Replies

If you listened to Rush Limbaugh try and remember how he tried to educate people and persuade them, he kept it simple and did not just flood them with huge dumps of information at once. You know so much that you could predigest it for us and make it short and readable with less wide ranging information all at once, people don’t want to have to do 10 or 15 minutes of complicated reading, and they won’t do it, which means, they simply bypass it.

Rush Limbaugh was not engaging in a live interactive debate with another, nor a textual one, in which repeated claims are made and which can only be silenced by conclusive proof. And bcz a Limbaugh says something as factual does not make it true, and thus such a show should provide substantiation to controversial claims.
And yet no one needs to read such (just hold down the page down key). In the cases at issue here, as with Catholics, some will indict distempered afflicted Luther his later part of his life as if he had no basis or precedent for his venom toward the Jews, and thus I felt documentation regarding the culture of Catholicism was fitting in response to a parroted polemic. Again, while a link to thus should suffice, experience has shown these are typically ignored.

As regards the OPs question, why not provide much evidence that substantiates that the answer is no.

Finally, at least you should agree that it is is fitting to provide substantial quotes to a poster who denies there is any directive in Christianity to convert people.