telling

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Tue Dec 01, 2015 6:57 pm

callmeslick wrote:now, I KNOW the source linked is biased, and don't agree with some of the obvious suppositions they are making, but I offer this link to show that, yes, there are some Christian terrorist organizers out there:

http://aattp.org/christian-terrorist-jo ... n-doctors/

Here's the bottom line on that: Any terrorist who claims the name "Christian" is misappropriating the name, because you cannot follow Christ (both His teachings and His lived example) while committing acts of terrorism.

vision · Post by **vision** » Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:02 pm

snoopy wrote:...you cannot follow Christ (both His teachings and His lived example) while committing acts of terrorism.

I beg to differ. The entire Bible is a book of terrorism. Christianity thrives on the seed it plants in little kid's brains, that if they aren't good little boys and girls then the all-seeing, all-knowing God will burn them in a lake of fire for all eternity. It is the very definition of terrorism.

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Wed Dec 02, 2015 2:01 am

vision wrote:
snoopy wrote:...you cannot follow Christ (both His teachings and His lived example) while committing acts of terrorism.
I beg to differ. The entire Bible is a book of terrorism. Christianity thrives on the seed it plants in little kid's brains, that if they aren't good little boys and girls then the all-seeing, all-knowing God will burn them in a lake of fire for all eternity. It is the very definition of terrorism.

And the koran is not?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Dec 02, 2015 6:15 am

snoopy wrote:
callmeslick wrote:now, I KNOW the source linked is biased, and don't agree with some of the obvious suppositions they are making, but I offer this link to show that, yes, there are some Christian terrorist organizers out there:

http://aattp.org/christian-terrorist-jo ... n-doctors/
Here's the bottom line on that: Any terrorist who claims the name "Christian" is misappropriating the name, because you cannot follow Christ (both His teachings and His lived example) while committing acts of terrorism.

hmmmm, haven't we heard that from Muslims for years about THEIR terrorism problem?

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Wed Dec 02, 2015 5:19 pm

vision wrote:
snoopy wrote:...you cannot follow Christ (both His teachings and His lived example) while committing acts of terrorism.
I beg to differ. The entire Bible is a book of terrorism. Christianity thrives on the seed it plants in little kid's brains, that if they aren't good little boys and girls then the all-seeing, all-knowing God will burn them in a lake of fire for all eternity. It is the very definition of terrorism.

That's a gross misrepresentation of the message of the Bible as a whole.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Wed Dec 02, 2015 5:40 pm

Ferno wrote:they're being quiet because they're fighting the good fight against abortion. that evil, evil thing that somehow is more important than not telling people what to do with their own bodies.*

*see poe's law.

George Carlin on conservatives, in 1996. Ideology never changes. Only the screaming has gotten louder and more extreme. Warning, he drops a few swear words during this skit, so if you're a conservative, cover your little delicate ears.

[youtube]vZijLQGH1v0[/youtube]

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Wed Dec 02, 2015 7:48 pm

Pro-life has always been a snarl phrase, loaded to make those who believe in it feel good.

It really should be called pro-birth.

Hey, on another note, the US has had another mass shooting. It was faster than I figured it would be. I guessed January -- three months since the last one. Someone wanted to be famous. And now we get to see the circus happen all over again -- mentally ill, "if they had guns, this wouldn't happen" and all the other feel-good stuff that just distracts from the real issue at hand... you know, the same old nonsense.

Let's see what the pro-lifers have to say about today's incident in California. Are they going to be pro-life about this, or simply sit in the background?

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Wed Dec 02, 2015 9:17 pm

Ferno wrote:Let's see what the pro-lifers have to say about today's incident in California.

The suspect has been named as Syed Farook.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... arook.html

vision · Post by **vision** » Wed Dec 02, 2015 9:23 pm

snoopy wrote:That's a gross misrepresentation of the message of the Bible as a whole.

I'm sorry, your interpretation of a fictional work is not more or less valid than my interpretation of the same fictional work. There is no standard to base any claims on.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Wed Dec 02, 2015 9:35 pm

Nightshade wrote:The suspect has been named as Syed Farook.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... arook.html

It's a possibility, nothing concrete at the moment.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Dec 02, 2015 9:40 pm

Nightshade wrote:
Ferno wrote:Let's see what the pro-lifers have to say about today's incident in California.
The suspect has been named as Syed Farook.

and, it appears, he was an employee of the group holding the seasonal party, left the party and came back heavy with one or two friends. Odd. Very odd, but very possibly not terrorism.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Wed Dec 02, 2015 10:06 pm

vision wrote:
snoopy wrote:That's a gross misrepresentation of the message of the Bible as a whole.
I'm sorry, your interpretation of a fictional work is not more or less valid than my interpretation of the same fictional work. There is no standard to base any claims on.

