blackbird

So you have something to hide. That seems to indicate you are a Romanist (many are Romanist, practicing or not) and would explain why you claim I am a zealot. Actually, I'm not a zealot. Just an ordinary Bible-believer. People that don't believe the Bible and who are held captive to Rome are in serious trouble with God. Pointing out someone is intoxicated with a false belief system or atheism is not being a zealot. It is throwing them a life ring if they accept it. Most don't.

No, the Bible is addressed to you and everyone, not just me. How do we know that the Bible is the Word of God? "The question of which (if any) religious text is the true word of God is of utmost importance. To avoid circular reasoning, the first question we must ask is: how would we know if God communicated in the first place? Well, God would have to communicate in a manner that people could understand, but that also means that people could make up their own messages and simply claim that they came from God. So, it seems reasonable to think that if God wanted to authenticate His communication He would have to verify it in a manner that could not be duplicated by mere humans - in other words, by miracles. This narrows the field considerably. Beyond the evidence for the Bible’s correctness (manuscript evidence) and its historicity (archeological evidence), the most important evidence is that of its inspiration. The real determination of the Bible’s claim to absolute inspired truth is in its supernatural evidence, including prophecy. God used prophets to speak and write down His Word and God uses miracles like fulfilled prophecy to authenticate His messengers. For example, in Genesis 12:7, God promises that the land of Israel was to be for Abraham and his descendants. In 1948 Israel was returned back to the Jewish people for the second time in history. This may not seem so astonishing until you realize that no nation in the history of the world has been scattered from its homeland and returned! Israel has done it twice. The book of Daniel predicts with accuracy the coming of the four great kingdoms from Babylon, to Medo-Persia, to Greece, to Rome centuries before some of those kingdoms came on the scene with details concerning how they would rule and be broken. This includes the reigns of Alexander the Great and Antiochus Epiphanies. In Ezekiel 26 we can see in astonishing detail how the city of Tyre was to be destroyed, how it would be torn down, and how its debris would be thrown into the sea. When Alexander the Great marched on that area, he encountered a group of people holed up in a tower on an island off the coast near there. He could not cross the sea, so he could not fight those in the tower. Rather than wait them out, the proud conqueror had his army throw stones into the sea to build a land bridge to the tower. It worked. His army crossed the sea and overthrew the occupants of the stronghold. But where did he get so much stone? The rocks that were used for the land bridge were the leftover rubble from the city of Tyre . . . its stones cast into the sea! There are so many prophecies concerning Christ (over 270!) that it would take more than a few screens worth of space to list them all. Further, Jesus would have had no control over many of them such as His birthplace or time of birth. Second, the odds of one man accidentally fulfilling even 16 of these are 1 in 10^45. How many is that? For comparison, there are less than 10^82 atoms in the entire universe! And Jesus, who affirmed the Bible as the Word of God, proved His reliability and deity by His resurrection (an historical fact not easily ignored). Now consider the Quran - its author, Muhammad, performed no miracles to back up his message (even when he was asked to by his followers - Sura 17:91-95; 29:47-51). Only in much later tradition (the Hadith) do any alleged miracles even show up and these are all quite fanciful (like Muhammad cutting the moon in half) and have zero reliable testimony to back them up. Further, the Quran makes clear historical errors. Muslims believe the Bible is inspired but with some errors from editing (Sura 2:136 as well as Suras 13, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 25). The question they cannot adequately answer is: "When was the Bible corrupted?" If they say before 600 A.D. then how can the Quran admonish believers to read it? If they claim it was after 600 A.D., then they have jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire, for we have absolutely no doubt as to the accuracy of biblical manuscripts from at least the 3rd century forward. Even