Do Catholics in Any Sense Keep the Torah?

Clint tony Goldrest

status

If Christians actually followed what Jesus taught, they'd be Jewish and following the Torah. Because jesus didn't start a new religion and was jewish

own answer

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What if Christianity actually does follow the Torah?

I mean Roman Catholic Christianity.

That's the Torah fulfilled.

I

Frank Maiolo

Hans-Georg Lundahl it super doesn't

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Care to elaborate?

Frank Maiolo

Hans-Georg Lundahl the law forbids eating unclean things. The law commands not to plant mixed crops or wear mixed fabrics. The law commands all peoples If all nations to be circumcised in the heart and the flesh in the new Jerusalem. The law commands stoning disobedient children and wives who don't bleed in their wedding night. It commands that Hebrews may enslave non-Hebrews, unless they're living in the land of Canaan. In that case, the law commands slaughtering anything that breathes, including infants and even livestock.

You don't follow the Torah.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Frank Maiolo "the law forbids eating unclean things."

Clean meat walked on fully cloven hooves, symbolising the Two Testaments, Old and New, belong together, but not mixed, hence "fully" cloven.

Rabbits are unclean because they hop on feet with several toes, representing polytheism, hence idolatry.

It also had to chew the cud, in the case of actually clean things, that means four stomachs. This symbolises meditating on God's law or doctrine.

In rabbits, chewing the cud means sth else, just like Hindus meditate on sth else.

In swine, there is no chewing the cud. Like some have both testaments, but don't avail themselves of meditating on them.

And a camel has an only partially cloven hoof, symbolising an undue mixing of the Testaments.

"The law commands not to plant mixed crops or wear mixed fabrics."

We are not allowed to mix Christian doctrine with Pagan error, such as Stoicism or Epicureanism or Polytheism.

And we don't do it.

We keep this command spiritually, by admitting Two Testaments, admitting they are separate and meditating on them.

"The law commands stoning disobedient children"

That was part of the civil law and as such is no longer applicable after Archelaus or his dad Herod the Great died.

Also, Jesus did not tell dads to stone minor children, he told adult sons to stop behaving to elderly dads like jerks that deserve stoning (but whom no one can stone).

"It commands that Hebrews may enslave non-Hebrews, unless they're living in the land of Canaan."

I think you got that part totally wrong.

Sorry, you haven't learned what the law says, you've copied a list.

Canaanites were to do one of three things:

• get out
• get enslaved
• for specific cities (like Jericho) get slaughtered.

They were to do that in ONE specific circumstance, the entry of Israel into the promised land, and that circumstance is now over, 3500 c. years ago. Not doing that over again is not "not following the law."

Frank Maiolo

Hans-Georg Lundahl I didn't copy a list. I wrote it down because I read it. You're flat out making up stuff about what these laws mean. The words mean what they say.

Jesus advocated stoning disobedient children. He did not qualify them as "adults".

The symbology and typography you're trying to arm-wrestle into the text is simply false. You're making it up.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Frank Maiolo If anyone is making the typology up, it's St. Thomas Aquinas, I have it from him.

// Jesus advocated stoning disobedient children. He did not qualify them as "adults". //

Here are the words, and "children" does not occur:

But he answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for your tradition? For God said Honour thy father and mother: And: He that shall curse father or mother, let him die the death But you say: Whosoever shall say to father or mother, The gift whatsoever proceedeth from me, shall profit thee And he shall not honour his father or his mother: and you have made void the commandment of God for your tradition
[Matthew 15:3-6]

People who are able to declare a thing a korban, are not children. He is blaming the punishables, not the non-punishers, in his adult audience.

So, as you said "children" you have clearly not read the actual passage.

II

David Ewers

Hans-Georg Lundahspecial pleading, not adressing the issue. major dailurel

Hans-Georg Lundahl

David Ewers I don't care whether you call it special pleading or not.

