The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization | Duke Pesta and Stefan Molyneux

What was the role of the Catholic Church in building Western Civilization? While the typical mainstream narrative depicts the church as hostile to science and philosophy, it appears that once again the truth about history has been stolen from us. Dr. Duke Pesta joins Stefan Molyneux to discuss the unspoken truth about the impact of the Catholic church on scientific inquiry, philosophy and Western Civilization overall.

**“Tell me the verse I am misunderstanding. List it.”**

I guess the location of two of the favorite stories RCs use in their mediator tradition; Bathsheba’s request of Solomon (1Kings 2:13-25), and Mary’s request of Jesus (John 2:1-11), wasn’t familiar enough for you?

**and to the Saints.**

James 5:16 says ..pray ye one for another..”.
Anyone that has been born of the Spirit is a saint. But, there is no scripture to support praying to anyone that has died, except to the ONE that has risen, and has ALL power GIVEN unto him.

**What is “it’? I don’t know what you’re referring to since the antecedent would be “your organization”.**

Nice legal dodge. You surely knew that I was referring to the ‘mass’.

**So what’s your point? John 6, and the gospels clearly point to the Mass. Is Jesus saying it not enough suddenly?**

His disciples,..you know the ones that had their understanding opened, so that they would understand the scriptures, and were told the the Holy Ghost would lead and guide them into all truth, hardly mention the last supper in Acts (2:42). And that is where conversions are plentiful, and the details of conversions mentioned several times.

More on that later, as I’m really cutting into my bedtime.

I said: “The Father is not OF God, the Father IS God. John 4:23,24”

You said: **No one is saying the Father is OF God. Your problem is with understanding English.**
You also said: **Who is using “Father of God”? You’re literally making something up that no one is saying.**

Who is using the phrase ‘God the Son’?.....certainly not the Son of God or his apostles, as the scriptures give witness.

The challenge for you is to prove that the Son of God had/has any one divine attribute, that he did NOT receive from the Father that dwells in him continually.

I should be able to reply tomorrow eve, as I’m only driving local tomorrow. Peace.

“Bathsheba’s request of Solomon (1Kings 2:13-25), and Mary’s request of Jesus (John 2:1-11), wasn’t familiar enough for you?”

I don’t misunderstand either one of those verses. Again, I’ll ask you: “Tell me the verse I am misunderstanding. List it.”

Listing verses that YOU give a different secondary interpretation to than “RCs use in their mediator tradition” says nothing about what I supposedly “misunderstand”. All it says is that YOU understand them differently than others - and not just Catholics. It is ONLY Protestants - ONLY PROTESTANTS - among all Christians who do not have a secondary interpretation of those verses which allows for intercessory prayer so that means ONLY YOU misunderstand them.

“James 5:16 says ..pray ye one for another..”

Saints are “one...another: among Christians.

“Nice legal dodge. You surely knew that I was referring to the ‘mass’.”

Nope. You’re writing is as unclear as your ideas apparently. If you can’t write more clearly, it’s not my fault.

“His disciples...hardly mention the last supper in Acts (2:42). And that is where conversions are plentiful, and the details of conversions mentioned several times.”

What you’re posting is irrelevant. Read Acts 2:42 again - this time with understanding: “And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” THEY DEVOTED THEMSELVES...TO THE BREAKING OF BREAD. The Eucharist was hugely important to them - enough so that they DEVOTED THEMSELVES to it. You clearly misunderstand the verse.

“Who is using the phrase ‘God the Son’?.....certainly not the Son of God or his apostles, as the scriptures give witness.”

So your comeback to the fact that no one says “Father of God” is that no one in scripture says “God the Son”? Your comeback to someone pointing out that NO ONE EVER USED A PHRASE is to say that a particular phrase almost all Christians have used throughout history doesn’t literally appear in scripture? You don’t even see the problem with what you’re saying do you?

“The challenge for you is to prove that the Son of God had/has any one divine attribute, that he did NOT receive from the Father that dwells in him continually.”

No, that is not my challenge at all. Jesus is God. I have no reason (no challenge) to attribute to Him anything that His Father did not have other than His humanity. You seem to have a great deal of difficulty thinking.