if Christianity were false, the Quran still has an insurmountable problem because it makes judgments against Christians for believing things that they do not (nor have they ever) believed. For example, the Quran teaches that Christians believe the Trinity is the Father, the Mother (Mary), and the Son (Sura 5:73-75, 116), and the Quran also teaches that Christians believe that God had sex with Mary to have a son (Suras 2:116; 6:100-101; 10:68; 16:57; 19:35; 23:91; 37:149-151; 43:16-19). If the Quran is really from God, then it should at least be able to accurately report what Christians believe. Joseph Smith, the author of the Book of Mormon, tried to do some miracles such as prophecy (a test for a true prophet in Deuteronomy 18:21-22) but failed several times. He foretold of Christ’s second coming in History of the Church (HC) 5:336: “There are those of the rising generation who shall not taste death till Christ comes.“ Smith consistently taught that the coming of Christ was near. In 1835, he spoke of “the coming of the Lord, which was nigh—even fifty-six years should wind up the scene“ (HC 2:182). He also claimed that, while praying, “a voice said unto me, ’My son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years of age, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man’“ (ibid., see also also D&C 130:14–17). From these pronouncements, Smith’s followers began looking for the Lord to come about 1890. Jesus did not return in 1890, and the Mormon church does not claim that He did. Nor has it occurred since. He also prophesied that several cities would be destroyed in Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) 84:114-115. New York, Albany and Boston were to be destroyed if they rejected the gospel according to Smith. Joseph Smith himself went to New York, Albany, and Boston and preached there. These cities did not accept his gospel, yet they have not been destroyed. Another famous false prophecy of Joseph Smith was his "END OF ALL NATIONS" in D&C 87 concerning the rebellion of South Carolina in the war between the states. The South was supposed to call on Great Britain for aid, and as a result war would be poured out upon all nations; slaves would revolt; the inhabitants of the earth would mourn; famine, plague, earthquake, thunder, lightning, and a full end of all nations would result. The South finally did revolt in 1861, but the slaves did not rise up, war was not poured out upon all nations, there was no worldwide famine, plague, earthquake, etc., and there was no resulting "end of all nations." The collection of writings that Protestants call the Apocrypha (hidden writings), Roman Catholics call the deuterocanonical (later or second canon) books. These books were written between 300 B.C. and 100 A.D., the Intertestamental Period between the inspired writings of God’s Prophets in the Old Testament and those of the Apostles and their contemporaries in the New Testament. These were "infallibly" accepted into the Bible by the Roman Catholic Church in 1546 at the Council of Trent. Now the Apocrypha would be covered under the evidence for the Bible if these writings were truly inspired - but evidence seems to indicate that they are not. In the Bible we find prophets of God whose messages are ratified by miracles or prophecy that comes true, and whose message is immediately accepted by the people (Deut 31:26; Josh. 24:26; 1 Samuel 10:25; Daniel 9:2; Col. 4:16; 2 Peter 3:15-16). What we find in the apocrypha is just the opposite - no apocryphal book was written by a prophet. None of these books were included in the Hebrew Scriptures. There is no ratification of the authors of any apocryphal book. No apocryphal book is cited as authoritative by later Biblical writers. There is no fulfilled prophecy in any apocryphal book. Finally, Jesus, who quoted from every section of Old Testament Scripture, never once quoted from the apocrypha. Neither did any of His disciples. The Bible so far outshines every competing source for being God’s revelation that if it is not God’s Word, it would seem impossible to choose among the leftovers. If the Bible is not God’s Word, then we have been left with no clear criteria by which to know what might be." How do we know that the Bible is the Word of God, and not the Apocrypha, the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, etc.? | GotQuestions.org The prophecies in the Bible, which were later fulfilled, prove the truth of the Bible, in English, the King James Version, beyond any doubt. This is supernatural or miraculous proof. This proves the skeptics do not have a leg to stand on.

