War?

[hermeneutika]

There seems to be a lot of speculation in the "quality" press that war is coming between NATO and Russia. And that our own military is under manned and also probably underequipped.
Pray for peace but prepare for war?
Some also say that the battle/war is not won on the battlefield but in the cultures of the respective countries involved.
Surely we also have to deal with the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church is also praying for the success of the Russians in battle.
These are serious times.
Some are saying that we cannot let Ukraine fall to the Russians. If we do then all of NATO/EU will fall to the Russians. Nobody in their right mind wants war.
BUT....i was in the boy scouts as a boy. The motto of the boy scouts then was "BE PREPARED".

Also if war breaks out with China and Taiwan, we have further problems. Our management has exported a lot of our manufacturing to the Chinese. If it comes to war then the Chinese will not supply us. BE PREPARED.

None of our so called "prophets" have forseen any of these things. The so called "prophets" didnt even see 911 coming. All of the "prophets" called the last American election wrongly.

God help us all......Normal isnt coming back.....but Jesus is!

[Kendall K. Down]

On 20/01/2024 16:44, hermeneutika wrote:

> None of our so called "prophets" have forseen any of these things. The so called "prophets" didnt even see 911 coming. All of the "prophets" called the last American election wrongly.

Which is surely a good indication that they are not, actually, prophets,
but are false prophets claiming that God has spoken through them when
they are merely speaking out of their own imaginations. Ezekiel and
Jeremiah had a lot to say about such people.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[Steve Hague]

I agree. Most so-called prophets are speaking out of their own wishful
thinking.

[John]

On 21/01/2024 17:02, Steve Hague wrote:
> On 20/01/2024 20:26, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>> On 20/01/2024 16:44, hermeneutika wrote:
>>
>>> None of our so called "prophets" have forseen any of these things.
>>> The so called "prophets" didnt even see 911 coming. All of the
>>> "prophets" called the last American election wrongly.
>>
>> Which is surely a good indication that they are not, actually,
>> prophets, but are false prophets claiming that God has spoken through
>> them when they are merely speaking out of their own imaginations.
>> Ezekiel and Jeremiah had a lot to say about such people.
>>
>> God bless,
>> Kendall K. Down

Are there any true prophets in the church today and if not, why not?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 21/01/2024 17:02, Steve Hague wrote:

> I agree. Most so-called prophets are speaking out of their own wishful
> thinking.

I have repeatedly rehearsed the four tests of a prophet, but perhaps we
ought to pay more attention to the "signs" of a prophet.

There are only a couple of places where a Bible prophet makes reference
to his physical condition while in vision; for example, Balam refers to
himself as "his eyes open", Daniel a couple of times remarks that he
felt extremely weak and fell to the ground and was later strengthened,
and in another place off-the-cuff says that "there is no breath in me".

If these things are reliable, it would seem to indicate that someone
experiencing a genuinely supernatural encounter would a) not shut his
eyes, b) have a moment of weakness at the start of the experience and
fall to the ground, and c) would have "no breath" - would that mean that
he does not breathe?

I was brought up on tales of how Ellen White fulfilled these "signs",
including long periods without any detectable breathing. I was rather
indignant to discover some years ago that Mormons make the same claims
about Joseph Smith, however a little thought shows that both might be true.

The signs are merely indications that something genuinely supernatural
is taking place: they are not evidence as to the source of the
supernatural nor endorsement of the prophet's message. After all, Balaam
was hardly a shining example of a prophet of God!

So if you get someone claiming to be a prophet, but closing his eyes in
apparent ecstasy, he fails the first sign. If he stays upright or if he
falls and stays down, he fails the second. If you can hold a candle in
front of his mouth while he speaks and the flame flickers, that's the
third sign.

However, even if the prophet passes all three signs, you still have to
apply the Tests of a Prophet to discern whether his inspiration is from
above or from below.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 21/01/2024 19:21, John wrote:

> Are there any true prophets in the church today and if not, why not?

Before answering your question, what do you mean by "prophet"?

The Bible gives us examples of people who spoke a prophetic word on one
occasion, but it also gives examples of people who were called to a
life-long prophetic ministry.

Jahaziel (2 Chron 20:14) is an example of the first, Jeremiah or Isaiah
are examples of the second.

Are there examples today of the first kind of prophet? Yes, I believe
so, but as their message was only for one situation and one time, they
tend not to get much publicity. I read a story a few years ago about a
young man who was considering entering the ministry but the required
training seemed beyond him financially. A godly woman, who knew nothing
of this, turned to him one day and said something along the lines of
"God is calling you and if you will follow, He will open the way for you."

He took that as a prophetic word, applied to college and was sustained
for four years by hard work and numerous remarkable coincidences.

If there is a life-long prophet at the present time, I am not aware of
such a person. That proves nothing, of course; I don't know every
Christian on the planet. Nevertheless, if someone claims to be such a
life-long prophet, apply the signs and the tests before accepting the claim.

I would also point out that the Bible contains all that is necessary for
salvation. If God sends a prophet it will be to a) call people back to
the Bible, or b) give practical advice which is not necessarily
deducible from the Bible. If you stick to the Bible, you will not need
(a), and (b) will certainly not involve new doctrine.

[John]

On 22/01/2024 03:26, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 21/01/2024 19:21, John wrote:
>
>> Are there any true prophets in the church today and if not, why not?
>
> Before answering your question, what do you mean by "prophet"?

I'm going by the opening of the book of Acts, which in turn is quoting
Joel 2. One of the gifts of the Spirit is prophesying, so presumably a
lot more widespread than the OT prophets.

Also this gift of prophecy would appear to be different from the OT
prophets, whom God would use to speak to the Jewish nation. Was it as
edification to the church as it grew, guiding them

> Are there examples today of the first kind of prophet? Yes, I believe
> so, but as their message was only for one situation and one time, they
> tend not to get much publicity. I read a story a few years ago about a
> young man who was considering entering the ministry but the required
> training seemed beyond him financially. A godly woman, who knew nothing
> of this, turned to him one day and said something along the lines of
> "God is calling you and if you will follow, He will open the way for you."
>
> He took that as a prophetic word, applied to college and was sustained
> for four years by hard work and numerous remarkable coincidences.

