience and in your own words. You don’t have any of that. The Bible does not say that about having sex with men, the lust is about forcing their sexual desires onto someone outside of a loving relationship, it had nothing to do with them being men. You don’t even know your own book.” Note more 9) Again I don’t know at this time if the quote is completely accurate. 10) You fail to mention that this was referring to a different thread by Stephen. 11) You fail to mention that Stephen could not refute my statements to his own words and choice of source material. 12) Note how the order of when each quote was done gives further context of what is the overriding message but you don’t provide this. So you don’t do very well with those quotes as they backfire on you. We will wait on the rest of your lies until you can fix how you poorly started here “Although Mr…not a theist.”

⁠@@John_Lyle​​⁠​​⁠​⁠​​⁠​⁠​⁠ “One of T Jones earliest posts…” not one of, the first one. Get it right. “Shows just how much of a hypocrite she is. She starts her post “Nehemiah Scudder, ergonomover, and John Lyle. I received a message…very respectful.”” Nice lie but what we find is that what you present shows the other person was disrespectful as they deleted their thread and my posts within it. “My response to T Jones. 1) Nobody cares where you store your reproductive organs.” Nice little lie as there were only two posts to me in that thread you reference and they were from your alter ego and didn’t say what you just claimed. Now either you lied and you didn’t respond but rather started a separate thread which just shows weak character by you or you lied and didn’t respond as you just claimed at all. Either way you lied but which one is it? We will wait to address the rest of your lie until you come clean on this one “although you seem…a discussion.”

@@tjones5719 _"2) Your quotes from me give no indication of delight let alone “great delight” so that is a lie by you."_ You delight in reviving "dead" threads and gloating about your victories. For example _"We see that AMT is the latest in an unfortunate list of those who run rather than have a discussion."_ and _"Do I know melters or do I know melters (I do). I predicted Tore Jens Oftenæs was “going to run away”"_ _"3) Stephen’s argument was about the “Bible’s attitude” towards homosexuality and not select passages, the entire book."_ So give me chapter and verse references where the bible has a different attitude towards the subject. If you treat Leviticus 20: 13 as an "Eighteenth Amendment" show me the biblical equivalent of a twenty-first amendment. Where does the bible rescind the mandatory death penalty for homosexual activity? _"The Bible does not say that about having sex with men, "_ You are a liar. *Leviticus 20: 13* _"f a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."_ Nowhere in that verse is there any exculpation in the event of a "loving relationship, nor does *Romans 1: 26-27 condemn the lust between male and female, merely the "misdirection" of that lust into same-sex activity. In fact Romans 1: 26 is the only verse I could find that references female homosexual activity, and it criticises it not as lustful but as "changing the natural use" of that lust. You have frerquently posted that _"The Bible does not take issue with homosexuality but rather lust. "_ yet nowhere does Leviticus 20 modify the mandatory death penalty imposed in Leviticus 20: 13 if the participants love each other. In Exodus 21, a slave can surrender his Hebrew Privilege if he loves his master, but nowhere can a slave (Hebrew indentured servant or full chattel slave) cannot declare his love for his master and save his life if his master is caught raping him. They both still die. _"9) Again I don’t know at this time if the quote is completely accurate"_ This from the woman who claimed to be able to remember how many posts there were on the video to be able to tell that an account or multiple accounts had been deleted, but was totally not gloating over yet more glorious victories. Stop trying to pretend I am lying, the post is accurate. Meanwhile, all your response is just smoke and mirrors, trying to hide the simple fact that you set a challenge but cannot list chapter and verse references for the six "positive" influences on homosexuality. I have found no fewer than eight chapter and verse references in the bible where it is entirely negative in its attitude towards homosexuals and Homosexuality, You have indicated a belief that there are six chapter and verse references that view homosexuality in a positive light so I challenge you tom cite those chapter and verse references and have them judged by an independent "jury" made up of people who have posted on this video in the last twelve months.