The question is what truth do you hold? You never said, but just take a pot shot at me. What is your religious background, Roman Catholic?

You need to do a lot of studying. The land belongs to Israel. But they have been willing to share a portion, but the Palestinians rejected that proposal. They only want to destroy Israel completely. Did you read the above article I posted from JNS?

Are you a Roman Catholic, either practicing or non-practicing? This shows your complete ignorance. The Bible was not written and did not originate that way at all. A complete lie from someone who doesn't have a clue.

Are you a Roman Catholic?

I don't think you understand anything about Israel or the problems there. You have the typical anti-Semitic western mindset. quote (April 9, 2025 / JNS) Well-meaning liberal Americans sympathize with the Arab-Palestinian cause because of the group’s determined, decades-long struggle against Israel’s superior military might. Recently, that favoritism among Democrats for the first time shifted to a majority who support the Palestinians over Israel. But if supporters of the Palestinians knew the whole truth, as the Palestinians tell it, they might reverse their sympathies. Indeed, when we listen to what the Palestinians say, and what they do, their underdog image is betrayed by belligerent goals, cruel methods and values anathema to Western civilization. Understandably, liberals sympathize with the Palestinians out of “humanitarian” instincts. To them, the Palestinians are an oppressed group fighting bravely for their freedom. These defenders see Israel, the Palestinians’ foe, as having, for 78 years, tried to deny innocent people self-determination and their rightful share of a Middle East homeland. But this sympathetic portrait of Arab-Palestinians is purely the product of Western projection—an imagined assignment to the Palestinians of motives, goals and values characteristic of a Western mindset. Western liberals are often shocked when they’re exposed to the portrait Palestinians paint of themselves—as Arabs and as Muslims—which embodies characteristics in direct contradiction to peace-loving Western values and aspirations. Perhaps the most significant reason the Palestinians are still fighting is that Israel and its Western allies continue to offer what we think the Palestinians want—or should want—rather than what they actually do want. Westerners have steadfastly believed that Palestinians want a state and to live in peace with Israel, and that Israel is preventing the Palestinians from achieving this goal. The problem turns out to be ours. Palestinians tell us what they want and pursue what they want, but we ignore their message. We prefer our enlightened translation. To gain insight into this contradiction, it helps to highlight exactly what the Palestinians tell us—and what they tell themselves—about their goals and values. To get a handle on this disconnect, let’s compare Westerners’ two greatest myths about Palestinian goals and values with what Palestinians say and do regarding the major issues affecting peace in the Middle East. Myth #1: Palestinians want their own state, living in peace beside Israel. The Palestinians flatly reject any Jewish rights to sovereignty in “Palestine,” because they reject the Jews’ historical connection to the Land of Israel. For example, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, in 2018, bizarrely called Israel a “colonial project” having no basis in history and disconnected from Judaism. During the Camp David summit in 2000—an attempt by President Bill Clinton to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with a two-state solution—former PLO chief Yasser Arafat asserted that “Solomon’s Temple was not in Jerusalem, but Nablus.” Clinton was flabbergasted at this outright lie, but Arafat refused to back down, just as he refused the Israeli and American offer of statehood. Hamas, still the Palestinians’ leading political and military force, maintains in its charter that “The land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf (endowment) consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgment Day.” The concept of waqf in Islam implies that it belongs to Muslims exclusively and cannot be shared with infidels, especially Jews. Furthermore, recent polls show that most Palestinians reject a two-state solution, preferring a single, Arab-ruled state. Given this religious and political opposition to a Jewish state, it’s no wonder Palestinians teach their children from birth to hate, conquer and kill Jews. Many videos exist on social media that show children saying they want to fight and defeat the Jews. In short, the notion that Palestinians want a peaceful state next to Israel is betrayed by countless statements from Palestinian political and religious leaders, as well as curricula at every educational level. Myth #2: Israel is preventing the Palestinians from forming their own state. The United Nations and Israel, with America’s backing, have offered the Palestinians many opportunities to achieve statehood, but the Palestinians and their fellow Arabs have flatly refused every time. They rejected the 1947 U.N. partition plan. Following the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel offered land it had seized in exchange for peace with its Arab neighbors. The Arab reply? The three “no’s”: no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel and no peace with Israel. In 2000, 2001 and 2008, Israel again offered the Palestinians statehood—in all of Judea and Samaria (AKA the “West Bank”), with a capital in eastern Jerusalem—but again, the Palestinians said no. Later attempts by U.S. Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump were also rejected. Israel has also attempted numerous programs to assist and build trust with the Palestinians, including inviting hundreds of thousands of Palestinian workers into Israel and providing medical care, water and electricity to Palestinians. Unfortunately, no Palestinian leader has arisen who advocates prosperity for the Palestinian people and peace with Israel. There is no Gandhi, no Mandela, no peace movement. Rather, Palestinian leaders focus on what they call the “resistance”—the codeword for continued terror, whose goal is the conquest of Israel. Claims that Israel stands in the way of a Palestinian state are contradicted by a 78-year history of generous offers from Israel to help the Palestinians create one. However, while Israel has never started a war with the Palestinians, it has been forced to defend itself from countless attacks—from terrorist murders to outright wars—by an opponent determined to destroy it. The liberal West would be smarter to believe what the Palestinians say and do, and not our naive projections. We want to believe that the Palestinians want a state that will exist peacefully alongside Israel. However, the Palestinians themselves tell us they reject Jewish sovereignty in what they view as exclusively Arab-Muslim land. Westerners also assume that Israel is preventing the Palestinians from achieving self-determination. But history proves otherwise. Israel has made many offers to the Palestinians, who said “no” to each one. Indeed, more often than not, they and their Arab brethren followed up their rejections with violence and bloodshed, forcing Israel into 76 years of defensive actions. Originally published by Facts and Logic About the Middle East (FLAME). unquote Western myths about Palestinians vs. what they say and do - JNS.org

