[Athos]

And, as I predicted, no support at all from the Bible for your position.

Unlike you, I don't require support from the Bible to think or live my life.

Paul did not call for government taxation, nor did the Psalms.

Connect the dots from post #19 - previously referenced. OR, if you prefer, point out where the Bible does NOT call for government taxation to help the needy.

Also, you did not comment on Mt. 5 or the 2 Peter passage.

I, nor anyone else here, is under no compulsion to get into Bible Bingo with you. Dueling verses, we have learned, goes nowhere with you. It's the basic fundamentalist strategy. If you wish to offer your own thoughts, not just regurgitate Bible passages, you might get a little more attention.

I have called you no names and have not insulted you.

You've been free with the insults and names to me and others. And you know it.

But to be clear, do you mean insults like this one? "Tom, really! That's a dopey statement."

The difference is I am not offering a Bible as justification for asserting the truth of my points of view. Tom and I can cast barbs all day long but the discussion is not usually like that. That is because Tom presents Facts in addition to his points of view.

[Wondergirl]

JL said: But to be clear, do you mean insults like this one? "Tom, really! That's a dopey statement."

Athos called the statement, not Tom, dopey.

[tomder55]

As an Independent, I long for the day to return when Republicans were honorable men and women. It will never happen until they repudiate once and for all that proto-Fascist who tells then what to do.

lol The establishment Repubs sure knew how to lose gracefully . It used to make me belly laugh to see publications like the Slimes endorse the likes of ,McCain ,and Romney in Republican primaries and then turn on them and mercilessly trash them in the elections ..... Only to them see them return to the darlings of the press after the elections were over . McCain and Romney were vilely accused of racism long before Trump wore the accusation .McCain and Bush were both accused of being mentally deficient . Romney is beloved by the Dems now that he took a lead in the RINO ranks to oppose Trump. Before that ;all the "evils" of Trump and his "greedy capitalism" was used to smear Romney . Before Trump was accused of cheating on his taxes Romney was accused of paying none .Before Trump was called fascist ,Bush was accused of being one . Now he is friends with the emperor and hates Trump ...so he is absolved .

[Athos]

HEY, that's show biz!!

[jlisenbe]

So referring to one’s work as “dopey” is not actually insulting? You do realize what a hilarious statement that is?

[Athos]

I thought it was pretty funny.

[Wondergirl]

So referring to one’s work as “dopey” is not actually insulting? You do realize what a hilarious statement that is?

Nope. The statement was dopey. Tom is very cool and longsuffering and probably handsome.

[jlisenbe]

Unlike you, I don't require support from the Bible to think or live my life.

But you should require support from the Bible when you are attempting to describe the primary message of the Bible.

OR, if you prefer, point out where the Bible does NOT call for government taxation to help the needy.

Aren't you the same guy who said that such questions amounted to being asked to prove a negative??? At any rate, your attempt to demonstrate Paul calling for govt. taxation to support welfare programs is just laughable. It simply is not there.

I, nor anyone else here, is under no compulsion to get into Bible Bingo with you. Dueling verses, we have learned, goes nowhere with you. It's the basic fundamentalist strategy. If you wish to offer your own thoughts, not just regurgitate Bible passages, you might get a little more attention.

Once again, you are afraid (or unable?) to answer.

You've been free with the insults and names to me and others. And you know it.

Except, of course, that you can't find any examples. Strange, don't you think?

The difference is I am not offering a Bible as justification for asserting the truth of my points of view.

Of course you are. That's exactly what your aforementioned post #19 was trying to do, and what you referred to yet again in post #61 by saying, "Connect the dots from post #19 - previously referenced." Is your memory always this bad???

Nope. The statement was dopey. Tom is very cool and longsuffering and probably handsome.

Oh? So it's OK to be insulting so long as your seeming understudy comes along later with pandering comments? Got it! But it is nice to know that I am now free to refer to comments as "dopey" and not be considered to be insulting.

[Athos]

But you should require support from the Bible when you are attempting to describe the primary message of the Bible.

Read my lips. The entire bible is the support. Duh!