“I should be able to reply tomorrow eve, as I’m only driving local tomorrow. Peace.”

Your reply won’t matter. Here’s what I predict will happen: 1) You’ll fail again to post a single verse that I have misunderstood all the while claiming I misunderstand verses. 2) If you keep writing as you do, you will not post clear thoughts or ideas. 3) You’ll keep denying reality - in a fishbowl. In other words, you’ll keep saying things like “[certain verses] wasn’t familiar enough for you?” when in reality only Protestants - and NOT ALL PROTESTANTS - like yourself misunderstand those verses to the exclusion of any secondary meaning.

Save yourself the trouble: https://www.amazon.com/Protestant-Pastor-Looks-Mary/dp/0879737271 I don’t mind fighting a battle online, but against the completely unarmed it just doesn’t seem worth the effort. Get something right for a change, or read a book and learn something that you never learned.

Oh, and Jesus is the Son of God. He is God the Son.

Oh, and I noticed that you completely “dodged” the fact that you were COMPLETELY WRONG on your “vladimir998 the Nebraska” argument. If you don’t know how English works, how are we going to debate using it?

There are so many verses you misunderstand ...

The catholic church mind sees 'they devoted themselves to it' ONLY in the manufactured definition which serves the blasphemy of Catholic Mass. Yet Jesus told YOU to break the bread and sip the wine IN REMEMBRANCE of HIM until He returns. He did not tell them in the Upper Room that to obtain Eternal Life they must continue to do this Remembrance.

The Apostles continued to dedicate themselves to this REMEBRANCE because it not only showed His death and resurrection to their gatherings but it illustrated their dedication to His sacrifice to all who became aware of their dedication to Him. But your religion has turned that Rmembrance into a pagan ritual of consuming the godlet of your paganized Christianity look-a-like religion! The twisted mind of the catholiciism apologist is unable to see the internal contradictions in their defense of the Catholic Mass as a source to consume eternal GOD through their alimentary tract.

How many times will the apologist be asked, 'If you are consuming Jesus's body, blood, soul, and DIVINITY in Catholic Eucharist, is it only temporary in efficacy and must be renewed to assure you have GOD LIFE in you?'? That is a point of great confusion with your Catholicism-twisted mind.

And yes, that is a clear indication that you are massively confused regarding the remembrance JESUS established on the night before He went to the Cross. Your religion of catholiciism would have us believe that on the night before He made The Perfect Sacrifice, ONCE for ALL, Forever, He contradicted what HE as GOD gave as a command to not eat the blood for The Lifge of the creature is in the blood. Your paganized religion would have us believe that when He offered wine and bread, He 'transubstantiated' these into His flesh and blood, even as HE identified the liquid as WINE after He had given it to them to drink in REMEMBRANCE of His REAL blood to be shed for them on the Cross the next day. Yes, you are massively confused over the meaning of the Word of God. You have been taught this confusion, clearly.

In porftraying God as double-minded, like catholiciism, Catholicism blasphemes GOD as no more efficacious than a pagan godlet who must be eaten in the food sacrificed to that godlet by the faithful in order to renew the godlet's life in the adherents. And then catholiciism teaches the faithful to that paganism that they cannot obtain eternal life except through the institution of that religion!

Confused? Yeah, you are greatly confusaed, but your invincible haughtiness prevents the opening of your eyes and mind to the Truth which your master constantly twists in your mind in order to defend the blasphemies as he herds you to insult God serving his, satan's, lies.

“There are so many verses you misunderstand ...”

Nope. And you’re about to not prove your claim - as always.

“The catholic church mind sees ‘they devoted themselves to it’ ONLY in the manufactured definition which serves the blasphemy of Catholic Mass. Yet Jesus told YOU to break the bread and sip the wine IN REMEMBRANCE of HIM until He returns. He did not tell them in the Upper Room that to obtain Eternal Life they must continue to do this Remembrance.”

