The biggest misconception in Christendom

@kevin-eleven said
Didn't you know that "faeces" is the plural of "feces"? I bet John Dee knew that.

No it is isn’t, it’s the non US way of spelling it.

It amuses me to see Josephw mocking me for my spelling of it while being completely ignorant of this fact.

@divegeester said
No it is isn’t, it’s the non US way of spelling it.

It amuses me to see Josephw mocking me for my spelling of it while being completely ignorant of this fact.

Thank you for the correction. There's so much misinformation going around these days, as I'm sure you are well aware.

P.S. -- I kind of like "faeces" -- it's more in-your-face.

When decades younger I used to transcribe written and sometimes taped manuscripts. Not sure of the word, but it was one that used to have a combined vowel such as ae or oe, and my superior told me to just spell it the modern way.

@kevin-eleven said
Dear Joseph, if you are so easily bored to death I fear you might have been grasping at straws all along.

Remember the foundation of your existence. The Ocean of Truth will sustain and support you (at least until you croak), kind of like a flotation tank but without the tank.

Dear KE, I do appreciate the personal nature of your reply to my post to divegeester, and I would love to reciprocate in kind, but I'm at a loss trying to understand exactly what you mean.

Not saying I'm offended. I glean from your words good intent, except it seems you speak a language I'm not entirely familiar with.

Therein lies my(a word I can't recall), so please except my deepest apology for my ineptitude at engaging with you at a level requisite for your interest and deserving of your attention.

I sense I could learn much from you, if you could tolerate my bullheadedness.

@kevin-eleven said
Didn't you know that "faeces" is the plural of "feces"? I bet John Dee knew that.

I looked it up when the matter first occurred several pages ago. FMF corrected me and I realized divegeester was using the British spelling.

There's a slight difference in definition, but I let it go as soon as I realized I was nitpicking.

@josephw said
Dear KE, I do appreciate the personal nature of your reply to my post to divegeester, and I would love to reciprocate in kind, but I'm at a loss trying to understand exactly what you mean.

Not saying I'm offended. I glean from your words good intent, except it seems you speak a language I'm not entirely familiar with.

Therein lies my(a word I can't recall), so please ex ...[text shortened]... of your attention.

I sense I could learn much from you, if you could tolerate my bullheadedness.

Dear Joseph, you retrograde flotsam gleaner.

To say it more clearly would mean not saying it at all.

Hoping that helps! 🙂

@divegeester said
I think your behaviour in this thread completely justifies the OP.

And your behavior nullifies the OP.

Frankly, you should be embarrassed for posting such faeces.

@kevin-eleven said
Dear Joseph, you retrograde flotsam gleaner.

To say it more clearly would mean not saying it at all.

Hoping that helps! 🙂

Live long and prosper KE.

@divegeester said
Is the popular imagery of the devil, Satan being in change of hell and the burning alive of the billions of people in the fiery lakes…standing there with his horns, pointy tail and pitchfork jabbing at the poor lost souls who the lovely Jesus died for.

But hang on a minute … it isn’t the Devil in charge of hell, it’s a version of Jesus!

[i]”The same shall drink of t ...[text shortened]... wrong you hellers.

Edit: nod to Ghost of a Duke for re-floating my favourite anit-hell scripture.

To return to your OP, it's interesting that Revelations (or The Apocalypse of John) was included in the canon. From my POV, it was already bad enough that Paul's and the pseudo-Pauline letters were included.

@kevin-eleven said
To return to your OP, it's interesting that Revelations (or The Apocalypse of John) was included in the canon. From my POV, it was already bad enough that Paul's and the pseudo-Pauline letters were included.

What do you have against the Apostle Paul and his epistles?

@josephw said
I looked it up when the matter first occurred several pages ago. FMF corrected me and I realized divegeester was using the British spelling.

There's a slight difference in definition, but I let it go as soon as I realized I was nitpicking.

You weren’t nitpicking, you were wrong.

@kevin-eleven said
To return to your OP, it's interesting that Revelations (or The Apocalypse of John) was included in the canon. From my POV, it was already bad enough that Paul's and the pseudo-Pauline letters were included.

If one Googles “gary larson devil cartoon” pages of one of my favourite comics come up depicting the devil as perceived in popular culture; horned, pitchforked and supervising non Christians being tortured in hell.

It’s wrong! The Bible clearly states (scripture included in my OP) that a version of Jesus is overseeing the billions being tortured in hell. You can see the reaction of a few of our regulars here that feathers are well and truly ruffled and not one of them has had the courage to own it, or the ability to refute it.

@divegeester said
You weren’t nitpicking, you were wrong.

Capitalize on it to the furthest extent that your capacities will allow.

I have been wrong, am wrong and will be wrong again. So what?

I'm only human, and a fairly flawed one at that.

@josephw said
Capitalize on it to the furthest extent that your capacities will allow.

I have been wrong, am wrong and will be wrong again. So what?

I'm only human, and a fairly flawed one at that.

It amuses me to toy with your hubris, aggression and total inability to apologise.

@divegeester said
If one Googles “gary larson devil cartoon” pages of one of my favourite comics come up depicting the devil as perceived in popular culture; horned, pitchforked and supervising non Christians being tortured in hell.

It’s wrong! The Bible clearly states (scripture included in my OP) that a version of Jesus is overseeing the billions being tortured in hell. You can see t ...[text shortened]... ll and truly ruffled and not one of them has had the courage to own it, or the ability to refute it.

"The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:"

In order for you to hold to your "version of Jesus" you would have to not believe what that verse is saying.

Explain that!

@divegeester said
It amuses me to toy with your hubris, aggression and total inability to apologise.

Look who's talking.