Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[Sabour]

I spent many, many years trying to disprove religion and faith. Frankly, most religions are build upon the interpretations and logic of men, who do, by nature, fall short of the glory of God, thus their doctrines are susceptible to being flawed as well. So religions are easy to disprove, and that is not just a handful, that is all of them. So when we see our coequals, on the other side of the fence, rubbing their hands together in glee, taunting us with the words that religions are slowly fading from our world, we can take solice in the fact that we are best rid of them anyway, none of have authority to act in the name of God. To disprove them is a little like using the scientific method. You have to simply be familiar with the scriptures, which give us and insight to the character and will of God, and have god knowledge of the Plan of Redemption. Like science there are set constants and laws that cannot be change. By those laws we can know what is true and what is false. If the contravene a principle or commandment then they are false.

For example, I listen to a testimony of a man who died and was revived. He gave a detailed account of what happened to him whilst he was dead. A very convincing account as well, but for one detail that exposed it as a fraud, or the source was dubious. He said that he found himself in the presence of God. Now, anyone who knows scriptures would know that it is impossible for a Spirit to be in the presence of God, pre-judgement. Anyone who is familiar with the Plan of Salvation would also know that his claim was fallacious. The Plan of Salvation is like a jig saw puzzle with every piece being unique. Many of our religions have some of the pieces, however, none of them have all the pieces. To disprove them is just a matter of looking at the pieces to see if they are all there. I have yet to find a religion that has all the pieces.

To clarify when I say religion I am referring to denominations in the Christian faith.

Now faith and our personal relationship with God is another story. It cannot be faulted in anyway or form. To be converted by the Holy Ghost, who opens the gates to the pure knowledge of the Plan of Redemption, and to receive that knowledge in all humility and faith in Christ, is to make yourself impervious to the fiery darts of Satan. So, in essence, I am throwing down the gauntlet to anyone who thinks they can disprove the logic of the Plan that was devised by God and accepted by Christ. I am looking for miss-shaped jig saw puzzle pieces that do to fit making the finished picture ugly instead of magnificent to behold. I am looking for someone to stump me on any aspect of Gods marvelous work and wonder to bring to pass the salvation and eternal life of mankind. If it cannot be done then even the disbelieved must concede that it is a rational and logical plan.

Correct me if I am wrong.

I was confused, at some parts I found you discrediting religion and scripture and in the other parts you credited scripture. You also seem to day, hey don't argue with me I have a personal experience and than you opened a window for discussion.

What did i get right and what did I get wrong ?

 

[Twilight Hue]

If 'natural things comes from natural things' is a fact, what produced the first natural thing? It could not have been a natural thing if it was the first natural thing.

Much too linear.

 

[Sapiens]

You are quite simply wrong, and way out of touch with science. Scientists are now coming to the conclusion that HIV does not cause AIDS and that they have never been able to published a single paper on how HIV causes AIDS, where as there are literally hundreds of published papers showing that HIV cannot cause AIDS. Medication?

Care to provide a few references from reputable peer reviewed journals?

AzT is the most toxic substance ever subscribed to man. It is a DNA inhibiter. It is AIDS by percription. Rather than finding their arguments increasingly discredited by the scientific community, the opposite is true and the desenters are being vindicated,

Care to provide a few references from reputable peer reviewed journals?

which has happened so many times in history, where people like you see scientists as Gods and believe what ever manure that they feed you, whilst they get rich.

Err ... I am one of your "Gods."

Keep up man, your are making yourself look poorly educated again.

Really? No one else has noticed.

But credit to you as you are an expert at insulting me and my Christian brothers here with your scathing and causticly vitreous denegration of theirs and my God.

Is it my poor education or your lack of a case that makes you and your Christian brothers so easily insulted? Is it my lack of education that permits my scathing and caustically vitreous denigration of your God? Or perhaps it is just that you have not the vaguest idea of what you are trying to debate. You do realize that it is quite impossible to be caustic and vitreous at the same time? A basic chemistry class would teach you that. Hell, a basic alchemy class would teach you that.

If you feel that much hatred for him then why come here where we speak of him.

For the intellectual stimulation that some of the folks here can provide.

Surely that is like self harming, something that mentally ill people suffer with.

