"God is not a Christian, God is not a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist. All of those are human systems which human beings have created to try to help us walk into the mystery of God. I honor my tradition, I walk through my tradition, but I don't think my tradition defines God, I think it only points me to God."
--John Shelby Spong (1931-2021)

"God is not a Christian, God is not a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist. All of those are human systems which human beings have created to try to help us walk into the mystery of God. I honor my tradition, I walk through my tradition, but I don't think my tradition defines God, I think it only points me to God."
John Shelby Spong

Your title diverts Spong's comment from God to religion, but maybe that was your intention which is ok.

The more interesting question is about the nature of God rather than the nature of religion which most people have already figured out in the sense that they're all basically similar at their basic root.

Even the mystery of God is secondary to how humans have worked out the message of God. In other words, what is the correct way that God teaches us to live a life among other people. How we treat others is far more important than how we understand God.

As Spong says, religion points to God. I would go the next step - God points to our connections to others.

Post deleted.

Even the mystery of God is secondary to how humans have worked out the message of God. In other words, what is the correct way that God teaches us to live a life among other people. How we treat others is far more important than how we understand God.

As Spong says, religion points to God. I would go the next step - God points to our connections to others.
Exactly!!

"In James chapter 3:6, ‘Among all the parts of the body, the tongue is a whole wicked world in itself.’ If anyone is going to try and convert someone to worship their God, then you would think that they would show others just how wonderful and loving their God is by being kind and showing their love for their fellowman. Be respectful towards your fellowman no matter what they believe, who they worship or how they worship.It’s not important as to what denomination of religion that one belongs to, it’s where their heart is. Smile, be kind to all your fellowmen and show them that the love of God is within you by your kindness and the words that you speak."
https://itrustgodonly.com/different-religions/#:~:text=As%20a%20matter%20of%20fact%2C%20James%20 wrote%20that,them%20as%20you%20would%20want%20to%2 0be%20treated.

Why do you accept some parts of scripture but not others? What is your standard?


Even the mystery of God is secondary to how humans have worked out the message of God. In other words, what is the correct way that God teaches us to live a life among other people. How we treat others is far more important than how we understand God.How do you know that to be true?

Why are there so many different religions?


​Because they are so many different humans.

Why do you accept some parts of scripture but not others? What is your standard?
I accept Scripture as truth and that Truth is found in sermons, poetry, allegories, non-fiction stories, wisdom literature, etc.

How do you know that to be true?
It was Jesus' summation of the commandments: love God and love each other.


Why are there so many different religions?


​Because they are so many different humans.
Perfectly stated! (Welcome back! We missed you!)

It was Jesus' summation of the commandments: love God and love each other.Jesus said that to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind was the first and greatest commandment. How does that mean, "How we treat others is far more important than how we understand God?" How can we categorize loving and understanding God to somehow be inferior to loving people?

And in order to draw the conclusion you did, wouldn't you have to view the Bible as the final arbiter of truth? Not only that, but didn't you take the words of Christ to be literal?

Do you consider all religions to be basically equal?

Jesus said that to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind was the first and greatest commandment. How does that mean, "How we treat others is far more important than how we understand God?" How can we categorize loving and understanding God to somehow be inferior to loving people?
Inferior? You're adding a pejorative into what was posted. Do we understand God? Nope. But we certainly can learn and understand how to treat others because of our love for them as fellow humans (not to mention love for the earth and all the creatures that live on it).

And in order to draw the conclusion you did, wouldn't you have to view the Bible as the final arbiter of truth?
Many other religions and philosophies have the Golden Rule as a central maxim.

Do you consider all religions to be basically equal?
All religions are equal in that adherents seek to connect with that Higher Power.

Inferior? You're adding a pejorative into what was posted. Do we understand God? Nope. But we certainly can learn to and understand how to treat others because of our love for them as fellow humans (not to mention love for the earth and all the creatures that live on it).Inferior was simply in relationship to position. It was not a pejorative. So the question remains. "How can we categorize loving and understanding God to somehow be inferior (in rank, priority, or position) to loving people?"




Many other religions and philosophies have the Golden Rule as a central maxim.But you also did not answer this question. "Do you consider all religions to be basically equal?"

Nor this one. "And in order to draw the conclusion you did, wouldn't you have to view the Bible as the final arbiter of truth? Not only that, but didn't you take the words of Christ to be literal?"

Inferior was simply in relationship to position. It was not a pejorative. So the question remains. "How can we categorize loving and understanding God to somehow be inferior (in rank, priority, or position) to loving people?"
There's no ranking involved.

But you also did not answer this question. "Do you consider all religions to be basically equal?"
Of course not, but their common theme is love, philos.

Nor this one. "And in order to draw the conclusion you did, wouldn't you have to view the Bible as the final arbiter of truth? Not only that, but didn't you take the words of Christ to be literal?"
You must be asking this of Athos, not me. Remember? -- I wondered if Jesus' words had been written down as He spoke them or were perhaps recorded. *smirk*

There's no ranking involved.Of course there was. When a person makes this statement, he/she is clearly establishing a hierarchy. "How we treat others is far more important than how we understand God."


