The myth of grace-only & easy-believism shattered forever

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
10,295
1,479
113
62
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Are you THAT dense and historically bankrupt??

Do you NOT understand that before Christianity was legalized by Constantine in the 4th century that the Church didn't own property to speak of or worship publicly?
This phony, invented fairy tale about "nepotism" and "riches" of the Church being passed onto the offspring of clergy members is completely moot since celibacy goes back to the THIRD century and the Council of Elvira.

Go sell your phony-baloney anti-Catholic lies somewhere else.
There are too many educated people here . . .
No, the RCC was not worried about the buildings, but the organization.
Of course it was not monasteries and cathedrals inc.
It was a group of power happy individuals in early Christendom that sought to retain power as the properties would come later.
I AM NOT SAYING IT WAS NOT SMART, BUT i AM SAYING IT WAS STRATEGIC.
Requiring grown men to not reproduce was a multi-goal idea.



Ultimately, though, celibacy became the official requirement of the Roman Catholic Church due to the practice of nepotism. Church leaders were giving their children positions in the church, despite a lack of any qualifications or training. Further, church leaders were giving church property to their descendants. As a result, the Roman Catholic Church mandated celibacy in order to keep its priests from having familial attachments which made nepotism attractive....


Does the Bible teach the celibacy of priests? | GotQuestions.org
 
Last edited:

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
And you are also missing the point of the parable of the Sheep and the Goats by equation our neighbours as Christ. I would humbly suggest, that the Sheep did it for the/because of Christ in their lives, and not because the least of Christ's brethren was Christ, which is what you are implying. They cared for their brethren whether or not Christ saw or rewarded their acts of kindness towards other.

On the other hand, the Goats would have, if the least of Christ's brethren was Christ if they saw that He had a need. In other words they would have acted Christ like if they thought that Christ would see their deeds and reward them.

In other words, the sheep acted because there was a need, whereas the Goats would have acted, if they would have gained something in return for their actions.

It is not a matter of the implied law of giving/acting to receive, it is a matter of giving/acting because that is the heart of Christ in our lives that motivates us to act that way without needing or receiving any recompense for our acts of kindness.

There is a very big difference.

Shalom
I'm implying no such thing.

The Sheep did what they did out ofa the faith and love in their hearts for their fellow man.
They didn't know that they were feeding and clothing and visiting Christ.

As for the Goats - they didn't act was because they DID'T CARE.
They had NO LOVE - which is ALL that matters:

Gal. 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but ONLY faith working through love.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No, the RCC was not worried about the buildings, but the organization.
Of course it was not monasteries and cathedrals inc.
It was a group of power happy individuals in early Christendom that sought to retain power as the properties would come later.
I AM NOT SAYING IT WAS NOT SMART, BUT i AM SAYING IT WAS STRATEGIC.
Requiring grown men to not reproduce was a multi-goal idea.

Ultimately, though, celibacy became the official requirement of the Roman Catholic Church due to the practice of nepotism. Church leaders were giving their children positions in the church, despite a lack of any qualifications or training. Further, church leaders were giving church property to their descendants. As a result, the Roman Catholic Church mandated celibacy in order to keep its priests from having familial attachments which made nepotism attractive....
Does the Bible teach the celibacy of priests? | GotQuestions.org
Your ignorance of history and complete gullibility has gotten the best of you.

The Church of the first 3 centuries had no "power" to speak of. They were ANYTHING but "power hungry" - they were being persecuted.
If ANYTHING - a smart, worldly-thinking Church would have insisted n the Clergy procreating so that they wouldn't fun out of leaders - who were being martyred.

In its wisdom, however, and being guided by the Holy Spirit to SLL truth as Jesus guaranteed (John 16:12-15) - The Church took Paul's advice from Scripture that celibacy was a more excellent way to serve God (1 Cor. 7:25-25).

The fact that YOU continue to desperately preach Loraine Boettner's false narrative about "nepositm" that HE proliferated in his heavily-debunked schlock-work, "Roman Catholicism" in 1962 speaks VOLUMES about your ignorance of history . . .
 

Jay Ross

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2011
6,760
2,523
113
QLD
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
I'm implying no such thing.