Setting aside the question of errancy of the Bible... there is still a standard of application of proper scholarly method, which you're not employing. You can justify your straw man as you like, but it remains no less categorically a straw man.

vision · Post by **vision** » Wed Dec 02, 2015 10:54 pm

snoopy wrote:...there is still a standard of application of proper scholarly method, which you're not employing.

LOL.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:01 pm

Ferno wrote:Pro-life has always been a snarl phrase, loaded to make those who believe in it feel good.

It really should be called pro-birth.

Hey, on another note, the US has had another mass shooting. It was faster than I figured it would be. I guessed January -- three months since the last one. Someone wanted to be famous. And now we get to see the circus happen all over again -- mentally ill, "if they had guns, this wouldn't happen" and all the other feel-good stuff that just distracts from the real issue at hand... you know, the same old nonsense.

Let's see what the pro-lifers have to say about today's incident in California. Are they going to be pro-life about this, or simply sit in the background?

Pro-birth, but certainly not pro-life.

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:28 pm

callmeslick wrote: and, it appears, he was an employee of the group holding the seasonal party, left the party and came back heavy with one or two friends. Odd. Very odd, but very possibly not terrorism.

Some of these guys do the 'sudden jihad' syndrome thing. Take the guy that beheaded one of his coworkers: http://nypost.com/2014/09/26/woman-behe ... -oklahoma/

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 12:46 am

snoopy wrote:Setting aside the question of errancy of the Bible... there is still a standard of application of proper scholarly method, which you're not employing. You can justify your straw man as you like, but it remains no less categorically a straw man.

even then, that's a guess. not a strawman.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 12:50 am

Nightshade wrote:Take the guy that beheaded one of his coworkers: http://nypost.com/2014/09/26/woman-behe ... -oklahoma/

you forgot two very important factors. he was already more likely to do it than an average person; seeing as he was an ex-con, and he was fired beforehand.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 6:08 am

Ferno wrote:
snoopy wrote:Setting aside the question of errancy of the Bible... there is still a standard of application of proper scholarly method, which you're not employing. You can justify your straw man as you like, but it remains no less categorically a straw man.

even then, that's a guess. not a strawman.

How do you come to that conclusion? If you study the content of the Bible (or any book, for that matter) you can reach very solid conclusions about some things it's trying to communicate, and less solid conclusions about some other things that it might be trying to communicate. Specifically with the Bible, "you better be good or else" is quite definitely not the whole story. If you want to make statements about Christian faith, you at least need to have the major tenants of the faith right before trying to make your own conclusions about said tenants. If you consider it so removed from reality that it's not worth you knowing it's tenants (note: in that case, how can you know exactly how removed from reality it is?) - then it's also not worth your venom. Either way, mischaracterizing the teachings of the Bible in order to attack them is most definitely a straw man.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 12:04 pm

snoopy wrote:
How do you come to that conclusion?

easy. one mans' interpretation of the bible is no more right than anothers. It's not like we're dealing with hard and fast facts.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:13 pm

anyone who thinks that man has no influence on climate is an idiot. I'll say it as often as I have to.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 3:07 pm

tunnelcat wrote:Pro-birth, but certainly not pro-life.

And what “choice” does the unborn get.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 3:22 pm

Spidey wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:Pro-birth, but certainly not pro-life.
And what “choice” does the unborn get.

given that the age of reason has an onset of 7 years old, none. So what?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:17 pm

The point is both descriptions can be considered false by someone.

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:40 pm

callmeslick wrote:
Spidey wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:Pro-birth, but certainly not pro-life.
And what “choice” does the unborn get.
given that the age of reason has an onset of 7 years old, none. So what?

I see. So slick may even sanction post birth abortion.

sigma · Post by **sigma** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 4:41 pm

It is clear that uncomfortable opinions here were subjected to rigid censorship. Well, keep talking about something that will not hurt your fragile patriotism. I understand that it is harmful to your psyche to know the opinion from outside of your ranch. Sorry.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:52 pm

Your paranoid delusions are not being censored, they are being ignored.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 7:03 pm

Complaining about censorship on a private board is always ironic.

sigma · Post by **sigma** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 7:25 pm

Spidey, I'm interested in your opinion in the least.

sigma · Post by **sigma** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 7:45 pm

Ferno, I will not argue, although I often see that what is forgiven for homies, is not permissible for foreigners. And of course I can see that administrators are tolerant enough to mine sometimes harsh opinions.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 8:55 pm

sigma wrote:It is clear that uncomfortable opinions here were subjected to rigid censorship. Well, keep talking about something that will not hurt your fragile patriotism. I understand that it is harmful to your psyche to know the opinion from outside of your ranch. Sorry.

