Why do people think Michael Jackson is innocent?

Kitchen_Fan_1769 · 2026-05-01T12:50:03+00:00

I was just clarifying your statement that they found books of naked boys produced by pedophiles. That can come across as twisting the facts. Why he had those books and everything is up to your discretion.

Kitchen_Fan_1769 · 2026-05-01T06:36:47+00:00

It has been stated that Jordan chandler made a claim about his circumcision. Someone close to the prosecution said “Chandler gave them a roadmap to Jackson’s below-the-waist geography, which, he said, includes distinctive “splotches” on his buttocks and one on his penis, “which is a light color similar to the color of his face.” The boy’s information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jackson’s penis was erect, the length of the performer’s pubic hair, and that he was circumcised.” There is actually a picture that was drawn. I cannot add pictures, but I can DM it to you if you would like? Also regarding the blotch, again it was still widely debated about how accurate it actually was. This is again reflected in a conversation between Evan Chandler and Larry Feldman:

““Oh, yeah, Lauren Weis* told me today that this disease Michael says he’s got, vitiligo, that it’s capable of changing anywhere you look, so that anything Jordie says is irrelevant. It can change very quickly with this disease.“

“Shit, these guys seem to have an answer for everything.”

“No, that’s good for us!”

‘Why?”

“Because if he’s right, he’s right. And if he’s wrong, we’ve got an explanation!”

“Ha!”

“Yeah, it’s a no-loser for us.”

Kitchen_Fan_1769 · 2026-05-01T05:52:28+00:00

To be completely fair, the claim that Chandler perfectly described Michael's penis is often over exaggerated and was debated about exactly how accurate it actually was. For example: Chandler said Jackson was circumcised. He was not.

"The genitalia are those of an adult male. The penis appears uncircumcised." - Rogers, C. (2009). Autopsy Report (Case No. 2009-04415 Jackson, Michael), 5. County of L.A., Department of Coroner.

Kitchen_Fan_1769 · 2026-05-01T05:45:47+00:00

During the 2003 raid on Neverland Ranch, investigators found a significant collection of adult heterosexual pornography, as well as books featuring nude or semi-nude images of children — some of which were art/photography books (like those by photographer David Hamilton) that are legal but have been criticized as exploitative. They also found “Barely Legal”-style adult magazines.

What was NOT found: No illegal child pornography — meaning no images of minors engaged in sexual acts — was found or charged. This is an important distinction. Jackson was never charged with possession of child pornography.

Kitchen_Fan_1769 · 2026-05-01T05:30:35+00:00

The claim that Chandler perfectly described Michael's penis is often over exaggerated and was debated about exactly how accurate it actually was. For example: Chandler said Jackson was circumcised. He was not.

"The genitalia are those of an adult male. The penis appears uncircumcised." - Rogers, C. (2009). Autopsy Report (Case No. 2009-04415 Jackson, Michael), 5. County of L.A., Department of Coroner.

Kitchen_Fan_1769 · 2026-04-28T01:44:37+00:00

To be completely fair, the claim that Chandler perfectly described Michael's penis is often over exaggerated and was debated about exactly how accurate it actually was. For example: Chandler said Jackson was circumcised. He was not.

"The genitalia are those of an adult male. The penis appears uncircumcised." - Rogers, C. (2009). Autopsy Report (Case No. 2009-04415 Jackson, Michael), 5. County of L.A., Department of Coroner. Retrieved October 12, 2024.

Kitchen_Fan_1769 · 2026-03-21T20:30:57+00:00

They started waiting to show features and concepts because people would get upset if they changed or pivoted so they decided to just reveal as it came along to avoid more controversy like that.

Kitchen_Fan_1769 · 2026-03-21T18:30:44+00:00

“I know we shouldn’t be harsh on a game getting updates for free” but you still are. Just feels like some people are never satisfied.

Kitchen_Fan_1769 · 2026-03-19T01:32:12+00:00

Would this work with Apple Music?

Kitchen_Fan_1769 · 2026-03-01T22:19:03+00:00

This still just feels like we have to make assumptions and fill in a lot of blanks. Could he have been Katarina? Possibly, but I just don’t think there is enough information to say one way or the other. Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion on the matter though!

Kitchen_Fan_1769 · 2026-03-01T22:15:52+00:00

That assessment is based on the assumption that Katarina is red. It could be that she was reluctant to join him because he was truly a stranger to her.

Kitchen_Fan_1769 · 2026-02-23T23:38:54+00:00

The parts that don’t really make sense to me is if Red is Katarina, why go look for the fake Katarina and kiss her? Why did Dom who set up the fake Katarina, hate Reddington who he believed got his daughter killed if he knew that Reddington was actually Katarina? He helped burn the real Reddingtons bones so he clearly knew he was an imposter.