The Sheep did what they did out ofa the faith and love in their hearts for their fellow man.
They didn't know that they were feeding and clothing and visiting Christ.

As for the Goats - they didn't act was because they DID'T CARE.
They had NO LOVE - which is ALL that matters:

Gal. 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but ONLY faith working through love.

People do always know what they have written, nor understand the implications of their words.

When you understand that the sheep and the Goat parable describes the second separation of people and judgement as per: -

Ezekiel 34:17: - 17 'And as for you, O My flock, thus says the Lord God: "Behold, I shall judge between one flock and a second flock, and then between rams and goats.​

The perhaps then we will both be on the same page so that a conversation can continue. But at the moment you are defending what you know, not what is in the scriptures.

Shalom
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Therefore faith is no mental activity, an attitude of the mind and nothing more.

Real faith is an attitude of obedience, it follows that obedience will result out of a genuine faith; therefore I am in agreement.

Again Abraham was a man who obeyed God, who DID DO obedient works and was justified by those works.

Abraham was only justified by works in that his works showed forth that he had a genuine faith. Before man, he was justified by works. Before the Lord, it was his faith that did all the justifying.

But the Bible does NOT say that faith is just a mental attitude and nothing more...

Ephesians 2:8-9 precludes that faith is not obedient action.

Again:
By faith Abel obeyed in his offerings
By faith Noah obeyed, moved with fear in building the ark
By faith Abraham obeyed in moving from his house and land
By faith Abraham offered up Isaac.

Obedient action results from a living and saving faith.

You have yet to show where God first saved one BEFORE that person was obedient to the will of God.

How about in Luke 18:35-43?

No person was ever saved by God while that person continued in disobedience to God's will.

I do believe that repentance is required. However, the works that result out of real repentance do not save; but the repentance and faith itself is what saves a man.

God requires obedience first, then justification follows.

If that were the case, then salvation would be of works. However, the Bible teaches contrary to such a notion as that.

WE have seen that faith/belief is a work so the "not of works" of verse 9 cannot annul the work of faith of verse 8.

Rather, Ephesians 2:8-9 shows that faith/belief is not a work. It is only a work if you insist that you are going to be saved by works. Then, Jesus says that it is a work so that you will come to Him with faith alone in Him as the singular work that you accomplish.

Nor can the "not of works" of verse 9 annul the good works Christians are required to do.

Christians are not required to do good works. We do them because He loved us first and therefore we love Him in return (1 John 4:19). The love of the Lord is shed abroad in our hearts via the Holy Ghost (Romans 5:5). We love much because we have been forgiven much (Luke 7:36-50). Therefore we do not obey out of obligation but out of love (at least, this is the case with me).

God does not require sinless perfection from man but an obedient faith

Galatians 3:10, Matthew 5:48, and James 2:10-12 would tell us otherwise. However, simple faith in Christ and what He did for us on the Cross appropriates Christ's perfect life and righteousness (through His shed blood) to us so that we are accounted as perfectly righteous through our faith in Him.

Man is saved by grace but not saved by grace only.

Works cannot be included in the salvation by grace that the Lord gives (see Romans 11:5-6 (kjv)).

Paul refutes salvation by grace only in Romans 6 by showing salvation takes both God's grace and man's obedience.

Obedience is unto righteousness, not salvation.

Just because the Christian is saved by grace does not allow the Christian to disobey God and sin for the Christian is one who is dead to sin. We each are serving one of two master, we are serving either:
1) sin unto death or 2) obedience unto righteousness (Romans 6:16).

I agree. However, the obedience is not unto salvation, but unto righteousness.

The Bible shows that works of the OT law do not save, that works of merit do not save, good works will not save the sinner but the Bible shows time and again that obedience to God's will does save.

Show forth scripture that says this (the latter thing), please. Give me an exhaustive list, if you will.

All works are therefore not the same and no verse unconditionally eliminates all works.

Currently, I believe that when God says salvation is not of works, He is referring to every kind of work.

If Rom 4:5 or Eph 2:9 eliminate obedience then that eliminates one from serving "obedience unto righteousness"

Romans 4:5 and Ephesians 2:9 do not eliminate obedience; in that they do not say that a Christian will be disobedient. I contend that salvation by a living faith alone results in real righteousness in the heart of the believer (see, for example, 2 Corinthians 5:17, or Titus 3:3-7). But we do not want to put the cart before the horse by saying that I do good works unto salvation; for my salvation (by faith) is unto good works; which (I will agree) is unto being called practically righteous.