@@John_Lyle “You delight in reviving “dead” threads and gloating about your victories”. You are repeating the same lie without supporting evidence. Repeating yourself like that conveys your false belief of self importance. And besides it’s further a lie 1) You said “Several times in the last year Stephen has opened threads debating the Bible’s attitude towards homosexuality.” Seeing he did it several times, it is a lie to say it was dead thread, it’s just that he reposted the OP to try to get rid of the comments. 2) You still have no supporting evidence (the quote didn’t support this originally and you didn’t deny it) of delight in revealing. 3) You still have no supporting evidence (the quote didn’t support this originally and you didn’t deny it) of boasting glorious victory. 4) The statement “Stephen also deleted one on homosexuality…” doesn’t indicate long dead threads being revived. The phrasing would likely be different indicating some longer passage of time. We will wait on the rest of your lies and logical fallacies for you to have some courage to admit that this is a lie by you related to this repost of the evidence I preserved with Stephen. “For example…twelve months.”

Here are four posts in this thread. Did God really command Genocide in the Old Testament”” And just as I predicted in the other thread, you did post in another thread and wanted to get attention. You cannot control your NPD at all. Post two “Trolling Jones”. Nice lie and projection. “You negatively focus on me rather than focusing the message. Do you actually have something constructive to say about my post.” Nice lie as well. This post is connected to the post on the other thread. I predicted something there and this thread shows my prediction was correct. That’s not negative toward you that’s just me knowing what you would do. But it’s so nice of you to whine like this over facts. Post three “If you couldn’t even watch a 14min clip you should’ve stayed silent. I try not to post long clips so people will watch them. I can watch clips(atheist speakers) even though I may strongly disagree with them. It a shame because some really good points were made.” Once again you confirm you aren’t evangelizing, not even trying. You cannot use your own words and when someone provides questions of what you presented, you criticize rather than responding to their post. You also focus on you yet again. The rest is more of this same focus on you rather than evangelizing “i do…dumb luck.” Post four ​​⁠​​⁠”Trolling Jones” nice lie and projection. “So that’s a no, you have nothing constructive to say about the actual subject matter.” Nice lie as I did. The subject matter includes you posting this same post in another thread and now here to gain attention. And I commented on that subject matter. If you didn’t want that to be one of the subjects that could be spoke about, you shouldn’t have posted on the other thread the same topic. We can wait for the rest of your lies and projections until you can acknowledge I was on topic “Because your…poor thing.”

T Jones You have mentioned previously that you do not require any friendly heads up warning of deletion. If however you now want friendly heads up warnings of deletions I’m more than happy to oblige. Just let me know.

@@stephenireland3816 “T Jones” yep you are needing attention. Two posts on recent threads of mine, something you were pointing out about a month ago that you didn’t do. “You have mentioned previously that you don’t require any friendly heads up warning of deletion.” And nothing I have said changes this. “If however you now want friendly heads up warnings of deletions I’m more than happy to oblige. Just let me know.” You have done this only for you as I said and you couldn’t refute. Normal people don’t delete threads and don’t tell people when they are going to delete them.

