Jesus died for the sins of the world

[MoreCoffee]

Dogs are not sacrilegious. They are God's creation that teaches us through watching them. Evil is in the eye of the beholder.

You simply do not understand.

 

[1689Dave]

You simply do not understand.

Innocent minds normally do not see the evils others see.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Innocent minds normally do not see the evils others see.

A nice spin.

 

[Josiah]

It proves limited atonement

No, it does not. It might "prove" that the Elect are given faith but it has nothing whatsoever to do with all those Scriptures are wrong that verbatim state that Jesus died for all and instead, those radical Calvinists are right and He did NOT die for all but ONLY for some unknown few. You are simply employing a logical fallacy, a red herring, nothing that SOME aren't given faith and substituting something other, that SOME are not died for. Silly. Obvious. But it's all you got - logical fallacies.

He says all that the Father to him will come to him.

Yup. Now TRY to post to the topic. The issue is not which individuals the Father will "draw" (if you want to have a discussion about that, start one on that and stop hijacking this one).

The verse you don't quote does not state, "All those Scriptures are wrong, Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some unknown few."

John 10:11 (KJV) I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

Correct.

And you're also correct that this verse does not substantiate this horrible invention of a few radical Calvinists. It does not say "ONLY" anywhere.

This is yet another logical fallacy. The entire apologetic of Limited Atonement rests entirely, solely, on this logical fallacy. One perhaps illustrated by this: "Ford makes Mustangs, ergo Ford ONLY makes Mustangs." See the logical fallacy of that? It's the one these radical Calvinists use for Limited Atonement, used to deny all those many, many clear, undeniable, verbatim, word-for-word, in black-and-white words everyone with eyes notes, that Jesus died for all people. All they have to deny that is a silly, absurd logical fallacy, because there is not verse that says "No, that's wrong, Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some unknown few." Not a verse, not a voice before these Calvinist radicals invented this dogma.


.

 

[1689Dave]

No, it does not. It might "prove" that the Elect are given faith but it has nothing whatsoever to do with all those Scriptures are wrong that verbatim state that Jesus died for all and instead, those radical Calvinists are right and He did NOT die for all but ONLY for some unknown few. You are simply employing a logical fallacy, a red herring, nothing that SOME aren't given faith and substituting something other, that SOME are not died for. Silly. Obvious. But it's all you got - logical fallacies.




Yup. Now TRY to post to the topic. The issue is not which individuals the Father will "draw" (if you want to have a discussion about that, start one on that and stop hijacking this one).

The verse you don't quote does not state, "All those Scriptures are wrong, Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some unknown few."



.

Did you know there is no such thing as universal atonement? Atonement means reconciliation. And the whole world is not reconciled to God. So it's an empty term. Void of all meaning.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Did you know there is no such thing as universal atonement?

There is, really, it is a doctrine of some Arminian style Calvinists.

Atonement means reconciliation.

More like "Atonement is reparation or expiation for sin"

And the whole world is not reconciled to God.

That is true and it is also irrelevant because, as far as this thread's participants are concerned, no one said that the whole world is reconciled to with God.

So it's an empty term.

It is a questionable term, which is why Catholic Church teaching does not use it.

Void of all meaning.

Not really, it has meaning and that is why you've written a hundred and more posts about it.

 

[Josiah]

it's an empty term.

@1689Dave
@Albion
@Origen
@prism
@brightfame52


Blame those radical Calvinists you echo, they invented the monikers for the two opposing views.

As you have been told - MANY times, over many weeks, in numerous threads, the early Christians, the Church Council, the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church and more teach that Jesus died for all BUT they never use the Calvinist invented moniker in their statements, declarations or Confessions. I stated the Catholic embrace of this in CCC 605 and you noted it just states the view, not the Calvinist name for it. And I quoted the Lutheran Confessions and you read the view but didn't see the Calvinist moniker they invented for it.

Which is why this topic isn't about the monikers the radical, extremist, latter-day Calvinists you echo gave to the two views, IT'S BEEN ABOUT THE TWO VIEWS. Perhaps you've just not been paying any attention.


Here, AGAIN, yet again, still another time, these are the two views. Call them "Toyota" and "Ford" if you like, Calvinists can invent any monikers they want, it doesn't change the views.


1. Jesus died for all people.

Here are the Scriptures that state this view. The view echos them, verbatim.

1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.​

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Ephesians 2:8, “For by grace you have been saved through faith in Christ, and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God”

Hebrews 2:9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

2 Corinthians 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all

John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

2 Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all

2 Corinthians 5:19 That is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself as a ransom for all.

and many more just like the above.