Out of interest, were they Adventist? I know Ellen White was regarding
as a prophetess of her time

[John]

Not sure whether you're being tongue in cheek in the first paragraph,
but I would not discount a prophet if they failed one or all of the
tests above. Just because one prohet kept his eyes open or another
prophet fell face down on the floor, is not imo a test for all prophets.

There is a much better way. "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit,
but test the spirits to see whether they are from God,..." 1 John 4 (NIV)

If a prophet(ess) gives a prophecy which fails to occur, then God says
that person should be ignored.

Pat Robertson, a well known figure amongst charismatic Christians in
America, prophesied that Donald Trump would win the 2020 presidency.

I now know (well I did before that) not to trust Pat Robertson in any
prohetic utterings.

[stevehague]

As a young Christian (I'm an old one now) I was taught that a New
Testament prophet wasn't a foreteller, but a forthteller, someone who
speaks the word of God. I did my own research and found there's only one
man named as a prophet in the NT, Agabus. His only prophetic utterance
we read about is when he told Paul what would happen to him if he went
to Jerusalem. Foretelling indeed. I've had a word of knowledge on a few
occasions which have been shown to be correct, but there's no chance of
me claiming to be a prophet.
Steve Hague

[Muhammad]

On 20/01/2024 16:44, hermeneutika wrote:

War is not inevitable...

It is usually the necessity of empires against those it does not agree
with. Today, the USA is an empire, the UK is its loyal pet. So much for
Brexit giving us sovereignty, as foreign policy, has been to follow
whatever the American do, with little resistance. War is used to curtail
those deemed as possible or real threats, in the modern world, that
seems to be the indirect control of world resources, influence,
economy... Those that stand in the way, those that come out of the under
the ruling throne to make their own way, are all possible targets.

Russia, gave documentation to nations that were willing to see a
diplomatic solution to the conflict. Russia unmoveable stance was, that
Ukraine stop its alignment with NATO and that Ukraine be neutral (albeit
preferred a pro-Russian stance). That was rejected by Ukraine; it came
out in an interview, one of the Ukrainian negotiators, stating, Ukraine
did not want to agree to Russia terms...The USA and the visit of Boris
'The Liar' Johnson, showed they would get support for their pro NATO and
EU stance. Weirdly enough, that negotiator mentions, that due to Ukraine
passing legislation etc in favour of NATO and the 'West' they did not
want to retract and rewrite those elements... Eventually we know Russia
attacked.

Now, due to the West supporting apartheid, racism and ethnic
cleansing... Ukraine is having to be put in the background. It is
getting support, but not as much as it would've liked. Slowly, American
(and western) analysts are coming out and admitting Ukraine is
losing...and that the West need to re-think and back out.

China has a long term project... I don't know if my fears of it are real
or just something I have developed due to their treatment of minorities
and their treatment of people of faith in China. The USA surrounds China
with numerous military bases (NOTE: China is not near the USA)...

There are no prophets, and those that claim to be, are charlatans. I
know, my stance is the Bible has been changed... Despite that, what you
still have, if read in context, you can distinguish from it what a sound
religious person should be. That religious person would not support the
acts of the USA or its pet, that doesn't mean other states have a higher
moral stance in comparison.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 22/01/2024 08:59, stevehague wrote:

> As a young Christian (I'm an old one now) I was taught that a New
> Testament prophet wasn't a foreteller, but a forthteller, someone who
> speaks the word of God.

1. Why is that stipulation limited to the New Testament? It could just
as correctly apply to Old Testament prophets.

2. Sometimes God wants the future to be told, in which case foretelling
is just as much a part of forth-telling as anything else.

> I did my own research and found there's only one
> man named as a prophet in the NT, Agabus. His only prophetic utterance
> we read about is when he told Paul what would happen to him if he went
> to Jerusalem. Foretelling indeed.

Indeed.

> I've had a word of knowledge on a few
> occasions which have been shown to be correct, but there's no chance  of
> me claiming to be a prophet.

I think it quite possible that what you experienced was what I
characterised as the "temporary" prophet.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 22/01/2024 10:03, John wrote:

> Also this gift of prophecy would appear to be different from the OT
> prophets, whom God would use to speak to the Jewish nation.

On what do you base that conclusion?

> Was it as edification to the church as it grew, guiding them

I think that highly likely.

>> He took that as a prophetic word, applied to college and was sustained
>> for four years by hard work and numerous remarkable coincidences.

> Out of interest, were they Adventist?  I know Ellen White was regarding
> as a prophetess of her time

I honestly can't remember the religion of the person concerned.

Ellen White was - and is - regarded as a prophetess by SDA. On the
whole, I think they have her position right. She did not set out any new
doctrines but gave practical guidance a) as the SDA church was
established, and b) for Christians in the 20th century. You can be SDA
without ever knowing about EGW (or even while rejecting her); I cannot
imagine anyone being a Mormon without knowing about Joseph Smith and
certainly not if he reject JS.

Thus the SDA stance on the Sabbath is based on Biblical arguments
(whether or not you think those arguments are valid), not on EGW. On the
other hand, the church's stance against tobacco is based on EGW, though
bolstered by Biblical principles.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 22/01/2024 11:28, John wrote:

> Not sure whether you're being tongue in cheek in the first paragraph,
> but I would not discount a prophet if they failed one or all of the
> tests above.  Just because one prohet kept his eyes open or another
> prophet fell face down on the floor, is not imo a test for all prophets.

I think the "sign" is directed more against the stage clairvoyant or
spiritualist, who comes on with one hand over his eyes and demanding, "I
have a message for someone called 'John'. Is there anyone called 'John'
in the audience?"

> There is a much better way.  "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit,
> but test the spirits to see whether they are from God,..."  1 John 4 (NIV)

That is one of the tests of a prophet (and a very important one too).
Passing the test (which I would do easily seeing as I believe in the
Trinity) does not show whether or not I have some supernatural power
working in my ministry whereas if I were to preach a half-hour sermon
without once taking in a breath, it would be a fair bet that I wasn't
doing *that* in my own strength alone!

[John]

On 22/01/2024 18:51, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 22/01/2024 10:03, John wrote:
>
>> Also this gift of prophecy would appear to be different from the OT
>> prophets, whom God would use to speak to the Jewish nation.
>
> On what do you base that conclusion?