@@stephenireland3816 “T Jones”. Again you are wanting to manipulate by playing the victim. “…said “Normal people don’t delete threads and don’t tell people when they are going to delete them.” 1) Jones made a claim with no supporting evidence.” Nice lie as you tried to post this in a thread without the evidence (though I post my response back with the evidence). The evidence I gave as a start is in my quote of you confirming you do delete and that you have given a heads up. The other evidence is the presence of that thread that is not deleted. If you want even more evidence, then look at every other thread on this channel that are beyond a week or two old. Notice all the authors of those threads to see how much your actions are not normal. “2) Jones is basically claiming my actions are abnormal.” They are not normal and normal can be defined as “conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected” “3) Does abnormal immoral.” Nice moving the goal posts as I said nothing about abnormal. You try so hard to be the victim. “Abnormal can simply mean what is not commonly done.” If that’s how you define it that is consistent with me saying it is not normal. “4) Many times I have given Jones practical explanations from my deletions even though I wasn’t required to do so to justify my actions.” You mean you lied about reasons. Every time you have given a reason I have shown it to be a lie with your own actions. “5) Is there anything wrong about deleting threads you create?” One or two over time likely not, nearly every thread you ever create on this channel, that is not normal. “No it’s with your right to do so.” And the lack of empathy you show for other peoples posts when you delete them as well shows how self centered you are by your statement. “What I believe is really going on here”. You mean you are going to gaslight and lie. “Jones simply gets annoyed because when I delete my threads her material also gets deleted.” While the emotional response is yours not me, you are often deleting more than my posts but also others. You just confirmed that you are too self centered to care about others. What you aren’t saying is what is really go on which is you trust you can run and restart conversations to correct errors and lies you told. You want to put yourself in a light that doesn’t fit. Your demands, threats, begging, and other attempts to manipulate to get me to delete the reposts I make reveal this to be the case. And it’s just that you don’t like fair critique. “1) Jones knows my pattern of behavior over the past two years yet still post on my threads.” Another self centered attitude by you. You are getting too emotional. “2) I generally let those on my threads know (in advance) that I am soon deleting my thread so they may save any material they which keep.” And they wouldn’t have to do that if you cared about others and left the thread alone. Note one other thing, you didn’t give notices for the first 4-5 months of us interacting. It wasn’t until I started reposting that you started pretending you were giving a helpful heads up when virtually no one needed it. “This is not something I’m required to do but do it as a courtesy.” No you do it to hide that you are being self centered and lacking empathy for others. And you felt you had no choice seeing the threads were being reposted by me anyway. You needed to pretend you were in control by almost acting like you were telling me to copy my posts. Again my system already handled this. “Jones if you don’t like me deleting threads then there’s a very simple solution, don’t posting on my threads.“. And there is confirmation of what I said, Stephen is trying to escape fair critique. Begging and pleading while trying to manipulate to get it. “If you’re going to post on my threads then stop complaining when your material is also deleted.” Nice lie and projection but the whining is all yours as I am just reflecting on what factual occurs. You don’t like that you are called out for it. “Also stop being so controlling as I will do with my threads what I see fit.” Nice lie and projection. I didn’t say you couldn’t delete your threads, you are making that up to try to project the control you want from deleting threads. You continue to be very sad.