+ This view does NOT hold that all individuals have personal justification since that requires a second aspect, the divine gift of faith. BOTH the CROSS and FAITH are 100% the work and gift of God and together they bring justification (narrow sense) to the individual.

+ The Catholic Church, Lutheran Church and Anglican churches have condemned Pelagianism and all its forms (it's a tad fuzzy in the EOC, lol) So this teaching does not hold that we save ourselves, it does not denounce original sin, it does not repudiate faith. It states this: Jesus died for all. It echos those words from the Bible. It doesn't explain anything, it doesn't deny anything, it affirms one point: Jesus died for all.

It is the view of the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, and nearly all other denominations and faith communities. It was declared doctine by a Church Council in the 9th Century.


2. No, Jesus did NOT die for all people but ONLY for some unknown few.

Here are the Scriptures that state this view:

Crickets.

+ There is a verse that says "Jesus died for the Elect" but none that say ONLY for the Elect. And there are verses that state that Jesus died for us (Christians) but none that state ONLY for us (indeed, see 1 John 2:2). And without the "only" the point is unsubstantiated. Apologists of this view must employ a silly logical fallacy, one illustrated by this: "Ford makes Mustangs, ergo Ford ONLY makes Mustangs." Or "Bob loves his wife, ergo he ONLY loves his wife and not his kids." Even my four year old son can see the absurdity of the logical fallacy radical, extremist Calvinists use as their apologetic for this invention. The whole apologetic has not one Scripture that states their point. It's based entirely on a logical fallacy.

+ And of course if this horrible invention is true, then no one can know if Jesus' death is for THEM (odds are, it's not). And no way to know if their trust in that death for THEM means anything at all since they can't know if it was for them (probably not).

Radical Calvinists invented this dogma in response to Arminianists (who embrace some forms of synergism and Pelagianism) and necessitates the opposition having those views. It doesn't work at all on people who aren't Arminianists. It's based on NOT ONE VERSE in Scripture (so much for Sola Scriptura) and on a fallacy that permits them to INSERT the word "only" into texts, the logical fallacy that is the entire basis of their apologetic is like this: "Ford makes Mustangs, ergo Ford ONLY makes Mustangs." Their entire apologetic rests on this logical fallacy. And the absence of any Scripture that states it.




. this dot is dedicated to MoreCoffee

 

[MoreCoffee]

. this dot is dedicated to MoreCoffee

Thank you

 

[1689Dave]

@1689Dave
@Albion
@Origen
@prism
@brightfame52


Blame those radical Calvinists you echo, they invented the monikers for the two opposing views.

As you have been told - MANY times, over many weeks, in numerous threads, the early Christians, the Church Council, the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church and more teach that Jesus died for all BUT they never use the Calvinist invented moniker in their statements, declarations or Confessions. I stated the Catholic embrace of this in CCC 605 and you noted it just states the view, not the Calvinist name for it. And I quoted the Lutheran Confessions and you read the view but didn't see the Calvinist moniker they invented for it.

Which is why this topic isn't about the monikers the radical, extremist, latter-day Calvinists you echo gave to the two views, IT'S BEEN ABOUT THE TWO VIEWS. Perhaps you've just not been paying any attention.


Here, AGAIN, yet again, still another time, these are the two views. Call them "Toyota" and "Ford" if you like, Calvinists can invent any monikers they want, it doesn't change the views.


1. Jesus died for all people.

Here are the Scriptures that state this view. The view echos them, verbatim.

1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.​

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Ephesians 2:8, “For by grace you have been saved through faith in Christ, and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God”

Hebrews 2:9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

2 Corinthians 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all

John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

2 Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all

2 Corinthians 5:19 That is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself as a ransom for all.

and many more just like the above.

+ This view does NOT hold that all individuals have personal justification since that requires a second aspect, the divine gift of faith. BOTH the CROSS and FAITH are 100% the work and gift of God and together they bring justification (narrow sense) to the individual.

+ The Catholic Church, Lutheran Church and Anglican churches have condemned Pelagianism and all its forms (it's a tad fuzzy in the EOC, lol) So this teaching does not hold that we save ourselves, it does not denounce original sin, it does not repudiate faith. It states this: Jesus died for all. It echos those words from the Bible. It doesn't explain anything, it doesn't deny anything, it affirms one point: Jesus died for all.

It is the view of the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, and nearly all other denominations and faith communities. It was declared doctine by a Church Council in the 9th Century.