However, Romans 4:5 and Ephesians 2:9 do declare quite plainly that our salvation does not come by what we do (works) unless you count the prescription in Romans 10:9 to be some kind of work.

NO ONE who continues to serve sin unto death will be saved. (Romans 6:16)

I agree. A person is regenerated and renewed by faith alone in Jesus Christ (Titus 3:3-7); and therefore they will not continue in a lifestyle of sin. However, they are not saved through living a righteous lifestyle either; but through faith in Jesus Christ: which produces that righteous lifestyle.

One cannot save himself by doing his own righteousness but one can save himself by doing God's righteousness.

Again, it is not the righteous deeds that save a man; but the faith that produces the righteous deeds, that saves him.

It is a discipline that is recommended by Paul (1 Cor. 7:25-25) as a more excellent way to serve God.

I don't see that in that scripture.

Funny how you won't rebuke a person who LIES - but you'll rebuke the person who exposes it.

I will rebuke a stinky attitude when I see it.

Exposing lies and revealing truth IS good fruit.

Again, it is the attitude in which you do things.

Your ignorance of history and complete gullibility has gotten the best of you.

This is what I am talking about. You do not need to be insulting and obnoxious in order to be persecuted for righteousness' sake.
 
Last edited:

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
10,295
1,479
113
62
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Your ignorance of history and complete gullibility has gotten the best of you.

The Church of the first 3 centuries had no "power" to speak of. They were ANYTHING but "power hungry" - they were being persecuted.
If ANYTHING - a smart, worldly-thinking Church would have insisted n the Clergy procreating so that they wouldn't fun out of leaders - who were being martyred.

In its wisdom, however, and being guided by the Holy Spirit to SLL truth as Jesus guaranteed (John 16:12-15) - The Church took Paul's advice from Scripture that celibacy was a more excellent way to serve God (1 Cor. 7:25-25).

The fact that YOU continue to desperately preach Loraine Boettner's false narrative about "nepositm" that HE proliferated in his heavily-debunked schlock-work, "Roman Catholicism" in 1962 speaks VOLUMES about your ignorance of history . . .
Nepotism was definitely part of the equation when taking such a drastic step to demand complete abstinence for the priests. Abstinence is not even Biblical since some Apostles were married.
Every doctrine devised has roots. Punishing ones flesh with self denial of ones natural desire to reproduce is on the surface, Noble, but historically fishy.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
People do always know what they have written, nor understand the implications of their words.

When you understand that the sheep and the Goat parable describes the second separation of people and judgement as per: -

Ezekiel 34:17: - 17 'And as for you, O My flock, thus says the Lord God: "Behold, I shall judge between one flock and a second flock, and then between rams and goats.​

The perhaps then we will both be on the same page so that a conversation can continue. But at the moment you are defending what you know, not what is in the scriptures.

Shalom
I'm stating what the Scriptures plainly say.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Nepotism was definitely part of the equation when taking such a drastic step to demand complete abstinence for the priests. Abstinence is not even Biblical since some Apostles were married.
Every doctrine devised has roots.
Punishing ones flesh with self denial of ones natural desire to reproduce is on the surface, Noble, but historically fishy.
And there you go lying again.
I showed you where Paul recommends celibacy as a more excellent way to serve God (1 Cor. 7:25-25) - and YOU continue to dishonestly claim it's "unscriptural".

As for priestly celibacy - it's NOT a doctrine - it's a DISCIPLINE. Disciplines can change - doctrines can't.
You're not even a very good anti-Catholic. Do your homework . . .
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I don't see that in that scripture.
Then you're being dishonest.
Here is the Word of God. You can continue to LIE – or you can accept the truth of Scripture . . .

1 Cor. 7:25-40
Now in regard to virgins, I have no commandment from the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.
So this is what I think best because of the present distress: that it is a good thing for a person to remain as he is.
Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek a separation. Are you free of a wife? Then do not look for a wife.

If you marry, however, you do not sin, nor does an unmarried woman sin if she marries; but such people will experience affliction in their earthly life, and I would like to spare you that.