Of course not,Interesting. Which one(s) would you consider better than others?


but their common theme is love, philos.You would have an impossible time trying to establish that. It is not true of Islam, for instance, and certainly not true of Hinduism.


You must be asking this of Athos, not me. Remember? -- I wondered if Jesus' words had been written down as He spoke them or were perhaps recorded. *smirk*I guess you are not going to answer these. ​"And in order to draw the conclusion you did, wouldn't you have to view the Bible as the final arbiter of truth? Not only that, but didn't you take the words of Christ to be literal?"

Of course there was. When a person makes this statement, he/she is clearly establishing a hierarchy. "How we treat others is far more important than how we understand God."Going along with your train of thought, we cannot understand God. We do live on this earth with fellow humans. It is in our (and their) best interests to treat them as we would want to be treated.
Interesting. Which one(s) would you consider better than others?
Better at what? I loved the samosas Shachi brought for us to enjoy at lunch break, and Manisha's Baidi roti!!! Oh, my!

You would have an impossible time trying to establish that. It is not true of Islam, for instance, and certainly not true of Hinduism.
In Libraryland, for many years I worked with and interacted with people from many different backgrounds, nationalities, ethnicities, and religions, including, especially, Muslims and Hindus. In fact, the community was considered a League of Nations microcosm. To this day, eleven years after retirement, I am still connected to some of them via email and Facebook. Philos, always philos.

I guess you are not going to answer these. ​"And in order to draw the conclusion you did, wouldn't you have to view the Bible as the final arbiter of truth? Not only that, but didn't you take the words of Christ to be literal?"
I have no idea if Jesus actually said those exact words. I wasn't there to listen.

Going along with your train of thought, we cannot understand God.That certainly was not my train of thought. Of course we can understand God. When we read the Bible, we come to a greater understanding of Him. For instance, "1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high."


We do live on this earth with fellow humans. It is in our (and their) best interests to treat them as we would want to be treated.That is true. By no means, however, do all religions teach that.


Better at what?You said all religions are not equal. Which ones are better than the others?


In Libraryland, for many years I worked with and interacted with people from many different backgrounds, nationalities, ethnicities, and religions, including, especially, Muslims and Hindus. In fact, the community was considered a League of Nations microcosm. To this day, eleven years after retirement, I am still connected to some of them via email and Facebook. Philos, always philos.So? When Moslems flew airplanes full of people into buildings full of people, was that philos?


I have no idea if Jesus actually said those exact words. I wasn't there to listen.So we can place no real confidence in His words, and can therefore draw no reliable conclusions from them? Interesting.

This is another of my favorites by which we gain a much fuller understanding of God.
This is what the Lord says: “Let not the wise boast of their wisdom or the strong boast of their strength or the rich boast of their riches, 24but let the one who boasts boast about this: that they have the understanding to know me, that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight,” declares the Lord.

Even in your reference to the two great commandments, we gain a fuller understanding of God. We are to put Him first in every way, and we are to love our neighbors in the same way that we love ourselves. Those two commandments are of upmost importance to Him.

Of course we can. When we read the Bible, we come to a greater understanding of God.
Maybe. Or maybe our limited understanding of God gets all confused in our heads, especially when we listen to a one-trick-pony interpretation of God.

You said all religions are not equal. Which ones are better than the others?
As I said in my previous post, Better at what? I loved the samosas Shachi brought for us to enjoy at lunch break, and Manisha's Baidi roti!!! Oh, my! Definitely the foods of other cultures deserve applause!

So? When Moslems flew airplanes full of people into buildings full of people, was that philos?
So we damn all Muslims because of a few? In the same way, let's damn all Christians because of Jim Jones and Benny Hinn.

So we can place no real confidence in His words, and can therefore draw no reliable conclusions from them? Interesting.
Read the entire Bible and get the drift.

Maybe. Or maybe our limited understanding of God gets all confused in our headsHas that happened to you?


As I said in my previous post, Better at what? I loved the samosas Shachi brought for us to enjoy at lunch break, and Manisha's Baidi roti!!! Oh, my! Definitely the foods of other cultures deserve applause!Never mind. You've put on your evasive motif again.


So we damn all Muslims because of a few?
No. And we also don't pretend that all religions teach philos because you met some people in a library.


Read the entire Bible and get the drift.
That won't work. You weren't there when any of the Bible was spoken or written down. Remember that it was not recorded? So how can you trust any of it if you cannot trust the words of Jesus which, you said, you did not hear and so quite naturally cannot trust? (I have no idea if Jesus actually said those exact words. I wasn't there to listen.) Doesn't that render it all unreliable?

Has that happened to you?
Nope. I'm in regular contact with learned Christian professionals who keep me on the narrow road.

Never mind. You've put on your evasive motif again.
We'll find out in the afterlife. The answer will undoubtedly surprise you.