Is that why you're here?

You are an expert of the gutter mouth though and an ambassador for the dictatorials whose beliefs must be adhered to or they will stamp there feet.

If you are too juvenile to make it here where adults contest matters of import to them might I suggest that you stick to the green zone were you will not be offended and where you will provide small offense to thinking people.

 

[Sapiens]

I have already given it.

Source means the reference to a legitimate peer reviewed scientific journal. Failing that, you flunk.

 

[Serenity7855]

Correct me if I am wrong.

I was confused, at some parts I found you discrediting religion and scripture and in the other parts you credited scripture. You also seem to day, hey don't argue with me I have a personal experience and than you opened a window for discussion.

What did i get right and what did I get wrong ?

I discredited religion and their interpretation of scripture, not scripture itself. You will have to show me where you think I said "hey don't argue with me I have a personal experience" because I do not recall saying that.

 

[Serenity7855]

Source means the reference to a legitimate peer reviewed scientific journal. Failing that, you flunk.

No it doesn't

 

[Sapiens]

You flunk, you now have even less cred that you used to. I did not that that was possible. We will now consider you the forum jester. Make us laugh fool!

 

[Sabour]

I discredited religion and their interpretation of scripture, not scripture itself. You will have to show me where you think I said "hey don't argue with me I have a personal experience" because I do not recall saying that.

Let us drop where you said that and focus on what is important.

So as a believer in the bible, does that mean that you believe that salvations is not through belief only ?

Luke 10:25-28

And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tempted him, saying,
"Master what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the Law? How do you read?" And he answered saying, "Thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind, and thy neighbor as thyself." And he said unto him, "You have answered right; do this, and you shall live."

Matthew 5:17-19
"Think not that I came to destroy the Law and the prophets. I came not to destroy but rather to fulfill. For verily I tell you, not until all things be accomplished shall a single dot (jot, iota or tiny letter) in any way be lessened from the Law. And whoever breaks the least of the Commandments and teaches this will be the least in the Kingdom, but whoever keeps the Commandments and teaches this will be the highest in the Kingdom. And not unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharasees will you enter into the Kingdom of Heaven."

Do you agree that Jesus peace be upon him forbid anyone from worshiping him ?

 

[Serenity7855]

Care to provide a few references from reputable peer reviewed journals?
Care to provide a few references from reputable peer reviewed journals?

Paper denying HIV–AIDS link secures publication

Paper denying HIV–AIDS link secures publication : Nature News & Comment

Human Immunodeficiency virus and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: Correlation but not causation*

HIV & AIDS - HIV and AIDS; Correlation but not causation

AIDS epidemiology: Inconsistencies with human immunodeficiency virus and with infectious disease

HIV & AIDS - AIDS Epidemiology; Inconsistencies with HIV and with Infectious Disease

Scientific Paper

By Peter H. Duesberg Ph.D.

Duesberg PH, Mandrioli D, McCormack A, Nicholson JM, Rasnick D, Fiala C, Koehnlein C, Bauer HH, Ruggiero M. (2011) AIDS since 1984: no evidence for a new, viral epidemic--not even in Africa. (Ital J Anat h.116(2):73-92.)

Duesberg, P., Koehnlein, C. and Rasnick, D. (2003) The Chemical Bases of the Various AIDS Epidemics: Recreational Drugs, Anti-viral Chemotherapy and Malnutrition.
(J. Biosci. 28: 383-412)

• 
  
  
  • This paper is accompanied by aCommentary from Haverkos, H.
    (J. Biosci. 28: 365-366).
  • It is also reviewed by an Editorial from Current Science.
    (Current Science 85: 117-118)

Gordon T. Stewart et al. The Durban Declaration is not accepted by all (2000) Nature 407: 286. pdf

Duesberg, P. H. and Rasnick, D. (1998) The AIDS dilemma: Drug Diseases Blamed on a Passenger Virus.
(Genetica 104: 85-132.), and a searchable textfile.