Putting aside your all too common habit of conflating two different issues...As a Lutheran scholar, Dr. Frank C. Senn, noted, “This Greek word [anamnesis] is practically untranslatable in English. ‘Memorial,’ ‘commemoration,’ ‘remembrance’ all suggest a recollection of the past, whereas anamnesis means making present an object or person from the past. Sometimes the term ‘reactualization’ has been used to indicate the force of anamnesis.” In other words, when we see the English words “remembrance,” “memorial,” “recalling” in the New Testament, Mass, or in theology, they are deceptively inadequate translations of the original Greek word anamnesis (making actually present again; reactualizing).”

“How many times will the apologist be asked, ‘If you are consuming Jesus’s body, blood, soul, and DIVINITY in Catholic Eucharist, is it only temporary in efficacy and must be renewed to assure you have GOD LIFE in you?’? That is a point of great confusion with your Catholicism-twisted mind.”

No, no confusion at all. First of all, your questions is wrongheaded. Anyone who loves Christ and knows the truth, will be more than open to receiving the Eucharist whenever he is able. I have never heard of anyone who thinks the Eucharist is to be received ONLY ONCE. Thus, how long any immediate spiritual benefit from it lasts is essentially an irrelevant question. Do you pray only once in your life or whenever you are able? http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm

Now, since the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is tied to the matter of the sacrament, the immediate benefit ends when the accidents of the matter are gone. The efficacy, however, does not totally end then because of the communion with God it nourishes, but the disposition of the person is important. As Fr. Ettore Malnati explains in his excellent article, “Refelctions on Ecclesia De Eucharistia - 14:

“It is difficult in theory to reject this unifying efficaciousness that the Eucharist brings about ex opere operato. However, the value of the gift must be enhanced and made more effective through the ex opere operantis. Otherwise, we would not bear witness to the dünamis of the Sacrament. To build the unity of the Church ab intra and ad extra, and furthermore, to find its meaningfulness and power from the Eucharist, we must seriously seek to build within individuals and within the whole Christian community a communion “both in its invisible dimension, which, in Christ and through the working of the Holy Spirit, unites us to the Father and among ourselves, and in its visible dimension, which entails communion in the teaching of the Apostles, in the sacraments and in the Church’s hierarchical order”.” https://www.ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/EUCHAR14.HTM

“Your religion of catholiciism would have us believe that on the night before He made The Perfect Sacrifice, ONCE for ALL, Forever, He contradicted what HE as GOD gave as a command to not eat the blood for The Lifge of the creature is in the blood.”

Was Jesus human (Yes - 1 Timothy 2:5)? Was He a sacrifice (Yes - Romans 3:25)? Was He a human sacrifice (Had to be if He was human)? Is human sacrifice allowed by God’s law (No - Deuteronomy 12:30-31)? Apparently you have another “contradiction” to deal with. God does what He wants, how He wants, when He wants, and with or to whomever He wants.

“Confused?”

Not in the least.

“Yeah, you are greatly confusaed,”

Again, not in the least. You’re wrong as usual.

“but your invincible haughtiness prevents the opening of your eyes and mind to the Truth which your master constantly twists in your mind in order to defend the blasphemies as he herds you to insult God serving his, satan’s, lies.”

Nope. I just deal with the reality of what God made. You keep avoiding it. And when you struggle with the issue of Jesus as a human sacrifice - and knowing the predictability of anti-Catholics there’s an excellent chance you’ll just dismiss it because you have no actual response that doesn’t expose your own claim of “contradiction” to be nonsense - we’ll see who is really confused and who is not. But, because I just said that, the chances you’ll have to say something just rose.

**I don’t misunderstand either one of those verses...Christians who do not have a secondary interpretation of those verses which allows for intercessory prayer..**

Well, if you are using those passages (from 1Kings 2, and John 2) for your tradition of praying to those that have died (other than Jesus Christ), then you need to toss the interpretation thing, and just notice that nowhere in the scriptures is there a good example of praying to anyone that has died, except to Jesus Christ (who didn’t pray to anyone other than the Father, while he lived on this earth).

Saints are “one...another: among Christians.

James wasn’t writing to those that were asleep in Christ. The entirety of his letter shows that to be the case, since he was teaching the church about the struggles that they face in their walk, and how to overcome.