2. No, Jesus did NOT die for all people but ONLY for some unknown few.

Here are the Scriptures that state this view:

Crickets.

+ There is a verse that says "Jesus died for the Elect" but none that say ONLY for the Elect. And there are verses that state that Jesus died for us (Christians) but none that state ONLY for us (indeed, see 1 John 2:2). And without the "only" the point is unsubstantiated. Apologists of this view must employ a silly logical fallacy, one illustrated by this: "Ford makes Mustangs, ergo Ford ONLY makes Mustangs." Or "Bob loves his wife, ergo he ONLY loves his wife and not his kids." Even my four year old son can see the absurdity of the logical fallacy radical, extremist Calvinists use as their apologetic for this invention. The whole apologetic has not one Scripture that states their point. It's based entirely on a logical fallacy.

+ And of course if this horrible invention is true, then no one can know if Jesus' death is for THEM (odds are, it's not). And no way to know if their trust in that death for THEM means anything at all since they can't know if it was for them (probably not).

Radical Calvinists invented this dogma in response to Arminianists (who embrace some forms of synergism and Pelagianism) and necessitates the opposition having those views. It doesn't work at all on people who aren't Arminianists. It's based on NOT ONE VERSE in Scripture (so much for Sola Scriptura) and on a fallacy that permits them to INSERT the word "only" into texts, the logical fallacy that is the entire basis of their apologetic is like this: "Ford makes Mustangs, ergo Ford ONLY makes Mustangs." Their entire apologetic rests on this logical fallacy. And the absence of any Scripture that states it.




. this dot is dedicated to MoreCoffee

Just remember, if Calvin, Luther, the Reformed, The Baptists, and the Presbyterians were right, you boys have a lot to answer for.

 

[1689Dave]

There is, really, it is a doctrine of some Arminian style Calvinists.

More like "Atonement is reparation or expiation for sin"

That is true and it is also irrelevant because, as far as this thread's participants are concerned, no one said that the whole world is reconciled to with God.

It is a questionable term, which is why Catholic Church teaching does not use it.

Not really, it has meaning and that is why you've written a hundred and more posts about it.

If there was some way for some of you to disassociate yourselves from the murderous pasts of your Churches, I might be more inclined to pay attention to you. Would I take advice from a Nazi?

 

[MoreCoffee]

If there was some way for some of you to disassociate yourselves from the murderous pasts of your Churches, I might be more inclined to pay attention to you. Would I take advice from a Nazi?

Good sir, do you think about forgiveness often, why it exists, why God calls us to exercise it, what it means, why we might need it?

PS: I occurred to me that my post could be misunderstood as an oblique apology for alleged Church misbehaviour. Its intention is, however, not related to that matter in any way whatever. It is a question about experiencing forgiveness and showing it in writing here on CH.

 

[1689Dave]

Good sir, do you think about forgiveness often, why it exists, why God calls us to exercise it, what it means, why we might need it?

How can a "priest" forgive?

 

[Lamb]

Did you know there is no such thing as universal atonement? Atonement means reconciliation. And the whole world is not reconciled to God. So it's an empty term. Void of all meaning.

Was all of mankind affected by Adam's sin?

You see, if you continue to deny that "all" means ALL then you probably should start saying that not everyone was condemned by Adam's sin?

Romans 5:18
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.

 

[1689Dave]

You are one of the most offensive posters I’ve encountered on here.

How can I not share the truth Christ suffered and died for? The fact is, institutional church organizations are religious franchises that need to attract and keep their patrons. You cannot do that by telling the truth.

 

[1689Dave]

Was all of mankind affected by Adam's sin?

You see, if you continue to deny that "all" means ALL then you probably should start saying that not everyone was condemned by Adam's sin?

Romans 5:18
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.

If Christ paid for all sin, why do so many perish? Here's where it all falls apart for you if you provide one honest answer.

 

[Josiah]

Was all of mankind affected by Adam's sin?

You see, if you continue to deny that "all" means ALL then you probably should start saying that not everyone was condemned by Adam's sin?

Romans 5:18
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.

@Lamb


ONE of Dave's games is to rebuke the NAME his hero's gave to our position, since he can't rebuke the position itself. This is a new game for him, added to the others. But he seems to be having fun with the MONIKER the radical anti-Calvinist heroes of his gave to the position while entirely ignoring the actual position.

Add that to his insistence that many verses of the Bible must have a "NOT" added to them (reversing the words) since evidently God forgot that critical word. And his silliness that the word "many" mean "all" and his list of logical fallacies.

See post 547

If Christ paid for all sin, why do so many perish?