Duesberg, P.H. (1997) Duesberg Defends Challenges to the Existence of HIV: Article 2 of 2 for Continuum
(Continuum 4 (5), 26)

Duesberg, P.H. (1996) Duesberg Defends Challenges to the Existence of HIV: Article 1 of 2 for Continuum
(Continuum 4 (2), 8-9)

Duesberg, P. H. (1996) How much longer can we afford the AIDS virus monopoly?
(In: Duesberg, P. (eds.) AIDS: Virus- or Drug Induced?, Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 241-270)

Duesberg, P. and Bialy, H. (1996) Duesberg and the Right of Reply According to Maddox - Nature
(In: Duesberg, P. (eds.) AIDS: Virus- or Drug Induced?, Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 111-125)

Baumann, E., Bethell, T., Bialy, H., Duesberg, P.H., Farber, C., Geshekter, C. L., Johnson, P. E., Maver, R. W., Schoch, R., Stewart, G. T., Strohman, R. C. and Thomas Jr., C. A. (1995) The Constitution of the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis (Science 267, 945)

Duesberg, P.H. (1995) Foreign-protein-mediated immunodeficiency in hemophiliacs with and without HIV
(Genetica 95: 51-70)

Duesberg, P. H. (1994) Results fall short for HIV theory
(Insight 10, February 14, 27-29)

Duesberg, P. H. (1994) Infectious AIDS - stretching the germ theory beyond its limits
(Int. Arch. Allergy Immunol. 103: 131-142)

Duesberg versus Piatak et al: "HIV and AIDS" Duesberg P, Science, 260, p1705 (1993); Response: Lifson et al., p 1705-6.

Duesberg, P. H. (1993) The HIV gap in national AIDS statistics
(Biotechnology 11: 955-956)

Duesberg, P. H. (1993) Can epidemiology determine whether drugs or HIV cause AIDS?
(AIDS-Forschung 12: 627-635)

Duesberg, P. H. (1993) The Enigma of Slow Viruses (The Lancet 342: 720)

Duesberg, P. H. and Schwartz, J. R. (1992) Latent viruses and mutated oncogenes: no evidence for pathogenicity
(Prog Nucleic Acid Res Mol Biol 43: 135-204)

Duesberg, P. H. and Schwartz, J. R. (1992) Latent viruses and mutated oncogenes: no evidence for pathogenicity. (Prog Nucleic Acid Res Mol Biol 43: 135-204) pdf

Duesberg, P. H. (1992) AIDS acquired by drug consumption and other noncontagious risk factors
(Pharmac. Ther. 55: 201-277), and a searchable textfile.

Duesberg, P.H. (1992) The role of drugs in the origin of AIDS
(Biomed. Pharmacother. 46, 3-15)

Duesberg, P. H. (1991) AIDS epidemiology: inconsistencies with human immunodeficiency virus and with infectious disease
(Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 88: 1575-1579)

Duesberg, P. H. (1989) Human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: Correlation but not causation
(Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 86: 755-764)

Duesberg, P. H. (1988) HIV is not the cause of AIDS
(Science 241: 514-516)

Duesberg, P.H. (1987) Retroviruses as Carcinogens and Pathogens: Expectations and Reality
(Cancer Research 47: 1199-1220)

Err ... I am one of your "Gods."

No, you are most definitely not. You are a conformist retired scientist who is way out of touch with current research.

Really? No one else has noticed.

No, nobody else says it like it is.

Is it my poor education or your lack of a case that makes you and your Christian brothers so easily insulted? Is it my lack of education that permits my scathing and caustically vitreous denigration of your God? Or perhaps it is just that you have not the vaguest idea of what you are trying to debate.

And some more baseless assertions and ad homenims

For the intellectual stimulation that some of the folks here can provide.
Is that why you're here?

I am here to learn. You seem to already know it all.

If you are too juvinile to make it here where adults contest matters of import to them might I suggest that you stick to the green zone were you will not be offended and will provide no offense to thinking people.

And again, more vitriol.

Schopenhauer- "All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently" opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." - See more at: AIDS and HIV: Lies, Cover-up, Deception, Profits and Genocide

When will you arrive at the truth.

 

[Serenity7855]

Let us drop where you said that and focus on what is important.

So as a believer in the bible, does that mean that you believe that salvations is not through belief only ?

Luke 10:25-28

And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tempted him, saying,
"Master what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the Law? How do you read?" And he answered saying, "Thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind, and thy neighbor as thyself." And he said unto him, "You have answered right; do this, and you shall live."

