₦airaland Forum

^^^ The man, Jesus from Nazareth, born circa 2010 years ago in Bethlehem, occupation Carpentry and Spiritual Teacher -

- - - - never sinned? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Kai, it will take a long time - perhaps many lifetimes for some of you folks to recognise the extent to which you have been deceived.

What's amazing is that you buy the whole gist.

Amazing!

What makes you guys different from ancestor-worshippers? ? ?

How are you better than the WoF guys since you too equate a man with God? ? ?

aletheia:
Actually the opening lines of Psalm 22. Perhaps you should read it.

Yes, so what? Quoting that psalm at that time was indicative of what?

Feelings of despair or abandonement?

Is that faith?

Enigma:
I see the WoF rendering as a devious way of justifying their heresy of equating man with God

You do not commit an equal heresy when you equate a carpenter from Nazareth with God?

Double-speak.

"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

- Does not sound like a statement of faith.

Jesoul - beware that that which you claim to "know" by faith is a very ancient pagan dogma which early christianity knew nothing about.

Even if you wish to argue that Jesus is God, note that there isn't the faintest suggestion of a three-way personage anywhere in the scriptures.

That idea was imported from Babylonian and Egyptian triads of gods, aside from other ancient triads of Gods which the Romans were influenced by -

THE TRINITY IDEA WAS BORROWED FROM HEATHEN RELIGIONS

A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge records that many historians believe that the Trinity "is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith."

Edward Gibbons's History of Christianity notes: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief."

Historian Will Durant observed: "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity."
Siegfried Morenz, in the book 'Egyptian Religion' notes: "The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . These gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology."

James Hastings wrote in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics: "In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahma, Siva, and Visnu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus. . . Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic views of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality. which is triadically represented."

The French New Universal Dictionary reveals both Plato's Greek Philosophical Influence upon Christianity and that of ancient pagan religions: "The Platonic Trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian Churches. . . Thus Greek philosophers conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient pagan religions."

L. L. Paine records that the Trinity idea stems from Pagan Roots: ". . . among the more highly civilized Chaldaeans, Babylonians, Assyrians, and Egyptians, triads of gods were a common and notable feature of their theogonies."

H. P. Blavatsky in Isis Unveiled (pages 45,46), reveals that the Trinity Dogma originated from Babylon:

"We find it northeast of the Indus; and tracing it to Asia Minor and Europe, recognize it among every people who had anything like an established religion. It was taught in the oldest Chaldaean, Egyptian, and Mithraitic schools. The Chaldaean Sun-god, Mithra, was called 'Triple,' and the trinitarian idea of the Chaldaeans was a doctrine of the Akkadians, who themselves belonged to a race which was the first to conceive a metaphysical trinity. According to Rawlinson, the Chaldaeans are a tribe of the Akkadians, who lived in Babylonia from the earliest of times."

aletheia:
If one of my patients came into the consulting room saying these words, we would commit him.

If anybody could describe the nature of God, by the time he is done, you would also commit him.

As an aside the Maven-Female thing was not your only lie.

There have been many.

Here’s another set -

InesQor:
@Deep Sight: I registered on nairaland on my birthday, Feb 22nd. So why not ask mavenbox why he exited on the same day? And what movie characters are you on about?

InesQor:
@Tudor & Deep Sight: If thinking I am mavenbox makes you feel better, by all means please be my guest.

Only to admit above within this thread – that you are in fact Mavenbox.

Look, Its none of my business and its just petty – but such behaviour is quite irritating.

Lol Inesqor. Why won't you let me live down those horrible games?

And I warn you that I am still practicing and am coming back for you! ! !

Kunle I am sorry, the similarities were so strking, and I was just curious. Pardon me.

Yes, It would be really great to hook up, i do live in Lagos.

Hit me at xeniboer@gmail.com

Well first off I am not derailing the thread. Just putting an interesting spin on the discussion.

The thread is about the authenticity of the bible.

It is thus altogether apposite to examine biblical claims with a view towards adducing what authenticity a rational mind may attribute to that book.

In this the interpretations given by adherents of the bible are of course invaluable.