And here's another: The repudiation of faith. Because evidently he agrees with the Universalists that split off from Calvinism that faith is a joke - meaningless, irrelevant, and having nothing to do with personal justification, he too holds that if Jesus died for all then all are personally justified and will not perish. It's a heresy of course. completely eliminating faith in justification, but it's not his only one.

And of course, not only is his basing his apologetic on a heresy (faith has no role in personal justification) but he continues to think that questions prove something. Even middle school debates know how absolutely silly that is.






.

 

[1689Dave]

@Lamb


ONE of Dave's games is to rebuke the NAME his hero's gave to our position, since he can't rebuke the position itself. This is a new game for him, added to the others. But he seems to be having fun with the MONIKER the radical anti-Calvinist heroes of his gave to the position while entirely ignoring the actual position.

Add that to his insistence that many verses of the Bible must have a "NOT" added to them (reversing the meaning) since evidently God forgot that critical word. And his silliness that the word "many" mean "all" and his list of logical fallacies.





And here's another: The repudiation of faith. Because evidently he agrees with the Universalists that split off from Calvinism that faith is a joke - meaningless, irrelevant, and having nothing to do with personal justification, he too holds that if Jesus died for all then all are personally justified and will not perish. It's a heresy of course. completely eliminating faith in justification, but it's not his only one.




.

Complaining about me only shows your hopelessness in proving me wrong. I feel sorry for you to no end. But you still cannot answer for the unbelieving Pharisees in John 10. This is very serious because you have some pretty big dogs in this fight.

 

[Josiah]

Complaining about me only shows your hopelessness in proving me wrong.

You've already proved your position wrong. You did it. With your inability to quote even one Scripture stating, "No, Jesus did NOT die for all but only, exclusively, solely for some unknown few.

We, of course, quoted several that verbatim, in black-and-white words my four-year-old can read (but it seems you can't), states "Jesus died for all."

But you still cannot answer for the unbelieving Pharisees in John 10.

Quote the verse in John 10 that states, "Jesus did not die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few." You reference the chapter but never quote the verse that you claim states that. The essential word - on which the entirely of your stance depends - is "ONLY." And that word never appears in John 10 - for anything, about anything. Yes, He died for His sheep... yes, He is the door for the sheep.... yes, His sheep hear His voice and find pasture... yes, some don't believe and thus aren't justified... but I've read that chapter and I can't find the verse that says, "no, Jesus did NOT die for all but rather ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few." But I realize, you seem to "see" a LOT of things not there... and can't see a LOT of words that ARE there.


Here are the two positions:

1. Jesus died for all people.

Here are just a few the Scriptures that state this view. The view echos them, verbatim

Hebrews 2:9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

2 Corinthians 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all

2 Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all

1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself as a ransom for all.

and many, many more just like the above.


+ This view does NOT hold that all individuals have personal justification or "everlasting life" since that requires a second aspect, the divine gift of faith. BOTH the CROSS and FAITH are essential for personal justification and both are 100% the work and gift of God. Together they bring justification (narrow sense) to the individual.

+ The Catholic Church, Lutheran Church and Anglican churches have condemned Pelagianism and all its forms (it's a tad fuzzy in the EOC, lol) So this teaching does not hold that we save ourselves, it does not denounce original sin, it does not repudiate faith. It states this: Jesus died for all. It echos those words from the Bible. It doesn't explain anything, it doesn't deny anything, it affirms one point: Jesus died for all.

+ It is the view of the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, and nearly all other denominations and faith communities. It is also the view of (post 1517) Martin Luther and of John Calvin. It was declared doctine by a Church Council in the 9th Century.


2. No, those many Scriptures are wrong, Jesus did NOT die for all people but ONLY for some unknown few.

Here are the Scriptures that state this view:

Crickets.

+ There is a verse that says "Jesus died for the Elect" but none that say ONLY for the Elect. And there are verses that state that Jesus died for us (Christians) but none that state ONLY for us (indeed, see 1 John 2:2). And without the "only" the point is unsubstantiated. Apologists of this view must employ a silly logical fallacy, one illustrated by this: "Ford makes Mustangs, ergo Ford ONLY makes Mustangs." Or "Bob loves his wife, ergo he ONLY loves his wife and not his kids." Even my four year old son can see the absurdity of the logical fallacy radical, extremist Calvinists use as their apologetic for this invention. The whole apologetic has not one Scripture that states their point. It's based entirely on a logical fallacy.

+ And of course if this horrible invention is true, then no one can know if Jesus' death is for THEM (odds are, it's not). And no way to know if their trust in that death for THEM means anything at all since they can't know if it was for them (probably not).