Aren't you the same guy who said that such questions amounted to being asked to prove a negative???

Yes, I am. That was to demonstrate to you the foolishness of YOUR original question. I notice you couldn't answer it. Do you get it NOW?

your attempt to demonstrate Paul calling for govt. taxation to support welfare programs is just laughable.

No it's not. Paul would be happy to do exactly that. He certainly does not come across as a mean miser. He supported government as I said, and he surely would want to help the needy. What's laughable?

Once again, you are afraid (or unable?) to answer.

You call my non-Bible replies fear (or inability). This is becoming your constant mantra. I don't need the Bible to reply to you. As for you, your only answer is the Bible. I find that strange, indeed.

Except, of course, that you can't find any examples. Strange, don't you think?

Strange only to you, who needs the Bible for everything.

Of course you are. That's exactly what your famous post #19 was trying to do, and what you referred to yet again in post #61.

Sigh...You missed it again. That issue was about the difference re Tom, NOT the topic with you. Context, context, context. Memorize that word.

Oh? So it's OK to be insulting so long as your understudy comes along later with pandering comments? Got it!

This is too funny for words. You have a bad case of shoots-himself-in-the-foot. Thank you for proving me right.

[jlisenbe]

Read my lips. The entire bible is the support. Duh!

Does that include the Matthew and 2 Peter passages you adamantly refuse to comment on? Or the Matthew 25 passage?

Yes, I am. That was to demonstrate to you the foolishness of YOUR original question. I notice you couldn't answer it. Do you get it NOW?

I sure do. I imagine everyone here but you gets it as well.

Paul would be happy to do exactly that. He certainly does not come across as a mean miser. He supported government as I said, and he surely would want to help the needy. What's laughable?

This is. You know what Paul would say except...he didn't. He did not give an open-ended endorsement to anything and everything government does. Do you think he supported the Romans use of galley slaves?

You call my non-Bible replies fear (or inability). This is becoming your constant mantra.

It's because your non-replies are due to your fear. Don't agree? Then man up and answer them.

Sigh...You missed it again. That issue was about the difference re Tom, NOT the topic with you. Context, context, context.

Oh? Does that explain why you referred me to them above? Remember? "Connect the dots from post #19 - previously referenced." Your memory is failing for sure.

Thank you for proving me right.

Have you no imagination? Come up with your own expressions and stop copying me. Besides, it only works when you actually are...right.

[talaniman]

That bible stuff is great, but what relevance to governess of many diverse and varied cultures that make up the USA?

[Athos]

Does that include the Matthew and 2 Peter passages you adamantly refuse to comment on? Or the Matthew 25 passage?

It includes the message found in the ENTIRE Bible. I will not say this again. You refuse to get it.

I sure do.

No, you don't.

I imagine everyone here but you gets it as well.

No again and again. Repeating that you are wrong will NOT make you right.

You know what Paul would say except...he didn't.

I base my belief in Paul in what he has written over his many epistles. You continue to demand specifics that are only understood as part of the whole. I'm trying NOT to be nasty to you, but you are making it very difficult.

He did not give an open-ended endorsement to anything and everything government does.

I didn't say he did. I said he approved of government and would support helping the needy. STOP twisting words!

Do you think he supported the Romans use of galley slaves?

I think he would have thrown you right into the galley to get rid of you.

It's because your non-replies are due to your fear. Don't agree? Then man up and answer them.

Here we go again. You can't understand what I write so, to you, it's non-replies based on fear. You have nothing new - it's all the same old stuff. Time for you to leave us, please.

Does that explain why you referred me to them above? Remember? "Connect the dots from post #19 - previously referenced." Your memory is failing for sure.

Dear God, will you read what I write? And make an effort to understand? That's all I ask of you. You have this Tom/Paul thing all screwed up. It really isn't that difficult.

Have you no imagination? Come up with your own expressions and stop copying me. Besides, it only works when you actually are...right.

Oh, yeah, I copy you. Give it up, you are coming across as a troll. You love a reply since that is your daily bread and you can come back with whatever you have already said.