It's one specific claim of my religion, you had better try to poke an actual hole rather than just throw big words around with no specifics.

David Ewers

Hans-Georg Lundahl you proven to be irrational. thanks

Hans-Georg Lundahl

David Ewers also a big word to throw around when you have no concrete evidence

technically it's called an ad hominem.

Are Some Presenting me as Toxic Because of Tolkien?

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: I've Noted Some of My Readers Hate Tolkien · HGL's F.B. writings: Are Some Presenting me as Toxic Because of Tolkien?

Two FB statuses, one on each profile:

I

What's the worst thing that can be said about Tolkien's death?

His son who was at the death bed was, known to his father, celebrating the Novus Ordo. He certainly was a valid priest, ordained in 1946.

Other things on that son may have been unknown to the father.

II

No, Mikael Rosén, Sedevacantist Catholic and (at least formerly) National Socialist, a combination not possible in Tanus, he didn't leave FB, he blocked me (on my other profile).

Last interaction we had, he had a meme with "maybe I was raised wrong, but if we wanted sth, we worked for it", I guessed a kind of criticism some may have of me, and I actually responded accordingly, showing last list of my work which presents the production in a comprehensive way, the production of April.

A similar list of May is so far not yet extant, as May isn't finished yet.

New blog on the kid: Production April 2026
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2026/04/production-april-2026.html

As I mentioned to him and as you can verify, it links back to earlier lists (March 2026, which links to February 2026 ...)

Elaine Holt Took Off at a Tangent

Spinoff from A Heliocentic Heckled the Ascension of Jesus

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Elaine Holt As far as I can tell, his claims do not come wholesale from the Bible.

It is a reliable source for the event, by the way, if not for James Shiers' explanation, since it isn't in there. Specifically this statement on material reality:

"the dimensions (time, space, matter and six other dimensions now proven with the Hadron collider)"

No, they aren't. Hadron colliders can be very misinterpreted.

Elaine Holt

Hans-Georg Lundahl ... Disagree.

1....The entire basis for miracles of Jesus rests on the his familial divinity. Since there is no verifiable existential evidence for the god of Abraham, Jesus is not the son of a god.

2....There is no verifiable evidence for miracles, paranormal, or the supernatural. There are million $ awards offered for proof of miracles and paranormal which have not been awarded. When someone does prove it, it will be all over news media.

3....There are many claims for 'miracles' claimed by other gods and messiahs long before biblical writers ' borrowed' the those myths. For instance, ancient Egyptian myths are full of miracles. The Jesus myth is second to the last messiah in a long list of would be worldly saviors.

James Shiers

Elaine Holt

The “book” wasn’t a book until 382 AD.

Until then it was OT prophecy that Greeks also took an interest in by translating the Septuagint, then at the appearance of the historical Jesus, eyewitness accounts by traditional Jews of unexplainable supernatural events, deep moral teachings, a claim to fulfillment of Hebrew scriptural covenant, and “man”ifestation of claims they would not immediately comprehend.

It would require the metanoia of a renowned persecuting, murdering Pharisee writing (at least) 16 letters to early ecclesia to fully detail the meaning of the resurrection event.

The resurrection event was so powerfully evident that the closest eyewitnesses gave up traditional Jewish beliefs, left or were booted from the synagogue lives and sought to relay their experience by traveling to spread the “good news” (Grk: Gospel) at the expense of being mocked, beaten, tortured and killed by some who would label them atheists for refusing to address Caesar as a god.

They called themselves “followers of the way” however Rome sought to mock the growing group of believers in the sincerity of the followers and the alignment of scriptural prophecy to the event by naming them “Christians “.

An embarrassing abundance of first century manuscripts (5600+ Koine Greek and 15,000+ in other languages of the day, of firsthand Jewish witnesses; then writings of secular and even hostile persons of note such as Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, Josephus, and others testify to the veracity of the event.

If such information were demanded of George Washington’s existence he wouldn’t qualify.