Here are four different posts to Stephen on a thread he deleted it appears. Post one “DNA proves humans are not an accident.” Two things in the title confirm it is wrong. It is not proof at best whatever is presented is evidence (and likely not even that). And secondly it is a mischaracterization to call the other view from a creator as an accident. If you look how a stream or river of water slowly erodes a part of the shoreline, calling it an accident would be inappropriate as the water and its properties and the movement and its properties and the soil and other materials and their properties all continually refine to determine the path, the rate, etc. to get the end result we see. Because of all those factors, it is incorrect to call that an accident and that would be comparable to what some would say is the eventual creation of our earth and ourselves. Post two ​​⁠​​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠”T Jones” nice attempt at manipulation again. “Much better” you mean the same, you don’t understand what words mean. “Focusing on the subject matter not me.” I focused on the title which is part of the subject just as your repost was part of the subject. And note how you don’t focus on the subject at your start. “Do you believe information can come about via accident? (An undirected random process.)”. Nice red herring (or at best shifting the burden of proof) as you move off subject of what I said about the title and try to move on to something I did not comment on. You are just trolling in your own thread. “If yes what evidence would you point towards?” Again same thing, red herring or shifting the burden of proof. Why don’t you try to back up your claim or at least respond to what I said. You are sad because all this does is show you project. Post three ​​⁠”Trolling Jones” nice lie and projection especially when you trolled right in this thread. ​​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠””T Jones”nice attempt at manipulation again.” Not at all. In your start post you didn’t troll me a stuck the the subject matter.” Nice lie as I have never trolled you so pretending this was anything new is a lie. You just tend to make yourself part of the subject if not the only subject. “”Much better” you mean the same, you don’t understand what words mean.” After I suggested (previously) you try sticking to the subject matter and seems to comply so I commented you.” Nice lie and look how you don’t deny that it was the same as I typically do. Even though you try to disparage me saying it’s not (through your lies and projections). “”Focusing on the subject matter not me.” “I focused on the title which is part of the subject just as your repost was part of the subject.” Not sure what you’re saying here sorry”. And then you go to feign confusion to avoid something you cannot refute. “”And note how you don’t focus on the subject at your start.” Yes I was commending you.” No you weren’t. You were trying to take credit for me doing what I typically do. All about you. “”Do you believe information can come about via accident? (An undirected random process.)” “Nice red herring (or at best shifting the burden of proof) as you move off subject of what I said about the title and try to move on to something I did not comment on.” It was a simply question related to the subject matter that you chose to avoid answering.” You just confirmed it was a red herring as it wasn’t related to what I said. “”You are just trolling in your own thread.” There’s no evidence of me trolling in my thread. You need to stop gaslighting.” You just admitted to it, trying to disparage me and not being on topic. “”If yes what evidence would you point towards?” “Again same thing, red herring or shifting the burden of proof.” Nice avoidance again.” Nice lie and projection as you asking a red herring question which you don’t deny is you avoiding what I said. “But I believe I can answer for you.” You should be able to as I don’t lie and make my position fairly clear, but you are going to lie. “From what I know of your worldview over the past two years I believe you reject any sort of intelligent designer thus all that remains is an accident(chance hypothesis)to explain the complexity and information observed in life.” And exactly as I predicted, you strawman my view so you can lie. “You didn’t present evidence because there isn’t any to support the Chance Hypothesis.” Not my claim despite your trying to shift the burden of proof. “”Why don’t you try to back up your claim or at least respond to what I said.” You said nothing of substance worthy of responding too.” And you just confirmed you are the one avoiding and cannot refute what I said nor back up your claim. You failed. “”You are sad because all this does is show you project.” I was thinking the same about you.” Except that would be you projecting because note you falsely claimed I avoided yet you are the one unable to back up your claim, you don’t even try. And that’s just one example here. Post four “I’ve decided to run another observational experiment on you called TJ30 (Trolling Jones 30 days) I will repost the initial post on this thread each day for 30 days and delete the previous days post.” A supposed experiment that confirms your NPD and need for attention. No matter what you give yourself an excuse to delete a post and to make yourself post the top of new comments. You are so sad. “I will number each thread. I will keep a running tally on who posted first and how quickly they post if I observe a post. I will post the running tally under the person who possibly post first. TJ30 will begin tomorrow my time.” It’s sad that you also didn’t reveal the supposed results where you would have found John to be the troll - commenting on six or seven of your original threads. But you don’t call him a troll because you know as I do that just commenting on threads even if multiple threads is not trolling behavior. You also don’t admit that me doing what I typically do for that last experiment confirmed your experiment fails. So instead of confessing, you tried to hide it and start a new one as you keep fishing for a result you don’t get as you pretend I am someone I am not. Ironically you are the person you pretend I am.

Herod was king of Judaea, Samaria, Galilee, Idumaea, Iturea, and Decapolis. Those kingdoms were divided among Herod's sons when Herod died with Archelaus inheriting Judaea, Samaria, and Idumaea until he was deposed by Augustus Caesar and his kingdoms added to the Roman province of Syria under the name of "Syria Palestina". Judaea was only a small sector of what became an even larger province of "Palestinia". Judaea ceased to exist in AD70.

When you type something, it may be good to run it by someone as it can help you avoid redundancy (“foolish idiots”) and help create a coherent point.

@@tjones5719 Foolish is an adjective, idiot is a noun, one reinforces the other, the two go hand-in-hand especially in your case. I think that idiotic is worse than foolish, they are not synonymous. It might be useful to distinguish whether we're talking about a stupid idiot or a foolish idiot or a useful idiot. Maybe you should run your (cough) teachings by someone as it might help you to avoid foolish idiocy in the future. Choose that person wisely.