JL - listen to me. You are fooling NOBODY here. Your replies lack content. You exhibit a clear lack of understanding of your own Bible. Your Christian example is a disgrace. I have no idea why you stay here. You have antagonized every single member except possibly for one. When will you wake up and smell the peanut butter?

[jlisenbe]

This can be easily summed up. You are, for whatever reason, afraid to address specific texts. You claim you can understand the message of the Bible without referring to the Bible. You claim to have some special knowledge of what Paul would have said about taxes and welfare. So it's hard to know where to go from here. About the only person who seems to be antagonized is you, and I suppose that is because you think I will not accept your views simply on the basis of your say so. You are entirely correct. But they are your views, and you are welcome to them.

[Athos]

This can be easily summed up. You are, for whatever reason, afraid to address specific texts. You claim you can understand the message of the Bible without referring to the Bible. You claim to have some special knowledge of what Paul would have said about taxes and welfare. So it's hard to know where to go from here. About the only person who seems to be antagonized is you, and I suppose that is because think I will not accept your views simply on the basis of your say so. You are entirely correct.

Every single claim you have made here is incorrect. Should I enumerate them? Ok, I will.

You claim you can understand the message of the Bible without referring to the Bible.

When I discuss the Bible I refer to the Bible. I don't know where you got that from. That should be obvious even to you. What you are trying to say is that I don't throw out verse after verse like Bible Bingo the way you do. I prefer to discuss the passages in context and for their various meanings. You don't like when I or others do that. The message of the Bible is not difficult to discern. The fact that you cannot is not cause of concern for anyone else.

You claim to have some special knowledge of what Paul would have said about taxes and welfare.

I never claimed any such thing. YOU claimed it. (E.g., that I claimed it). My understanding of Paul comes from his epistles. That's how everyone understands Paul - there's no other way. You apparently are disagreeing that Paul wrote of government in an accepting way, and it is assumed, being a follower of Jesus, he accepted helping the needy. How you twist these plain words is on you, not me.

About the only person who seems to be antagonized is you,

No. Anyone who reads these pages know that you have antagonized every regular member except one (bit I'm not sure even about that one).

I suppose that is because think I will not accept your views simply on the basis of your say so. You are right.

WRONG AGAIN! Geez, you sure make a habit of being wrong. Here's what I believe re my views. You may believe or not believe my views or anyone's views as you see fit. It's very clear to me you don't believe my views. Why you should think I expect you to is another mystery.

You have a few minutes before I leave. Take your best shot.

[jlisenbe]

I have no shot for you. Like I said, it’s hard to know where to go from here. They are your views and as incredible as they are, you are welcome to them. Perhaps it will become clear to you some day. I am happy to stand on what I’ve said before.

[paraclete]

That bible stuff is great, but what relevance to governess of many diverse and varied cultures that make up the USA?

Tal, the Bible has relevance to governance in all cultures, the rules found there were meant for all peoples. That many don't want to follow them is a sad reflection on what the human race has become

[jlisenbe]

Tal, the Bible has relevance to governance in all cultures, the rules found there were meant for all peoples. That many don't want to follow them is a sad reflection on what the human race has become.

Well said. We'd be much better off if we did.

[talaniman]

Tal, the Bible has relevance to governance in all cultures, the rules found there were meant for all peoples. That many don't want to follow them is a sad reflection on what the human race has become

There are many different interpretations of many Bibles in this country so choose one, or is it sour grapes when different choices are made?

[Athos]

I have no shot for you.

Yeah, I know -- that's become obvious.

[jlisenbe]

Yeah, I know -- that's become obvious.

You just don't get it, do you? Too bad.

And again. This can be easily summed up. You are, for whatever reason, afraid to address specific texts (unarguable). You claim you can understand the message of the Bible without referring to the Bible (unarguable). You claim to have some special knowledge of what Paul would have said about taxes and welfare (unarguable). Those are all hard truths that can easily be documented. So it's hard to know where to go from here. About the only person who seems to be antagonized is you, and I suppose that is because you think I will not accept your strange views simply on the basis of your say so. You are entirely correct about that. Still, they are your strange views, so you are welcome to them.