The OT writings, with narrative, prophecy, and typographies are confirmed by the Dead Sea scrolls, providentially discovered after the Third Reich was dispatched, and authenticated to have been copied roughly 200 years BC.

Order and occurrence of these events defy random chance and offer a complete explanation to homo sapien sapien’s (thinking man’s) earliest and long standing existential questions of origin, meaning and destiny. The Bible unabashedly claims “truth” and is found to demonstrate it among many today.

Which is the reason the “book” is the longest running best seller in human history.

Elaine Holt

James Shiers .... All of your comment is interesting however, it does not address my claim of the book being full of contradictions, fallacies, superstitions, and myths from earlier cultures. The bible is therefore not a reliable source for 'truth'.

Your assertion that the bible is the largest selling book in history has no bearing on the lack of evidence for its claims or lack of truth. Several thousand years ago, everybody in the world 'knew' the earth was flat and sun circled the flat earth.

The writers of the books of the canon are in question even by biblical scollars. There are no original scripts; and it has been edited more than 15 times. The King James committee of reviewers who translated the book (around 1600CE), was then again modified by the king BC some of the passages that didn't suit his biases. And, there has been even another translation of the king James version since more of the scriptures have been found offensive to the powers that be.

So, none of your comment addressed the issues I opened, but I do respect your attempt to try.

I don't believe I mentioned that biblical scriptures testify that the unproven god of Abraham sanctioned every atrocity known to man onto the humans he claimed to 'love'. Maybe we can discuss morality later.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Elaine Holt "Disagree."

You know what? You have still not traced his exotic world view with ten dimensions (if I added up together) to the Bible.

"Several thousand years ago, everybody in the world 'knew' the earth was flat and sun circled the flat earth."

For Sun circling, along with the universe, each day, counter to the zodiac, each year, you have not disproven.

If everyone in the time and region when most OT books (prior to Maccabees, for instance) were written were Flat Earth, isn't it a little miracle in itself that this doesn't in any way shape or form show up clearly in any of those texts?

"my claim of the book being full of contradictions, fallacies, superstitions, and myths from earlier cultures."

Feel free to name some. You already mentioned Flat Earth, which isn't there, and Geocentrism, which you haven't disproven.

"There are no original scripts; and it has been edited more than 15 times."

Not serially, but in parallel. King James, I'm against, as it is Protestant, groups books and book parts as "apocrypha" and above all mistranslates Matthew 6:7 with "vain repetitions" that's not what battalogein means.

A Heliocentic Heckled the Ascension of Jesus

HGL's F.B. writings: A Heliocentic Heckled the Ascension of Jesus · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Reflection on the Ascension · Ascension

Garry Smith

status*

The bible says Jesus rose bodily into heaven and sits at the right hand of the father and will return. Christians also say God exists out of space and time. Wonder how does a physical body get outside of space and time and then return?

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

God as God exists outside space and time, not meaning "on the outside of" but independently of.

To meet angels He always had a throne room, above the stars, which doesn't exist independently of space and time.

There is where Jesus went.

Thomas Kieft

Hans-Georg Lundahl above the stars, you say? Like billions of light years away?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

One to ten light DAYS up.

The "cosmic distance scale" once it involves fix stars, involves Heliocentric interpretation of the phenomenon labelled "parallax" ... mislabelled according to this Geocentric.

If Heliocentrism (on the local scale) holds, that means that we have a triangle between Earth position A, Earth position B and star AND a known distance between Earth positions A and B, namely 2 AU.

In Geocentrism, the 2 AU are still a known distance but outside the triangle Star position A, Star position B and Earth. Without a known distance IN the triangle, you can't triangulate a distance. If the angle of 0.35 arc seconds doesn't belong to Earth but to Sirius, we cannot know that Sirius is "8.6 Light years away" ...

So, forget about light years, there is no such distance.

In the diagram**, I used alpha Centauri, bad choice, since not main series, so less relevant for cosmic distance scale. I learned the "distance" and parallax for Sirius much more recently.

