|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: "Thuglicans" and the Tea "Federation Party" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
In other words, You cannot. Typical.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
are you a fuckin retard? the link was broken, it did not work, you pedantic little bitch.
Are you clueless? The link was not broken. The video was removed for copyright reasons. Entirely different things. Also, to say it does not exist implies what, that the video does not exist. It does exist. Just not accessible from youtube. Vast difference than not existing and the implication you made by saying it did not exist.
strawman
Partus sequitur ventrem is a straw man. That is what I was trying to say politely, but I see that is lost on you.
I failed to back up your assertions, care to back it up with valid evidence? why it is other people need to do this but you never have too. you are such a hypocrite.
Please point out what assertions you need evidence for. When I get back from vacation, I will gladly do the research to again show, as I have many times in the past, that you knowledge of American history is either nonexistent, or so colored by an agenda, that it might as well be non-existent.. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Partus sequitur ventrem was a method of determining slave status and not a method of determining race. Slave status was never identical with race as free black people existed at all times during the colonial period.
That feeling of familiarity you experience when reading Artie's posts is not deja vu.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3806 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
but did even a single US state determine race based on the race of the mother? Art seems to be implying that matrilineal descent was the normal way, and I wanted to point out that I didn't believe that was the case, and that each state differed in that determination. (Of course in reality it didn't matter, if you looked of full or mixed blood by mother or father, you were judged on that)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
DBlevins writes: Art seems to be implying that matrilineal descent was the normal way, and I wanted to point out that I didn't believe that was the case, and that each state differed in that determination. I don't disagree with you at all. We know that states made determinations. But I don't believe Artemis, who pretends he doesn't even know anything about race relations in the 1970s, can cite even a single example of a state using matrilineal descent to determine race. He's even wrong about his own state. And the whole thing exercise is pointless too boot. Regardless of how states did things in the 19th century, we all know how race is determined today. We self identify using any method we chose, if and when we find it necessary to make any statement at all about our race. The idea that Barrack is doing something wrong because he doesn't use some method Artemis claims was used 'back in the day' is total nonsense. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
GDR writes:
I'm probably at least as old as you. I was an officer in the Canadian forces and flew a Herc into Saigon during the Viet Nam war to supply the people that we had there who were in non-combat roles. My Christianity is central to my life. My wife is still an American citizen and one of my sons is now an American and as a result 4 out of 8 grand-kids are Americans. I love the US and would usually vote Republican if I could vote down there. I was in the USAF in the 1950s and now an old geeser at 75, by God's grace.
GDR writes: He told them that if they continued to fight them militarily that they would be crushed and the temple destroyed which is exactly what happened in the war of 70AD. Mmm, somehow I missed that opposition of Jesus to the military in the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. Is there a reference to it elsewhere?
GDR writes: Jesus said that we are to love God and love our neighbour. In the "Good Samaritan" Jesus told his fellow Jews that they were to love and respect those whose religious views differed from their own. I have a hunch that message still applies today. Mmm, but Jesus was not nice to the very religious Pharisees whose religious views differed from his. He drove them out of the Temple and called them to their face, snakes. He debated them on their religious views. Nevertheless, he loved them in that he died for their sins and suffered at their hands without resisting, asking God to forgive them, knowing not what they were doing.
GDR writes: By branding all Muslims as terrorists I would suggest that Jesus would give the same message to us that he gave to first century Jews, which if we keep going down this road our societies will pay a heavy price. BY isolating moderate Muslims we make them more vulnerable to the sales pitch of the extremists. People are naturally tribal and everyone wants to feel that they belong to one tribe or another. Islamic extremism is a huge threat to our societies in my view as well, and as in 9/11 it only takes a small few to do incredible damage. I've never branded all Muslims as terrorists. I've done what Jesus did by citing the fallacies of their religion. Having become knowledgeable about the Koran, the Haddith and the Sunnahs, I've argued that the terrorism comes from their scriptures which, unlike the admonition of Jesus to love one's enemies, Mohammed and his apostles admonished to fight the infidels until Islam rules the planet. Citing that is not equivalent to hatred of Muslims. It is about citing the source of the terroristic practices, systemic to the religion. The extremists are the fundamentals who practice the fundamentals in their scriptures. The moderate ones are the non-fundys who do not follow the fundamentals.
