US Sen. puts motion to Censure Bush

[RKCoon 0]

Too true. my point is -- be ready willing, and able for when it is NECESSARY.

[BWare 0]

However' date=' I can agree with your ideas. However, the problem with your example is that drugs and alcohol can lead to more nefarious doings so no, it doesn't affect you alone.[/quote']

That is very true. No man is an island...

But yes, there is a REASON why these things are illegal! Our country's laws are NOT unreasonable (well, the speeding ones and some copyright laws maybe :wink:), so why is there such resistance from some to demand "privacy" just so they can get away with what we've collectively declared is wrong? It just makes no sense!

And while I can definitely see where you're coming from redasblood, I just find it interesting that you want our government to "trust us more" as we live in a VERY free country! The government trusts us plenty. Frankly, I agree that they should butt out a LOT more in many ways, but that's just the conservative in me :wink:

 

also' date=' its kind of rude to poke around in other people's business...[/quote']

HAHA! Yes, it really would be the worst thing in the world if our government were *gasp* RUDE to us! :lol: :wink:

 

 

 

Insofar as Mexico and my comment goes -- Mexico has hardly made it a secret they want that chunk of land back. with the pathetic condition the US border is in now' date=' they are in facttaking it back, plain and simple. you wanna blame someone, blame the employersthat prefer to hire the cheap , uneducated, mass labor over the educated labor theyd actually have to treat decently, in short, givingthem not only reason to come -- but stay.[/quote']

Okay, now I really am not following your logic here. After making the claim that Mexico is essentially trying to slowly INVADE the US, you claim that it's primarily the fault of the employers?? How can you find the people taking some advantage of the situation for the invasion itself? Make sense of that one! If anything, I find Mexico, the Mexican people who disrespect our borders and laws, and our lazy (or politically neutered) government for its inaction. NOT the employers. They're only partly responsible.

Now' date=' insofar as the Patriot act, and similar motions by the government go -- Tell me something, where does "doing wrong" begin? by purchasing weapons and ammunition? by having plans for bombs? by having building plans ? lets expand this a bit. does it include, per se, examinging ones criminal record, solely based on race, or religious beleifs? or does it only take a complaint from someonethat doesnt like you? as it is, and where its going, once they set thier sights on you --- they are going to know EVERY single detail of your life. (im sorry, but isnt hte US home of the phrase, "Innocent Untill PROVEN Guilty"? How can that work when the assumation your guilty is already there? )[/quote']There is a glaring flaw in your thinking here dude.... yikes. How is monitoring someone who's looking up pipe bomb recipes unreasonable or unjust? Further, how is keeping an eye on someone AT ALL an assumption of guilt? I see it as common sense, not an unjust condemnation of some poor innocent potential terrorist! Geez, cry me a river!

As the great Ronald Reagan once said, "Trust but verify."

Now' date=' lets take this even farther. lets go now to political beleifs, a REAL hot topic here itd seem. I mean sure, saying stupid things like, "Iihave a bomb on this plane", ok thats BEGGING for trouble, but saying you hate the current political leader, shouldthat be grounds for investgation by the fecking government? making cartoons of blowing up general bushel, should THAT, as well, be grounds for an inquisition? we already know how the muslims react to cartoons -- does the US wish to follow suit, in its own unique way?[/quote']

Did you seriously just make that comparison?? WOW.

Now do you honestly think that the US is capable of performing an "inquisition" (nice loaded, emotionally charged word there dude. Good debating :roll:) on someone, ie drawing and quartering them, just because they say they hate the president? If so, then you really have no credibility when it comes to your opinions on the US. You're a living stereotype of an anti-American fanatic.

Oh, and you said "general bushel" again. Hehe. Oh, you kooky Canadians and your hillarious sense of humor! (....seriously, I still don't get what the hell "bushel" means or why it's apparently funny to this guy!)

You people may be comfortable with that level of scrutiny

No' date=' "we people" probably just don't like you comparing our government and it's attempts to make us safe with the Muslims who want to destroy the west. There's absolutely nothing wrong with thoughtful scrutiny.

This coming from a guy who watched, live, as the masses of ONE nation (a nation that, incidentally, was virtually smashed at the start, broke, starving, desperate) swore in a leader they innitially beleived in, and yes loved to death. he also watched what happened when this one man in power, with his solitary power behind him, ran unchecked by ANYone. It started fairly benevolent enough, that is true -- but soon, hatred seeped in. a threat to internal security was percieved, and concessions were made, in the name of security. rights were quickly weeded down, in the name of "safety" and "security". the religious and political aspects were played up as well, aiding to this. i think we all know how that ended.

And NOW we have the obligatory comparison of Bush to Hitler :lol:

Man, you ARE a joke! How can we actually take this seriously??

 

Keep in mind, wahtever you might think of the CURRENT political setup -- there are ALWAYS going to be crooked, corrupt, and potentially downright insane leaders -- and there will eventually ALWAYS come a time where those that are in fact truely the good, or decent, or right side, will be veiwed as evil , as wrong, as criminals, by whomever is in power. do you REALLY wanna get caught with your pants down, and your hands empty, when that happens?