So Elijah is a great case exactly because the discussion had veered towards a muslim claim regarding a visit into various "heavens."

If we are to be objective and fair, it only makes sense to challenge similar claims within the Bible.

Thus with this -

viaro:
I don't have the short memory you often display, sorry. There was nothing you were able to show that came close to intelligence in that discourse; and I could bet you're not intelligent enough to see that this thread is not about Elijah. If you miss viaro, say so and I can oblige you another exile.

Did I argue to the contrary?

Your call - the Muslim in this thread did not show us where Muhammad might've seen Elijah among the seven layers of his Muslim atmosphere. Wanna help him?

I have absolutely no problem with that.

Yes. And your point is. . .?

Yours, I guess. I was hoping where you would have helped the Muslim apologist here vote for any number of his seven earths that the Bible does not argue.

Relax . . . I'm still hearing news from the grapevine that you are running errand on your pyjamas. Please leave that Gulder bottle alone so you can think really deep.

- I am satisfied that you sir, have confirmed in open court what i indicated were your claims to wit -

Deep Sight:
. . . Your interesting suppositions that Elijah -

1. Never died

2. Vanished into thin air

3. Entered heaven with his physical body.

4. Appeared beside Jesus at the transfiguration again with said same physical body after residing with it in heaven for some relaxing centuries.

Now as the discussion is now about “heavens,” let us juxtapose the muslim claims above against your interesting claims regarding Elijah zapping off to heaven with his physical body.

Now before proceeding might I remind you that your own holy book (the bible) specifically states that physical bodies do not reside in spiritual realms. Nevertheless perhaps we can leave the Bible for a moment and reflect on exactly what spirituality entails.

God is an intangible transcendental being. It is well understood that God is not physical.

We also understand that the spiritual is not the physical.

Spiritual things are not tangible in the fashion that physical things are.

I think that it is apt to re examine your understanding of that which is spiritual, if you will suggest that physical bodies ascend bodily and dwell physically in spiritual realms.

The very existence of death – a separation of the body from the spirit, if you will reflect, is enough to evince this. The spirit leaves the body because material things are adjusted to material realms while immaterial things are adjusted to immaterial realms. This is the very reason that the spirit of man requires a physical body to dwell on earth, which is a material realm. Only when that body is set aside can the intangible spirit return to its intangible realm.

The very words “immaterial” and “intangible” as attributes of the spiritual make it resoundingly clear that it is inconceivable for a material thing to “enter” into something or someplace that is altogether intangible!

Supposing that a physical body such as ours may dwell in a realm which is altogether intangible is absolutely illogical in the extreme – given the very fact of the intangibility of that realm.

Again the very make of the physical body is designed to deal with a physical atmosphere – in all its functions. Do you really suppose such a body with such functionalities can enter into a realm said to be intangible?

In that case I would really be puzzled as to your understanding of the word “intangible.”

I want you to understand that mankind’s spiritual journey is a journey of increasing intangibility and thus a journey of increasing purity towards God. The physical body is thus but a coat which is used for the physical realm – and as we move on after death we proceed ever more intangible.

I verily fear that your bold affirmation that your prophet bagged his physical body into an immaterial realm and remained there with it before returning in same body centuries later to this earth is so bizarre, mythical and off-centre that if interpreted that way, all rational persons must perforce conclude that the Bible contains really simplistic myths and legends. Or that you are simply ready to believe very strange myths indeed. At the expense of that which is simple, rational and balanced.

And that is the issue of this thread. . . the authenticity of the bible.

As a post-script I should mention that I did point out that your interpretation of the Elijah story amounts to exempting him from death even before the sacrifice of Christ – which was supposedly required to save mankind from death. This shows up serious internal inconsistencies, I’m afraid, and again begs the Ops question as to the authenticity (or I would say, believability) of your scriptures.

Ok, apologies. I was just curious cos the similarities seem so deep.

nuclearboy:
Anyways, that aside your campaign of calumny against InesQor is unfair. How many times does he have to explain that he found it funny to allow the mistake that cast him to look a woman or how the tag "InesQor" came about? I hope its not disappointment he's not a woman (with the attendant hopes you had) thats making this a personal vendetta?