GDR writes: Frankly the extremists are winning. Just look at what you have to go through to get on an airplane. The wars are bankrupting the western world. The best and most effective weapon we have against Islamic extremists is the moderate Muslim. There have been terrorist threats that have been thwarted in both Canada and Britain by the fact that moderate Muslims informed authorities of the impending threats. I wonder how these same moderates will react next time if they are isolated from main stream society, and been the object of racism. Maybe next time they will say nothing and just maybe some of the young hot heads will view Islamic extremism as a righteous cause. The moderates are only moderate when they are in nations which allow them to be moderate. As soon as Islam reaches about 30% in a nation, the fundamentalists extremists take over, imposing Shariah true Islamic law on all of the populace as is now the case in many nations.
GDR writes: The prophet Micah tells us that what God wants of us is to love kindness, do justice and to walk humbly with our God. I think that is how we should live as individuals and that it should also be the basis of the foreign policy of our governments.JMHO Your implication seems to be that Buz does not love because Buz warns of the dangers of ignorance to the ultimate plans of Islam. That is not the case. It's actually the ones who fail to warn of impending danger who unwittingly endanger others. Jesus, prince of peace was the one who said he came not to bring peace, but a sword, meaning that his gospel of ultimate peace would first (abe: draw much bloodshed from violent ones who hate it). God bless you and yours, my brother. Hopefully it's not too late in life for us ole buds to edify one another a tad. Edited by Buzsaw, : As noted in text. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Buz
Buzsaw writes: I was in the USAF in the 1950s and now an old geeser at 75, by God's grace. Well, I guess you do have me beat. I’m just a kid of 67. I suppose now I have to call you Mr. Buz.
Buzsaw writes: Mmm, somehow I missed that opposition of Jesus to the military in the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. Is there a reference to it elsewhere? All of the other messianic movements from the Maccabees, to Judas the Galilean right up to Simon bar Kokhba in 135 AD were seen as military leaders that were there to overthrow their oppressors, establish God as King and rebuild the temple. Read Josephus amongst all sorts of other books and you’ll get the idea. The book of Maccabees is a story with one battle after another. Jesus declares himself as Messiah but with a very different message such as this from Matthew 5.
quote:Jesus consistently preached that the way to peace is to love your enemy into submission. Paul understood it completely as we can see in this quote from Ephesians 6. quote:Or in Matthew 26 when he tells Peter in the garden that all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. Or when he say to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. In Luke 19 he foretells the destruction of Jerusalem because they would not recognize Him and His message. quote: Read over the sermon on the mount. Blessed are the meek and the peacemakers etc. Frankly it is the heart of the whole gospel message. Jesus loved his enemies, went the extra mile and turned the other cheek on the cross, and through that came out the other side of death thereby defeating it.
Buzsaw writes: Mmm, but Jesus was not nice to the very religious Pharisees whose religious views differed from his. He drove them out of the Temple and called them to their face, snakes. He debated them on their religious views. Nevertheless, he loved them in that he died for their sins and suffered at their hands without resisting, asking God to forgive them, knowing not what they were doing. He debated with the Pharisees and sometimes forcefully making his point. He never argued with a sword but only with words. Look at how he changed the heart of Joseph of Arimethea, and later Paul for that matter. The people he drove out of the temple were the money changers and it wasn’t because of their religious views.
Buzsaw writes: I've never branded all Muslims as terrorists. I've done what Jesus did by citing the fallacies of their religion. Having become knowledgeable about the Koran, the Haddith and the Sunnahs, I've argued that the terrorism comes from their scriptures which, unlike the admonition of Jesus to love one's enemies, Mohammed and his apostles admonished to fight the infidels until Islam rules the planet. Citing that is not equivalent to hatred of Muslims. It is about citing the source of the terroristic practices, systemic to the religion. It would be easy to cherry pick parts of the Bible that would justify all sorts of things that neither of us would agree to including what we were discussing in that other thread. People understand terrorism and realize that a number of atrocities have been committed in the name of Islam. We also have to recognize that regardless of what you perceive the Quran as being, the vast majority of Muslims are not violent.As I said, if we alienate this majority group they will start to more and more sympathize with the extremists. As Christians we are called to love them into the Kingdom. We are not called to drop bombs on them which only drives them further away in increasing numbers. I’m not obviously suggesting that we don’t attempt to apprehend, and if necessary kill the actual perpetrators of these heinous acts of terrorism, but that is far different than dropping bombs on Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11. Buzsaw writes: Your implication seems to be that Buz does not love because Buz warns of the dangers of ignorance to the ultimate plans of Islam. That is not the case. It's actually the ones who fail to warn of impending danger who unwittingly endanger others. Jesus, prince of peace was the one who said he came not to bring peace, but a sword, meaning that his gospel of ultimate peace would first (abe: draw much bloodshed from violent ones who hate it). You took my post as an attack on you and I apologise for that. I was referring to your support of Rush and Beck and what I perceive to be their labelling and stereotyping of the Islamic faith. (I hope I’m wrong in that.)There are parts of the Quran that I find offensive but I contend that the Islamic faith is more than just the Quran, just as the Christian faith is more than just the Bible. The Islamic faith today is vastly different from the Islamic faith of the time the Quran was written just as the Christian faith is very different now than it was when the Bible was put together.I go back to what I said before, which is if we are going to defeat terrorism we are going to have to win the hearts of the Islamic peoples. We have been given the tools to be able to do that as Paul outlines in the quote above from Ephesians. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
GDR writes: Buzsaw writes: Mmm, somehow I missed that opposition of Jesus to the military in the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. Is there a reference to it elsewhere? All of the other messianic movements from the Maccabees, to Judas the Galilean right up to Simon bar Kokhba in 135 AD were seen as military leaders that were there to overthrow their oppressors, establish God as King and rebuild the temple. Read Josephus amongst all sorts of other books and you’ll get the idea. The book of Maccabees is a story with one battle after another. That's partly why Apocrypha books are not in the canonized scriptures. They are counter to the Old Testament prophets. Jesus alone, fit's the ticket for the messianic prophecies.