I tell you, brothers, the time is running out. From now on, let those having wives act as not having them,
those weeping as not weeping, those rejoicing as not rejoicing, those buying as not owning, those using the world as not using it fully. For the world in its present form is passing away.

I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided.

An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction.

If anyone thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, and if a critical moment has come and so it has to be, let him do as he wishes. He is committing no sin; let them get married.

The one who stands firm in his resolve, however, who is not under compulsion but has power over his own will, and has made up his mind to keep his virgin, will be doing well.
So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; THE ONE WHO DOES NOT MARRY HER WILL DO BETTER.

A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whomever she wishes, provided that it be in the Lord.
She is more blessed, though, in my opinion, if she remains as she is, and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

I will rebuke a stinky attitude when I see it.
But you won't rebuke a LIE when you see it.
Good for you - Satan LOVES that.
Again, it is the attitude in which you do things.
Uh huh - and Jesus also had a pretty "bad" attitude when he rebuked the Pharisees.

He called them "vipers" and said that they were "whitewashed tombs filled with dead men's bones".
That's a LOT harsher than anything I said . . .
This is what I am talking about. You do not need to be insulting and obnoxious in order to be persecuted for righteousness' sake.
This person is LYING - and persists in their lie.
All you're doing is supporting sin - and Satan LOVES you for it.
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I showed you where Paul recommends celibacy as a more excellent way to serve God (1 Cor. 7:25-25)

Then you're being dishonest.
Here is the Word of God. You can continue to LIE – or you can accept the truth of Scripture . . .

1 Cor. 7:25-40
Now in regard to virgins, I have no commandment from the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.
So this is what I think best because of the present distress: that it is a good thing for a person to remain as he is.
Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek a separation. Are you free of a wife? Then do not look for a wife.

If you marry, however, you do not sin, nor does an unmarried woman sin if she marries; but such people will experience affliction in their earthly life, and I would like to spare you that.

I tell you, brothers, the time is running out. From now on, let those having wives act as not having them,
those weeping as not weeping, those rejoicing as not rejoicing, those buying as not owning, those using the world as not using it fully. For the world in its present form is passing away.

I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided.

An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction.

If anyone thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, and if a critical moment has come and so it has to be, let him do as he wishes. He is committing no sin; let them get married.

The one who stands firm in his resolve, however, who is not under compulsion but has power over his own will, and has made up his mind to keep his virgin, will be doing well.
So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; THE ONE WHO DOES NOT MARRY HER WILL DO BETTER.

A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whomever she wishes, provided that it be in the Lord.
She is more blessed, though, in my opinion, if she remains as she is, and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

Sorry, you originally only referenced 1 Corinthians 7:25. I do find that the doctrine you speak of might be tenable in the verses after it. But in all reality, 1 Corinthians 7:25-40 does not advocate forbidding marriage, as the Catholic Church does to all those who want to be in ministry.

But you won't rebuke a LIE when you see it.
Good for you - Satan LOVES that.

I will rebuke the lie that you have spoken just above...because I do rebuke lies when I see them, all of the time...by showing the scriptural refutation of those lies.

Uh huh - and Jesus also had a pretty "bad" attitude when he rebuked the Pharisees.

He called them "vipers" and said that they were "whitewashed tombs filled with dead men's bones".
That's a LOT harsher than anything I said . . .

Blame Jesus for your bad behaviour...

Excuse yourself before Him on your day of judgment and see how that flies.

This person is LYING - and persists in their lie.
All you're doing is supporting sin - and Satan LOVES you for it.

Satan loves no one...he hates everyone to the core.

And whatever you think their lie is...I did not see it...and if they were truly lying then I do not support that.

But you are not going to very readily expose a lie by insulting the person who has told it. The best way to expose a lie is to proclaim the truth that is in opposition to it.
 
Last edited:

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Sorry, you originally only referenced 1 Corinthians 7:25. I do find that the doctrine you speak of might be tenable in the verses after it. But in all reality, 1 Corinthians 7:25-40 does not advocate forbidding marriage, as the Catholic Church does to all those who want to be in ministry.
Actually - that's not true.
In post #549, I referenced 1 Cor. 7:25-25.
I will rebuke the lie that you have spoken just above...because I do rebuke lies when I see them, all of the time...by showing the scriptural refutation of those lies.
You're being dishonest again.
I PROVED @Truther wrong regarding how and when priestly celibacy began - and he continued to proliferate his lie - with YOUR approval.