You are irrational. The land belonged to Israel going back thousands of years, and it was others who invaded Israel and deprived them of their land. The land belongs to Israel and those around them are only interested in destroying them. You are not alone in being an anti-Semite. The world is full of them and has been for most of 2,000 years, resulting in the Holocaust. You only exist because God created you. Your time is limited in this world and there is judgment after death. I hope you will read the King James Bible and repent. Where you spend eternity depends on it.

FALSE! You enjoy freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of association and human rights because of Judeo-Christian civilization and the truth in the Bible over the past several thousand years. You need to study history and see how there was no freedom or human rights the past 1700 years when the western world was ruled by a totalitarian system that claimed to be Christian but ignored the Bible. After the Reformation 500 years ago in certain countries in Europe, democracy arrived, Parliament was developed, human rights was recognized and individual freedom was gradually brought in. It was many Bible believers who were at the centre of bringing you the freedom you enjoy today. Millions died in the struggle. You should respect and appreciate where your freedom came from instead of mocking and being disrespectful. You are accountable to God whether you accept it or not.

You are lying. I posted all kinds of information from reputable sources, defending what I said, but you dismiss it all as spam. The threat of the Romanist institution is real and pervasive in society. It controls the Liberal party and is a threat to individual freedom. The history of that institution proves the danger of it. Don't waste my time here.

There is danger in having a devout Romanist as PM. If people knew the history of the RC institution they would know what I am talking about. "One of the first and most important results of the Reformation was that the Bible was given to the people in their own languages. Previously the Bible had been kept from them, on the pretext that only the church speaking through the priest could interpret it correctly. Luther translated the Bible into his native German, and edition followed edition in rapid succession. Similar translations were made in England, France, Holland, and other countries. Protestants of our day who have not been called upon to suffer or to make any sacrifices to secure this rich heritage are inclined to hold these blessings lightly. But the advances that Romanism is making today in this nation and in other parts of the world should cause even the most careless to stop and think. It seems that as Protestants we have forgotten how to protest against those same religious and political abuses that were common before the Reformation. We need to acquaint ourselves with and to teach the principles of our faith if we are not to be overwhelmed by a religious despotism that, if it gains the upper hand, will be as cruel and oppressive as ever it was in Germany, Italy, France, or Spain. Our American freedoms are being threatened today by two totalitarian systems, Communism and Roman Catholicism. And of the two in our country Romanism is growing faster than is Communism and is the more dangerous since it covers its real nature with a cloak of religion. This nation has been well alerted to the dangers of Communism, and it is generally opposed by the radio, the press, and the churches. But Romanism has the support of these to a considerable extent, and even the Protestant churches in many places take a conciliatory and cooperative attitude toward it. Most people have only a very hazy notion as to what is involved in the Roman system. And yet the one consuming purpose of the Vatican is to convert the entire world, not to Christianity, but to Roman Catholicism. Its influence is being applied vigorously at every level of our local, state, and federal government. It is particularly significant that in this country the hierarchy has taken as its slogan, not, “Make America Christian,” but, “Make America Catholic.” And in that slogan are the strong overtones of a full scale attack upon our Protestant heritage and those precious rights of freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and freedom of speech." -from the book Roman Catholicism by Loraine Boettner, available to read online at the archive website One example is how authoritarianism has infiltrated the Liberal party and government. Liberals want to now control speech on the internet. They may be putting forward a bill to do so.