**Read Acts 2:42 again.....TO THE BREAKING OF BREAD...**

I saw that. Why do you think I referenced that verse? But if you are convinced that it is speaking of the body and blood of the Lord Jesus, where is the wine mentioned? More interpreting?

**So your comeback to the fact that no one says “Father of God” is that no one in scripture says “God the Son”?.......You don’t even see the problem with what you’re saying do you?**

So when I define God the way the scriptures define God, I’m not defining him correctly? Let God be true, and every man a liar.

**No, that is not my challenge at all. Jesus is God. I have no reason (no challenge) to attribute to Him anything that His Father did not have other than His humanity.**

That was carefully worded; with you basically saying that the Father and the Son have the same attributes (except for human flesh); while avoiding the fact the Son declared that he received all things from the Father.

And who gave the Son his humanity?.....

“Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me.” Heb. 10:5

**Oh, and I noticed that you completely “dodged” the fact that you were COMPLETELY WRONG on your “vladimir998 the Nebraska” argument.**

Let’s go back about 150 years. If you were born and raised in Nebraska, and came to know more about that state than any other man, this could be said about you:

Nebraska gave birth to you (it’s where you began).
Nebraska sustained you (it’s native plant and animal life fed you).
You learned all about Nebraska while dwelling in Nebraska.

So, you would indeed be “vladimir998 of Nebraska”; not “Nebraska the vladimir998”. Because the state of Nebraska is not a man, but a place that men have originated from.

God is not a man. God is a Spirit (John 4:23,24). But, God the Father dwells IN a man, and that man dwells in the Father (John 14:10). That is the testimony of Jesus Christ.

You can dwell in Nebraska,
and Nebraska can dwell in you: the life it has given you (sustenance), and all that it has taught you.

“Well, if you are using those passages (from 1Kings 2, and John 2) for your tradition of praying to those that have died (other than Jesus Christ), then you need to toss the interpretation thing, and just notice that nowhere in the scriptures is there a good example of praying to anyone that has died, except to Jesus Christ (who didn’t pray to anyone other than the Father, while he lived on this earth).”

No. Again, the fact that insist on trying to strip Christianity of doctrines or practices YOU don’t like as a Protestants doesn’t demand anything of me. YOU refuse to accept a particular interpretation of scripture. That’s YOU. YOU’RE the one who is wrong, not me. Again, Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, many Anglicans, and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox see no problem with the secondary interpretation. YOU do. YOUR opinion simply doesn’t matter.

“James wasn’t writing to those that were asleep in Christ.”

I didn’t say he was - but the principle is the same. It’s one Church.

“I saw that. Why do you think I referenced that verse?”

To show how little you understand about scripture.

“But if you are convinced that it is speaking of the body and blood of the Lord Jesus, where is the wine mentioned? More interpreting?”

It has to be specifically mentioned now? Isn’t that just “interpretation” on your part? Read 1 Corinthians 10:16-17. See how St. Paul mentions wine in the first verse but then talks about the breaking of bread in the next verse?

“So when I define God the way the scriptures define God, I’m not defining him correctly?”

You’re not defining God the way the scriptures define God because the scriptures never “define” God. The scriptures tell us some things about God, but no scripture could define God. And that is in scripture: Job 11:7, Ps. 145:3, Job 26:14, Isa. 55:8–9, Rom. 11:33–34; cf. Job 42:1–6; Ps. 139:6, 17–18; 147:5; Isa. 57:15; 1 Cor. 2:10–11; 1 Tim. 6:13–16.

“That was carefully worded; with you basically saying that the Father and the Son have the same attributes (except for human flesh); while avoiding the fact the Son declared that he received all things from the Father.”

And that changes nothing I said. You keep beating not only the dead horse, but the WRONG dead horse. Why?

“And who gave the Son his humanity?.....”

Again, you’re going on and on about something we’re not even arguing over.

“Let’s go back about 150 years.”

Let’s not. You’re failing now and I have no reason to believe your chances would have been better back then.