That's why America has the second amendment. If the government ever DID go 1984 on us, we would have the power to amass and force change. That's the point of it. It's even what Jefferson predicted, and eventual revolution is in fact a part of the Jeffersonian model of government.

 

Also, you're forgetting how our government works here in America. We have three separate but equal branches of government... this is so that what you just said couldn't ever happen. Each branch is dependant on the other, so there will never be one man taking complete control in America, unless we're stupid enough to vote it in. The system is nearly flawless in spreading power. Your attempts to scare us with Hitler comparisons (:lol:) are useless to anyone who has a brain in his head and even a rudimentary understanding of how things get done in America.

[RKCoon 0]

Ok since you asked...

 

Okay, now I really am not following your logic here. After making the claim that Mexico is essentially trying to slowly INVADE the US, you claim that it's primarily the fault of the employers?? How can you find the people taking some advantage of the situation for the invasion itself? Make sense of that one! If anything, I find Mexico, the Mexican people who disrespect our borders and laws, and our lazy (or politically neutered) government for its inaction. NOT the employers. They're only partly responsible.

You missed the point. To peoples in less than well off countries such as Mexico, the US is stil lseen as the land of opportunity - but emmegrating legally is WAY beyond thier price range. the reason they are emmegrating - or trespassing - varies from individual to individual, but they reason they STAY within the US is they DO find work, or some means of supporting themselves, that is better than they can find in thier homeland. Much of this tems from employers, bent on cutting costs and having cheap labor, are more than happy to not employ locals that requie higher pay for the same job if they can get it cheaper elsewhwere. thats but one reason.

 

There is a glaring flaw in your thinking here dude.... yikes. How is monitoring someone who's looking up pipe bomb recipes unreasonable or unjust? Further, how is keeping an eye on someone AT ALL an assumption of guilt? I see it as common sense, not an unjust condemnation of some poor innocent potential terrorist! Geez, cry me a river!

As the great Ronald Reagan once said, "Trust but verify

 

And since when is the seeking of knowledge a bad thing? so i wanna blow up an old car i have out in the back of a freinds field, so bloody what? more to the point -- i thought you just said (or maybe it was someone else) that the only way the government WOULD observe someone is when there was a thought of guilt? or did that just change? (OOooo, hes looking up pipe bomb plans - he MUST be planning to blow up innocentcivilians!! we MUSH Stop him! XD) I might go farther and remind you that during the war of independance, the British military and governemtn viewed the American rebels as "terrorists". gee, from what im seeing, i have a hard time arguing that in SOME (not all by aany means) cases.

 

Did you seriously just make that comparison?? WOW.

Now do you honestly think that the US is capable of performing an "inquisition" (nice loaded, emotionally charged word there dude. Good debating ) on someone, ie drawing and quartering them, just because they say they hate the president? If so, then you really have no credibility when it comes to your opinions on the US. You're a living stereotype of an anti-American fanatic.

 

Why not? theyve done it the past, tovarying degrees, from the Salem witch trials to the "communist plague" to, now, the hunt for terrorists. Oh, and i do take pleasure in being the counter to the Bushel loving anti everythign non american fanatic. (lets see if you can catch the sarcasm there)

 

Oh, and you said "general bushel" again. Hehe. Oh, you kooky Canadians and your hillarious sense of humor! (....seriously, I still don't get what the hell "bushel" means or why it's apparently funny to this guy!)

 

You have your views and I have mine. doesnt make either more or less correct, but they ARE our views. funny, last i checked, the "Freedom of Speech" that SOME americans still hold to was still in effect?

 

No, "we people" probably just don't like you comparing our government and it's attempts to make us safe with the Muslims who want to destroy the west. There's absolutely nothing wrong with thoughtful scrutiny.

 

Much the same was said of the aforemeantioned american "rebels" by the brits. EVERY superpower says that of any rebels or terrorists beneath it, thats my whole point. This isnt an attempt to defend muslims - or any of the rest of them feckos -- by any means, but rather, an outside (as we Canucks still ARE outside) take on it. i dont agree with what they are doing, or much (not all) of WHY they are doing it, buti can see circumstances that i would want to blow the hell out of someone invading what i feel to be MY land, and when i nor my family have done nothing to warrent such invasion. On an internal scale, i can also see why a people would become increasingly uncomfortable with the amount of zeal on the part of the government to weed out "potential" (your words i might add) terrorists. tell me, WHO defines "potential"?

 

And NOW we have the obligatory comparison of Bush to Hitler

Man, you ARE a joke! How can we actually take this seriously??

Possibly by getting off your high white horse and looking?

 

That's why America has the second amendment. If the government ever DID go 1984 on us, we would have the power to amass and force change. That's the point of it. It's even what Jefferson predicted, and eventual revolution is in fact a part of the Jeffersonian model of government.

Would you mind rewording that so it makes sence? i am unaware of any attempt in 1984 by an american government t oseize its own people, if thats what your referring to.

 

Also, you're forgetting how our government works here in America. We have three separate but equal branches of government... this is so that what you just said couldn't ever happen. Each branch is dependant on the other, so there will never be one man taking complete control in America, unless we're stupid enough to vote it in. The system is nearly flawless in spreading power. Your attempts to scare us with Hitler comparisons () are useless to anyone who has a brain in his head and even a rudimentary understanding of how things get done in America.