No. And we also don't pretend that all religions teach philos because you met some people in a library.
I worked with those two and others for years. Yes, the Golden Rule is a central teaching in many religions.

That won't work. You weren't there when any of the Bible was spoken or written down. Remember that it was not recorded? So how can you trust any of it if you cannot trust the words of Jesus which, you said, you did not hear and so quite naturally cannot trust? (I have no idea if Jesus actually said those exact words. I wasn't there to listen.) Doesn't that render it all unreliable?
You were there?

Nope. I'm in regular contact with learned Christian professionals who keep me on the narrow road. That's so funny. Everyone is confused except, of course, you. You need to get in contact with the Bible.


We'll find out in the afterlife.The answer will undoubtedly surprise you.You giving an answer would have surprised me.


Yes, the Golden Rule is a central teaching in many religions.Fraid not.


You were there?Miss Evasion strikes again. I read this passage this morning and it reminded me so much of you. "Jesus said to them, “I will also ask you one thing, which if you tell Me, I will also tell you by what authority I do these things. 25 The baptism of John was from what source, from heaven or from men?” And they began reasoning among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say to us, ‘Then why did you not believe him?’ 26 But if we say, ‘From men,’ we fear the people; for they all regard John as a prophet.” 27 And answering Jesus, they said, “We do not know.”

It reminded me so much of the two of you. You are plenty smart enough to see a challenging question for your belief system, so rather than answer it, you just walk around it. Too bad. I've often felt that any belief I have which I cannot defend should be discarded. Better to find out sooner rather than later. That's why you don't see me running from questions.

That's so funny. Everyone is confused except, of course, you. You need to get in contact with the Bible.
Meaning what? I'm not?

Now you are, in both cases, catching on.

Unanswered questions of the day.

1. If, as you agree, all religions are not equal, then which one or ones would be better than the others?
2. If the words of Jesus are not reliable, then why do you bother to quote them?
3. Since you appealed to the Bible, do you consider it to be the final arbiter of truth? If not, then why did you appeal to it?

1. If, as you agree, all religions are not equal, then which one or ones would be better than the others?
I don't rate them. That's God's job. My job is to love and care about my fellow humans.

2. If the words of Jesus are not reliable, then why do you bother to quote them?
To make you happy.

3. Since you appealed to the Bible, do you consider it to be the final arbiter of truth?
God is the final arbiter of truth.

When Moslems flew airplanes full of people into buildings full of people, was that philos?


When the God of the OT exterminated all humanity except for Noah, was that philos?

When the God of the NT (Jesus) condemned all non-believers to hell, was that philos?

The God(s) of the Bible are far worse than anything the Moslems ever did.

I don't rate them. That's God's job. My job is to love and care about my fellow humans.But you did rate them. You said they were not all equal. That is a rating.


To make you happy.Unspeakably poor answer.


God is the final arbiter of truth.But you did not appeal to God. You appealed to the Bible.


When the God of the OT exterminated all humanity except for Noah, was that philos?

When the God of the NT (Jesus) condemned all non-believers to hell, was that philos?

The God(s) of the Bible are far worse than anything the Moslems ever did.How do you know God did those things?

But you did rate them. You said they were not all equal. That is a rating.
They all teach various truths.

Unspeakably poor answer.
You don't want to be happy?

But you did not appeal to God. You appealed to the Bible.
When? What did I say?

1. How do you know that what they say is true?

2. I would rather you be honest.

3. You referred to loving God and loving your neighbor. Remember?

1. How do you know that what they say is true?
Some beliefs are: Be kind to others. Nonviolence. The spark or spirit of God is within our soul. Freedom to choose how to behave (free will).

2. I would rather you be honest.
What??? But then you can't diss me!

3. You referred to loving God and loving your neighbor. Remember?
That's in many religions.

1. But how do you know those statements are true?

2. Like you just did to me?

3. Nope. You plainly said it was what Jesus said. That would be found in the Bible. And since you weren’t there to hear Him say those words, I don’t know why you did that.

1. But how do you know those statements are true?
I know people who are members of those religions and have read up on them so I know what they're talking about..

2. Like you just did to me?
I was trying to make you laugh.

3. Nope. You plainly said it was what Jesus said. That would be found in the Bible. And since you weren’t there to hear Him say those words, I don’t know why you did that.
Jesus and a whole bunch of other holy men said that. You want chapters and verses from other holy books?

1. How do you know your previous statements are true? (Some beliefs are: Be kind to others. Nonviolence. The spark or spirit of God is within our soul. Freedom to choose how to behave (free will).)

If you want to simply say they are beliefs, then that's fine. But to say they are "true" is a vastly more serious statement.

2. Right.

3. Back to being evasive. Why did you quote the Bible at first, but then decide that "God is the arbiter of truth"? Why the change?

Yes. I want chapter/verse from other holy books.

Originally posted by Athos

When the God of the OT exterminated all humanity except for Noah, was that philos?