Matthew 5:17-19
"Think not that I came to destroy the Law and the prophets. I came not to destroy but rather to fulfill. For verily I tell you, not until all things be accomplished shall a single dot (jot, iota or tiny letter) in any way be lessened from the Law. And whoever breaks the least of the Commandments and teaches this will be the least in the Kingdom, but whoever keeps the Commandments and teaches this will be the highest in the Kingdom. And not unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharasees will you enter into the Kingdom of Heaven."

Do you agree that Jesus peace be upon him forbid anyone from worshiping him ?

I believe that salvation is give to all men regardless. The problem is that many religions believe that salvation is all that we need, and it is if you are satisfied in gaining entry in one of the lower mansions, however, eternal life in the presence of God requires more than just belief. It requires works. Adherence to the commandments of God to strive to follow the Saviour. Faith without works is dead.

I am not sure why you have quoted these two scriptures or their relevance here. If we love Jesus Christ then the works to keep his commandments becomes easy. Indeed, only one commandment is necessary. That is to love one another and all of the other commandments come easy.

 

[Serenity7855]

You flunk, you now have even less cred that you used to. I did not that that was possible. We will now consider you the forum jester. Make us laugh fool!

Unlike you, I do not play to an audience.

 

[nazz]

I cannot do that. I would have to write a book on it. Its complexity fills every aspect of our beginning, why we are here and what is expected of us before we return. What surprises me is that you are here condemning Christianity yet you do not know what is our purpose, why we are here. How on earth can you critique my belief if you have to ask me what it is. Can you see how illogical that is, and it is typical of your fellow atheists here to do exactly the same. Sorry, but I have been waiting for someone to ask that question. I did not see it the first time, however, I have been waiting for someone to effectively ask what Christianity is by someone who denounces it. Thank you. The conclusion is that atheists must just like arguing even if they are completely ignorant of the subject matter being discused. If you want to get an idea as to what it is then go to lds.org and search for the plan of salvation or happiness, they give a pretty good description of it.

<---I'm not an atheist.

I could easily summarize the conventional Christian plan of redemption in a few sentences. Since you seem to hold some unconventional views I thought it best to hear your version.

I thought I'd give you one more chance. You blew it.

 

[Sapiens]

Paper denying HIV–AIDS link secures publication

Paper denying HIV–AIDS link secures publication : Nature News & Comment

Not a legitimate journal. With reference to that publication, leading AIDS researchers and campaigners question how the paper could have passed peer review, and say that publishing it in a minor journal known to few does not give it scientific credibility or legitimacy.
"In my view this paper is scientific nonsense and should not have passed peer review. The thesis that HIV does not cause AIDS has no scientific credibility," says Nathan Geffen of the South Africa-based Treatment Action Campaign, who previously raised concerns about the article.

Then you go on with a raft of papers, all from the same contrary kook, none of which present any new science or research, all of which only serve to turn the spotlight that he loves on him.

Human Immunodeficiency virus and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: Correlation but not causation*

HIV & AIDS - HIV and AIDS; Correlation but not causation

AIDS epidemiology: Inconsistencies with human immunodeficiency virus and with infectious disease

HIV & AIDS - AIDS Epidemiology; Inconsistencies with HIV and with Infectious Disease

Scientific Paper

By Peter H. Duesberg Ph.D.

Duesberg PH, Mandrioli D, McCormack A, Nicholson JM, Rasnick D, Fiala C, Koehnlein C, Bauer HH, Ruggiero M. (2011) AIDS since 1984: no evidence for a new, viral epidemic--not even in Africa. (Ital J Anat h.116(2):73-92.)

Duesberg, P., Koehnlein, C. and Rasnick, D. (2003) The Chemical Bases of the Various AIDS Epidemics: Recreational Drugs, Anti-viral Chemotherapy and Malnutrition.
(J. Biosci. 28: 383-412)

• 
  
  • This paper is accompanied by aCommentary from Haverkos, H.
    (J. Biosci. 28: 365-366).
  • It is also reviewed by an Editorial from Current Science.
    (Current Science 85: 117-118)

Gordon T. Stewart et al. The Durban Declaration is not accepted by all (2000) Nature 407: 286. pdf

Duesberg, P. H. and Rasnick, D. (1998) The AIDS dilemma: Drug Diseases Blamed on a Passenger Virus.
(Genetica 104: 85-132.), and a searchable textfile.