Prophecy seemed more widespread in the NT, and widespread amongst
individual congregations, wheras the OT prophets were more speaking to
the nation. Of course I could be wrong and there were prophets amongst
the synagogue congregations, which has just reminded me of Anna.

>
>> Was it as edification to the church as it grew, guiding them
>
> I think that highly likely.
>
>>> He took that as a prophetic word, applied to college and was
>>> sustained for four years by hard work and numerous remarkable
>>> coincidences.
>
>> Out of interest, were they Adventist?  I know Ellen White was
>> regarding as a prophetess of her time
>
> I honestly can't remember the religion of the person concerned.
>
> Ellen White was - and is - regarded as a prophetess by SDA. On the
> whole, I think they have her position right. She did not set out any new
> doctrines but gave practical guidance a) as the SDA church was
> established, and b) for Christians in the 20th century. You can be SDA
> without ever knowing about EGW (or even while rejecting her); I cannot
> imagine anyone being a Mormon without knowing about Joseph Smith and
> certainly not if he reject JS.

I don't know enough about her so I wasn't denigrating her, just that I
know she was/is regarded as a prophetess.

> Thus the SDA stance on the Sabbath is based on Biblical arguments
> (whether or not you think those arguments are valid), not on EGW. On the
> other hand, the church's stance against tobacco is based on EGW, though
> bolstered by Biblical principles.

Could you give me the biblical principle regarding tobacco :-)

[Madhu]

* Muhammad <uomca4$rk1d$1 @dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Mon, 22 Jan 2024 18:31:31 +0000:

> On 20/01/2024 16:44, hermeneutika wrote:
>> There seems to be a lot of speculation in the "quality" press that
>> war is coming between NATO and Russia. And that our own military is
>> under manned and also probably underequipped.
>> Pray for peace but prepare for war?
>> Some also say that the battle/war is not won on the battlefield but
>> in the cultures of the respective countries involved.
>> Surely we also have to deal with the fact that the Russian Orthodox
>> Church is also praying for the success of the Russians in battle.
>> These are serious times.
>> Some are saying that we cannot let Ukraine fall to the Russians. If
>> we do then all of NATO/EU will fall to the Russians. Nobody in their
>> right mind wants war.
>> BUT....i was in the boy scouts as a boy. The motto of the boy scouts
>> then was "BE PREPARED".
>> Also if war breaks out with China and Taiwan, we have further
>> problems. Our management has exported a lot of our manufacturing to
>> the Chinese. If it comes to war then the Chinese will not supply
>> us. BE PREPARED.
>> None of our so called "prophets" have forseen any of these
>> things. The so called "prophets" didnt even see 911 coming. All of
>> the "prophets" called the last American election wrongly.
>> God help us all......Normal isnt coming back.....but Jesus is!
>
> War is not inevitable...

The present financial system of the world depends on war to maintain
itself. This was apparent to Eric Blair as he published in 1948.

or maybe there are no prophets of god in this age because god is not
actively involved in this age anymore. After the plan of salvation
was given gospel was given and crucifixion took place and he let the
prince of the world, he has taken a backseat just lets the events play
out as spelt out in revelation, until he intervenes again at the
coming of the messiah in glory. Meanwhile the human need for
prognostication which was traditionally fulfilled by the office of the
prophet is now taken over by probability science and models based on
data, and there is no need for a prophet of God, just the prophets of
the principalities who are running the nations.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <uomd32$rlmq$2 @dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Mon, 22 Jan 2024 18:44:51 +0000:

> On 22/01/2024 08:59, stevehague wrote:
>> As a young Christian (I'm an old one now) I was taught that a New
>> Testament prophet wasn't a foreteller, but a forthteller, someone
>> who speaks the word of God.
>
> 1. Why is that stipulation limited to the New Testament? It could just
> as correctly apply to Old Testament prophets.

The OT had prophets of Baal as well as the prophets of God. In general
it was a hereditary civilian profession, (Joel says he is an exception).
It was a consulting business. The profession was legitmised around the
time of the writing of Chronicles and Kings (which incorporates the role
of "seer". (1sam 9:9))

> 2. Sometimes God wants the future to be told, in which case
> foretelling is just as much a part of forth-telling as anything else.
>
>> I did my own research and found there's only one man named as a
>> prophet in the NT, Agabus. His only prophetic utterance we read
>> about is when he told Paul what would happen to him if he went to
>> Jerusalem. Foretelling indeed.

The Epistles and Revelation have mentions of the saints and prophets,
which suggests it was a living institution at least before 70.D.

Revelation calls itself "prophecy" but I think it also provides the clue
on how to understand "prophets" in the present disposition. the threads
are foud by following "testimony of jesus" (both grammatical senses of
"of") which is defined in 19:10 to be the "spirit of prophecy". The
predicted persecuted prophets of tribulation are those who by the force
of the spirit testify with (to) the testimony of jesus.

> Indeed.
>> I've had a word of knowledge on a few occasions which have been
>> shown to be correct, but there's no chance  of me claiming to be a
>> prophet.
>
> I think it quite possible that what you experienced was what I
> characterised as the "temporary" prophet.

[also see the bottom of my followup to Muhammed today]

[Kendall K. Down]

On 23/01/2024 02:28, Madhu wrote:

> The OT had prophets of Baal as well as the prophets of God. In general
> it was a hereditary civilian profession, (Joel says he is an exception).
> It was a consulting business. The profession was legitmised around the
> time of the writing of Chronicles and Kings (which incorporates the role
> of "seer". (1sam 9:9))

There is something in what you say, though it does depend on the
curriculum of the "schools of the prophets". Given that a true prophet
is chosen by God and that prophecy is a spiritual gift, I would deny
that someone can train to be a prophet. So either the "schools of the
prophets" were schools set up by prophets such as Elijah and Elisha or
they were the equivalent of a theological seminary training religious
leaders (but not prophets).

Apparently in Babylonian the word "nabi" means "one who raves", which
may mean that the Hebrew "nabi" also carries such a connotation.
Certainly Saul's odd behaviour is compatible with such an interpretation.

However there is another aspect of things. Among the Greeks, the mark of
divine inspiration was the ability to speak/write in complicated
hexameters and anyone who claimed to be a prophet but simply spoke prose
would not be accepted. Might there have been a similar idea among the
Hebrews? Could that be why so many Bible prophets wrote in Hebrew poetry?