When the God of the NT (Jesus) condemned all non-believers to hell, was that philos?

The God(s) of the Bible are far worse than anything the Moslems ever did.


How do you know God did those things?


Do you deny they are in your Bible?

No. I fully accept that they are in the Bible. God is a God of judgment as well as a God of love. It's what Jesus told us.

The Moslems are not, as Abraham termed it, "The judge of the whole earth." Only God has that right.

I would like to know where your beliefs come from. Are they just your ideas, or do you appeal to anything beyond you? And until you are prepared to answer honestly and openly, then don't bother asking any more questions. At least WG answers SOME questions. You don't like answering any at all. It will require some courage.

Yes. I want chapter/verse from other holy books.
Here's one: Hindu -- Bhakti Yoga, cultivating the love for others but also love for God.

No. I fully accept that they are in the Bible. God is a God of judgment as well as a God of love. It's what Jesus told us.

So, you DO believe that God exterminated millions of human beings, and Jesus condemns billions of human being to eternal torture. How is that a God of Love?


I would like to know where your beliefs come from.

My beliefs are no concern of yours.


Are they just your ideas,

My ideas come from the thought processes in my mind, just as your ideas come from the thought processes in YOUR mind. We've been over this ground before, yet you still seem unable to grasp this simple fact.


until you are prepared to answer honestly and openly, then don't bother asking any more questions.

Why do you insist on being an a**hole? I really don't understand it. For the record, you are NOT the arbiter here of questions and answers and discussions. I know you want to be, but you are not.


At least WG answers SOME questions.

WG acts as she sees fit. She's nicer than me.


You don't like answering any at all.

To repeat, when you can ask an honest question that is relevant and does not contain an ulterior motive (such as discerning the best way to condemn me for a belief that may be different than yours), then I will gladly answer any question asked. To date, you have been unable to do so.


It will require some courage.

Lol - using such a childish challenge to force me to answer makes you look silly. I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

Nope. Mr. Silent is going to have to start answering some questions.


My beliefs are no concern of yours.Fair enough, but then mine are also no concern of yours. The difference, of course, is that I don't mind having mine questioned. You plainly do.





Here's one: Hindu -- Bhakti Yoga, cultivating the love for others but also love for God.WG, plagiarizing from a website is not chapter/verse. Show me in the Vedas where this is taught. And if you can do that, then tell me if you were there when those ancient men spoke those words. If you weren't, then how do you know they actually spoke those words? After all, you doubt the words of Jesus for that reason, don't you?

At any rate, you appealed to the Bible, but later said that only God is the final arbiter of truth. But if that is true, then why did you appeal to the Bible? How do you know that is even true, and how do you know these statements are true? "Some beliefs are: Be kind to others. Nonviolence. The spark or spirit of God is within our soul. Freedom to choose how to behave (free will)." In other words, I'm asking how you establish truth. Are you saying these statements are true, or are you just stating an opinion? If you say they are true, then why do you believe that to be so?

Because something is believed within your circle of liberal friends does not establish it as true anymore than something being believed among my circle of conservative friends makes it true. That's why I generally don't appeal to the opinions and beliefs of others.



https://vedicfeed.com/5-stages-of-love-hinduism/

Nope. Mr. Silent is going to have to start answering some questions.

Sorry, pal. You don't make the rules here.


posted by Athos ---- My beliefs are no concern of yours.


from Jl ----- Fair enough, but then mine are also no concern of yours.

You have never been of the slightest concern to me. I find you close-minded and weak on grasping nuance. Both of those make you an uninteresting correspondent.


The difference, of course, is that I don't mind having mine questioned. You plainly do.

No, it's just you - for reasons I have explained several times to you.

WG, plagiarizing from a website is not chapter/verse.

Because something is believed within your circle of liberal friends does not establish it as true anymore than something being believed among my circle of conservative friends makes it true. That's why I generally don't appeal to the opinions and beliefs of others.
I'm dealing with an ill husband and post when I am able. Sorry it wasn't complete and to your satisfaction.

And what is believed by you or me is not necessily true either. Thus, I'm interested in honest discussion.

My "circle of friends" are former coworkers/patrons who are Indian, Pakistani, Chinese, Filipino, Thai, etc.

Bye for now.

You have never been of the slightest concern to meAnd that explains the doubtless hundreds of posts you have made in reply to my posts? Got it!

You just don't want to have your beliefs questioned. It's pretty obvious. For instance, when I see this post of yours, I wonder if that is just your opinion, or are you contending it is true for everyone. And if true for everyone, then how do you know it's true? I realize you are not going to answer. I just use it as an example.


The more interesting question is about the nature of God rather than the nature of religion which most people have already figured out in the sense that they're all basically similar at their basic root.

Even the mystery of God is secondary to how humans have worked out the message of God. In other words, what is the correct way that God teaches us to live a life among other people. How we treat others is far more important than how we understand God.



I'm dealing with an ill husband and post when I am able.Very sorry to hear that, WG. Life can be tough for sure.