II

Bruce Molinari

His body took on the qualities of His divinity

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Actually false, if you mean things like inspatiality.

Bruce Molinari

Hans-Georg Lundahlnot how it works; His body is now the same as His divinity: this means that He is everywhere undiminished and is perfect in every way

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That is actually a Monophysitic heresy, and I'm not even sure the Copts or Armenians would accept it.

This was condemned in the Council of Chalcedon.

III

Haangala Simuunka

Can you give a citation where the Bible says Jesus rose "bodily"?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Do you need the actual WORD "bodily"?

1) The disciples SAW Him.
2) St. John SEES Him again, on Patmos.
3) Just in case you think of Theophanies, like God speaking to Adam, in that case God assumed a voice at least, and with Jacob God assumed a body (I'm one who holds that "the angel" was God the Son, before His incarnation), which Jesus doesn't need to since He assumed humanity in the womb of His Virgin Mother.

Haangala Simuunka

Hans-Georg Lundahl So you can't find a passage that actually says he went up bodily?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Haangala Simuunka Yes, I can, unless it's the exact WORD you want.

You admit He claimed to be God when He claimed to be Son of Man, Mark 2 verses 2 to 12, and yet you don't find Him using the word God.

Now your turn. Luke 24 and Acts 1 are the passages, if you pretend He DIDN'T go up bodily, how do YOU explain it, and above all how do you explain the Disciples and all of Church history since then got it wrong?

IV

James Shiers

Evidentially the power to transcend dimensions is part of the answer.

Do you suppose the creator of such dimensions would possess such power?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I suppose the creator would have such power.

I do not suppose it's a very big part of the answer. It is more of an answer on the Eucharist than on God the Son seated at the right of God the Father.

James Shiers

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Interesting… please elaborate

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, at the Right of the Father, Jesus is in normal space, in Empyrean Heaven, above the Fix Stars.

Normal distance between head and feet.

In the Eucharist, head and feet are there, but it's the dimensions of bread that touch surrounding space.

V

James Shiers

The creator of the dimensions (time, space, matter and six other dimensions now proven with the Hadron collider) transcends all dimensions. This is what allows Jesus' miracles to be understood. From water to wine, multiplying bread and fish, walking on water, calming storms, healing sick, raising the dead ... to walking through walls to eat fish dinners after being murdered:

"Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." - John 21:25

... Jesus demonstrated His divine nature and authority over the four categories that affect humanity: disease, nature, temptation and life itself.

Elaine Holt

James Shiers ....As far as I can tell, your claims come from a book full of contradictions , superstitions, fallacies, and myths from earlier cultures. Do you have a reliable source for your claims?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Elaine Holt As far as I can tell, his claims do not come wholesale from the Bible.

It is a reliable source for the event, by the way, if not for James Shiers' explanation, since it isn't in there. Specifically this statement on material reality:

"the dimensions (time, space, matter and six other dimensions now proven with the Hadron collider)"

No, they aren't. Hadron colliders can be very misinterpreted.

Elaine Holt's answer

and the ensuing debate merit a post of their own:

Elaine Holt Took Off at a Tangent

* Timely the day before Ascension in 2026. ** Original on a disconnected old blog of mine :

Geo vs Helio | hglwrites
May 29, 2012 | hglundahl
https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/geo-vs-helio/

Rédemptoristes Transalpins

Adrien Abauzit

statut

Un nouveau groupe ex-moderniste devient sédévacantiste.

Gloria TV : Les rédemptoristes transalpins deviennent sédévacantistes : "Pas de reconnaissance de Léon XIV
https://gloria.tv/post/CQzxnN33smpb4pPzdhYXGVq2V

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ce qui me rappelle, je devrais leur dire de reconnaître Pape Michel II.

Merci pour le rappel !