In a similar way, if the culture expected prophets to "rave", might that
be why at least some Biblical prophets engaged in ecstatic behaviour,
because if they had not, they would not have been recognised or accepted
as genuine prophets!

> The Epistles and Revelation have mentions of the saints and prophets,
> which suggests it was a living institution at least before 70.D.

Certainly there were prophets in the New Testament, but unfortunately we
are not given much information about how people were recognised as
prophets. Was it some quirk of behaviour, the ability to speak poetry,
or was the title only accorded after someone had successfully predicted
the future or given accurate guidance during some crisis?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 22/01/2024 23:13, John wrote:

> Prophecy seemed more widespread in the NT, and widespread amongst
> individual congregations, wheras the OT prophets were more speaking to
> the nation.  Of course I could be wrong and there were prophets amongst
> the synagogue congregations, which has just reminded me of Anna.

Don't forget that there were numerous prophets or seers in the Old
Testament era who either did not write or whose writing have not been
preserved. The dichotomy with the New Testament may not be as great as
you think.

> Could you give me the biblical principle regarding tobacco :-)

Your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, and Whether therefore ye eat
or drink or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 22/01/2024 18:31, Muhammad wrote:

> Russia unmoveable stance was, that
> Ukraine stop its alignment with NATO and that Ukraine be neutral (albeit
> preferred a pro-Russian stance).

Can you explain why it is acceptable for Russia to dictate the foreign
policy of another country but not acceptable for America to do the same
thing?

> There are no prophets, and those that claim to be, are charlatans. I
> know, my stance is the Bible has been changed.

A dogmatic stance without evidence.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 23/01/2024 02:18, Madhu wrote:

> or maybe there are no prophets of god in this age because god is not
> actively involved in this age anymore.

Given the work of the Holy Spirit, I do not accept your suggestion.

[Steve Hague]

If Ezekiel behaved in the way he did in the OT today, he would be sectioned.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <uonivg$1584v$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Tue, 23 Jan 2024 05:31:27 +0000:

> Apparently in Babylonian the word "nabi" means "one who raves", which
> may mean that the Hebrew "nabi" also carries such a
> connotation. Certainly Saul's odd behaviour is compatible with such an
> interpretation.
>
> However there is another aspect of things. Among the Greeks, the mark
> of divine inspiration was the ability to speak/write in complicated
> hexameters and anyone who claimed to be a prophet but simply spoke
> prose would not be accepted. Might there have been a similar idea
> among the Hebrews? Could that be why so many Bible prophets wrote in
> Hebrew poetry?
>
> In a similar way, if the culture expected prophets to "rave", might
> that be why at least some Biblical prophets engaged in ecstatic
> behaviour, because if they had not, they would not have been
> recognised or accepted as genuine prophets!

In case anyone missed it all the times i've posted it before

https://catholicexchange.com/crazy-prophets-old-testament/

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <uonjcs$1584v$4 @dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Tue, 23 Jan 2024 05:38:37 +0000:

> On 23/01/2024 02:18, Madhu wrote:
>> or maybe there are no prophets of god in this age because god is not
>> actively involved in this age anymore.
>
> Given the work of the Holy Spirit, I do not accept your suggestion.

The Holy spirit leads in its own way the way of providence[1], without
active intervention, without the ostentation that comes from prophetic
revelation.

Either the giving of the Holy Spirit, (going by the doctrine that it had
been withheld in the Old Testament dispensations and only became
available after the crucifixion) makes OT style prophecy irrelevant, or
God is not intervening in the way he has in the past.


Gen. 18:17 And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I
do;

Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his
secret unto his servants the prophets.

If God is not really intervening he does not have to reveal it to his
prophets.

[1]
"The words struck an answering note in Lugg's mysterious
consciousness. He looked over his paper with that plump, gratified
satisfaction at a chance to shine which in the dog world is the
peculiarity of the hound.

"`Providence, 'aving the advantage of knowin' both the strengths and the
weaknesses of men, 'as a facility for unostentatious organisation
undreamed of by our generals.' Sterne," he said. "That come out of my
book. What's the matter, cock?"
-- Allingham Margery, The Fashionin Shrouds, 1931

[Muhammad]

On 23/01/2024 05:37, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 22/01/2024 18:31, Muhammad wrote:
>
>> Russia unmoveable stance was, that Ukraine stop its alignment with
>> NATO and that Ukraine be neutral (albeit preferred a pro-Russian stance).
>
> Can you explain why it is acceptable for Russia to dictate the foreign
> policy of another country but not acceptable for America to do the same
> thing?
>

You're assuming that I'm OK with Russia dictating Ukraine's foreign
policy. I'm not... However, as I evidenced in the past, the USA played a
sound part in shifting Ukraine's foreign policy. If I recall correctly,
prior to the American backed coup, USA had spent about $5b from, which
included numerous Ukrainian speaking news channels and media, backing of
fringe elements, including groups that had Nazi connections.

>> There are no prophets, and those that claim to be, are charlatans. I
>> know, my stance is the Bible has been changed.
>
> A dogmatic stance without evidence.
>

In the modern age, we do not have any prophets. As you may know, we in
Islam believe Muhammad was the last messenger. What is to come, is the
anti-Christ and the return of Jesus to live out his remaining life on
earth.

For over 1400yrs, no prophet of God has come forth. Yes, there's been
frauds in every faith, including in Islam, people coming forth and
claiming to be a prophet, or the messenger of a prophet.

[Muhammad]

On 23/01/2024 02:18, Madhu wrote:

Yes.

I wasn't clear... War doesn't have to be a necessity.

(snipped)

>>
>> There are no prophets, and those that claim to be, are charlatans. I
>> know, my stance is the Bible has been changed... Despite that, what
>> you still have, if read in context, you can distinguish from it what a
>> sound religious person should be. That religious person would not
>> support the acts of the USA or its pet, that doesn't mean other states
>> have a higher moral stance in comparison.
>
> or maybe there are no prophets of god in this age because god is not
> actively involved in this age anymore.

The Islamic position is Muhammad was the last messenger. That message is
preserved and still applicable.

What remains is the coming of the anti-Christ, then the return of Jesus
to live out the remainder of his life.


(snipped — an interesting thought)

[John]

On 23/01/2024 05:34, Kendall K. Down wrote:

I was tempted to say Thanks Jeff there, mangling two scriptures which
bear no relation to what I asked!