GDR writes: There are parts of the Quran that I find offensive but I contend that the Islamic faith is more than just the Quran, just as the Christian faith is more than just the Bible. The Islamic faith today is vastly different from the Islamic faith of the time the Quran was written just as the Christian faith is very different now than it was when the Bible was put together. The scriptures of both religions articulate the fundamentals of each. The fundamentalists are the ones who ascribe to the fundamentals. Mohammed, his Quran and his apostles who wrote the Haddith and the Sunnahs, which articulate the fundamentals were all violent. Thus the fundamentalist Muslims today are the advocates of war and violence against the infidels. Jesus, on the other hand was non-violent, as were his apostles and as are the fundamentalist Christians today. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
are the fundamentalist Christians today. Oh Really? From what I've read, Jesus promoted Love, Forgiveness & Peace.Hate the sin, love the sinner Most of what I Have heard from Fundamentalist Christians isHate, Retribution & Violence. Hate the sin, Kill the sinner. Edited by bluescat48, : Quote (bleep) up There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Buzsaw writes: That's partly why Apocrypha books are not in the canonized scriptures. They are counter to the Old Testament prophets. Jesus alone, fit's the ticket for the messianic prophecies. You asked the following question'"Mmm, somehow I missed that opposition of Jesus to the military in the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. Is there a reference to it elsewhere? " I make one opening remark and then give you several scriptures answering your question. You then respond to the only part that wasn't from scripture. I find it odd that you want to take the Bible literally up to the point that you don't agree with it. It does however make my point. There were many messianic movements between the years of the Maccabees and lastly Simon bar Kokhba in 135 AD. In every case, including Jesus of course, the would be messiahs were executed and always cruelly. In every case but Jesus these messianic wannabes were following the standard belief that the messiah would lead the people in battle against their oppressors, lead them to freedom, establish the rule of God and rebuild the temple. Jesus said no. The way to defeat your enemy is through the weapons of truth, mercy, justice, love, forgiveness etc. After initially abandoning the movement the disciples later became zealous in their mission after encountering a resurrected Jesus. They didn’t talk about defeating the Romans but went all over preaching Christ's message of love etc even to Rome itself. I agree absolutely that Jesus is the one true Messiah but that isn't the point. The point is what he wants of us.