@@ergonomover “Foolish is an adjective, idiot is a noun, one reinforces the other”. You just confirmed I was correct that it was redundant. You could have just said that directly. So there is evidence all you are trying to do is be contrary when you actually agree with me, so we can avoid the rest of this little tantrum of yours until you act a bit more mature “the two…person wisely.”

@@tjones5719 Accentuation by repetition is valid in the English language. Meanwhile, the only one throwing a tantrum over terms like "foolish idiot" is the wannabe "Grammar Nazi" T. Jones. Most adjectives are, by your standard, redundant, but without them, the English language becomes as boring as you are. To cause further irritation I am sitting in my garden with the sun shining brightly on me as I drink a freezing-cold beer listening to the harmonic music of a Haydn symphony.

⁠@@John_Lyle”Accentuation by repetition…” you just agreed it was redundant which was what I said. I will spare you trying to strawman move goal posts etc in the rest of your post seeing you agree it was redundant “is valid…symphony.”

T Jones “A very interesting post when John thought no one else was looking. Here is his post to Stephen.” Firstly I strongly suspect only you thought it was interesting. I strongly suspect John wasn’t thinking that as many times over past two years you claim a motivation from me that never existed. It’s more likely you’re pushing own narrative of the situation. Despite my competing worldview with John I doubt he was being sneaky like you claim. I believe in these circumstances you shouldn’t just speculate (if you’re not pushing a narrative) ie. “John thought no one else was looking” Add suspect. I suspect John thought no one else was looking. Ps. Did you post this post outside the thread to be sneaky? Knowing John won’t be alerted to its existence when it’s outside the thread.

@@stephenireland3816 “T Jones” not too long ago you made a statement of how you don’t post on my recent threads as a false way to claim I must be trolling. Yet over the past month you have been (almost right after I was able to show that had nothing to do with trolling or not trolling). It’s again that change of tactic you so want to ascribe to me but it really reflects on you. I mean it’s not like when I said I don’t use emojis that a few weeks later I started using emojis. I stay consistent. “A very interesting post when John thought no one else was looking. Here is his post to Stephen.”” Nice cherry pick as you see there is the evidence coming and you leave it off so you can lie and do non sequitur conclusions. It shows how weak you know your statements are. “Firstly I strongly suspect only you thought it was interesting.” Nice strawman. I didn’t say the interesting part was past tense as you just indicated but rather current and future tense which renders your statement invalid. I will also say that if for all time I am the only one who thinks it is interesting, my statement is still accurate. “I strongly suspect John wasn’t thinking that as many times over past two years you claim a motivation from me that never existed.” Nice lie but the statements I made about you were in general backed by evidence including many times your very own lack of denial. And that is the same case here which is why you left off the evidence. “It’s more likely you’re pushing own narrative of the situation. Despite my competing worldview with John I doubt he was being sneaky like you claim.” Nice strawman but I didn’t say he was being sneaky, all that is required for my statement to be true is that he left his guard down because the response wasn’t to me, ie I wasn’t looking. “I believe in these circumstances you shouldn’t just speculate (if you’re not pushing a narrative) ie. “John thought no one else was looking” Add suspect. I suspect John thought no one else was looking.” Except the evidence shows otherwise as his reference to me in the post is his attempt to say I wasn’t part of the conversation - again the evidence you intentionally left off because it ruins your false accusatory post. “Ps. Did you post this post outside the thread to be sneaky? Knowing John won’t be alerted to its existence when it’s outside the thread.” Nice projection of your flaw. I posted this same type of post in the thread first and then I posted here. It’s not honorable if I did what you do and leave the context behind and besides, I quoted the context and placed it here so in two ways I don’t take the low road you do.

Trolling Jones I will give you a chance to amend the lies of me in your last post.

@@stephenireland3816 “Trolling Jones”. Nice lie and projection. Note you name calling confirms you are in this for you and not evangelizing. Every time you do this you confirm this. “ I will give you a chance to amend the lies of me in your last post.” Nice lie as note how you could not point to a single one. You are desperate and you want an excuse to troll. You are getting more and more pathetic.