 

So why am i not the only one, here even, making hitler comparisons, Bware? if your system was so bulletproof as you claim, no one ANyplace would have grounds to make such. im not directly sayingthat bushel will BE the next hitler, but i AM noting an ever increasing number of similarities between the current administration and the nazi regime. and i dont think im the only one doing so.further -- Hitler did not work all by his lonesome -- he DID have a solid government infastructure backing him up, a group of peopel that wholeheartedly, even blindly, followed him -- ALL of these people were making the choice to follow him.

[BWare 0]

You missed the point. To peoples in less than well off countries such as Mexico' date=' the US is stil lseen as the land of opportunity - but emmegrating legally is WAY beyond thier price range. the reason they are emmegrating - or trespassing - varies from individual to individual, but they reason they STAY within the US is they DO find work, or some means of supporting themselves, that is better than they can find in thier homeland. Much of this tems from employers, bent on cutting costs and having cheap labor, are more than happy to not employ locals that requie higher pay for the same job if they can get it cheaper elsewhwere. thats but one reason.[/quote']

I didn't miss your point- in fact I addressed it earlier. But anyway, yes the employers are partly to blame. You seem to look at them as villains here and at the illegals as people just seeking to support their family. Another perspective could say that the employers are ALSO just trying to stay competitive and hiring illegals because of the demanding market... ie supporting THEIR families. It's very multifaceted, and to completely villainize one side is not a good idea... though the only side completely in the wrong IS the illegals.

 

And since when is the seeking of knowledge a bad thing? so i wanna blow up an old car i have out in the back of a freinds field' date=' so bloody what? more to the point -- i thought you just said (or maybe it was someone else) that the only way the government WOULD observe someone is when there was a thought of guilt? or did that just change? (OOooo, hes looking up pipe bomb plans - he MUST be planning to blow up innocentcivilians!! we MUSH Stop him! XD)[/quote']

I never said that this kind of research is inherently bad. I'm just saying that if someone looks up info on pipe bombs, building schematics, and books entitled "How to Kill Lots of People," I think it would be stupid not to see what's going on! I agree that we do need a certain degree of privacy from the government, but come on.

 

I might go farther and remind you that during the war of independance' date=' the British military and governemtn viewed the American rebels as "terrorists". gee, from what im seeing, i have a hard time arguing that in SOME (not all by aany means) cases.[/quote']

Well, you DID just go farther (if it wasn't your intention, there's that handly little "delete" key there :wink:), but this is another borderline scary point by you. Are you actually now comparing our fight for independence- as colonies of the British- with modern terrorism?? The two are so incredibly dissimilar it's just ridiculous.... ugh. Do you actually do ANY critical thinking before making these points? The War for Independence was fought by a unified group against an oppressive monarchy's rule on their own soil. Okay. Got that picture in your head? Good. Now try to honestly compare that with what we see today in the Islamic terrorists. They are responsible for blowing up busses full of children, rading schools and shooting kids in the back, and indiscriminate bombings of soft targets. Keep in mind that they represent no nation- only a terrible ideology. Now can you honestly compare the two? :roll:

 

Why not? theyve done it the past' date=' tovarying degrees, from the Salem witch trials to the "communist plague" to, now, the hunt for terrorists.[/quote']

Wow... I don't even know where to begin with this massive load of sheer ignorance. It's almost overwhelming. Ugh. Listen dude... the Salem witch trials were NOT DONE BY THE US GOVERNMENT!!! That point alone voids your credibility. Done. But no, you then go on with your idiotic point and compare the commie hunt in the US with the Spanish Inquisition. Tell me- who was murdered by the state during that time? What was so unspeakably horrible about seeking out sympathizers to a very real threat in our country? While nobody will deny that it did get out of hand to a certain (in my opinion small) extent, it did not even come CLOSE to comparing with the Inquisition. This is very telling of your sensational view of history and your own immaturity while looking at these historical events. You really really need some better perspective.

 

You have your views and I have mine. doesnt make either more or less correct' date=' but they ARE our views. funny, last i checked, the "Freedom of Speech" that SOME americans still hold to was still in effect?[/quote']

Hmm... I really have no idea what you were trying to say with that first sentence there. But again, you completely miss my point... I really think you just glance over posts and then respond to what you thought you read.

Note to the slow: I was NOT offended by that attack on my president (if you can call "bushel" an attack :?). That happens all the time, and I don't take the morons seriously enough to really be offended. All I was saying here was that your jab at him is NOT funny! I've heard funny attacks before and I can acknowledge them... but this is just bizzare! "Bushel?" What the hell does that even mean? :?