Just be honest . . .
Blame Jesus for your bad behaviour...
Excuse yourself before Him on your day of judgment and see how that flies.
I'm not blaming Jesus for anything.
I am showing you that even HE had to get tough with people who lie.

Try being dishonest with Him on the day of YOUR Judgment and see how that flies . . .
Satan loves no one...he hates everyone to the core.

And whatever you think their lie is...I did not see it...and if they were truly lying then I do not support that.

But you are not going to very readily expose a lie by insulting the person who has told it. The best way to expose a lie is to proclaim the truth that is in opposition to it.
You're right.
Satan doesn't love YOU - he loves your lies.
 

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
10,295
1,479
113
62
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
And there you go lying again.
I showed you where Paul recommends celibacy as a more excellent way to serve God (1 Cor. 7:25-25) - and YOU continue to dishonestly claim it's "unscriptural".

As for priestly celibacy - it's NOT a doctrine - it's a DISCIPLINE. Disciplines can change - doctrines can't.
You're not even a very good anti-Catholic. Do your homework . . .
Recommended celibacy for non clergy. Get it right.
Not mandatory celibacy for anyone.
 

Jay Ross

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2011
6,760
2,523
113
QLD
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
And that's a cowardly non-response.
Congratulations . . .
And I am happy for you to try and take the moral high ground, but it does not change the facts that you interpret the scriptures to suit your own whims and flawed understandings.
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States

This is the kind of thing I am talking about.

Don't you know that any time you point the finger at someone else you have three fingers pointing back at you? (see Matthew 7:1-6)

Actually - that's not true.
In post #549, I referenced 1 Cor. 7:25-25.

:rolleyes:

You're being dishonest again.
I PROVED @Truther wrong regarding how and when priestly celibacy began - and he continued to proliferate his lie - with YOUR approval.

Just be honest . . .

He had neither my approval nor my disapproval. I really wasn't paying attention to that aspect of the conversation.

But when you came out ugly, it was noticeable.

You're right.
Satan doesn't love YOU - he loves your lies.

More bad fruit.

Mat 7:3, And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:4, Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:5, Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Sooooo, does that mean you CAN'T answer the question?
That's what I thought.

Maybe you should check with your online paramilitary cult over at "aggressivechristianity.net" to see how they would answer it . . .
I could, but it is pointless talking to a brick wall, the words just bounce back.

Oh, just tried over a severed leg, wonder who that belongs to, Someone needs to catch that roaring lion.
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Should we eliminate Acts 2:38 because a man in the desert can't find water?
So you are still going to stand there and demand God cant save people because thats not doing "truthers" will, so you will reject the cries of a man on his death bed in hospital, who gives his life to Christ before he dies, or the man who gives his life in church and gets killed as he walks out the door, simply because Truther demands they be baptized. Are you God.???

1Co_13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal

think on that one.
 

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
10,295
1,479
113
62
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So you are still going to stand there and demand God cant save people because thats not doing "truthers" will, so you will reject the cries of a man on his death bed in hospital, who gives his life to Christ before he dies, or the man who gives his life in church and gets killed as he walks out the door, simply because Truther demands they be baptized. Are you God.???

1Co_13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal

think on that one.

You debunked this....


16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This is the kind of thing I am talking about.

Don't you know that any time you point the finger at someone else you have three fingers pointing back at you? (see Matthew 7:1-6)

He had neither my approval nor my disapproval. I really wasn't paying attention to that aspect of the conversation.

But when you came out ugly, it was noticeable.
More bad fruit.

Mat 7:3, And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:4, Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:5, Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
I’m not judging your soul - NOR am I saying that I am without sin.
I am telling you that Satan LOVES it when you openly lie on a forum like this. When you support a lie – you are just as guilty as the person hatching the lie.

You say you “weren’t paying attention” to @Truther’s lie and that’s how you tried to get around it.
HOWEVER, his lie has been the subject of our last FOUR exchanges – so your excuse is just another lie.