T Jones Trolling Jones “I will give you a chance to amend the lies of me in your last post.” It’s been two days and you still have not complied so I will soon bless this thread with Godly material.

The Gospels as history? Indeed.

You find his eloquence and erudition desperate, that is your opinion. He is not arguing against an imaginary god, he is arguing with the men who defend it and critiquing those who penned it. 'The act of putting to death', what phrase, the bible is full of it. What exactly did the entire Midianite tribe do wrong to deserve to be violently put to death (except the virgin girls)? If you can't provide a strong reasoned argument as to why Jesus was Lord or King or whatever, there will be scepticism whether you like it or not.

@@ergonomover”You find his eloquence and erudition desperate”. Nice strawman and something not present in this video. At times he can be eloquent but he isn’t here especially when he misstates items. Don’t get me wrong, Hitchens could be quite be quite brilliant but this wasn’t his finest moment captured on video. The OP appears to be a born again Christian type (maybe not but many of that type make the argument for Jesus and against religion as the OP does). Seems to me like they are splitting hairs to try to not have to have reason behind some of their beliefs.

Religion is belief in a god or gods and the activities that are connected with this belief, such as praying or worshipping in a building such as a church or temple. *A* religion is a particular system of belief in a god or gods and the activities that are connected with this system. These definitions are taken from the Collins English Dictionary. Your statements about Jesus place belief in the teachings attributed to Jesus firmly in the bracket of "Religion" And if people were to demand that you live your life according to rules established by Jupiter, would you not resist even though you do not believe in or worship Jupiter?

@@John_Lyle “Religion is belief in a god or gods and the activities that are connected with this belief, such as praying or worshipping in a building such as a church or temple. A religion is a particular system of belief in a god or gods and the activities that are connected with this system. These definitions are taken from the Collins English Dictionary”. So those are not “the” definition as you try to pretend but simply a couple potential definitions. It’s interesting how you cherry pick because Collins also lists these two definitions “any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system” And “any object of conscientious regard and pursuit” And those are why atheism can be considered a religion. Your inability to build a proper argument is likely astonishing to many. It’s par for the course for types like you though in my view.

@@tjones5719 If you were toi get somebody to teach you to read in English, you might possibly notice that the OP was trying to sell the Christian religion. Or is that too subtle for somebody of your limited mental capacity? The OP was trying to indicate that the Christian religion is not a religion, when in reality it falls squarely in the major definition of what a religion is. Like all other self-deluding Christian apologists you try desperately to redefine Atheism as a "religion" while seeking to distance your own religion from the taint that has accrued to religion over the centuries. And don't give me your usual lies about being "Not a Theist", your defence of the bible (or at least your personal interpretation of the bible) shows that assertion to be a bare-faced lie. _"any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system”"_ Does the Christian religion fit that definition? (Y/N) _"“any object of conscientious regard and pursuit”"_ Does the Christian religion fit that definition? (Y/N) You are so desperate to redefine lack of religion as a religion that you ignored the fallacy in the original post and deliberately misinterpreted my response to it. You are aware of the fallacy of the OP's position, you even pointed it out in your defence of the OP's stance to ergonomover but chose not to address the issue because doing so goes against your beliefs.

You seem far too bitter than would be reasonable. What did Hitchens do to you, sleep with your dad?