 

Much the same was said of the aforemeantioned american "rebels" by the brits. EVERY superpower says that of any rebels or terrorists beneath it' date=' thats my whole point. This isnt an attempt to defend muslims - or any of the rest of them feckos -- by any means, but rather, an outside (as we Canucks still ARE outside) take on it. i dont agree with what they are doing, or much (not all) of WHY they are doing it, buti can see circumstances that i would want to blow the hell out of someone invading what i feel to be MY land, and when i nor my family have done nothing to warrent such invasion. On an internal scale, i can also see why a people would become increasingly uncomfortable with the amount of zeal on the part of the government to weed out "potential" (your words i might add) terrorists. tell me, WHO defines "potential"?[/quote']

Okay, you've been comfortable bitching about our response to this threat for too long. How about you PROPOSE A REASONABLE SOLUTION?? Frankly I think that tapping the phone calls of people in the US talking with known terrorists, monitoring their actions, and, you know, taking a look before we're hit again is pretty damn reasonable. You seem to want to make an enemy out of the US if it kills you, so here's your chance to put your big, fat, enlightened intellect behind a very real problem that we're facing. Go ahead. Tell us how to defend ourselves better without hurting the feelings of people who want to kill us. Go ahead. We all wait with baited breath :roll:

 

Oh, and you see why the terrorists would want to slaughter thousands of innocent Americans, huh? You understand why? You can identify with them? Holy hell.

 

Possibly by getting off your high white horse and looking?

Are you serious?? Don't you dare accuse me of being on a high horse! You're the one sitting back and calling our president Hitler' date=' mocking our attempts to secure ourselves, and in general being a pain in the ass by smugly attacking the US and our interests at every turn. So don't you DARE say that about me for not agreeing with your pompous, ignorant comparison of my president to Hitler!

 

Would you mind rewording that so it makes sence? i am unaware of any attempt in 1984 by an american government t oseize its own people, if thats what your referring to.

Wow. It's called an Orwellian reference. Ever heard of it? Are you really that uneducated? :roll:

I'm not talking LITERALLY ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IN THE BOOK. 1984 is synonymous with any system of total government control, or attempt to seize total control and dominate its citizens. You know? Like in the book? I'll try to dumb it down next time.... :shock:

 

EDIT: I'm sorry for being so condescending here, and you know I usually wouldn't respond so harshly, but this guy is insisting on defending his groundless comparison of my country with Nazi Germany, so yeah... for that he gets no mercy from me :roll:

 

So why am i not the only one' date=' here even, making hitler comparisons, Bware?[/quote']

EVERYBODY MAKES HITLER COMPARISONS. Ever since Hitler, intellectually shallow opponents of pretty much every political leader have compared them to Hitler in order to drum up a cheap emotional response from the morons who take them seriously. Just because there are a couple other extremist, anti-American IDIOTS out there doesn't validate your point! Do you not understand that?

 

if your system was so bulletproof as you claim' date=' no one ANyplace would have grounds to make such.[/quote']

Just because you don't have the grounds to make a claim doesn't stop some morons from making it anyway. Oh and by the way, you DON'T have the grounds to make your claim.

 

im not directly sayingthat bushel will BE the next hitler' date=' but i AM noting an ever increasing number of similarities between the current administration and the nazi regime. and i dont think im the only one doing so.further -- Hitler did not work all by his lonesome -- he DID have a solid government infastructure backing him up, a group of peopel that wholeheartedly, even blindly, followed him -- ALL of these people were making the choice to follow him.[/quote']

Okay, yeah. So Bush is just a less competent Hitler. Is that it? He'd be just fine committing genocide and trying to conquer the planet with his final solution, building his empire on the shattered bones of an entire race of people. Yeah. And I'm just one of his "blind followers," and would be cool with this. To you I'd be the guy throwing the switch in a gassing room, just because I happen to mostly agree with Bush. Right? Yeah, go to hell. Seriously. If this is what you actually think, then I'm done talking reasonably with you, because you are one hopeless, pompous, fool. That's it. You can't even debate reasonably, without comparing me and my country to the freaking NAZIS, so I'm done.

[rEdaSbLood 1]

ok first off...BWare and RKCoon are intelligent people with strong things to say...but some may get lethargic while reading your tiresome posts....shorten and simplify them? i think that'd work STupendisly? but thats just me.. cuz i dont have the time...so do it for me?

 

And while I can definitely see where you're coming from redasblood, I just find it interesting that you want our government to "trust us more" as we live in a VERY free country! The government trusts us plenty. Frankly, I agree that they should butt out a LOT more in many ways, but that's just the conservative in me

its not exactly about trust even though i said/made apparent that it may be...i meant to say (in 'better' terms) that the government should somehow trust us more in terms of certain situations..ie in my case im 20 and drink responsibly and use drugs VERY responsibly....i mean there are us people out there that (not including drugs) can very well control, regulate, justify, and limit (all of that stuff) our lives appropriately....

like i said...I WISH WE SMART AMERICANS COULD , BY DEFAULT, GET THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT(and all that)...

 

 

HAHA! Yes, it really would be the worst thing in the world if our government were *gasp* RUDE to us!

 

HAHA! Yes, it really would be the worst thing in the world if our government were *gasp* RUDE to us!

 

is this sarcasm or should i not rebut? rudeness is very important in reflecting a person's general moral standpoint and social compasion..no?

[BWare 0]

ok first off...BWare and RKCoon are intelligent people with strong things to say...but some may get lethargic while reading your tiresome posts....shorten and simplify them? i think that'd work STupendisly? but thats just me.. cuz i dont have the time...so do it for me?