“If you were born and raised in Nebraska, and came to know more about that state than any other man, this could be said about you:”

Your analogy is still wrong. I realize you seem to be struggling with how logic works. I can’t correct whatever education you gained or not years ago. Only you can fix that at this point. The point I made in the beginning is still unanswered by you: PERSON the PERSON. That is how the analogy MUST be for it to be a correct analogy. Anything else is a failed analogy.

“Nebraska the vladimir998”.

Again, the correct analogy would have to be “vladimir998 the Nebraskan”. I’m a person. A Nebraskan is a person. You keep making this ridiculously wrong blunder of analogizing “Son” with a U.S. State - “Nebraska.” That’s completely illogical and someone who knew basic logic would never make that mistake. You keep making it over and over again and then make ridiculous arguments trying to defend your error.

“Because the state of Nebraska is not a man, but a place that men have originated from.”

And what do we call a person who originated in Nebraska? A Nebraskan! “vladimir998 the Nebraskan.” Not only did you make an erroneous analogy but you then completely undermined it by just admitting what I said before in post #471 was correct all along: “Now, if we take your ‘Nebraska’ and ‘vladimir998’ analogy and actually make the proper analogy rather than the incorrect one you used it would be this: “vladimir998 the Nebraskan”. You mistakenly used “Nebraska”. Nebraska is a place, not a person. Jesus is a Person. God is a Person. The Son is a Person. The Father is a Person. The Holy Spirit is a Person. Thus, the correct analogy must be “PERSON the PERSON””

Notice, my argument has been the same - and absolutely correct - since the beginning whereas yours has been erroneous all along and you are now trying to defend your argument by undermining your own statements.

“God is not a man.”

Jesus is the God-man. He was always God and then became man. John 1:14: “And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.”

“God is a Spirit (John 4:23,24).”

And now the Son is a man as well.

“But, God the Father dwells IN a man, and that man dwells in the Father (John 14:10). That is the testimony of Jesus Christ.”

Who is a man now too. 1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”

“You can dwell in Nebraska,
and Nebraska can dwell in you: the life it has given you (sustenance), and all that it has taught you.”

No, Nebraska cannot dwell in anybody because it is not an animate thing. It is merely a man-made geographic unit. Or it is a place of soil, trees, rivers, and grain. It cannot dwell in a man because man has no capacity for Nebraska the land and no geographic unit can dwell in a man because “Nebraska” is merely an arbitrary and abstract designation. You seem to have no understanding whatsoever of how to make a logical argument.

God the Son is Jesus and Jesus is the Son of God. He is Divine. And He is man as well. He was always God and took on human nature. There is no contradiction in any of that.

“No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.” (NIV John 1:18)

Really short on time. Got a quick turn around. I’ll try to cover what I skipped tomorrow night.

**analogizing “Son” with a U.S. State - “Nebraska.”**

No, I was analogizing “God” with a U.S. state.

The Son is of God. That is what the Son testified.

**Nebraska is a place, not a person.**

It is an origin for many. A source of food. A place of learning.

Don’t like places and people in the same phrase? (Jesus of Nazareth).

Have you ever talked to a place? “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah.....”(Micah 5:2)

Or talked to a tree? “Let no fruit grow on thee henceforth for ever”. Matt. 21:19

**“PERSON the PERSON””**

You mean like “Billy the Bob”?, or “Jenny the Susan”?

Your problem is how you define the phrase.
“God the Father”, is defining a person and his title, not two persons.

“The Son of God” is a two person phrase. The first person mentioned is “OF” the second person.

That’s why you don’t find the phrase “God the Son” in the scriptures. God is the source of the Son. God is the Father. God the Father is continually in the Son, giving all power and wisdom.

But your model has to create separation: making the Son, God, along side God the Father. And you further show your misunderstanding of the scriptures by quoting......

**John 1:14: “And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.”**.......

...whereby you seem to think you have proven the Son to be God, separately and distinctly, from God the Father. When the reality is that you can’t take the Son of God out of the omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent God the Father; or God the Father out of the Son.......not even long enough to quote John 1:14.

**“No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.” (NIV John 1:18)**

..”who is himself God”...