What do you mean by this?

That repeated, consistent and determined lying is ok, but pointing them out is wrong?

What double standards, nuclear.

Ogajim - confess once and for all. . . are you Kunle Oshodi?

^^^ Oh please. Are we forgetting so soon your interesting suppositions that Elijah -

1. Never died

2. Vanished into thin air

3. Entered heaven with his physical body.

4. Appeared beside Jesus at the transfiguration again with said same physical body after residing with it in heaven for some relaxing centuries.

Grand assertions, sir.

What fanciful stories do you have for us today, Viaro?

. . . most important, in which of the 'seven layers' of the atmosphere
is Muhammad himself to be found today?!?

Perhaps you should be more concerned with the whereabouts of Elijah no?

nuclearboy:
Imagine someone thinking of God on the same level with a guy . . .

I am sorry sir, but i cannot see how this is different from you equating your Jewish Rabbi to Almighty God.

JeSoul:
The same way I know Jesus is God - By Faith.

This is saying exactly nothing.

By faith, the followers of Olumba Olumba also know that Olumba Olumba is God.

By faith, Hindus also know that cows are divine.

And also some basic evidence,

Like. . . ? ? ?

Please don’t be clever by half.

There can be no conceivable “evidence” that Jesus is God.

Best stick to your “faith” reply dear.

Which anybody can use as an excuse to believe anything, by the way.

Sometimes you guys make me want to scratch my hair out.

A Jewish Rabbi is Almighty God. And you claim to have “evidence” for this? Heaven help me. Perhaps she’s gonna post a video recording of the transfiguration.

can you tell us, if you are God, how you created the universe? This may be a wild assumption, but I'm pretty sure you can't.

I am a compound and complete trans-dimensional magnetic element that is the only reality that exists: my nature means that infinite forms inherent in my compound and eternal mind are ceaselessly spawned from my intangible essence. In other words, I cannot stop creating. You may say I spawn things ceaselessly and this is also quite involuntary for me. Spawning endless realities is as natural to me as breathing is to you.

JeSoul:
and btw, I know you are not God beyond all doubt, how many miracles have you done lately?

You see what I mean?

How do you know I am not God?

1. You admit that "spiritual matters fly over our heads". . . thus you cannot tell affirmatively that I am not God. The best you can say is that you do not know if I am in fact God - because it is a matter you have admitted transcends human understanding.

2. Your grim assurance that I am not God derives from the fact that you know I am a man: In this i put it squarely to your face that if you lived in Jesus' time and sat next to him and knew him the way you know me as a man - you would posess the same grim certainty that he was simply another man - and not the Almighty Creator. It would sound ridiculous to you - and it is only acceptable in your ears now because it is removed from you by the passage of time and the force of Church history has made it sound acceptable to call a fellow human being the Almighty creator.

3. Do not even dare point to miracles because there are people performing miracles today, just as others performed miracles back then - and you do not therefore accept any of them as God do you?

And by the way, i do perform miracles.

^^^

Let me put something to you.

Has it ever occurred to you that the real question is not -

- Could it be the case that such a thing as the Trinity can exist?

But -

- Does it in fact exist?

Could Jesus be God? Its possible. Anything is possible since our knowledge is limited. I might be God too. You cannot claim that you know everything - so it is possible that I too am God - and that this transcends your knowledge or understanding.

So the correct question in fact should be - Is Jesus in fact God? Is Deep Sight in fact God?

And not an explanation of how it could be possible. Because we already know anything might be possible.

Let me ask you particularly if you are aware of the origin of the doctrine of the trinity.

JeSoul:
The Holy Spirit is not Jesus, but yet He is - The Father is not the Son, but yet again, He is.

For one moment pause and close your eyes dear Jesoul.

Good. Now open them and read the statement above again.

How can you honestly be at home with such spin?

I weep.

noetic16:
A ridiculously irrelevant and dogmatic submission influenced by ignorance, malady, lack of understanding and disdain for knowledge.

Well lets have a look sir.