You are definitely not interested in truth. I gave you lots of information but you accept none of it. Perhaps you are full of pride and just cannot admit you might have been wrong. You refuse to accept any information I posted. We have reached a dead end.

You do not seem to comprehend anything about the Roman Catholic institution and the difference between it's catechism and Biblical Christianity. You are not a Protestant at all. Not sure what you have been taught. I am blessed as I have been in the right churches back in the 1980s and came across the right information and booklets, etc. Today it is very hard to find a good Biblical church. Most are apostate to some degree or other. I would suggest you start doing some studying. You could start with this video about the Jesuits. Bing Videos You can also obtain books and other information at the Chick Publications website. Chick.com: Chick Cartoon Gospel Tracts Make Witnessing So Easy! You could get the book "Understanding Roman Catholicism" from the Chick.com website. " Written by a former Catholic, this new book quotes 37 main Catholic doctrines from the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church, then compares each one with the King James Bible. Every time, Catholic doctrine contradicts the Word of God."

Again you are in denial. You don't seem to comprehend.

Worship? You just keep twisting the facts and using these deceitful words. That is not what Catholics do. It depends on your definition of worship. Adoration of Mary, praying to her, and believing she is the "Mother of God" is a form of worship. So who is the liar on here? It's not me. Facts are facts. Nothing deceitful about what I said. I quoted you the Catholic catechism and that tells you the facts of what they believe. You are in denial.

Yes, you make some good suggestions. If Walmart can do self check-out, why not the post office? Everything should be automated and stamps should be $2.00. They should be able to set up a couple automated kiosks in the local drug store post office where customers could weigh the parcels and everything should be automated. The current system is very backward and inefficient. It shouldn't cost $20 to mail a box of chocolates. If Amazon can deliver packages for about $6 or $8, why can't the post office? Mail delivery could be a couple times a week in the cities. That should be enough.

OF course but that is not the point. You seem to be acting very evasive. The Catholic catechism teaches the sacraments are the chief means of salvation as I already quoted to you from their catechism. Are you a Roman Catholic? Yes or No. Yes, I posted that but no, it does not say I said Mary was necessary for salvation. I posted the reasons from the catechism why they believe Mary worship is important.

I don't recall saying that. I said the Catechism teaches salvation comes through receiving the Catholic sacraments. And I just quoted the part of the catechism that says the sacraments are the chief means of salvation on my last post just above this one. But here is the reason they pray to Mary according to the Catholic catechism. "164. Why should we frequently say the Hail Mary? We should frequently say the Hail Mary to put us in mind of the Incarnation of the Son of God; and to honour our Blessed Lady, the Mother of God. 165. Have we another reason for often saying the Hail Mary? We have another reason for often saying the Hail Mary - to ask our Blessed Lady to pray for us sinners at all times, but especially at the hour of our death. 166. Why does the Catholic Church show great devotion to the Blessed Virgin? The Catholic Church shows great devotion to the Blessed Virgin because she is the Immaculate Mother of God." Simple Catechism

User said: Show us this teaching you are talking about. This is not what is taught at all. "252. Ought we to have a great desire to receive the Sacraments? We ought to have a great desire to receive the Sacraments, because they are the chief means of our salvation." -Catholic catechism Simple Catechism

