Dear Dan,

«It’s very ingenuine to suggest the possibility of discord in the Christian view of the God-Head.»

But I never claimed, nor believe, that there are three gods.

God cannot be limited in any way, God cannot be incomplete, but suppose there were more than one gods, then even the very existence of one other god would necessarily limit the other(s), by introducing something external to them and outside their control and by rendering them incomplete.

«The Christian view of the Saviours arrival as predicted in Jewish texts»

Based on mistranslation and misreading the Jewish texts out of context.

Note that I am not stating anything here regarding the Saviour's arrival, neither in support nor in opposition - only that this concept is not included in the Jewish texts and certainly not part of the Jewish texts that were already present at the times of Jesus.

«a view not accepted by Jews and Islamists alike.
Christianity is far advanced on both.»

Recent scientific research indicates that Islam started as a Christian sect, while Judaism as we know it today sprang from Christian influence over Judaic thought, both around the same time (approximately 800 A.D.). Jewish Messianism did not exist before that and Jews would have probably never imagined that concept had they not been exposed to Christianity.

«Christians are waiting around for the penny to drop with both groups of non-believers.»

I won't speculate on that, though those Christian denominations that understand the oneness of God, stand a better chance in that regard.

Dear Dan,

«Since the ME is engaged in its usual religious waring mentality...»

The ME wars are not and never were about religion - religion has only been quoted as an excuse.
ME Muslims in particular kill more Muslims than Jews and Christians combined.

John Daysh,

"You’re throwing out a lot of claims here, but none of them hold up under scrutiny."

Well you aren't scrutinising it, just asserting I'm wrong. That isn't the same thing.

"Lab leak? We still don’t know for sure where Covid came from."
Well I know that for some people the only evidence they'll accept is if Xi himself comes out and admits it (and maybe not even then). But over the past year, the evidence is mounting up. We now learn that German intelligence reached the conclusion that it was a lab leak very early in the piece but the Germans kept it quite. Ditto UK intelligence who we now know told then PM Johnson that it came from the lab. And we know that the US authorities were so concerned that the lab they were financing was the culprit that they hide the documentary evidence for it.

Yes, there will always be people who will refuse to accept the Chinese culpability here. But the rest of us live in the real world.

Masks. You are badly out of date. While its true that N95 masks, if used correctly, are effective, there have been any number of studies showing that, in the real world, they were useless and often counter-productive. If people adopted mask regimes like surgeons - put it without touching the gauze, never touch it again, make sure its tight to the face and remains so throughout, replace it after 3 hours, etc- then they were effective. But people didn't do that. They wore then all day, constantly adjusted them - we were even told to adjust them when eating or drinking - and constantly touched them with contaminated fingers. If they weren't tight to the face, so tight that they leave a crease, then they were ineffective. If they were used too long or touched then they gather contaminants and became vectors for the virus.

"Vaccines? Early on, the data showed they did reduce infection and transmission of the original strain."

That's just rubbish. Some told us that but it just wasn't true. That's my point.

I've already linked, in earlier threads, to papers from all sorts of people including the revered Fauci which explain why the vaccines couldn't reduce infection. In a nutshell, the virus enters through the nasal system, incubates there and is retransmitted from there. But the vaccine is in the blood and can't affect or alter what happens in the nasal system. Once the virus enters the blood stream to attack the patient the vaccine can go to work and is therefore protective of the individual - often highly protective. But it doesn't stop the virus from spreading and was never designed to do so, despite the claims of the authorities at the time.

mhaze,

You say I’m not scrutinising your claims, but all you’ve done is assert them with confidence and expect everyone to take your word for it. You know I can provide evidence for everything I say, so instead of asking for it, you pretend that I mustn't have it.

Lab Leak:
You claim German and UK intelligence "knew" it was a lab leak early on, yet… where’s the evidence? If it was some open-and-shut case, why haven’t those governments officially stated it as fact? Instead, we have conflicting intelligence assessments, with some agencies saying it’s plausible and others still favoring natural origins. That’s not conspiracy - it’s uncertainty.

And let’s be real: if there were hard proof, it wouldn’t be "we now learn" from anonymous intelligence sources - it would be global headline news. Instead, all we have is ongoing debate, and the reality is, we still don’t know for sure. That’s not an opinion, it’s just where the evidence stands.

Masks:
You’re arguing that because most people didn’t wear masks perfectly, they were "useless or counterproductive." That’s a ridiculous leap. Seatbelts save lives, but not everyone wears them correctly. Does that mean they "don’t work"?

Improper mask use reduces effectiveness, but to jump from "people didn’t wear them like surgeons" to "they were useless" is dishonest. Multiple studies confirm that, when used properly, high-quality masks reduce transmission. Even less-than-perfect use offers some protection.

And this idea that they "became vectors for the virus" ignores the simple fact that we were also told to wash our hands, sanitise, and not touch our faces. If people ignored that advice, that’s user error, not proof that masks "did nothing."

Vaccines and Transmission:
You say it's "rubbish" that early data showed vaccines reduced transmission, but that’s objectively false. Multiple studies in 2021 demonstrated that vaccinated people were less likely to get infected with the original strain and early variants, which in turn meant they were less likely to spread it. That was the basis for early public health messaging - because at the time, it was true.

(Cont'd)

(Cont'd)

Did that change with new variants? Yes. Delta and Omicron reduced vaccine effectiveness against infection. But acting like the early claims were always false ignores the context. This wasn’t a lie - it was what the data showed at the time. Science evolves, and public messaging changed when new data came in.

Your “Nasal vs. Bloodstream” Argument (This one was funny!):
Your claim that vaccines "can’t reduce transmission because they work in the bloodstream, not the nasal system" is an oversimplification. It’s true that mucosal immunity (which nasal vaccines might improve) would be better at blocking infection at the point of entry, but that doesn’t mean blood-based immunity does nothing. Vaccines primed the immune system to fight the virus faster, reducing viral load and duration of infection, which in turn reduced transmission - even if it wasn’t 100%.

This isn’t speculation. Studies showed that vaccinated individuals who got Covid had lower viral loads and were contagious for shorter periods compared to unvaccinated individuals - especially with the early strains. That absolutely helped reduce spread.

So, no, it wasn't a lie. Early on, the vaccine did reduce infection and spread. Later variants changed that, but by then, the focus had shifted to preventing severe illness and death - which vaccines continued to do exceptionally well.

The real question is: do you actually care about the truth? Because if you did, you'd acknowledge that the science changed, rather than pretending it was all a conspiracy from the start.

You’re pushing a narrative that isn’t backed by any evidence. You want to claim certainty where there is none and dismiss decades of infectious disease research because it doesn’t fit your worldview. That’s not "living in the real world," that’s just picking the version of reality you like best.