Agreed :wink:

 

its not exactly about trust even though i said/made apparent that it may be...i meant to say (in 'better' terms) that the government should somehow trust us more in terms of certain situations..ie in my case im 20 and drink responsibly and use drugs VERY responsibly....i mean there are us people out there that (not including drugs) can very well control, regulate, justify, and limit (all of that stuff) our lives appropriately....

like i said...I WISH WE SMART AMERICANS COULD , BY DEFAULT, GET THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT(and all that)...

I see what you mean, but again I think we DO get the benefit of the doubt.

Also, let's not get in to your defense of your illegal lifestyle, okay? It's a losing battle for you, and I really really just don't have the energy....

 

is this sarcasm or should i not rebut? rudeness is very important in reflecting a person's general moral standpoint and social compasion..no?

Dude... we're talking about the G O V E R N M E N T. Not a P E R S O N.

There's a considerable difference between the two, no? :roll:

[Alphabear 11]

Dude... we're talking about the G O V E R N M E N T. Not a P E R S O N.

There's a considerable difference between the two, no?

 

Yes and no. It is a democratic government that represents the people so moral standards should be the same.

[BWare 0]

Yes and no. It is a democratic government that represents the people so moral standards should be the same.

Moral standards, sure. It's still apples and oranges, but your point can be made.

But we're talking about social niceties... ie rudeness. It's just silly to accuse your government of being rude :lol:

[rEdaSbLood 1]

let's not get in to your defense of your illegal lifestyle, okay? It's a losing battle for you, and I really really just don't have the energy....

so we agree to disagree on that eh?

 

RUDE:

A--Lacking the graces and refinement of civilized life; uncouth.

B--Lacking education or knowledge; unlearned.

C--Ill-mannered; discourteous: rude behavior.

 

hmm...put that in your pipe and smoke it.. 8) ...or rather let me jk

 

analogy-"apples and oranges" can both be just as rotten and distasteful as each other..........

[BWare 0]

Ugh. Redasblood, if you have nothing to say, just don't bother posting it, k? :lol:

[rEdaSbLood 1]

are you claiming my previous post is void? why?

 

its not as indepth as yours, but simplicity rules and whats the big deal anyways...?

 

my last post had something to it...dont dismiss it...that will awaken something in me that FEW can stand to face...

 

regardless we're still cool...

 

oh and, yes BWare that (your last post) counts as a "copout" :lol: ....so BRRRRRRRING it MOFO

[BWare 0]

Haha... no, I was pointing out that though you DID type some words in that post, you really actually said nothing at all.

I mean, this was the most substantive thing you said!

analogy-"apples and oranges" can both be just as rotten and distasteful as each other..........

Now what the hell is that supposed to mean, and how does it have anything to with what we're talking about? :lol: :wink:

[RKCoon 0]

Uh, quite probably, the thought that you find the idea of a jesus witha bomb tshirt extremely distasteful, but prolly dont find the thought of muhammad is it? i dunno, the islamic reliugious figure with a bomb, less distastful, where as an islamic individual might find the reverse to be true. (personally, id want a shirt with a depiction of BOTH characters with bombs, or better still, BEING blown up by each other, just to be fair. )

 

So, in short, ya, it does have much to do with the topic at hand. Do try and pay attention please, you dont want to appear to be led thru such simple comments by hand, do you? j/k

:lol:

[BWare 0]

Ugh. Way to miss the entire point there RK and then attempt to be condescending :roll:

[RKCoon 0]

Well thats impressive. first, you say you dont quite get his point, then you say i utterly miss it altogether?

 

 

Is it just me or is this gettin to be another episode of "The Stupid Show" here?

 

And btw sweety, i dont need to attempt to do ANYthing. i just DO it.

[F15pilotX 4]

Uh, quite probably, the thought that you find the idea of a jesus witha bomb tshirt extremely distasteful, but prolly dont find the thought of muhammad is it? i dunno, the islamic reliugious figure with a bomb, less distastful, where as an islamic individual might find the reverse to be true. (personally, id want a shirt with a depiction of BOTH characters with bombs, or better still, BEING blown up by each other, just to be fair.

Ok, my turn to be condescending

 

What the heck?? You really have no idea of Christianity's teachings, do you? :roll:

 

NO WHERE in the Bible does it say to kill people (in any way) just because they aren't Christian....completely different story in Islam :wink:

 

and people, I just look over most of you long posters' posts :lol: just read the last 5 or so and you get the idea of what they're talking about :wink:

[RKCoon 0]

Ok, my turn to be condescending

 

Bring it.

 

What the heck?? You really have no idea of Christianity's teachings, do you?

 

In short, Christianity is based on the beleif that Jesus Christ, son of the virgin mary, was placed on this earth by god. he lived hislife, teaching his gospel, wandering the land, until the church of the day decided he wasnt a guy to have around. upon his execution date, the emperor of rome, his name eludes me ATM, went so far as to state, "I have no quarrels with this man" and then asked weather he , or another man should die. he asked the people within the colleseum i beleive it was, and it was the peopel that said, kill him,. they wished for the other man to live. he was then crucified, then sometime later, he was apparently reborn as per gods will, to continue his teachingsand kickstart the christian faith.