A few more posts. Post five ​​⁠​⁠”Trolling Jones. “This is why…negative trolling me.” Nice attempt to repost the same comment I already refuted to try to get in a pathetic last word by you on the topic rather than continuing the dialog. Post six ​​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​​⁠​⁠”Trolling Jones”. Nice projection and lie. “Nice lie as I have no specific timeframe that was immediately deleting and reposting.” Incorrect. When you say you are deleting because of a word error, your timeframe to delete is immediate otherwise you are saying, you are perfectly fine with the error being there (as you are with so many of your posts) and deletion is not necessary. “Actually more practical reasons on my part as I thought I would refute your lies here before deleting and reposting.” You just confirmed that your ego is more important than the word choice error and that you want to get in a last word and then delete, so your reason for deleting is that not any error in a word. You screwed up with that admission. And besides you couldn’t refute what I said only use a logical fallacy to try to get out of it. So your own words confirm you are not deleting for the reason said, we can wait on the rest of your lies and projections until you can come to grips more directly with this “I know you…turn?” Post seven ​​⁠​⁠”Edited…your nickname.” Once again you repost something already refuted as a way to try to get in a last word to act as if you had a point, but all you had were lies. You are sad. Post eight ​​⁠​​⁠​​⁠”Trolling Jones”. Nice lie and projection. “I have decided to leave this thread up and repost simultaneously with an over lap of 24 hours.” So again you confirm you aren’t worried about the word choice problem. So you lied as for your reason to delete. “You complain an awful lot about me deleting my own threads so here’s 24 hours more grace period for you.” Nice lie as I don’t complain, that’s your thing, I simply point out what you are doing. And I’m telling you you should have deleted right away if your reasoning was true so the grace period is for you not me. “Hopefully you can get some of your trolling energy out on this thread.” Nice lie as there is no trolling by me on this thread. I’m directly responding to what you said and using evidence. “I believe…” we can stop the quote there seeing this is just a lead in to lies and projections as we have seen in the past. Post nine ​​⁠”Trolling Jones”. Nice lie and projection. “I’m going to retire for the night.” You don’t need to tell me that. “If you’re going to post please post here and I will refute in the morning. I will only respond here! You hear what I’m saying”. Nice emotional response but you are again pointing out something that you tend to do. Post ten ​​⁠​⁠​​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​​⁠​⁠​​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠”Trolling Jones” nice lie and projection. “Nice lie trying to cover your previous lie with more lies which is called doubling down.” It would be however there are no lies I told. I said if you are upset by a word error, leaving up the post indicates you are perfectly fine with people seeing it. “Besides I’m in the middle of a back and forth with you atm” that hasn’t stopped you in the past. You are backpedaling. “If I had immediately deleted you would have accused me of running away no doubt.” Nice strawman as that is not what I have typically said. “With trolls your damned if you do and damned if you don’t because the objective of the troll is to demonize their target.” Nice unsupported statement. A troll generally wants to drop a bomb figuratively and see it explode (get a reaction), that’s the thrill for them. It isn’t to them about demonizing anyone. “If I was indeed a troll…” you have already confirmed you were. “I wouldn’t be posting godly material for you in hopes you with find Jesus.” So you are a troll because you don’t do this. You just confirmed your troll status again. “You just throw lots of mud hoping some will stick. I know how Trump feels.” Nice projection of your flaws.

A few more posts as well Post eleven ​​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠”Trolling Jones” nice lie and projection. “By trying to apply and negative motivation behind every little thing I do “Except I am not, I am pointing out what the evidence shows.” “you are like the boy who cried wolf . Thus no one takes you seriously because you continually undermine your own credibility at every turn.” Nice lie but you take me so seriously you get upset, you lie, you project your flaws, you troll, etc. And others take me seriously as well with some of the same reasons I can draw that conclusion. “Yet you never seem to learn.” Learning your projections and fairy tales is not something that helps my focus on evidence or logic. I point out those failings of yours. “Classic NPD” nice non sequitur seeing you based this conclusion on lies. Post twelve “Trolling Jones”. Nice lie and projection. “Two more posts from you with a few more lies…”. Yet you cannot point to any so the lies are still yours “…but at least you posted here so that’s a positive from you.” You are projecting your flaw of posting to avoid context. “You won’t believe the topic of GotQuestions this month, “Is it ever right to lie?” When you read it try to apply it to yourself! But I know you will instead use it as an opportunity to lie about me being a lier”. Nice notification of likely another post by you. And again you project your flaws as that is all you can do in your ego driven frustration. Like I said before at least I have a thread or two that shows your lies with fairly definitive evidence. You even acknowledged that you sent me an email through your post even though you lied saying you didn’t. Post thirteen ​​⁠”This thread is another example of your typical narcissistic trolling behavior.” Nice lie but what you mean is it is typical of your lies and projections. “You ignored the topic of the Hitch’s and went straight to negative trolling of me.” You should recheck the OP because you just lied. The OP was “”Why couldn’t Chris Hitchen’s dissuade his own blood brother from turning to Christianity?” Because once you have an encounter with Jesus/God it’s hard to uniting that bell. “The gospel is the power of God unto salvation” This is why I’m on this channel to share the power of God with my atheists friends. Information they are eagerly running from God not running to God. You can lead the horse to…” Review that very closely because there are two topics that you chose. You typed four sentences. One of those is related to the Hitchens. Three of those are related to you trying to prop up your supposed purpose with atheists. So 75% related to the topic I chose to comment on. So I was on topic and that right there precludes that I was trolling and makes you the one who is lying. So this very post of yours is based on your lies. I know you won’t come to grips with this but you were just caught in a lie again and caught in trying to project your flaw. We will wait on discussing the rest of your lies and projections until you can acknowledge you lied “Then descends…this cruel disease.” Post fourteen And to clarify the “You typed four sentences.” Is the original sentences ie your own words. Post fifteen ​​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠”Trolling Jones”. Nice lie and projection. “All good as the 24 hr grace period I afforded you has almost elapsed.” You show you couldn’t refute that I was on topic and that it was you projecting and lying your trolling behavior. Looks like we have more evidence that you are the one who tries to paint a negative picture of me as you cast your flaws onto me. You lie so much which again indicates you believe in no god.