If u looked closely and again .  . . u would see that the diagrams were designed to arrive at the same value. There was no supposition that suggested contrary.

I would strongly suggest to you that YOU should be the one to look closely at the diagram again.

You stated that – “the diagrams were designed to arrive at the same value. There was no supposition that suggested contrary”

- Which is eminently bizarre given that the diagram specifically states and I quote “5 – 4 IS NOT 2 – 1” : Thus it is clear that the diagram DOES INFACT state that the one is not the same as the other – which is eminently FALSE because both simply reflect THE SAME VALUE of 1 (ONE).

- It can hardly be my fault, sir, if you failed to see the words “is not” appearing thrice within the diagram and it thus begs belief that you could suggest that the diagram does not suggest a false difference in values.

They represent the same value. . . .but are not constituted in the same way. The added/subtracted values that constitute the "value" are different.
5-4 is different from 3-2 . . . . . but they both arrive at the same values.

No sir. No, No and thrice No again!

5 – 4 IS NOT different from 3 – 2.

Both represent a value of 1 (One) and this is incontrovertible.

What is the very purpose of inserting a subtraction sign between the figures if not to arrive at a result? The ineluctable result is the figure 1 in all three cases and thus they are THE SAME and the assertion in the diagram that they are not the same is a blatant and unacceptable falsity.

The diagram is depicted to construct a picture of the supernatural within the limited confines of our understanding.

The diagram is designed to explain away the inanity of a pagan concept which you slavishly adhere to contrary to all reason and commonsense.

Sadly, it fails in its mission.

God is one. The names Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit are the names given to His manifestation. This aint rocket science.

IF THIS WAS THE CASE THEN IT SHOULD BE CLEAR THAT JESUS IS THE HOLY SPIRIT – AS THEY ARE BOTH SIMPLY ALMIGHTY GOD MANIFESTING DIFFERENTLY, NO? SO WHY DOES THE DIAGRAM SAY THAT JESUS IS NOT THE HOLY SPIRIT? ? ? YOU ANSWER ME YOURSELF – IS JESUS THE HOLY SPIRIT? ? ?


Simple enough logic –

1. God is Jesus

2. God is the Holy spirit.

3. Both Holy Spirit and Jesus are God.

4. Thus Holy Spirit and Jesus are the same person.

5. So why does the diagram specifically state that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are different people?

Both diagrams do NOTHING except show in bold relief the patent, manifest and inescapable irrationality and falsity of the pagan doctrine of the trinity.

5 - 4 = 1

And -

2 - 1 = 1

And -

3 - 2 = 1

Thus the supposition that all three sets of values do not represent the same value is eminently false.

They represent the exact same value and this is ineluctable and absolutely beyond cavil.

Thus the image on the left is similarly flawed even on the mathematical suppositions of the image on the right.

If God IS the Holy Spirit, and God IS Jesus, then inescapably - Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the same person - God.

The implication in the left diagram that Jesus is not therefore the Holy spirit automatically shows that God could not be both Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

This is iron clad and indisputable in absolute terms.

Can we come to an accord that there can be no accord in accordance with the accord of the Christian to make an accord out of the patently disconcordant?

The creator programmed humans to use se.x to REPRODUCE and He also placed limitations of on the use of se.x. . .implying that only married persons should indulge in such.

If this is the case kindly explain to me why the onset of puberty (sexual maturity) occurs at a time that boys and girls are MANIFESTLY unprepared for an adult matter such as marriage?

Let's not play the ostrich: the truth is plain to see - if se.xuality was intended to be tied to marriage, this would not be the case.

noetic16:
In the context of the thread. . . .how is S.EX necessary for survival?
Se.x is not an ingridient necessary for human survival

Now Noetic this is what I meant by my statement that you are not being honest.

Can you honestly assert as you do that “Se.x is not an ingredient necessary for human survival.”

This statement is capitally FALSE in all its ramifications.

Indeed i hardly need to elucidate. The human race is sustained, and has been sustained till date by reproduction based on sexual activities.

I hope you do not need me to explain the relationship between group survival and individual instincts? When there are processes that ensure the survival of a group or species, then the instincts that drive such processes are hardwired into the individuals that make up the group.