Why are there so many different religions?


​Because they are so many different humans.

Maybe they aren't so different and would see that if they shut up and learned to respectfully listen and weren't so intense on being more divine or sacred than another human.

And that explains the doubtless hundreds of posts you have made in reply to my posts? Got it!

My replies are in the interests of truth and accuracy when you so frequently post incorrect information. You're letting your ego get in your way.


You just don't want to have your beliefs questioned.

My beliefs are not closed except for you. The reasons are obvious.


For instance, when I see this post of yours, I wonder if that is just your opinion, or are you contending it is true for everyone.

It is an observation. Obviously I consider it to be an accurate observation, else I would not have posted it.


I realize you are not going to answer.

If you realize that, why ask? Such an admission shows you are only interested in seeing your name in print.

Many words. No answer. Oh well.

On second thought there was an answer of sorts. You said your remarks were an observation you considered to be accurate. That could be merely an opinion which would be fine. It could also be a truth statement which would need support. I just am wondering what led you to that position.

The answer was a pleasant event.

Many words. No answer. Oh well.

Having eyes, they saw not.

Having eyes he saw late, but did see. Look again.

Having eyes he saw late, but did see. Look again.

Sorry, you get one shot - no longer playing your game.

Your choice. I always welcome opportunities to explain my beliefs, but I do realize that everyone does not feel that way.

I always welcome opportunities to explain my beliefs, but I do realize that everyone does not feel that way.

FINALLY! All those replies worked. Good for you. You've made a giant step in maturity.

You must be speaking of my replies. Replying to questions is a rarity for you. Perhaps the day will come when you are confident enough in your beliefs to welcome the opportunity to defend them.

Yesterday I received my September Mensa Bulletin. The first letter to the editor caught my eye and made me think of this AMHD thread. Here's the letter:

***Phillip Power deserves points for valiant effort in "Intelligence & Unbelief: The Not-So-Causal Relationship" (August).

In Isaac Newton's day, pretty much everyone in the Western world was Christian. Quoting eminences from that era [as had the author of the article being commented on] supporting the belief in God isn't saying a whole lot. One did not cross the Church of England or the Vatican (or the Imams of Islam) lightly.

Closer to the issue: Believing in a God is not enough. Your God has to be fleshed out with attributes, and that's where the trouble starts. The God of the Bible comes across as a vicious, blood-loving, woman-hating, insecure bully.

Loading God with the job of creation has its own problems. God "designed" the impala to run fast to avoid the lion and "designed" the lion to catch and kill the impala. Then there is the wasp that lays its larvae in the body of a paralyzed tarantula to eat the tarantula alive from the inside out. Whose side is God on anyway?

One may reduce a belief in God to the simplest level as not more than a supernatural agent that provides personal comfort and solace. Well, that's all right. I suppose, if that is what you need.***

The God of the Bible comes across as a vicious, blood-loving, woman-hating, insecure bully.He must be reading a different Bible from mine. I always think it's unfortunate when people get into the business of judging God. The shoe is actually on the other foot.


One may reduce a belief in God to the simplest level as not more than a supernatural agent that provides personal comfort and solace. Well, that's all right. I suppose, if that is what you need.***That would only be "all right" if it was true. If it's not true, then it's a terrible mistake. You cannot read the NT and come to such a conclusion unless you want to ignore the NT. Jesus absolutely does not leave us that option.

He must be reading a different Bible from mine.

He's reading the same Bible. Especially the part where God exterminates all humanity except for Noah. Did you miss that part? And where Jesus sends unbelievers to eternal punishment in his private torture chamber.


You cannot read the NT and come to such a conclusion unless you want to ignore the NT.

Of course, you can. All those atheists who were brought up as Christians read the NT and came to that conclusion.

Nope. As Confucius might have said, "He who is not willing to answer questions should not presume to ask them." I've answered your questions by the dozens while you sit back, shall we say, "shyly".

Here's the latest one in case you want to try and strap it on.

You said your remarks were an observation you considered to be accurate. That was not what I asked, however, I asked if your remark was an opinion, or was it a statement you considered to be true for everyone. Now your reply could have been merely an opinion which would be fine. It could also have been a truth statement which would need support. I just am wondering which position you are taking.

You said your remarks were an observation you considered to be accurate. That was not what I asked, however, I asked if your remark was an opinion, or was it a statement you considered to be true for everyone. Now your reply could have been merely an opinion which would be fine. It could also have been a truth statement which would need support. I just am wondering which position you are taking.
And your remarks are....?

I've answered your questions by the dozens while you sit back

Why are you evading this question? Are you a coward?

Of course, we all know why you're evading it. Simply because your Bible comment was wrong - seriously wrong - and you know it, but are afraid to admit it. You've been outed, pal. Live with it.

Tell you what. If you will agree to these terms, I'll answer your question. We will exchange one question at a time. Each of us will agree to give honest and open answers. Agreed, oh thou courageous one?