And a final set of posts Post sixteen ​​⁠”Now if I leave this thread up for you will you continue to be willing to stay on this thread? If you required attention from me I’m would be willing to give in to you on this thread so I can evangelise my atheists friends uninterrupted on other threads.” Nice lie and projection. It is you who is asking for my attention. You posted right in this thread trying to invite to post on a new thread about lies. You are the one who trolls back to old threads again to get attention. it is also you who does supposed experiments to get attention. And besides you’re not evangelizing. You cannot start out with a black and white fallacy, tweak it only slightly then never give your supposed answer. That’s not evangelizing. “Notice on the remaining 9 numbered threads, when your not in the picture how many more atheists I have an opportunity to talk too. They shy away from engaging me when you they see you involved as you have build up negative reputation around these parts.” Nice lie because the atheist you are generally interacting with is just one - John and he doesn’t shy away if I’m there as he is still trying to recover from his failures like you. You have several where you are talking to no one. And while there may be a few others there really is no interaction from them they just point out you are wrong and that’s because you don’t evangelize. How little difference it has made (me not being on threads just like I have not been on threads before) is actually very sad for you. “It’s interesting because on other atheists channels in which your not involved there’s generally someone like you following me round also try to thwart my efforts to evangelise effectively. Or when one turns up the other falls back. For example your predecessor Dr Satan. Like a pecking order. I find it all very interesting how patterns of behaviour work when I evangelising an atheist channel. God’s word talks about a spiritual war going on behind the physical. This war is coming to a climax soon and you need to be on the right side and get yourself Born Again with the Holy Spirit through simple faith in the Gospel message of Jesus. Although I can often be a bit of a jokester this is serious stuff and where you go eternally is on the line. God says if you sent will Him you are against Him. God’s word says to flee the wrath of God. We do this by acknowledging our sins and simply accept Jesus forgiveness for those sins and trusting Him the lead our lives. Like the song “Jesus take the wheel” And on our journey to the promised land we freely share what we freely received. Time is very short now and your window of opportunity about to be closed. “Look up as you see the day approaching as your redemption draws near”. Note how this whole post and this thread is primarily just dealing with your ego, no evangelizing going on same with those other threads. You keep showing you have NPD and are lost when it doesn’t work for you. Post seventeen ​​⁠and i should add that last part I quoted was a lie. I have seen you on another atheist channel that I was not and it was pathetic as you had no one paying you any attention. You kept posting and posting but no one bothered in general. So your whole story is a fairy tale at its heart at the end just like you trying to quickly throw in something you could pretend is evangelizing but it’s not because a throw in statement doesn’t work.