Thus the sexual process which guarantees the survival of the species is hardwired as an instinct into each individual. That is the elementary connection, Noetic.

is food the same as intimacy? 

I cannot see the difference, in context of this discussion.

The table should look simply something like this –

Food                            Se.x                               Scratching my body

^                                   ^                                           ^
Hunger                       Sexual Desire                     An itch

^                                    ^                                          ^
Survival                          Survival                          Survival

All of these are different elements necessary for our survival and the body is programmed to develop an instinctive need for the element required though a stimulus such as hunger, for example.


It makes absolutely no sense to suggest that the human body would have a particular and regular instinct which nature intended to be suppresed for years. That is a Fascist, Oppresive and bizzare proposition in the extreme.

I challenge you to show me just one instinct that you may say ANY creature has, which may be said to be intended to be supprssed at length.

Especially when the condition for release is obtaining a piece of paper called a marriage certificate.

Tell me, do either nature or spirituality recognise such sheets of paper? ? ?

are u confused?  u mentioned earlier that humans as higher animals have the ability to control their urges. . .how then doesse.x constitute a stimuli?

I am mildly surprised if you do not know what a stimulus is.

Maybe you never heard the term s.ex.ua.l stimulation?

What arouses sexual interest, Noetic? Something stimulates it, no?

Now have a look at the way you have delivered a terrible and shocking contradiction here -

The conscience is influenced by beliefs. The islamic beliefs makes a muslim not feel guilty or remorse for indulging in a terrorist act.

If you accept that conscience is influenced by beliefs, then you have made good ground for my earlier assertion that the OP is affected by his religious beliefs. Thus his feelings of guilt arise from those mistaken beliefs and nothing else.

noetic16:
So DeepSight ran away , , . .thats bad.

Nah, am reviewing a bulky and complex agreement @ work now. . .

I will revert.

I am not happy with your reversions. You are not being honest.

Your questions -

You asked -

"why are religious notions with regards to fornication MISCONCEPTIONS? how do they constitute misconceptions?"

I respond -

They are misconceptions because they run counter to the specific natural program of the human body as clearly ordained by the creator.

You asked -


"That explains why billions of people from millions of different cultures have the same abominations. It is not a coincidence, it is a testament to the universality of the human conscience.

How do you explain the cultures above?"

I respond -

Have you not noticed that there is the same universal tendency to criminalize all things which are intensely pleasurable?

This is a universal psycological knee-jerk reaction to intense pleasure - It is a mechanism by which man resiles from that which he knows he could easily become a slave to, or that which given its intensity must per-force be controlled. This is only natural again. There are many psycological dimensions to it, and I will try to provide you with some scholastic papers in this respect.


You asked -

"what is the culture of nature? what is nature's identity?"

I respond -

The culture of nature is that which is in consonance with the natural instincts which the creator has placed within us - and the human bodily make-up affirms the fact that nature intended se.x for humans to be a fairly routine and regular action.

Any more questions? Satisfied? Now deal with my posers.

I ignore nothing and will address all things in the fullness of time.

Speak not evil of the anointed Prophet of the Oneness of Infinity.

You are yet to address what i earlier stated -

1. Conscience cannot militate against natural instincts given for survival
2. Conscience thus cannot militate against eating food, for example
3. Conscience cannot militate against response to stimuli – as this is natural
4. Se.xu.al intercourse is a function of response to stimuli as well as a natural instinct which ensures the propagation of the species
5. Conscience can therefore not militate against seksual intercourse

The foregoing is iron-cast and I challenge you to dispute it.

Secondly I hold that the principle of duality inherent in existence is pivotal to se.xu.ality, and renders it inescapable – an absolutely ineluctable and involuntary aspect of our nature which we cannot repudiate.

As you address these, i am working on your answers and will post them shortly.

Noetic –

I am not sure you are reading me carefully.