Buzsaw writes: The scriptures of both religions articulate the fundamentals of each. The fundamentalists are the ones who ascribe to the fundamentals. Mohammed, his Quran and his apostles who wrote the Haddith and the Sunnahs, which articulate the fundamentals were all violent. Thus the fundamentalist Muslims today are the advocates of war and violence against the infidels. Jesus, on the other hand was non-violent, as were his apostles and as are the fundamentalist Christians today. If we only all agreed on the fundamentals. We had Christian leaders in both the USA and Britain who seemed to have felt called to go to war in Iraq, and that God's methods weren’t either quick enough or right enough to fill the bill. Go figure. I think we should just let God be the judge of who it is that embraces the path of peace, love and forgiveness, and get on with our own mission. By the way, what is a cowboy, a horse and a coyote doing on the avitar of a guy from New York? Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
bluescat48 writes: are the fundamentalist Christians today. Oh Really? From what I've read, Jesus promoted Love, Forgiveness & Peace.Hate the sin, love the sinner Most of what I Have heard from Fundamentalist Christians isHate, Retribution & Violence. Hate the sin, Kill the sinner. Information and warnings are not one and the same as hate, revenge and violence, Bluescat. Please, so as for me and others to apologize, cite where any Christian fundamentalists here at EvC have shown hate and/or advocated violence towards anyone by us. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
GDR writes: Buzsaw writes: That's partly why Apocrypha books are not in the canonized scriptures. They are counter to the Old Testament prophets. Jesus alone, fit's the ticket for the messianic prophecies. You asked the following question'"Mmm, somehow I missed that opposition of Jesus to the military in the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. Is there a reference to it elsewhere? " I make one opening remark and then give you several scriptures answering your question. You then respond to the only part that wasn't from scripture. I find it odd that you want to take the Bible literally up to the point that you don't agree with it. It does however make my point. There were many messianic movements between the years of the Maccabees and lastly Simon bar Kokhba in 135 AD. In every case, including Jesus of course, the would be messiahs were executed and always cruelly. In every case but Jesus these messianic wannabes were following the standard belief that the messiah would lead the people in battle against their oppressors, lead them to freedom, establish the rule of God and rebuild the temple. Jesus said no. The way to defeat your enemy is through the weapons of truth, mercy, justice, love, forgiveness etc. After initially abandoning the movement the disciples later became zealous in their mission after encountering a resurrected Jesus. They didn’t talk about defeating the Romans but went all over preaching Christ's message of love etc even to Rome itself. I agree absolutely that Jesus is the one true Messiah but that isn't the point. The point is what he wants of us.
Buzsaw writes: The scriptures of both religions articulate the fundamentals of each. The fundamentalists are the ones who ascribe to the fundamentals. Mohammed, his Quran and his apostles who wrote the Haddith and the Sunnahs, which articulate the fundamentals were all violent. Thus the fundamentalist Muslims today are the advocates of war and violence against the infidels. Jesus, on the other hand was non-violent, as were his apostles and as are the fundamentalist Christians today. If we only all agreed on the fundamentals. We had Christian leaders in both the USA and Britain who seemed to have felt called to go to war in Iraq, and that God's methods weren’t either quick enough or right enough to fill the bill. Go figure. I think we should just let God be the judge of who it is that embraces the path of peace, love and forgiveness, and get on with our own mission. By the way, what is a cowboy, a horse and a coyote doing on the avitar of a guy from New York? Nations and individuals are apples and oranges. I'm not a conscientious objector, for the most part. Providentially, what our nation has done, militarily and otherwise is often beneficial to the preservation of Israel, the messianic coming kingdom of God. For the record, I have not favored our policy of occupying any Muslim nation, such as we have in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are just building up Israel's enemies. Let them fight their own wars. I apologize for misconstruing your point about the apocryphal books. As for the horse, etc, I grew up in Wyoming. My dad had a ranch lease on an Indian reservation for some years. We had horses there and we used them in fishing and elk hunting trips in the mountains. (Abe: Often, on the ranch, the sound of coyotes howling in the night would either put us to sleep after retiring or awaken us in the wee hours.) As always, Buz Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
US Fundamental Christianity, the kind that believes that Revelation is not about stuff that happened 1500+ years ago, that believes that Armageddon is going to happen and that a literal Second Coming is not just possible but desirable, is the single greatest threat humanity has ever faced.
No force on earth poses a bigger threat today to humanity. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
jar writes: US Fundamental Christianity, the kind that believes that Revelation is not about stuff that happened 1500+ years ago, that believes that Armageddon is going to happen and that a literal Second Coming is not just possible but desirable, is the single greatest threat humanity has ever faced. No force on earth poses a bigger threat today to humanity. This is a blatant blind christophobic assertion. How so are fundamentalist Christians who attest to the fundamentals of the New Testament a threat to humanity? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: jar writes: US Fundamental Christianity, the kind that believes that Revelation is not about stuff that happened 1500+ years ago, that believes that Armageddon is going to happen and that a literal Second Coming is not just possible but desirable, is the single greatest threat humanity has ever faced. No force on earth poses a bigger threat today to humanity. This is a blatant blind christophobic assertion. How so are fundamentalist Christians who attest to the fundamentals of the New Testament a threat to humanity? Because they are very likely to bring about Armageddon. It is crazy folk that believe nonsense like the fantasy that is Revelation that really should scare all sane people. And of course it is not a Christophopic assertion. It is a simple statement of fact. People that think Armageddon is inevitable are just plain crazy and should never be allowed into positions of power or authority. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024