The first is dealing with sexual immorality, the second is regarding
food offered to you and that you should eat it or drink without
conscience, unless you know it was offered to idols.

Which raises an interesting point; if someone was to invite you for a
meal and they dished up meat (let's say kosher, although Paul does say
whatever is on the meat market)), would you eat it?

However, I do agree that tobacco is bad for you, I was very forunate not
to get the habit, and packed in within a few months of starting smoking.
I remember going to Hollybush not long after becoming a Christian, and
prayer was offered to those who wanted to give up smoking.

[John]

On 22/01/2024 18:31, Muhammad wrote:

> There are no prophets, and those that claim to be, are charlatans. I
> know, my stance is the Bible has been changed...

There may be not any today (I'd like to think there are, but of the 4
prophecies I've heard, 3 were false and the other one could still happen
but it was given by someone who also gave a false message. I also read
a whole book of prophecy from a well respected preacher, who to his
credit held his hands up some years later and said, sorry guys, I got it
wrong) there certainly were some after Jesus left the earth. You might
as well write the whole New Testament off as a fraud if you think otherwise.

Whilst I accept there could be interpolation in 1 Corinthians 14 (not
proven) and most definitely 1 John 5: 7-8 I'm not aware of any others,
and certainly nothing that would alter principally the biblical message.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 23/01/2024 16:00, Madhu wrote:

> In case anyone missed it all the times i've posted it before
> https://catholicexchange.com/crazy-prophets-old-testament/

A trite summation, as such things usually are. In a world where
Egyptians, both male and female, customarily worked naked in the fields,
Isaiah's stint of nudity (even if it were total, which is arguable)
would not have been as shocking as such an act would be today. (And both
you are I are used to naked sadhus wandering the streets wearing nothing
more than a coating of ash.)

I could go on, but I'd just like to make the point that prophetic oddity
did not end with the Old Testament. John the Baptist's diet, to say
nothing of his garb, was as eccentric as any and Agabus indulging in a
bit of self-bondage must have raised an eyebrow or two

[Kendall K. Down]

On 23/01/2024 08:56, Steve Hague wrote:

> If Ezekiel behaved in the way he did in the OT today, he would be
> sectioned.

Lacking the mental health apparatus of today, the people back then did
the best they could and bound him hand and foot to stop him wandering
back out into the desert.

I've seen madmen in chains wandering in the bazaar in India, so
Ezekiel's bonds are par for the course.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 23/01/2024 18:18, John wrote:

> The first is dealing with sexual immorality

Indeed, though I see no reason why the principle should be limited to
sexual immorality.

> the second is regarding
> food offered to you and that you should eat it or drink without
> conscience, unless you know it was offered to idols.

Again, I know of no preacher who would attempt to circumscribe the "do
all to the glory of God" in the way you are proposing.

> Which raises an interesting point; if someone was to invite you for a
> meal and they dished up meat (let's say kosher, although Paul does say
> whatever is on the meat market)), would you eat it?

An interesting question. The head answer is, depending on the
circumstances I would. The gut reaction is that I would probably vomit
all over his table, just as you might if invited to eat a bit of
alsatian or tabby cat.

> However, I do agree that tobacco is bad for you, I was very forunate not
> to get the habit, and packed in within a few months of starting smoking.
> I remember going to Hollybush not long after becoming a Christian, and
> prayer was offered to those who wanted to give up smoking.

I am glad you had such a lucky escape. Back in the 1800s doctors
prescribed smoking as a curative for those with "weak lungs". I presume
the rationale was that smoking cured kippers, so would do the same for
lungs!

[Kendall K. Down]

On 23/01/2024 16:10, Madhu wrote:

> The Holy spirit leads in its own way the way of providence[1], without
> active intervention, without the ostentation that comes from prophetic
> revelation.

Certainly providence is a more usual modus operandi, but audible voices,
visions, impressing a passage of Scripture, all have been done by the
Holy Spirit to guide men in the Christian era.

> Either the giving of the Holy Spirit, (going by the doctrine that it had
> been withheld in the Old Testament dispensations and only became
> available after the crucifixion) makes OT style prophecy irrelevant, or
> God is not intervening in the way he has in the past.

I don't see why you say that. Divide the number of prophets by the 1450
years of the Old Testament dispensation and they weren't as frequent as
some might think!

[Kendall K. Down]

On 23/01/2024 17:57, Muhammad wrote:

> You're assuming that I'm OK with Russia dictating Ukraine's foreign
> policy. I'm not...

You certainly seemed to be, in that post.

> However, as I evidenced in the past, the USA played a
> sound part in shifting Ukraine's foreign policy. If I recall correctly,
> prior to the American backed coup, USA had spent about $5b from, which
> included numerous Ukrainian speaking news channels and media, backing of
> fringe elements, including groups that had Nazi connections.

And do you think the Russians were not engaged in similar attempts to
influence events in the Ukraine?

> In the modern age, we do not have any prophets. As you may know, we in
> Islam believe Muhammad was the last messenger.

Yes, it is one of the major reasons why I question whether Muhammad was
truly a prophet of God.

> For over 1400yrs, no prophet of God has come forth. Yes, there's been
> frauds in every faith, including in Islam, people coming forth and
> claiming to be a prophet, or the messenger of a prophet.

During that period there have been numerous prophets of God among
Christians. Actually, it would not surprise me if there had not been
prophets among the Muslims, though none of them were generally accepted.

[Muhammad]

On 23/01/2024 18:56, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 23/01/2024 17:57, Muhammad wrote:
>
>> You're assuming that I'm OK with Russia dictating Ukraine's foreign
>> policy. I'm not...
>
> You certainly seemed to be, in that post.
>

You're reading into the text and taking from it, what isn't in it.

I stated, what isn't commonly reported in 'western' circles... I don't
support Russia's stance (mentioned it numerous times in the past), but I
also think it is highly likely, the USA would've acted far worse in
comparison, if say, Mexico set itself up as Pro-Russian; it designed its
state economically and in aspected of security against the USA.

>> However, as I evidenced in the past, the USA played a sound part in
>> shifting Ukraine's foreign policy. If I recall correctly, prior to the
>> American backed coup, USA had spent about $5b from, which included
>> numerous Ukrainian speaking news channels and media, backing of fringe
>> elements, including groups that had Nazi connections.
>
> And do you think the Russians were not engaged in similar attempts to
> influence events in the Ukraine?
>

They did, but not to that scale.