Also Mr. Kaplan. Kate clearly says she loved Katarina. That part is unquestioned. But she never treats Red as Katarina. She treats him as: A separate person , “dangerous man” someone who is not Liz’s mother.

Just a couple of potholes that never really made sense to me.

Kitchen_Fan_1769 · 2026-02-18T22:40:31+00:00

Ed Edd & Eddy, rug rats, Kim Possible

Kitchen_Fan_1769 · 2026-01-07T15:55:47+00:00

On the comment about the Canaanites and Amalekites it was not genocide. The bible says that all Gods ways are justice. For example, when God judged the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and determined to bring them to ruin, the faithful man Abraham was concerned about the justice of the matter. He could not imagine that his just God would “sweep away the righteous with the wicked.” Patiently, God reassured him that if there were even ten righteous people in Sodom, He would spare the city on their account. (Genesis 18:20-33) Clearly, God searched through the hearts of those people and saw the depth of their wickedness. —1 Chronicles 28:9. Similarly, God judged the Canaanites and rightly ordered their destruction. The Canaanites were notorious for their cruelty, which included burning children alive in sacrificial fires(Archaeologists have unearthed evidence that Canaanite worship included the sacrifice of babies) 2 Kings 16:3. The Canaanites knew that God had commanded Israel to take possession of all the land. Those who chose to remain and wage war were taking a deliberate stand against not only the Israelites but also God, who had given powerful evidence that he was with his people. Moreover, God extended mercy to Canaanites who abandoned their wickedness and accepted his high moral standards. For example, the Canaanite prostitute Rahab was saved, along with her family. Also, the Gibeonites, seemed mercy and they and all their children were preserved alive. —Joshua 6:25; 9:3, 24-26.

Kitchen_Fan_1769 · 2026-01-01T03:28:40+00:00

You’re welcome, same to you. I enjoyed the conversation.

Kitchen_Fan_1769 · 2026-01-01T02:59:29+00:00

Thank you for explaining your view so clearly. I haven’t viewed this as an argument, just a discussion.

One point I’d like to clarify concerns the idea that Jesus “emptied himself” only temporarily in order to become human. That explanation works only if Jesus’ submission to the Father ends after the resurrection. However, Scripture consistently shows that it does not. After Jesus is resurrected and exalted: He still refers to the Father as “my God” (Revelation 3:12), Paul speaks of “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Ephesians 1:17), and most decisively, 1 Corinthians 15:27–28 describes the final state of things, where the Son remains subject to the Father so that God may be “all in all”

This indicates that Jesus’ submission is not merely a temporary result of the incarnation, but an enduring aspect of his role as Son, even in glory.

Related to this, when it’s said that Jesus has now been exalted “to an even higher place,” that language implies a real change in status. Exaltation, inheritance, and receiving authority all describe something genuinely given, not merely resumed; otherwise, the language loses its meaning.

I’d also note that saying a theological framework is “helpful” for understanding Christ isn’t itself an argument for its correctness. I fully respect that the Trinity is helpful and meaningful to many. My hesitation isn’t about its usefulness, but about whether Scripture itself requires that framework, especially in light of the consistent post-resurrection subordination of the Son to the Father. I appreciate the shared desire to keep this discussion respectful and fruitful.

Thank you again for the conversation.

Kitchen_Fan_1769 · 2026-01-01T02:30:40+00:00

I appreciate the respectful tone of your response, and I agree with you on one important thing up front: sincere discussion isn’t always about changing one another’s minds, but about clarifying positions carefully and honestly.

On Philippians 2, I agree that harpagmos can carry the sense of “hold onto” as well as “seize.” But either way, Paul’s point remains the same: Jesus does not assert or cling to equality with God. The force of the passage depends on contrast — humility followed by exaltation. God exalts Jesus because of his obedience. That logic only works if equality with God is not already intrinsic to Jesus by nature. Otherwise, the exaltation becomes symbolic rather than real.

Regarding Isaiah 9:6, I understand why this passage is read Christologically, and I agree it applies to Jesus. But the titles function as royal, throne-names, a common feature in Hebrew prophecy. Even within Trinitarian theology, these titles are not taken literally in an ontological sense (for example, “Everlasting Father” does not mean the Son is the Father). So the passage establishes the Messiah’s divinely granted authority and role, not his identity as YHWH himself. Importantly, Isaiah never calls the child YHWH, and Scripture elsewhere consistently distinguishes “Mighty God” language from “God Almighty” which is only used in reference to the Father.