Note to other readers. Prepare for a plateful of evasion.

Each of us will agree to give honest and open answers.
No nastiness, no crabbing, no putdowns, no evasiveness, no insults, no rudeness.

That was actually intended for Athos. And I wanted to laugh out loud when I read the "no evasiveness" rule. You are the queen of evasion. You do it all the time and you know you do. But if you are willing to abide by your own rules, we can give it a go. You can ask first.

That was actually intended for Athos. And I wanted to laugh out loud when I read the "no evasiveness" rule. You are the queen of evasion. You do it all the time and you know you do. But if you are willing to abide by your own rules, we can give it a go. You can ask first.
I know that was for him. And you're off to a bad start.

I guess that means you are out. Now it's a waiting game for Athos.

But understand that you are most welcome in. I actually don't think you want to, but we'll see.

Hope the hubster is doing better.

What is "crabbing"?

What is "crabbing"?
crabbing (present participle)
grumble, typically about something petty.
"on picnics, I would crab about sand in my food"

Ach du lieber! Du bist ein Schnickelfritz!

Tell you what. If you will agree to these terms, I'll answer your question. We will exchange one question at a time. Each of us will agree to give honest and open answers.

Note to other readers. Prepare for a plateful of evasion.

Note to readers. Jl has done this before.

When he asked me that very same thing in the past, I accepted and even went first to show good faith. Then he refused to accept my answer (which perfectly described my position on the subject), and refused to give an answer himself. So much for the word of Jl.

He couldn't have been more transparently dishonest. He was met on the battlefield and he ran away and hid. Dishonest AND cowardly!

Note to other readers. Prepare for a plateful of evasion.And I was right! There is no more predictable deal on this site than the refusal of Athos to answer questions.

His reference to those supposed occurrences in the past is simply lying. Guaranteed he cannot find it or link to it. Guaranteed.

But my offer remains. Do you accept?

And I was right! There is no more predictable deal on this site than the refusal of Athos to answer questions.

You're becoming a one-note liar.


His reference to those supposed occurrences in the past is simply lying. Guaranteed he cannot find it or link to it. Guaranteed.

You know and I know it is the truth. You are so consistent in denying any truth that doesn't fit your purposes, no one is surprised by it anymore.

Could I find it? Probably. But to what purpose? It would surprise no one - even you.

From memory - the topic was what did I believe about hell. You asked it and said you would answer if I answered after you did. I decided to go first, never thinking you were lying about answering. I didn't know you well back then, the way I do now. I said I don't believe in hell. You said that is not an answer. So you never answered as promised.

Your position was absurd. I learned then that truth as defined by you was what you believed. A belief other than yours was, per se, not truth. His religious beliefs don't allow for differences. Everything else is lies which he was fond of saying deserved hellfire, usually accompanied by some Biblical quote.

That's a rough memory, but the discussion was about the Bible and hell. Jl remembers, but he is not likely to admit it.

You cannot demonstrate any truth to your statement with your ridiculous "rough memory". End of story. Never happened. The rest is just theater.

But my offer remains. Do you accept? I'll even let you go first. I'd already said that, as I recall, but just to be clear.

You cannot demonstrate any truth to your statement with your ridiculous "rough memory". End of story. Never happened. The rest is just theater.

The demonstration lies in the FACT that you were challenged re the the eternal punishment in hell for unbelievers. Members who were here then can easily testify to that. Your challenge then re exchanging questions was a fraud.

BEFORE GOD, I SWEAR THAT WHAT I AM CLAIMING IS THE TRUTH.

Can you make the same statement , Jl? Can you stand before God and say you never made that challenge to exchange questions? And then when I answered the question re hell, you refused to give your answer? BEFORE GOD?

Do I believe your theatrics? Nah. After the shameful Aquinas episode, which I actually copied and can easily repost, I don't trust what you say and do not believe your story for one second.


BEFORE GOD, I SWEAR THAT WHAT I AM CLAIMING IS THE TRUTH.Except that you said, did you not, that it was based upon your "rough memory"? That doesn't sound good.

Enough of this. You have one more chance. Either man up or retire. So my offer remains (again). Do you accept? I'll let you go first. Otherwise tuck your tail between your legs and run for it.

Do I believe your theatrics?

Theatrics? You, of all people, think standing in front of God and stating the truth is theatrics?

Jl, I think we have your answer now. Any person unwilling to speak the truth before God can be definitely acknowledged to be lying.

If you lied before God, that would be a serous thing. I don't blame you for evading that challenge.

It is time for you to tell the truth. Your immortal soul may depend on it. Do you think that's theatrics also?

Blah, blah, blah. "Your immortal soul may depend upon it!" Talk about shrill.

Tell the truth? OK. I think you have told a wild tale. If it was true, you would have found the post by now and linked to it. You haven't because you know you are not being honest. You want me to trust your memory? Sorry, but no thanks.

"Your immortal soul may depend upon it!" Talk about shrill.