I stated that  - “it is incongruous to imagine conscience acting in direct opposition to natural urges springing forth from the core of the human nature and indeed the metaphysical principle of duality which is the spiritual anchor for the necessity of sexual relations in existence.” –

Thus implying –

1. Conscience cannot militate against natural instincts given for survival
2. Conscience thus cannot militate against eating food, for example
3. Conscience cannot militate against response to stimuli – as this is natural
4. Se.xu.al intercourse is a function of response to stimuli as well as a natural instinct which ensures the propagation of the species
5. Conscience can therefore not militate against seksual intercourse

The foregoing is iron-cast and I challenge you to dispute it.

Secondly I hold that the principle of duality inherent in existence is pivotal to se.xu.ality, and renders it inescapable – an absolutely ineluctable and involuntary aspect of our nature which we cannot repudiate.

noetic16:
The source of his guilt cannot be traced to religion but to beliefs which are influenced by the conscience.

Don’t you think the reverse is the case - namely conscience which is influenced by beliefs?

2. The conscience remains an independent part of the human existence. That explains why billions of people from millions of different cultures have the same abominations. It is not a coincidence, it is a testament to the universality of the human conscience.

Have you not noticed that there is the same universal tendency to criminalize all things which are intensely pleasurable?

Anyway, lets not be distracted – define fornication and then we proceed.

noetic16:
The dude personally feels guilty. . . . why? cos he has a conscience that says his inactions are wrong.

I positively assert that his feelings of guilt do not arise from his conscience as it is incongruous to imagine conscience acting in direct opposition to natural urges springing forth from the core of the human nature and indeed the metaphysical principle of duality which is the spiritual anchor for the necessity of sexual relations in existence.

I place it to you that the said feelings of guilt arise only from the misconceptions forced on the OPs mind by misguided notions of morality driven by ancient and achaiac religions.

But I would rather you deal with my request concerning the meaning of the word "fornication" before we proceed.

Hi Noetic -

Can you kindly provide for me a working understanding of the term "fornication."

In doing so please consider the biblical etymology of the words translated as "fornication."

I will also appreciate a spiriritual discourse on exactly why such a natural instinct is clasified as sinful within the Judaic religious worldviews (Judaism, Christianity and Islam).

If you have the energy, that is.

Thanks.

InesQor:
First off, I apologize that this is off-topic.

I am really and sincerely sorry about the whole ID stuff, it was a combo of complex faults. For the sake of noetic's posts on the locked nopuqeater/olabowale thread, I explain below.

As I alreadY explained earlier on nairaland, I am not using the 2 accounts. I forgot to log out of my email on a public terminal, and I guess someone changed my password. Password recovery didnt work, I tried.

Tried to recover it to no avail, so on my birthday, February 22nd, 2010 I came to Nairaland to change my email on my profile so that I can get notifications since I cant access the old email. Unfortunately, Nairaland sent the activation link to that same old email that i cant access, and i was locked out until I can click the inaccessible link.

Looking back, i think the best solution would have been to email a moderator or something but impatiently, just like some people do when banned, I created a new user because I wanted to make some posts. I did, and decided to forget about the locked email and mavenbox ID.

Hours later, suprisingly Google sent me an SMS so i was able to reactivate my email and thus I could activate mavenbox again later that day. But I continued posting with this account.

Unfortunately, things got further complex because my mavenbox login was saved on my phone so one day I used my phone to reply a post on Buddhism and after two posts I was alarmed to see what I had mistakenly done. Then i logged out and cleared the login details.

And truthfully, JeSoul told me OFF nairaland that I was in the wrong. She told me to come clean and fix what I was getting deeper into. I simply told her that I did not want to raise the topic, I just did not think it was a good idea because I had gotten into enough trouble in the past. Besides, I was not using the two accounts so as far as I could see, nothing was amiss. She insisted but I ignored her advice. She said "all of this" would happen but I thought it didnt matter.

To everyone to whom it matters, most especially Tudor, DeepSight, and JeSoul and Nuclearboy, and Davidylan & Noetic and finally VIARO (Your name is not in lower-caps, never let anyone tell you any less), I am sorry. I hope you guys forgive me.

Cheers.

Finally out with all the lies, huh?

Congrats on coming clean. . . though you will pardon me if i am compelled to take your long-winded excuses with a pinch of salt, given your highly imaginative stories in the past.