I split off topic posts into this thread last night:

http://descentbb.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=22564

Looking at the log, nothing else happened.

sigma · Post by **sigma** » Sat Dec 05, 2015 3:22 am

Aha.. OK. THX, Jeff.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Sun Dec 06, 2015 12:53 pm

Ferno wrote:
snoopy wrote:
How do you come to that conclusion?
easy. one mans' interpretation of the bible is no more right than anothers. It's not like we're dealing with hard and fast facts.

There's some room for interpretation... But you can't just make things up and attribute them to the Bible. You can certainly take someone's interpretation of some portion and judge it against the rest of the Bible to see if it seems to fit - so no its not as simple as "one mans interpretation is as good as another's." Back to the beginning of all of this: I challenge you to find a case for Christ endorsing terrorism that will hold up to an honest attempt at understanding the message of the gospels. If you can't make that case, then any claim that Christianity is a terroristic faith is based in ignorance. So... Don't just assert an interpretation... Demonstrate that its appropriate.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Dec 06, 2015 1:48 pm

snoopy wrote:There's some room for interpretation... But you can't just make things up and attribute them to the Bible. You can certainly take someone's interpretation of some portion and judge it against the rest of the Bible to see if it seems to fit - so no its not as simple as "one mans interpretation is as good as another's." Back to the beginning of all of this: I challenge you to find a case for Christ endorsing terrorism that will hold up to an honest attempt at understanding the message of the gospels. If you can't make that case, then any claim that Christianity is a terroristic faith is based in ignorance. So... Don't just assert an interpretation... Demonstrate that its appropriate.

You misunderstood my point. If one has studied the bible and claims that they know it as fact, they only understand their own interpretation of it, and they may agree with other peoples' interpretation. And you are asking me to find something that you have already interpreted as not being there, so doing what you ask is simply a fools' errand. I could spend years studying The Grimms Tales and consider myself an expert and give myself a degree, but that would give no more weight than what you read. It's essentially saying "It's true because it said this and not that, and I'm right because I agree with it!"

No matter how you view it, it's simply interpretation, and more analogous to philosophy than history. there is no geological, historical, meteorological, paleontologic, migratory or zoological evidence to support what is written inside the bible.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:51 pm

snoopy wrote:...I challenge you to find a case for Christ endorsing terrorism that will hold up to an honest attempt at understanding the message of the gospels.

The entire Gospel is an endorsement of terror. It literally says you have to believe in Christ to avoid burning in a Lake of Fire for all Eternity. You cannot deny this fact no matter how hard you try. It's repulsive.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Dec 06, 2015 7:35 pm

Depends on what context you use the term terror, yes the Bible uses fear as a tool of persuasion, but I can’t recall any call for violence as a tool of persuasion in the New Testament.

And in your opinion the book is a work of fiction, so none of the said violence in the Bible ever even took place, so again we are left with fear, not terror.

Now if you are going to accuse people who use fear as a tool of persuasion of terrorism, then you indict just about all of politics as a whole.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun Dec 06, 2015 8:01 pm

Spidey wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:Pro-birth, but certainly not pro-life.
And what “choice” does the unborn get.

What choices do they get after they're born? None. They are wards of their parents and subject to their parent's finances, situations, care, or non-care many times. There's no kind of parent test to determine if a couple is even fit to give birth to a child, or raise a child in a healthy and happy environment and there's almost no safety net if those parents do fail at their job. Just ask any kid who's been in a foster home. I certainly don't see conservatives even giving a damn about a child's life while it is being raised to adulthood either. Food stamps for poor, single mothers? Just a socialist program that needs to be cut. Let them starve. Assisted housing for single mothers or homeless families? Don't need that government expense. Let them freeze or beg to survive. Cheap prenatal or postnatal health care for women who want to have children or want to care for those children after birth? Cut all that because of those few abortions that that evil Planned Parenthood does alongside it's other women's care services. Help with education? Nope. Too expensive, so cut those teacher's salaries, cut public school funding, cut funding for college education because private enterprise does it better. It doesn't matter that now an eduation costs too far much and only gives a decent education to those who can afford it while pulling money from a now foundering public system and saddling the next generation with a horrendous debt they can't hope to ever pay off.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Dec 06, 2015 8:13 pm

Funny…but I have lived my entire life making choices.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun Dec 06, 2015 8:30 pm

When you think about it, did you really? How much was fate, happenstance, or luck?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Dec 06, 2015 8:42 pm

Don’t believe in fate, but the other two can me mitigated with good planning.

Even getting out of bed in the morning is a choice.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sun Dec 06, 2015 9:14 pm

How many choices did you make before your first memory or before you learned the concept of freedom?