Adrien Abauzit

Hans-Georg Lundahl Par définition, lorsqu'on est sédévacantiste, on ne reconnaît pas les faux papes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Pape Michel II ne reconnaît pas Wojtyla, Ratzinger, Bergoglio ou Prevost, non plus.

Je suis d'ailleurs Conclaviste.

Apparenté :

Adrien Abauzit

statut

Les sédévacantistes font le constat de la vacance du Siège.

La Fraternité saint Pie X fait le constat de l'état de nécessité.

Sauf que s'il y a un pape, il ne peut pas exister d'état de nécessité.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

S'il n'y a pas pape, c'est en soi un état de nécessité, à moins d'avoir illico une conclave valide et en bonne et due forme.

1988 Monseigneur Lefebvre fit constat de l'état de nécessité en sacrant des évêques.

1990 David Allen Bawden fit constat de l'état de nécessité consistant en absence prolongée d'un pape et entra une élection "par état de nécessité" (emergency "conclave").

C'est d'ailleurs
lui qui sortait l'élu. Si des Évêques étaient venus, peut-être un d'entre eux aurait été élu. Prit le nom Michel (I).

Freewill

Atheists vs Christians Debate Central 101

David Knowles

status

If God took away our free will to sin, we would be more like God because God can't sin. So evil isn't necessary for good to exist.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

God can't sin and a stone can't sin.

God taking away our free will would make us more like a stone.

If we freely collaborate with God, the moment He perfects our freedom to no longer be able to sin is at death. If we don't, that's when we lose the freedom to repent.

I a

David Knowles

Hans-Georg Lundahl God has free will and he is not like a stone so why would humans be that way? You logic is faulty.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

God has free will and cannot sin.

I b

David Knowles

Hans-Georg Lundahl God never gave anybody free will. God gave obey or die. That's coercion. Free will is not even a biblical concept. It's a Roman Orthodox Church invention so they could prove inheritable sin. If you had actual free will you could just choose not to sin but you can't because god cursed humanity with inherited sin, not free will.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

David Knowles "obey or die" isn't a lack of free will, it's an incentive to use it.

God also gave us opportunities enough to ignore the incentive, so it doesn't constitute coercion.

I c

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl That's like saying God takes away freewill because we can't breath underwater.

If your God is so helpless he can't keep freewill and make us incapable of sinning, that bodes poorly for Heaven.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler It's not a question for God being helpless, it's a question for God being consistent.

If God takes away the freedom to sin in advance, that takes away the free will.

If God takes away the freedom to sin as a reward for chosing not to sin, that takes away a distraction and weakness.

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl Would you focus on the issue?

One can have freewill and not sin.

This is true.

So why not give people freewill without sin?

The answer is not because you don't understand the paradigm.

If you indicate you can not understand this, it is clear your opinion and your reason for religion, is erroneous.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler "One can have freewill and not sin."

Under condition of having a perfect will.

Now, the perfect will comes in "two flavours" ... God's will is the definition of perfect and always was. A created will has to progress by choices to *become* perfect.

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl No, it does not, and you have no authority to say so.

A God of your description could have given us freewill without the capacity to sin, in the same way he could give us the freewill and be unable to breath water.

The reason this is otherwise, is because God is a fiction.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler The reason this is otherwise is, because a creature cannot have freewill without some at least initial independence of the creator.

Not sinning = perfected dependence on God.

Now, Mary did have that from the beginning, but that was a privilege.

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl Since there is no creator, this is wrong.

[meme referring to First Law of Thermodynamics]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler The denial of creation from a law that would describe a common experience, but cannot deny its universality either in time or space is not a reason against good points about creation.

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl You can talk sideways all you want, but all your ideas have been shown false.

Your God is false, proven decisively.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler I'm so sorry that you take a mis-stated observation about nature as a "proof" against her Author.

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl You have demonstrated an inability to follow a conversation, much less the complexities of this subject.

Your opinions, unsubstantiated opinions, are dismissed for these reasons.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler "inability to follow a conversation,"

More like you have.