Duesberg, P.H. (1997) Duesberg Defends Challenges to the Existence of HIV: Article 2 of 2 for Continuum
(Continuum 4 (5), 26)

Duesberg, P.H. (1996) Duesberg Defends Challenges to the Existence of HIV: Article 1 of 2 for Continuum
(Continuum 4 (2), 8-9)

Duesberg, P. H. (1996) How much longer can we afford the AIDS virus monopoly?
(In: Duesberg, P. (eds.) AIDS: Virus- or Drug Induced?, Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 241-270)

Duesberg, P. and Bialy, H. (1996) Duesberg and the Right of Reply According to Maddox - Nature
(In: Duesberg, P. (eds.) AIDS: Virus- or Drug Induced?, Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 111-125)

Baumann, E., Bethell, T., Bialy, H., Duesberg, P.H., Farber, C., Geshekter, C. L., Johnson, P. E., Maver, R. W., Schoch, R., Stewart, G. T., Strohman, R. C. and Thomas Jr., C. A. (1995) The Constitution of the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis (Science 267, 945)

Duesberg, P.H. (1995) Foreign-protein-mediated immunodeficiency in hemophiliacs with and without HIV
(Genetica 95: 51-70)

Duesberg, P. H. (1994) Results fall short for HIV theory
(Insight 10, February 14, 27-29)

Duesberg, P. H. (1994) Infectious AIDS - stretching the germ theory beyond its limits
(Int. Arch. Allergy Immunol. 103: 131-142)

Duesberg versus Piatak et al: "HIV and AIDS" Duesberg P, Science, 260, p1705 (1993); Response: Lifson et al., p 1705-6.

Duesberg, P. H. (1993) The HIV gap in national AIDS statistics
(Biotechnology 11: 955-956)

Duesberg, P. H. (1993) Can epidemiology determine whether drugs or HIV cause AIDS?
(AIDS-Forschung 12: 627-635)

Duesberg, P. H. (1993) The Enigma of Slow Viruses (The Lancet 342: 720)

Duesberg, P. H. and Schwartz, J. R. (1992) Latent viruses and mutated oncogenes: no evidence for pathogenicity
(Prog Nucleic Acid Res Mol Biol 43: 135-204)

Duesberg, P. H. and Schwartz, J. R. (1992) Latent viruses and mutated oncogenes: no evidence for pathogenicity. (Prog Nucleic Acid Res Mol Biol 43: 135-204) pdf

Duesberg, P. H. (1992) AIDS acquired by drug consumption and other noncontagious risk factors
(Pharmac. Ther. 55: 201-277), and a searchable textfile.

Duesberg, P.H. (1992) The role of drugs in the origin of AIDS
(Biomed. Pharmacother. 46, 3-15)

Duesberg, P. H. (1991) AIDS epidemiology: inconsistencies with human immunodeficiency virus and with infectious disease
(Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 88: 1575-1579)

Duesberg, P. H. (1989) Human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: Correlation but not causation
(Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 86: 755-764)

Duesberg, P. H. (1988) HIV is not the cause of AIDS
(Science 241: 514-516)

Duesberg, P.H. (1987) Retroviruses as Carcinogens and Pathogens: Expectations and Reality
(Cancer Research 47: 1199-1220)

No, you are most definitely not. You are a conformist retired scientist who is way out of touch with current research.

My colleagues would love to hear that, they'd get quite a chuckle since I always had the reputation of being out rather ahead of the crowd, and not always with the sort of support I should have had.

Oh, you're doing a good job as our joker, keep it up.

No, nobody else says it like it is.

Usually, when I find my self thinking that nobody else says it like it is, I find out that I'm way off base. I have a bit of experience with that.

And some more baseless assertions and ad homenims

No, the assertions have strong bases and there is not need for ad homenims in your case, you've thoroughly discredited yourself without any outside help.

I am here to learn. You seem to already know it all.

I guess when compared to your knowledge base it might look that way, but let me assure you, it isn't.

And again, more vitriol.