See,...your version even tries to show separation. I prefer the old KJV:

“No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” John 1:14 KJV

“Really short on time. Got a quick turn around. I’ll try to cover what I skipped tomorrow night.”

It won’t matter.

“No, I was analogizing “God” with a U.S. state.”

“vladimir998 the Nebraska”. You created that to compare with “God the Son”. “Nebraska” = “Son”. That was your comparative analogy, Zuriel. Own it.

“The Son is of God. That is what the Son testified.”

But that is not all that is testified to by God about Jesus.

“It is an origin for many. A source of food. A place of learning.”

Your analogy still fails. Nebraska cannot be “in” someone and Nebraska is not a PERSON.

“Don’t like places and people in the same phrase? (Jesus of Nazareth).”

It amazes me how you mix and match things without any regard for what they actually say. “Jesus of Nazareth” makes perfect sense as an expression. “vladimir998 the Nebraska” does not. You keep missing that.

“Have you ever talked to a place? “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah.....”(Micah 5:2)”

Yes, I have talked to a place - but only metaphorically - just as the Lord does. When He does so in what you just cited He is really addressing the people of the place.

“Or talked to a tree? “Let no fruit grow on thee henceforth for ever”. Matt. 21:19”

Oh, I am more than sure I have cursed trees here or there in my life - but I have no innate power to make them die.

“You mean like “Billy the Bob”?,”

No, but “Billy the Bobbie” would work. That would mean Billy the Cop.

“or “Jenny the Susan”?”

No, but “Jenny the Chef” would work. Now, there are times when two names can work: “Jesus the Christ”. Christ became a name after all with Jesus even in scripture. I have heard some people say “Jesus the Emmanuel” because that would mean “Jesus the God with us”. Generally speaking we don’t say “Jenny the Susan” because if her name is Jenny then why would we call her Susan? Again, your analogy fails terribly.

“Your problem is how you define the phrase.”

Nope.

““God the Father”, is defining a person and his title, not two persons.”

No one is claiming that God the Father is two persons. Just like Zuriel the Driver represents ONE person so does God the Father.

““The Son of God” is a two person phrase.”

And? God has a Son. And?

“The first person mentioned is “OF” the second person.”

And? That in no way means someone cannot say “God the Son”. The Son is GOD - in that He is divine. The Son is the son of God.

“That’s why you don’t find the phrase “God the Son” in the scriptures.”

No, that it is NOT why you don’t find it in scriptures. You don’t find it because it simply wasn’t employed or needed at the time. Later, as disputes over the Trinity arose, language regarding the Trinitarian Persons was refined. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_the_Son

“God is the source of the Son. God is the Father. God the Father is continually in the Son, giving all power and wisdom.”

The Son is God too. He too is divine.

“But your model has to create separation:”

No. There are three distinct Persons in the Trinity. That’s not separation created by my “model”. That’s simply the reality of the distinct Persons. They are no less One.

“making the Son, God, along side God the Father.”

No. The Son IS God. I am not “making” the Son God. He IS God. The Holy Spirit IS God. The Father IS God.

“And you further show your misunderstanding of the scriptures by quoting......”

No, there is no misunderstanding that at all. You are apparently the one who misunderstands John 1.

“...whereby you seem to think you have proven the Son to be God,”

No. Read what I wrote again. I specifically point out that the Son was always God and then became man and then posted John 1:14 - wherein the Son becomes MAN!

“separately and distinctly, from God the Father. When the reality is that you can’t take the Son of God out of the omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent God the Father;”

No one is trying to “take the Son of God out”. What is most sad is not just that you misunderstand everything that we’re talking about, but you are apparently ascribing motives to what you don’t understand.

“or God the Father out of the Son.......not even long enough to quote John 1:14.”

The Son is God. The Son became man. That’s all there is to it.

“See,...your version even tries to show separation. I prefer the old KJV:”

It’s not my version - it’s a Protestant Bible. And what it shows is distinction not separation. The Father is NOT the Son, the Son is NOT the Father. Both are Divine Persons. That’s not a separation. That’s just a proper distinction. That’s why the Father could address the Son and vice versa. They were distinct Persons.

You’ve made one error after another. I don’t think that will change.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.