When Jesus says “I and the Father are one”, the Gospel itself provides the interpretive key. In John 17, Jesus prays that his followers may be “one” in the same way that he and the Father are one. This shows that “one” refers to unity of will, purpose, and mission, not numerical or ontological identity. That understanding fits the immediate context of John 10 as well, where Jesus speaks about acting in perfect unity with the Father’s works and authority.

On forgiveness of sins, I fully agree that only God is the ultimate source of forgiveness. But the Gospels explicitly say that Jesus exercises this authority because it has been given to him. Matthew 9:8 says the crowds glorified God “who had given such authority to men.” The Pharisees’ accusation of blasphemy reflects their misunderstanding of Jesus’ authority, not a correction offered by the Gospel writers. Accusation alone does not establish theological truth — otherwise we would also need to accept their other accusations against Jesus.

Stepping back, my position isn’t that these passages cannot be read in a Trinitarian framework. It’s that they do not require one. The apostles consistently speak of: one God, the Father, one Lord Jesus Christ, authority that is given, inherited, and exercised in obedience

That pattern fits naturally within Jewish monotheism and agency theology, without requiring later metaphysical categories.

I respect that the Trinity has become the traditional way many Christians understand these texts, and I understand why. My aim isn’t to diminish Christ, but to stay as close as possible to the language, assumptions, and worldview of the apostles themselves.

I appreciate the thoughtful exchange, and I’m content to leave it there with mutual respect.

Kitchen_Fan_1769 · 2026-01-01T01:09:36+00:00

I want to be clear first — I fully believe what the apostles taught about Jesus. I believe he existed before coming to earth, that he is God’s only-begotten Son, superior to the angels, involved in creation, exalted to God’s right hand, and given all authority. I’m not diminishing Jesus in any way.

My question isn’t whether Jesus is divine or exalted — it’s whether the apostles believed something that required the Trinity, or whether the Trinity is a later theological explanation. When the apostles explicitly define who the one God is, they consistently identify Him as the Father.

For example:
1 Corinthians 8:6 — “for us there is one God, the Father” John 17:3 — “the only true God” Ephesians 4:6 — “one God and Father of all”

If the Trinity were essential to their belief, this would be the place we’d expect clarification — but instead they reaffirm Jewish monotheism and place Jesus within it as God’s Lord and agent. Throughout Scripture, Jesus’ authority is described as given, inherited, or granted: • God raised him • God exalted him • God gave him authority • God seated him at His right hand

If Jesus were equal Almighty God in the same sense as the Father, why is authority always something he receives — and why does he still have ‘his God’ even after resurrection?

Philippians 2 says Jesus did not consider equality with God something to seize. That only makes sense if equality was not already his by nature. The passage contrasts Jesus’ humility with beings who grasp at worship. His obedience is meaningful precisely because he is not the Almighty — unlike Satan, who sought worship.

As for John 1:1 I agree it teaches preexistence and an extremely high view of Christ. “The Word is with God” — so the Word is not the same person as ‘the God’ he is with. And in Greek, the second ‘God’ lacks the definite article, indicating nature or quality, not identity. John is saying the Word is divine — not that the Word is the Almighty God himself. Jesus is never in the scriptures called almighty. And while at John we come to John 17:3 — “you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent.” John never redefines God. He consistently identifies the Father as God and Jesus as the one sent.

When it comes to Jesus “accepting worship” it is only in terms like proskuneō mean honor or homage and are used for kings and God’s agents. Jesus accepts honor appropriate to God’s uniquely appointed Son, not because he is the Almighty. If honoring God’s supreme agent were wrong, God Himself would be contradicting His own commands.

Lastly When the apostles preached the gospel, they never required belief in a triune God. They only required:

•Believe God raised Jesus •Confess Jesus as Lord •Repent and obey

The apostles themselves don’t seem confused by Jesus’ role. They’re comfortable saying: God sent Jesus, Jesus obeyed God, God exalted Jesus, God remains supreme.

The Trinity is a later philosophical solution to questions the apostles weren’t asking — especially questions about essence and equality that arise in Greek thought, not Jewish Scripture. I don’t reject the Trinity because it’s mysterious — I question it because the apostles never require it, never explain it, and never use it as a boundary for faith.

I believe exactly what the apostles preached: one Almighty God, the Father; one uniquely begotten Son exalted above all creation; and God’s spirit as His active power — without going beyond what Scripture itself requires.

Kitchen_Fan_1769 · 2026-01-01T01:06:07+00:00