From theatrics to shrill. You consider your immortal soul to be shrill? You're treading on dangerous ground. Be careful.



Tell the truth? .......... Sorry, but no thanks.

Tell the truth TO GOD, Jl, not to me. TO GOD. We all see how you manage to evade the question. That was most obvious to all.

Are you prepared to deny God the truth like Peter denied Christ? Or is that just more shrill theatrics?

From theatrics to shrill. Good description of your actions. I agree.

I have no idea of what you are talking about. Jesus said our yes is to be yes, and our no is to be no. That is my practice. I think you are imagining things. Like I said, if you were right, you would have posted the link by now.

I think you swearing by God on the basis of a "rough memory" is really foolish.


Or is that just more shrill theatrics?Thanks again for the nice compliment of copying my comments.

I have no idea of what you are talking about.

In language simple enough for you to understand --- Can you make the same statement , Jl? Can you stand before God and say you never made that challenge to exchange questions? And then when I answered the question re hell, you refused to give your answer? BEFORE GOD?

That is from post #67. Several posts and several hours later, you Jl have still NOT proclaimed BEFORE GOD that you never made that challenge to answer questions. BEFORE GOD, Jl. Not before me.

My statement on the issue -

BEFORE GOD, I SWEAR THAT WHAT I AM CLAIMING IS THE TRUTH. That is from post #67.

Why would I want to deal with your foolishness? If you can prove your fake news, then go for it. Otherwise, move on. You have foolishly taken an oath based upon, as you said, your "rough memory". Don't expect me to do something that stupid, especially considering that you are, once again, at variance with the words of Christ. I am bound by those words. I do realize that you believe you are not.

"But I say to you, take no oath at all, neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, nor [ad]by Jerusalem, for it is THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING. 36Nor shall you take an oath by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black. 37But make sure your statement is, ‘[ae]Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is [af]of evil origin."

Athos, you do realize you've gone far overboard with this? Is it really worth all that for an obscure message board? I mean taking a solemn oath over a silly dispute on a message board? Really??? You think you're right and I think you're wrong. Case settled. Move on.

Why would I want to deal with your foolishness?

To prove what you claim is true. Lacking a public pronouncement before God, we are left with no other conclusion that you are lying.


"But I say to you, take no oath at all,

No one is asking you to take an oath. It's a simple request asking you to stand before God and tell the truth on this issue.


Athos, you do realize you've gone far overboard with this? Is it really worth all that for an obscure message board?

So now this is nothing more than a silly message board and a silly dispute and I've gone far overboard. Well, Jl, you have the power to end it yourself. Admit you lied (good for the soul) or stand before God and tell the truth.

Lacking a public pronouncement before God, we are left with no other conclusion that you are lying.You mean like the one you gave based upon your "rough memory"? You mean like that? "Your honor, my testimony is that I roughly remember the accused robbing that bank." You would be laughed out of court just like you are being laughed at here.

Everything I say I say in the presence of God. Everything I say is my best effort at the truth. I take the words of Christ seriously when He said, "But make sure your statement is, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’;" I don't engage in silliness like truncating a quote from Aquinas to make it appear he meant one thing when, in fact, he meant the exact opposite.

You took an oath...foolishly. "BEFORE GOD, I SWEAR THAT WHAT I AM CLAIMING IS THE TRUTH." You might have added, "based upon my rough memory." Please. Stop, for your own sake. Seriously.

You mean like the one you gave based upon your "rough memory"? You mean like that?

Yes, exactly like that one. But in YOUR own words.


I take the words of Christ seriously when He said, "But make sure your statement is, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’;

Stop hiding behind Christ and make a public statement BEFORE GOD. You've now refused doing so more than Peter's three denials.



You took an oath...foolishly. "BEFORE GOD, I SWEAR THAT WHAT I AM CLAIMING IS THE TRUTH."

Nothing could have been less foolish. Standing before God and swearing to the truth is a serious matter.


You might have added, "based upon my rough memory."

Not necessary. God knows that.


Please. Stop, for your own sake. Seriously.

I can sense beads of sweat on your forehead. Getting uncomfortable, are you? You know what you have to do. For your own sake. Seriously.

Not necessary. God knows that.Yes, and we also know it since, right after bragging about "SWEARING" to your fake news, you said it was based upon your "rough memory". It is sheer foolishness. No serious person takes an oath based upon a "rough memory".


It's a simple request asking you to stand before God and tell the truth on this issue.That's what you asked. I responded, "Everything I say I say in the presence of God. Everything I say is my best effort at the truth. I take the words of Christ seriously when He said, "But make sure your statement is, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’;" I don't engage in silliness like truncating a quote from Aquinas to make it appear he meant one thing when, in fact, he meant the exact opposite."

If walking in obedience to what Jesus said is, "Hiding behind Christ," then I happily plead, "Guilty as charged!" You should try it yourself. Really.

When a person is accustomed to telling the truth, it's not necessary to go into shrill theatrics to make his point. Rather than taking oaths, you could simply link to the post, but you can't do that since you can't find it. And why not? Because it doesn't exist, or more likely because you know it does not line up with your fantasy version.