You have no idea what vitriol actually is. Meet me at some forum that will let my sailor side out and I'll rank you so low you you'll have to run to your mama for hugs and kisses just to get through the day.

Actually, just so its not a complete loss for you, "vitriol" is just the alchemists name for sulfuric acid.

Unlike you, I do not play to an audience.

I don't expect you to learn, that would require attributes that you lack, so I use you as a highly cooperative object lesson. By the way, thanks.[/quote]

 

[Renji]

Let's say that faith in Christ is logical.So how about 'faith in other gods'?

 

[George-ananda]

Well, yes. That is my disagreement about this being of light. Could he have used the word God inadvertently, yes, he could have, however, as it stand the word God is inappropriate, not forgetting that he has been a Christian for some time and the doctrine of perfection is pretty fundamental. That, and knowing that there are many congregations who believe that when we die we are tranfered directly into the arms of Jesus. That must take up a lot of his time with thousand dying all over the world every day, dispite the fact that he is perfect. I expected him to know better.

Wow, dude. Have you become more hard-core in the last month or so since we last conversed?? Or did I miss-read you before?

 

[Sapiens]

Wow, dude. Have you become more hard-core in the last month or so since we last conversed?? Or did I miss-read you before?

Being appointed jester has gone clear to his head.

 

[Serenity7855]

<---I'm not an atheist.

I could easily summarize the conventional Christian plan of redemption in a few sentences. Since you seem to hold some unconventional views I thought it best to hear your version.

I thought I'd give you one more chance. You blew it.

If you could easily summarize the conventional Christian plan of redemption in a few sentences then it is not the genuine thing. Just the creation would take a great deal more then that. You got it right though, it is my version as it effects me and, therefore, it is not some guile churned up and spewed out by a denominational representative for the gullible congregationalist to swallow. Everything that I believe in is contained within the scriptures for everyone to read. If it ain't there, like the trinity or God incarnate, then I don't believe it. Do you believe in the trinity?

I apologise for calling you an atheist if you are not, it is just that you have that same mean attitude that an atheist does

 

[Serenity7855]

Wow, dude. Have you become more hard-core in the last month or so since we last conversed?? Or did I miss-read you before?

Maybe you are misreading me now

 

[Serenity7855]

Let's say that faith in Christ is logical.So how about 'faith in other gods'?

If it is logical, then yes. It matters not if your God is named God or Mohammed to me. It is what is in your heart and what you believe is true.

 

[Serenity7855]

Not a legitimate journal. With reference to that publication, leading AIDS researchers and campaigners question how the paper could have passed peer review, and say that publishing it in a minor journal known to few does not give it scientific credibility or legitimacy.
"In my view this paper is scientific nonsense and should not have passed peer review. The thesis that HIV does not cause AIDS has no scientific credibility," says Nathan Geffen of the South Africa-based Treatment Action Campaign, who previously raised concerns about the article.

Then you go on with a raft of papers, all from the same contrary kook, none of which present any new science or research, all of which only serve to turn the spotlight that he loves on him.
@


My colleagues would love to hear that, they'd get quite a chuckle since I always had the reputation of being out rather ahead of the crowd, and not always with the sort of support I should have had.

Oh, you're doing a good job as our joker, keep it up.
Usually, when I find my self thinking that nobody else says it like it is, I find out that I'm way off base. I have a bit of experience with that.

No, the assertions have strong bases and there is not need for ad homenims in your case, you've thoroughly discredited yourself without any outside help.
I guess when compared to your knowledge base it might look that way, but let me assure you, it isn't.
You have no idea what vitriol actually is. Meet me at some forum that will let my sailor side out and I'll rank you so low you you'll have to run to your mama for hugs and kisses just to get through the day.

Actually, just so its not a complete loss for you, "vitriol" is just the alchemists name for sulfuric acid.

I don't expect you to learn, that would require attributes that you lack, so I use you as a highly cooperative object lesson. By the way, thanks.

I am not going to justify this vitriol (as in something highly caustic or severe in effect, as criticism) with a response. It is like debating with a kid in kindergarten who boasts his ability to be abnoxious and crass with blatant arrogance and elitism. God will have a humble people. You can either choose to be humble or compelled.