 

Ok, i know thats not absolutely precice, but i think its reasonably close enough to the accepted form of the faith.

 

NO WHERE in the Bible does it say to kill people (in any way) just because they aren't Christian....completely different story in Islam

 

Ask, fool, and ye shall receive --

 

Genisis 22 -

22:10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. "And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son."

22:11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.

22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

 

In short, the guy was willing to murder his own sonto prove he feared god -- and god ACCEPTED it. Wow, nice way to kick this off eh?

 

 

Genisis 38 -

 

38:7 And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. "And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him."

38:8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.

(38:8-10)"He spilled it on the ground."

38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.

38:10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

 

 

And we see but a pair of examples of god on his murdering spree....

 

Exodus 4 -

 

4:23 And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.

 

And here we see god wishing to muder the son of one of his own damned prophets -- for no one had mutilated his cock (circumsized). this is FUN!

 

Exodus 15 -

15:26 And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee.

 

In short, obey or god will personally kill you....

 

and now, ladies and gents, RIGHT to PRECICELY what mr f15 asked, "NO WHERE in the Bible does it say to kill people (in any way) just because they aren't Christian....completely different story in Islam ", i give to you.....

 

Exodus 22 -

 

22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

 

Now i admit, this isnt quite as clear, its more worded to say that god will do it himself, but, lets continue --

 

22:24 And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.

 

More examples of god promising murder himself....

 

 

31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

 

oo, i worked more than a few sundays --- why aint i dead yet?

 

Deuteronomy 7 -

7:2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

 

HELLO! The first direct commandmant, by god, forthe Isrealites to go ona killing spree. o.O no ****?

 

2:33 And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.

2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:

2:35 Only the cattle we took for a prey unto ourselves, and the spoil of the cities which we took.

2:36 From Aroer, which is by the brink of the river of Arnon, and from the city that is by the river, even unto Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us: the LORD our God delivered all unto us

 

And so they did. wowza.

 

 

 

12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.

 

And he just destroyed freedom of religious beleif with t hreat of instant murder...

 

 

 

17:2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant,

17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;

17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel:

17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

17:7 The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.

 

WHOA!! Now hes telling the followers to do the dirty work!! O_O!

 

I think thats the one that hits it directly on the head -- ANYone, by that, who is not Christian, is to die. rriiigghhht.

 

 

Im gonna put a stop there, as this post is already quite inflamatory im sure -- people REALLY seem to hate thier dirty laundry aired, paticularly in regard to religion.

 

Oh, and if you DARE come off with the line that , "Oh but Christians dont follow that" - BULLSH!T. Its taught together, studied together, and used together. its all part of the SAME DAMNED BOOK, ALL of it lumped together nicely. Christians, in patricular, are NOTORIOUS for this -- people will do precicely as ive done here, and quote scripture to prove the insanities that belie thier past, and they will say, Oh but we dont followthat section, we follow this section" but when the tables are spun, they are MORE than happy to spin around and quote scripture, from WHEREVER they find it, to aid THIER case.

 

Be it known here, im not flaming ALL Christians for this, my flame is going right to the book itself, and the @$$holes who love to use it to excuse thier actions -- just the same exact PRECICE way the muslim terrorists use allah and thier faith, the same exact PRECICE way ANY fundie uses thier faith to excuse thier horrendous actions -- then hide by it like cowardly lil chickensh!ts when made to answer for thier actions.

 

Stack it, stow it and shove it. you wanted proof, BELEIVE me, i can come up with a LOT more than just this -- and this is JUST for the christians side of things, i can cough up other proving points for other religions and THIER fecking lunacy. The bible DOES preach violence, DOES preach hatred, DOES state what god will supposedly do -- It is only by the grace of much of the followers these days that we dont see more of it from this paticular side of things.

[AnestheticXI 0]

You CANNOT lock this topic until I reply again. I am a Christian, and I MUST set RKCoon straight. Please, for the love of GOD, do NOT lock this YET.

[RKCoon 0]

Oh this should be amusing -- i eagerly await your reply.

[BWare 0]

RKCoon, you are an ignorant fool. Make no mistake about it- you are speaking from an extreme lack of understanding here. Now to set you straight....

 

In short, Christianity is based on the beleif that Jesus Christ, son of the virgin mary, was placed on this earth by god. he lived hislife, teaching his gospel, wandering the land, until the church of the day decided he wasnt a guy to have around. upon his execution date, the emperor of rome, his name eludes me ATM, went so far as to state, "I have no quarrels with this man" and then asked weather he , or another man should die. he asked the people within the colleseum i beleive it was, and it was the peopel that said, kill him,. they wished for the other man to live. he was then crucified, then sometime later, he was apparently reborn as per gods will, to continue his teachingsand kickstart the christian faith.

This is so incredibly full of flaws that it's almost laughable. Seriously dude... if you don't know what you're talking about, don't ruin the last shreds of your credibility with disjointed, inaccurate, and poorly spelled garbage like this.

 

Now about your exhaustive research :lol:

 

First off, I feel that I need to explain something very fundamental that you obviously don't understand. I'm going to basically explain the state of the world and the reasons behind most of what the Bible says in simple terms....