"Your opinions ... are dismissed"

My Latin teacher told class one day, the passive has a first hand use in avoiding to talking about the doer ... who's doing the dismissing? You, Greg Tyler?

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl You have not been able to follow the conversation, made things up, and submitted opinion as fact.

What can I do but consider you unworthy of conversation?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler Oh, *you* are doing so, thanks for the clarification.

I'm not answering the rest of your comment.

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl Correct, you have shown you do not have the capacity.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler To your taste, not the best.

Excursus

The Byzantine Forum: The Roman Catholic Doctrine of Mary's Impeccability
https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/400295/the-roman-catholic-doctrine-of-marys-impeccability

II

Jay Reb

How did you verify that free will even exists

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If I lie, I know I could have been silent or I could have spoken otherwise and said the truth.

II a

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl how do you know that? How do you know you could have done anything differently?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb How do you know anything about yourself?

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl I can only trust what my brain tells me. So I ask again, how did you verify that free will exists? I personally don’t think it does.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb I need to repeat the question: how do you know *anything* about yourself?

Is introspection valid evidence that I think?

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl I am forced to trust what my brain says about me.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb Freewill doesn't mean freedom on all levels.

I'm also forced to believe the grass is green, as per my eye-sight.

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl that’s not what I mean. I mean everything is based on cause and effect and the laws of physics. If you restarted the big bang, I maintain everything would happen exactly the same way. Every single time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb The laws of physics make no statements about exclusivity in causation.

They only make statements of exclusively one outcome other things being equal (which often enough, they aren't). They make no statements whatsoever about the other thing needing to be also phsyical and also subject to the laws of physics.

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl that’s why cause and effect is the other thing I mentioned. Please explain how you could do anything different if given the exact same situation with the exact same knowledge and emotional state. You would make the same choice over and over and over for eternity.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb You are presuming all causes are, like the physical ones, such as can have only one particular effect.

Wrongly so.

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl how can the exact same action have a different effect?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb You are forgetting that the will is not just a passive resultant of inner and outer circumstances, but actively engaged in forming what we receive, certainly from the outside to some degree even from the inside.

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl that makes no sense.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb Oh, your will just floats along with whatever stimulates it, without any attempt of curbing it?

Too bad for you, if that's the case.

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl you’re missing the point. How do you verify that you have a choice over what decision you make?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb I've already answered: like I verify that I think, like I verify that I see green when looking at grass.

Immediate experience.

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl you’re missing the point. How do you verify that you have a choice over what decision you make?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb Again, what *verification* do you ask of *immediate experience*?

Leaving out

a foulworded reply from Jay Reb, but he claimed he was asking me to prove my claim.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb No, you weren't.

You were asking me how I verified, presumably to myself in the first place.

That's different from proving to you.

Now, if you have no immediate experience of actually chosing, I can't help you. That's just too bad for you, if so.

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl no, if you can verify it to yourself, you can verify it to anyone.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb Not the least.

I can verify to myself I ate cherry yoghurt this morning, not to you.

II b

Jamison Peterson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Even if you repeat a lie believing it to be true, you're still lying!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jamison Peterson No, that's not lying, that's repeating a lie.

Jamison Peterson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Does repeating a lie somehow make it true? A lie, is a lie, is a lie!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jamison Peterson No, repeating a lie believing it to be true (and not just possible) is a different action from saying what you know to be a lie and from being callous about the possibility.

Jamison Peterson

Hans-Georg Lundahl A lie is a lie. It can't be excused by igorance.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jamison Peterson If I'm ignorant, the lie may still be someone's lie, but not mine. It's in that case just my mistake.

Mike Winger; What is a Child?

Mike Winger
This little girl... Islam did this
https://www.facebook.com/reel/968812972680235

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mr. Winger.

As the picture was shown, so also your statement indicated *she was pregnant.*

A person with a uterus is not a male. A person with another person in the uterus is not a child.