Yes, and we also know it since, right after bragging about "SWEARING" to your fake news, you said it was based upon your "rough memory". It is sheer foolishness.

I publicly stated my stance to God. You didn't. That's the difference.


"Everything I say I say in the presence of God. Everything I say is my best effort at the truth.

Then it should be easy for you to make a public statement on the matter BEFORE GOD.


it's not necessary to go into shrill theatrics to make his point.

Only to you, Jl, is referring to God and the immortality of the soul "shrill theatrics". Be careful what you say, Jl, you're teetering on the edge of peril.


Rather than taking oaths, you could simply link to the post

Rather than refusing to do what is right, you could simply stand before God and tell the truth. But you continue to refuse to do that simple thing. We know why. It's pretty obvious by now.

Rather than refusing to do what is right, you could simply stand before God and tell the truth. But you continue to refuse to do that simple thing. We know why. It's pretty obvious by now.Yes, it is very obvious you cannot find the non-existent link. All your theatrical swearing is nonsense. If you don't have the goods, and you don't, then you are toast.

Yes, it is very obvious you cannot find the non-existent link. All your theatrical swearing is nonsense. If you don't have the goods, and you don't, then you are toast.

You can't evade/divert forever. What is obvious is your continued refusal to stand before God and tell the truth in this matter.

All your refusals are so much fodder for the display of your character. It's not pretty.

Find the link. It's that simple. You can't because it doesn't exist. It doesn't exist because you were simply wrong. Your "rough memory" failed you. And now, of course, you are mad about it again. Predictable. Do you just stay this mad all the time?

At any rate, if you think I'm going to start taking oaths because you are foolish enough to, then you are sadly mistaken.

It's that simple.

What is simple is your refusal to stand before God and tell the truth. You fear the wrath of God if you lie to his face.

I have stood here before God and told the truth. Why can't you? The answer is obvious. You are a liar, Jl, and cannot lie standing before God.

You try to weasel yourself out of your own dilemma, but as anyone can see, you can't. You have reason after reason of refusing to declare the truth with God as your witness.

Whether it's God, abortion, Covid, or facts in general, you wallow in your own ignorance like a pig at the trough. There is no better way to describe a liar and a cheat, especially one who hides behind his Bible and his Jesus.

No one here supports your deceit. You are as toxic as the rotten apple in the barrel. Since your arrival, these pages have gone from civil discussion to a sickening display of nastiness and mean-spiritedness, culminating in your insulting attitude toward standing before God.

God sees and remembers, Jl. Never forget that.

If you want to be dumb enough to swear before God based upon a "rough memory", then go for it, but don't expect sensible people to make the same dumb mistake.

Post the link. When you lied about Aquinas, I posted the link AND copied the material. There was no need for the silly theatrics you have employed. I didn't need to appeal to anyone and say, "Oh please, please, please, pretty please trust me. I have taken an oath!!" No, I posted the evidence of your misdeed. It was simple. And you've been mad about it every since.

Do the same. Post the link. If you don't, then everyone reading this knows why.


God sees and remembers, Jl. Never forget that.I do. That's why I don't need oaths. I just tell the truth. It's what honest people do. You should try it.

If you want to be dumb enough to swear before God based upon a "rough memory", then go for it,

I trust that God will see the heart of this dumb person who swore the truth directly to God.


but don't expect sensible people to make the same dumb mistake.

I no longer expect YOU to stand before God and tell the truth. At one time, I did based on your rigid Bible beliefs. Now I see that everything about you is false.

You were given a perfectly valid explanation of several comments of mine (including Aquinas) that you refused to accept. Your strategy is the same - refuse to admit anything. A lesson right from the playbook of Trump, who learned it early in life and whom you admire so much.

But this is far beyond Trump, Jl. This is about God, a far more serious proposition. Refusal to kneel before God and speak the truth is of a gravity beyond measure.

Saying that "expecting sensible people to make the same dumb mistake" is an insult to God Almighty. You have gone too far with that comment, Jl.

In the interests of mercy, I will allow you to re-phrase it. God will understand your blind anger.

Rephrase it? Try this. Jesus said not to take oaths, but to simply give an honest reply. Sensible people obey Him rather than obeying you. You took your own advice rather than be obedient to Christ, but I have no intention of making that foolish mistake.

I doubt that your unimpressive, "rough memory" oath to whatever god it is you serve has impressed anyone. Want to impress us? Deliver the goods and stop with the theatrics. Until you do (and you won't since you can't), I'm done with this foolishness. What you described did not happen. Your angry posts are far from compelling.

Rephrase it? Try this. Jesus said not to take oaths, but to simply give an honest reply.


Precisely! That's exactly what I did - gave an honest statement. Why don't you do the same?

Jl, it's never too late to repent. God is waiting.

All you have to do is say you're sorry for not telling the truth to God. You'll be immediately forgiven.