 

The world is broken. Because of original sin (Adam and Eve, you know the story), we are all now born with a sin nature- a desire to do wrong and live against God's will. The world is a shattered mess because of it, and that is the reason why we see all of the suffering and evil that goes on in the world. It isn't God's doing- it's the result of our disobedience to him. In order to fix this, for man to find redemption and forgiveness, in accordance with the natural law, something must die to pay for their sins. So, because of his love for mankind despite our disobedience, God made a covenant with the people of Israel who he found favor with. Through ancient leaders like Abraham and Moses, God gave an elaborate set of laws that would purify them and allow for forgiveness of their sins. This is the basis modern Jewish faith, and that's what you were reading off to us RK. God gave the Hebrew people an entire governmental system, which yes, included a death penalty, just like we have now. Also, bloodshed and death are unavoidable parts of life in this broken world. If God deemed certain tribes and civilizations evil and commanded their destruction, then I think it's pretty safe to give GOD the benefit of the doubt. I think he knows what he's doing. The fact that these ugly things happened are not in any way discrediting to the truth of the Bible. Don't you see the logical fallacy there?? Anyways, this ancient system of laws could only go so far, and the final solution and ultimate proof of God's unbelievable love and mercy was the act of sending his own son to die for our sins. John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." THIS is the core of Christianity. In order to ultimately cover the sins of all of us, God offered up the ultimate sacrificial lamb- a perfect man, God incarnate, Jesus Christ, to suffer and die, and in doing so make the blood payment for all of our sins. This is what rendered the Old Covenant with the Jews obsolete. Therefore the real meat of Christianity is in the New Testament, everything post-Jesus. The Old Testament is more of a history, a precursor to the story of Jesus, which is the point of the entire Bible. So if you want to slam Christianity, how about finding something relevant to say?

 

Also, don't try to intimidate the Christians here with your threats of "more proof." You haven't really offered anything profound yet, and frankly I just don't think you understand the facts well enough to even make a good argument. If you're intellectually honest with yourself, you'll see this as a painfully losing battle for you if you go in guns blazing and brain cells shut off like you just did. Please don't waste our time with thoughtless, insulting rants. Also... I didn't know anesthetic was a Christian. It will be interesting to see what he has to say.....

[General Leang 0]

Just to cover what is said in the Bible, basically anything that is in the Old Testement is superceeded by the New Testement. I will use Moses as an example: he was very justice minded and he served a vengeful God. In the New Testement, in light of the mercy God shows for the world and sending his son to die for our sins, Moses is mocked and such ideals as 'an eye for an eye' and sin is to be punished is largely done away with. Not entirely, you only need to read Acts 5:1 to see this, but it is a lot more liberal than before.

 

Edit: D'oh, BWare basically said that.

[BWare 0]

Nah, that was a good, more concise version of what I said

 

Only problem is that Moses wasn't mocked- he was still an great man. What changed was our relationship with God. Now we can deal directly with him because of the sacrifice of Jesus, and we don't need to fear quite as much of God's wrath because of the atoning death. Our relationship went from legalistic to personal.

[F15pilotX 4]

Bring it.

You asked for it :lol:

In short' date=' Christianity is based on the beleif that Jesus Christ, son of the virgin mary, was placed on this earth by god. he lived hislife, teaching his gospel, wandering the land, until the church of the day decided he wasnt a guy to have around. upon his execution date, the emperor of rome, his name eludes me ATM, went so far as to state, "I have no quarrels with this man" and then asked weather he , or another man should die. he asked the people within the colleseum i beleive it was, and it was the peopel that said, kill him,. they wished for the other man to live. he was then crucified, then sometime later, he was apparently reborn as per gods will, to continue his teachingsand kickstart the christian faith.[/quote']ok, the Emperor of Rome didn't execute him, Pontius Pilate did (however unwillingly)....they were in Jerusalem, so the colleseum part is bull****.....he asked the people if they would rather kill Jesus or Barabbas, a common criminal, and stirred up by the high priests, the people chose Jesus....as to his rising again:

1 Corinthians 15:4-6

"and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep." :wink:

 

Ok' date=' i know thats not absolutely precice, but i think its reasonably close enough to the accepted form of the faith. [/quote']that obviously was not :roll:

 

NO WHERE in the Bible does it say to kill people (in any way) just because they aren't Christian....completely different story in Islam

Ask' date=' fool, and ye shall receive --

[/quote']very true, indeed....

In short' date=' the guy was willing to murder his own sonto prove he feared god -- and god ACCEPTED it. Wow, nice way to kick this off eh?[/quote']

Your one (almost) valid point :lol:

 

And we see but a pair of examples of god on his murdering spree....

in Old Testament times' date=' God had commanded that if your brother died, leaving a widow, and you were unmarried, you had to take her as your wife and carry on your brother's house/name...God killed him because he didn't follow God's law :wink:

 

And here we see god wishing to muder the son of one of his own damned prophets -- for no one had mutilated his c*** (circumsized). this is FUN!