Radical Calvinists invented this dogma (repudiating John Calvin who held to the opposite view) in response to Arminianists (who embrace some forms of synergism and Pelagianism) and necessitates the opposition having those views. It doesn't work at all on people who aren't Arminianists. It's based on NOT ONE VERSE in Scripture (so much for Sola Scriptura) and on a fallacy that permits them to INSERT the word "only" into texts, the logical fallacy that is the entire basis of their apologetic is like this: "Ford makes Mustangs, ergo Ford ONLY makes Mustangs." Their entire apologetic rests on this logical fallacy. And the absence of any Scripture that states it.



.

 

[1689Dave]

You've already proved your position wrong. You did it. With your inability to quote even one Scripture stating, "No, Jesus did NOT die for all but only, exclusively, solely for some unknown few.

We, of course, quoted several that verbatim, in black-and-white words my four-year-old can read (but it seems you can't), states "Jesus died for all."




Quote the verse in John 10 that states, "Jesus did not die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few." You reference the chapter but never quote the verse that you claim states that. The essential word - on which the entirely of your stance depends - is "ONLY." And that word never appears in John 10 - for anything, about anything. Yes, He died for His sheep... yes, He is the door for the sheep.... yes, His sheep hear His voice and find pasture... yes, some don't believe and thus aren't justified... but I've read that chapter and I can't find the verse that says, "no, Jesus did NOT die for all but rather ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few." But I realize, you seem to "see" a LOT of things not there... and can't see a LOT of words that ARE there.


Here are the two positions:

1. Jesus died for all people.

Here are just a few the Scriptures that state this view. The view echos them, verbatim

Hebrews 2:9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

2 Corinthians 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all

2 Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all

1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself as a ransom for all.

and many, many more just like the above.


+ This view does NOT hold that all individuals have personal justification or "everlasting life" since that requires a second aspect, the divine gift of faith. BOTH the CROSS and FAITH are essential for personal justification and both are 100% the work and gift of God. Together they bring justification (narrow sense) to the individual.

+ The Catholic Church, Lutheran Church and Anglican churches have condemned Pelagianism and all its forms (it's a tad fuzzy in the EOC, lol) So this teaching does not hold that we save ourselves, it does not denounce original sin, it does not repudiate faith. It states this: Jesus died for all. It echos those words from the Bible. It doesn't explain anything, it doesn't deny anything, it affirms one point: Jesus died for all.

+ It is the view of the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, and nearly all other denominations and faith communities. It is also the view of (post 1517) Martin Luther and of John Calvin. It was declared doctine by a Church Council in the 9th Century.


2. No, those many Scriptures are wrong, Jesus did NOT die for all people but ONLY for some unknown few.

Here are the Scriptures that state this view:

Crickets.

+ There is a verse that says "Jesus died for the Elect" but none that say ONLY for the Elect. And there are verses that state that Jesus died for us (Christians) but none that state ONLY for us (indeed, see 1 John 2:2). And without the "only" the point is unsubstantiated. Apologists of this view must employ a silly logical fallacy, one illustrated by this: "Ford makes Mustangs, ergo Ford ONLY makes Mustangs." Or "Bob loves his wife, ergo he ONLY loves his wife and not his kids." Even my four year old son can see the absurdity of the logical fallacy radical, extremist Calvinists use as their apologetic for this invention. The whole apologetic has not one Scripture that states their point. It's based entirely on a logical fallacy.

+ And of course if this horrible invention is true, then no one can know if Jesus' death is for THEM (odds are, it's not). And no way to know if their trust in that death for THEM means anything at all since they can't know if it was for them (probably not).

Radical Calvinists invented this dogma (repudiating John Calvin who held to the opposite view) in response to Arminianists (who embrace some forms of synergism and Pelagianism) and necessitates the opposition having those views. It doesn't work at all on people who aren't Arminianists. It's based on NOT ONE VERSE in Scripture (so much for Sola Scriptura) and on a fallacy that permits them to INSERT the word "only" into texts, the logical fallacy that is the entire basis of their apologetic is like this: "Ford makes Mustangs, ergo Ford ONLY makes Mustangs." Their entire apologetic rests on this logical fallacy. And the absence of any Scripture that states it.



.

You have a Hot Potato you keep dropping. You cannot answer the John 10 Problem because it takes out more than you would care to admit.

 

[Lamb]

I have done a thread clean up and have removed multiple posts here that diverted into a discussion about a person's character. Let's get back on topic please.