When you have a licence to print money, purely because you're the
biggest bully on the block, you can spend much more to gain influence.

>> In the modern age, we do not have any prophets. As you may know, we in
>> Islam believe Muhammad was the last messenger.
>
> Yes, it is one of the major reasons why I question whether Muhammad was
> truly a prophet of God.
>

Being the last, doesn't mean one isn't a messenger.

>> For over 1400yrs, no prophet of God has come forth. Yes, there's been
>> frauds in every faith, including in Islam, people coming forth and
>> claiming to be a prophet, or the messenger of a prophet.
>
> During that period there have been numerous prophets of God among
> Christians. Actually, it would not surprise me if there had not been
> prophets among the Muslims, though none of them were generally accepted.
>

Depends on what you mean by “prophet”. If you mean dreams, signs etc,
then that method of revelation is still available, albeit will be rare.
However, that mode of receiving required a higher degree of
interpretation, thus the probability of being correct is slim.

When I use the word “prophet”, I mean someone with directly chosen by
God, anointed, with a direct line to God (in Islam via angel Gabriel).

[Kendall K. Down]

On 23/01/2024 20:45, Muhammad wrote:

> I stated, what isn't commonly reported in 'western' circles... I don't
> support Russia's stance (mentioned it numerous times in the past), but I
> also think it is highly likely, the USA would've acted far worse in
> comparison, if say, Mexico set itself up as Pro-Russian;

Curiously, the US has managed more than half a century of Cuba being
pro-Russian without invading it.

> When you have a licence to print money, purely because you're the
> biggest bully on the block, you can spend much more to gain influence.

America doesn't print money; you are mistaking economic strength and
success for the sort of foolishness Third World countries sometimes
attempt. (And I know that Britain printed money some years ago during
the economic crisis, but it has since taken steps to correct that
emergency procedure. And I deplored it then.)

> Being the last, doesn't mean one isn't a messenger.

Claiming to be the last, however, is a different matter.

> Depends on what you mean by “prophet”. If you mean dreams, signs etc,
> then that method of revelation is still available, albeit will be rare.
> However, that mode of receiving required a higher degree of
> interpretation, thus the probability of being correct is slim.

You doubt that God can guide the person who receives visions in the
correct way to interpret them?

> When I use the word “prophet”, I mean someone with directly chosen by
> God, anointed, with a direct line to God (in Islam via angel Gabriel).

It's called the Holy Spirit.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 23/01/2024 18:34, John wrote:

> There may be not any today (I'd like to think there are

I must admit that I am not aware of any life-long prophet living today.
And if there were, I am sure that predicting the future would be the
least of his/her activities. Calling people back to God's word - which
is basically what most of the Israelite prophets did - would be the
major part of his/her ministry.

> Whilst I accept there could be interpolation in 1 Corinthians 14 (not
> proven) and most definitely 1 John 5: 7-8 I'm not aware of any others,
> and certainly nothing that would alter principally the biblical message.

Although I accept that it is most likely that 1 John 5 was an addition,
it must have been a very early addition for it to be so accepted among
the mass of Bible MSS. On that basis I find myself unable to entirely
reject the possibility that it is original but somehow got missed out of
some early manuscripts that have survived.

[John]

On 23/01/2024 18:48, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 23/01/2024 18:18, John wrote:
>
>> The first is dealing with sexual immorality
>
> Indeed, though I see no reason why the principle should be limited to
> sexual immorality.
>
>> the second is regarding food offered to you and that you should eat it
>> or drink without conscience, unless you know it was offered to idols.
>
> Again, I know of no preacher who would attempt to circumscribe the "do
> all to the glory of God" in the way you are proposing.

I didn't suggest smoking could be attributed to doing it for the glory
of God, just that the scripture you quoted wasn't referring to the type
of food or drink, merely that it was acceptable if to eat or drink if
not offered to idols, and was referring to food, not inhaling something
which we now know is bad for you.

>> Which raises an interesting point; if someone was to invite you for a
>> meal and they dished up meat (let's say kosher, although Paul does say
>> whatever is on the meat market)), would you eat it?
>
> An interesting question. The head answer is, depending on the
> circumstances I would. The gut reaction is that I would probably vomit
> all over his table, just as you might if invited to eat a bit of
> alsatian or tabby cat.

I've had a few chinese takeaways!!


>
>

[Muhammad]

On 24/01/2024 05:05, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 23/01/2024 20:45, Muhammad wrote:
>
>> I stated, what isn't commonly reported in 'western' circles... I don't
>> support Russia's stance (mentioned it numerous times in the past), but
>> I also think it is highly likely, the USA would've acted far worse in
>> comparison, if say, Mexico set itself up as Pro-Russian;
>
> Curiously, the US has managed more than half a century of Cuba being
> pro-Russian without invading it.
>

The premise of your statement is wrong; and I don't have time to
entertain misinformation.

>> When you have a licence to print money, purely because you're the
>> biggest bully on the block, you can spend much more to gain influence.
>
> America doesn't print money;

Rather naive of you to take such comments literally.

> you are mistaking economic strength and
> success for the sort of foolishness

No. I'm not...

To claim that 'western' particularly American success doesn't have a
sound part to do with the resources of other nations it takes, controls
by proxy through its military and economic leverage... Such claim can
only come from a position of ignorance or simply its lies.

>> Being the last, doesn't mean one isn't a messenger.
>
> Claiming to be the last, however, is a different matter.
>

Nothing to do with the point I made.

>> Depends on what you mean by “prophet”. If you mean dreams, signs etc,
>> then that method of revelation is still available, albeit will be
>> rare. However, that mode of receiving required a higher degree of
>> interpretation, thus the probability of being correct is slim.
>
> You doubt that God can guide the person who receives visions in the
> correct way to interpret them?
>

That is equivalent to saying, God gave a person wealth and God will
guide that person to spend that wealth in a manner that pleases God.