Afraid it is. I gave you the link to the Catholic church's catechism. But here is a brief part of it about praying to Mary (the so-called "Mother of God"). "159. How can we show that the Angels and Saints know what passes on earth? We can show that the Angels and Saints know what passes on earth from the words of Christ: ‘There shall be joy before the Angels of God upon one sinner doing penance. Luke 15:10 Doing penance. Being sorry and trying to make satisfaction for sin. 160. What is the chief prayer to the Blessed Virgin which the Church uses? The chief prayer to the Blessed Virgin which the church uses is the Hail Mary. 161. Say the Hail Mary. ★ Hail Mary, full of grace; the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now, and at the hour of our death. Amen. Hail. Equivalent to ‘Ave’ or ‘Salve’, meaning ‘Be well’, ‘Health to thee’, or ‘I salute thee’. 162. Who made the first part of the Hail Mary? The Angel Gabriel and St. Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, made the first part of the Hail Mary. Luke 1:28, 1:42 163. Who made the second part of the Hail Mary? The Church of God, guided by the Holy Spirit, made the second part of the Hail Mary. Guided. Directed, led, being shown the way. By the Holy Spirit. Pronounced at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in year 431. 164. Why should we frequently say the Hail Mary? We should frequently say the Hail Mary to put us in mind of the Incarnation of the Son of God; and to honour our Blessed Lady, the Mother of God. 165. Have we another reason for often saying the Hail Mary? We have another reason for often saying the Hail Mary - to ask our Blessed Lady to pray for us sinners at all times, but especially at the hour of our death. 166. Why does the Catholic Church show great devotion to the Blessed Virgin? The Catholic Church shows great devotion to the Blessed Virgin because she is the Immaculate Mother of God." Simple Catechism There are a number of things in here which are contrary to the Bible. 1. "trying to make satisfaction for sin" is anti-Christian but is Catholic teaching. It is a denial of Christ's once for sacrifice / atonement for sin. Read Hebrews ch.9, 10, 11 "12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. " Hebrews 10:12-24 KJV 2. Praying to Mary and the saints is a form of idolatry. The Bible does not teach us to do that. It is against the ten commandments. Mary is not the "Mother of God". That is an invention of Romanism. God has no mother. 3. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception is also false. Mary was born a sinner just like everyone else. The sin nature is passed to the offspring through the father. Jesus had no earthly father and was sinless. He did not receive the sin nature because he was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Nothing I told you is a lie. It is surprising someone who claims to be a Christian and believes the Bible would be a defender of such a false, anti-Christian religion.

It would take a book to expose the problems with their doctrines because there is so much to it. The Catechism can be a very long document. There are some a little shorter. Here is a brief part of one such catechism. "I. Baptism 256. What is Baptism? Baptism is a Sacrament which cleanses us from original sin, makes us Christians, children of God, and members of the Church. Baptism. This word means a washing. Baptism is the most necessary of all the Sacraments, as without it we cannot be saved or receive any of the others; it is the beginning of our spiritual life. There are three kinds of Baptism 1. Baptism of water, which is the Sacrament; 2. Baptism of desire; 3. Baptism of blood, or martyrdom. A person may be baptised when there is a doubt about a former Baptism. The words, ‘If thou art not already baptised’, are added to the usual form. This is called Conditional Baptism. Outward sign. The matter is water blessed on Holy Saturday and is applied in three ways 1. by immersion, or being dipped in the water; 2. effusion, of having the water poured on the person; 3. aspersion, or being sprinkled with the water. Baptism by effusion is the mode chiefly in use, The form consists of the words, ‘I baptise’, etc. Effects. Cleanses the soul from original sin, and actual sin, if any: remits both the temporal and eternal punishment; gives habitual or sanctifying grace." Simple Catechism If you want you can read it. It might not help much unless you know what the Bible teaches about the details. That is where the book I gave the link for comes in. "Roman Catholicism" goes into the details and how it is contrary to the Bible.

No, I can't support your idea that Romanism is a "Christian" denomination. What you saying is false. Why would I accept an anti-Christian system as something to be honoured as a "Christian" religion? That is illogical. Everyone has a right to oppose another religion. That is what freedom of religion and freedom of speech is all about. Again you are being nonsensical. I gave you basic information in my posts. It is not up to me to spoon feed you like a baby. If you doubt what I posted, you are free to do a search for Catholic catechisms and read what they say yourself. It is not up to me to go to extremes to try to convince you. You have already proven you don't care what I post. That is your decision. If you don't believe what I posted, look into it yourself. Don't expect me to spend hours searching for catechisms and trying to convince you when you already demonstrated you don't care.

Nothing baseless or absurd about what I said. You are the one denying the truth. You seem to have great difficulty in admitting you are wrong and owning up to it. I will leave it with you. You are free to look into it. No use talking to apostates and others who deny the truth.