[S I M T A N]

My last line about him not living up to his preach is to solicit your opinion of him, whether it is right of him to use words to talk about other religions. So when you used a lot of words without commenting on this, obviously I asked you not to talk so much and get to the point, which to comment what you think of him when he said that "Buddha and Mohammad need Jesus". 

But actually I know what you will say, because that is your modus operandi. You'll say that you're not in a position to comment on his words, because it is for god to judge. In this way, you'll retain your neutrality. By not commenting, you've indeed revealed your "neutrality" lol.

Anyone reading your sentence can tell you're making a statement about OYK and not soliciting an opinion from me about him. The word 'definitely' that you used lends force to your statement in a way that's certain or clear that "OYK has definitely not lived up to his preach ..." If you had used the punctuation mark ? after your statement or a direct question, then you could say you were eliciting an opinion.

As I said, I wouldn't answer your rhetorical question and I also knew you would say you were not really expecting an answer from me. Answering rhetorical questions is hence a waste of time. Ditto difficult and loaded questions which most people tend to avoid answering. One question recently asked by OYK comes to mind. He questioned why some blasphemers of the Christian God were not chastised for their use of blasphemous language. His question went unanswered, and the deafening silence from sgtalkers drew silent accusations of a double standard. Needless to say, we all tend to be selective about the types of questions we'll answer, questions we feel comfortable with.

I announced lately that my philosophy of life - not modus operandi as I dislike its usage due to its association with crime - is to be non-judgmental as much as humanly possible. Judgement is God's, not mine nor yours. Since you want my opinion something fierce, I shall oblige just this once.

Assuming that me too hold that both Buddha and Muhammad are members of Homo sapiens and they're only flesh and blood. Like all ordinary mortals who have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, they surely need Christ, the Redeemer, to grant them absolution for their sins in order to attain eternal life and escape eternal damnation.

Is such a view correct? It's both yes and no, depending on where I stand. Yes - if I'm a devout believer. No - if I ain't. Is it correct to publicize this view and should I do it? Yes - if I wanna proselytize my faith and am not afraid of being persecuted. No - if I know there are people ready and waiting for me to make a careless remark. Once they've adjudged me to have blasphemed some god or religion, they'll make an issue of it with a big smirk on their faces. They'll then accuse me of offending religionists' sensibilities and pray I'll be called to account. These are the people who truly loathe me and are baying for blood. Well, that explains it!