>> When I use the word “prophet”, I mean someone with directly chosen by
>> God, anointed, with a direct line to God (in Islam via angel Gabriel).
>
> It's called the Holy Spirit.
>

OK. You can give that title, however, still that entity is distinct and
obviously separate from God, a God that states HE is ONE and ONLY ONE;
no matter what gymnastics you play with it.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 24/01/2024 13:10, John wrote:

> I didn't suggest smoking could be attributed to doing it for the glory
> of God, just that the scripture you quoted wasn't referring to the type
> of food or drink, merely that it was acceptable if to eat or drink if
> not offered to idols, and was referring to food, not inhaling something
> which we now know is bad for you.

I have heard the "do all to the glory of God" principle expounded far
beyond eating and drinking - entertainment, dress, work, and so on. I do
not think such exegeses were a misuse of Scripture.

> I've had a few chinese takeaways!!

Keeps the cat population down.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 24/01/2024 16:52, Muhammad wrote:

>> Curiously, the US has managed more than half a century of Cuba being
>> pro-Russian without invading it.

> The premise of your statement is wrong; and I don't have time to
> entertain misinformation.

Cuba isn't pro-Russian? America actually has invaded Cuba? Castro in his
later years was an American stooge?

> That is equivalent to saying, God gave a person wealth and God will
> guide that person to spend that wealth in a manner that pleases God.

When we are talking about prophets, I don't find the idea inconceivable.

[Muhammad]

On 24/01/2024 19:23, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 24/01/2024 16:52, Muhammad wrote:
>
>>> Curiously, the US has managed more than half a century of Cuba being
>>> pro-Russian without invading it.
>
>> The premise of your statement is wrong; and I don't have time to
>> entertain misinformation.
>
> Cuba isn't pro-Russian? America actually has invaded Cuba? Castro in his
> later years was an American stooge?
>

American actions against Cuba are acts of war, which have been ongoing
for decades. Those actions have managed to control the situation, within
the comfort levels of America. Russia hasn't made moves which would
alarm Americans into direct action for now...

I have in the past highlighted American legislation which states
countries near America can't align themselves with states considered to
be American opponent/enemy.

Due to my job role, I have access to far more data than you. You're
arguing from a position of ignorance or simply to misinform.

This conversation is over.

[Robert Marshall]

On Wed, Jan 24 2024, "Kendall K. Down" <kendal...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 24/01/2024 16:52, Muhammad wrote:
>
>>> Curiously, the US has managed more than half a century of Cuba
>>> being pro-Russian without invading it.
>
>> The premise of your statement is wrong; and I don't have time to
>> entertain misinformation.
>
> Cuba isn't pro-Russian? America actually has invaded Cuba? Castro in
> his later years was an American stooge?
>

I'm perplexed why you ignore the Bay of Pigs invasion

Robert
--
I do not want a God whose love is less generous than my own pale
imitations of it. Sara Maitland
Robert Marshall he/him twiX:@rajm https://mastodon.world/@rajm

[hermeneutika]

Amen!!

[GB]

On 25/01/2024 07:16, Robert Marshall wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24 2024, "Kendall K. Down" <kendal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 24/01/2024 16:52, Muhammad wrote:
>>
>>>> Curiously, the US has managed more than half a century of Cuba
>>>> being pro-Russian without invading it.
>>
>>> The premise of your statement is wrong; and I don't have time to
>>> entertain misinformation.
>>
>> Cuba isn't pro-Russian? America actually has invaded Cuba? Castro in
>> his later years was an American stooge?
>>
>
> I'm perplexed why you ignore the Bay of Pigs invasion
>

It never really got very far, so maybe Ken simply forgot it?


One of my sons is currently 'backpacking' in S E Asia. He's not exactly
roughing it, as he's staying in a rather nice hotel.

https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Hotel_Review-g298082-d8595053-Reviews-Hoi_An_Sincerity_Hotel_Spa-Hoi_An_Quang_Nam_Province.html

You have to wonder why the USA went to war for so long in Vietnam?


> Robert

[Kendall K. Down]

On 24/01/2024 22:25, Muhammad wrote:

> American actions against Cuba are acts of war, which have been ongoing
> for decades. Those actions have managed to control the situation, within
> the comfort levels of America. Russia hasn't made moves which would
> alarm Americans into direct action for now...

You clearly didn't live through the Cuban missile crisis.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 25/01/2024 07:16, Robert Marshall wrote:

> I'm perplexed why you ignore the Bay of Pigs invasion

Although backed by the CIA, the Bay of Pigs fiasco was actually
organised and run by Cuban exiles. It was such a short-lived affair and
so easily dealth with by the Cubans themselves, that it is hard to
justify the term "invasion" for it.

I know there were numerous attempts to assassinate Fidel, but there has
been nothing like the Russian invasion of the Ukraine.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 25/01/2024 10:10, GB wrote:

> It never really got very far, so maybe Ken simply forgot it?

Ignored it, not forgot it.

> You have to wonder why the USA went to war for so long in Vietnam?

The domino theory?

[GB]

On 25/01/2024 18:32, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 25/01/2024 10:10, GB wrote:
>
>> It never really got very far, so maybe Ken simply forgot it?
>
> Ignored it, not forgot it.
>
>> You have to wonder why the USA went to war for so long in Vietnam?
>
> The domino theory?

Indeed, although it's not turned out that way.

[Robert Marshall]

On Thu, Jan 25 2024, "Kendall K. Down" <kendal...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 25/01/2024 07:16, Robert Marshall wrote:
>
>> I'm perplexed why you ignore the Bay of Pigs invasion
>
> Although backed by the CIA, the Bay of Pigs fiasco was actually
> organised and run by Cuban exiles. It was such a short-lived affair
> and so easily dealth with by the Cubans themselves, that it is hard to
> justify the term "invasion" for it.
>

It was (covertly) financed and directed by the US government. Cuban
airfields were bombed - by planes piloted in most cases by cuban exiles,
but the cubans were the feet on the ground so that the us could issue
denials. Where did those planes come from, who trained the pilots...?
2 US citizens (hired by the CIA ) were shot after the invasion failed.
A couple of US pilots also died.

I'm sure 3 days could have seen Castro overthrown,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion [1]

"six unmarked American fighter planes took off to help defend the
brigade's B-26 aircraft flying"

( from
https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/the-bay-of-pigs
so US air force involvement )

> I know there were numerous attempts to assassinate Fidel, but there
> has been nothing like the Russian invasion of the Ukraine.
>

Goal post shifting (not that I have any sympathy for Putin's war in Ukraine).

Robert
[1] note the wikipedia page title ;)

[Kendall K. Down]

On 25/01/2024 18:58, GB wrote:

> Indeed, although it's not turned out that way.

And was it the war in Vietnam which ensure that it didn't turn out that
way? Don't forget that for a time it did seem as though the domino
theory was right, as Vietnam went communist and then Cambodia.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 25/01/2024 19:48, Robert Marshall wrote:

> I'm sure 3 days could have seen Castro overthrown,

But it didn't. Would Cuba have been better off without him? History is
full of "what ifs".

>> I know there were numerous attempts to assassinate Fidel, but there
>> has been nothing like the Russian invasion of the Ukraine.

> Goal post shifting (not that I have any sympathy for Putin's war in Ukraine).

I don't think so. nobody was defending Russia's war in the Ukraine by
claiming that America was much worse (his usual mantra).

[John]

Either you don't read the posts properly or you just like
misrepresenting Muhammad

This is what he said earlier in this thread

"I don't support Russia's stance (mentioned it numerous times in the past)."

[Kendall K. Down]

On 26/01/2024 22:47, John wrote:

> This is what he said earlier in this thread
> "I don't support Russia's stance (mentioned it numerous times in the
> past)."

Yes, that is what he said after I challenged him.

[GB]

On 26/01/2024 18:37, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 25/01/2024 18:58, GB wrote:
>
>> Indeed, although it's not turned out that way.
>
> And was it the war in Vietnam which ensure that it didn't turn out that
> way? Don't forget that for a time it did seem as though the domino
> theory was right, as Vietnam went communist and then Cambodia.

One of the annoying things about the world is that you can't do proper
experiments. Ideally, you'd rewind time, and then see what happens
without the war. Maybe, try a couple of other scenarios, too, and
compare the results.

[Muhammad]

On 27/01/2024 08:37, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 26/01/2024 22:47, John wrote:
>
>> This is what he said earlier in this thread
>> "I don't support Russia's stance (mentioned it numerous times in the
>> past)."
>
> Yes, that is what he said after I challenged him.
>

You lie... and it is not surprising.

Not in this round of conversation, but in the past, I have used words
that would contravene the charter of this group when describing Putin,
for his act of Ukraine.

But, it serves your agenda to make out I support Russia. Just pathetic...

---

From the context of my post, it was clear, I made a representation of
what could've been done to avoid war, to stop the killing of many
thousands (our western leaders didn't want that). But, your pathetic
interpretation of that was to interpolate from it, that I support
Russia, because you have an agenda...

---

I wouldn't care if some hurt my feelings, to provide political cover,
weapons and funds, to another to occupy, oppress and kill that someone.

[Muhammad]

On 27/01/2024 08:37, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 26/01/2024 22:47, John wrote:
>
>> This is what he said earlier in this thread
>> "I don't support Russia's stance (mentioned it numerous times in the
>> past)."
>
> Yes, that is what he said after I challenged him.
>

Just out of interest, I think you should elucidate the group, in which
of the following I support:

Russia,
South Korea,
Venezuela,
China,
Iran,
ISIS,
Al Aqaeda,
Hamas,
Al Qassam,

Feel free to add more to the list.

[Timreason]

Did you mean to say North Korea?

Tim.

[Muhammad]

Ah, yes, I did.

North Korea.

[John]

On 27/01/2024 08:37, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 26/01/2024 22:47, John wrote:
>
>> This is what he said earlier in this thread
>> "I don't support Russia's stance (mentioned it numerous times in the
>> past)."
>
> Yes, that is what he said after I challenged him.

So you knew what his stance was, yet chose to lie in order to score a point.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/01/2024 16:50, John wrote:

> So you knew what his stance was, yet chose to lie in order to score a
> point.

He made a post that appeared to consider Russia's actions in the Ukraine
less objectionable than a whole list of actions by America. I challenged
him, he came back that he did not support Russia.

How does "I challenged him" turn into "I lied about him"?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/01/2024 12:28, GB wrote:

> One of the annoying things about the world is that you can't do proper
> experiments. Ideally, you'd rewind time, and then see what happens
> without the war. Maybe, try a couple of other scenarios, too, and
> compare the results.

Quite so. How wise we could all be with such a set-up - particularly if
we could choose which alternative became the actual history!

[John]

Muhammad on 23rd January: I don't support Russia's stance (mentioned it

numerous times in the past)

Ken on 26th January: "I don't think so. nobody was defending Russia's

war in the Ukraine by claiming that America was much worse (his usual
mantra)"

After I pointed out that Muhammad didn't support Russia's stance.

Ken on 27th January: "Yes, that is what he said after I challenged him.

So, knowing that he didn't support Russia's stance why did you say he
defended Russia's stance, and how is that not a lie?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/01/2024 23:13, John wrote:

> So, knowing that he didn't support Russia's stance why did you say he
> defended Russia's stance, and how is that not a lie?

Because in his original post he supported Russia (by comparing it with
America, supposedly to Russia's advantage).

[Muhammad]

On 28/01/2024 19:38, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 27/01/2024 23:13, John wrote:
>

You snipped the evidence...
----

Muhammad on 23rd January: I don't support Russia's stance (mentioned it
numerous times in the past)

Ken on 26th January: "I don't think so. nobody was defending Russia's
war in the Ukraine by claiming that America was much worse (his usual
mantra)"

After I pointed out that Muhammad didn't support Russia's stance.

Ken on 27th January: "Yes, that is what he said after I challenged him.

----

>> So, knowing that he didn't support Russia's stance why did you say he
>> defended Russia's stance, and how is that not a lie?
>
> Because in his original post he supported Russia (by comparing it with
> America, supposedly to Russia's advantage).
>

Ken you lied, you got caught, and now shamelessly you're trying to
explain something that can't be, without admitting the truth.

Care to answer my post, in telling the group which groups and/or nations
I support.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 28/01/2024 19:50, Muhammad wrote:

> Care to answer my post, in telling the group which groups and/or nations
> I support.

How about you admitting that comparing America and Russia shows that
America is much better than Russia?

[Muhammad]

On 29/01/2024 02:34, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 28/01/2024 19:50, Muhammad wrote:
>
>> Care to answer my post, in telling the group which groups and/or
>> nations I support.
>
> How about you admitting that comparing America and Russia shows that
> America is much better than Russia?
>

I'm sorry, I don't smoke.