You stupid fool, circumcision is performed to

a) Separate the Jews from the gentile

Make it so that no foreign objects collect in improper places (euphemism, yes it is, so we keep this as non-graphic as possible)

 

In short' date=' obey or God will personally kill you....

 

and now, ladies and gents, RIGHT to PRECICELY what mr f15 asked, "NO WHERE in the Bible does it say to kill people (in any way) just because they aren't Christian....completely different story in Islam ", i give to you.....[/quote']

 

Now i admit' date=' this isnt quite as clear, its more worded to say that god will do it himself, but, lets continue -- [/quote']exactly...

 

More examples of god promising murder himself....

how about posting the entire passage' date=' not just little snippets that seems to say something, but mean something else :roll:

 

oo, i worked more than a few sundays --- why aint i dead yet?

because you're not a Jew, oh ignorant one :roll: not to mention it's not 3000 BC anymore :lol:

 

HELLO! The first direct commandmant' date=' by god, forthe Isrealites to go ona killing spree. o.O no s***?[/quote']because they disobeyed God countless times, not because they weren't JEWS (I said Christians, remember :wink: )

 

And so they did. wowza.

again' date=' post the whole passage:

 

"30 But Sihon king of Heshbon refused to let us pass through. For the Lord your God had made his spirit stubborn and his heart obstinate in order to give him into your hands, as he has now done. 31 The Lord said to me, "See, I have begun to deliver Sihon and his country over to you. Now begin to conquer and possess his land." 32 When Sihon and all his army came out to meet us in battle at Jahaz, 33 the Lord our God delivered him over to us and we struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army. 34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them--men, women and children. We left no survivors. 35 But the livestock and the plunder from the towns we had captured we carried off for ourselves. 36 From Aroer on the rim of the Arnon Gorge, and from the town in the gorge, even as far as Gilead, not one town was too strong for us. The Lord our God gave us all of them. 37 But in accordance with the command of the Lord our God, you did not encroach on any of the land of the Ammonites, neither the land along the course of the Jabbok nor that around the towns in the hills."

 

 

 

And he just destroyed freedom of religious beleif with t hreat of instant murder...

the other gods weren't real :lol:

 

 

 

WHOA!! Now hes telling the followers to do the dirty work!! O_O!

 

I think thats the one that hits it directly on the head -- ANYone' date=' by that, who is not Christian, is to die. rriiigghhht. [/quote']Read my above comment :wink:

 

 

Im gonna put a stop there' date=' as this post is already quite inflamatory im sure -- people REALLY seem to hate thier dirty laundry aired, paticularly in regard to religion.

 

Oh, and if you DARE come off with the line that , "Oh but Christians dont follow that" - BULLSH!T. Its taught together, studied together, and used together. its all part of the SAME DAMNED BOOK, ALL of it lumped together nicely. Christians, in patricular, are NOTORIOUS for this -- people will do precicely as ive done here, and quote scripture to prove the insanities that belie thier past, and they will say, Oh but we dont followthat section, we follow this section" but when the tables are spun, they are MORE than happy to spin around and quote scripture, from WHEREVER they find it, to aid THIER case. [/quote']You're the one that started quoting scripture, and incorrectly, I might add....notice I didn't take certain selections as you did, but showed the rest of the passage as well

 

Be it known here' date=' im not flaming ALL Christians for this, my flame is going right to the book itself, and the @$$holes who love to use it to excuse thier actions -- just the same exact PRECICE way the muslim terrorists use allah and thier faith, the same exact PRECICE way ANY fundie uses thier faith to excuse thier horrendous actions -- then hide by it like cowardly lil chickensh!ts when made to answer for thier actions.[/quote']Name one modern incidence of Protestants suicide bombing, killing/injuring 5000+ people, etc, etc....

 

Stack it' date=' stow it and shove it. you wanted proof, BELEIVE me, i can come up with a LOT more than just this -- and this is JUST for the christians side of things, i can cough up other proving points for other religions and THIER fecking lunacy. The bible DOES preach violence, DOES preach hatred, DOES state what god will supposedly do -- It is only by the grace of much of the followers these days that we dont see more of it from this paticular side of things.[/quote'] Every one of your points was invalid, as I showed with few exceptions....so make valid points or SHUT THE **** UP, ok? :roll:

 

Just to cover what is said in the Bible' date=' basically anything that is in the Old Testement is superceeded by the New Testement. I will use Moses as an example: he was very justice minded and he served a vengeful God. In the New Testement, in light of the mercy God shows for the world and sending his son to die for our sins, Moses is mocked and such ideals as 'an eye for an eye' and sin is to be punished is largely done away with. Not entirely, you only need to read Acts 5:1 to see this, but it is a lot more liberal than before. [/quote']If only more could understand as well as you do Leang

 

If you're intellectually honest with yourself' date=' you'll see this as a painfully losing battle for you if you go in guns blazing and brain cells shut off like you just did. Please don't waste our time with thoughtless, insulting rants[/quote']I’m afraid it’s too late for him now

 

You CANNOT lock this topic until I reply again. I am a Christian' date=' and I MUST set RKCoon straight. Please, for the love of GOD, do NOT lock this YET.[/quote']sry, I sorta took ur job away

 

 

 

wow....I didn't think I'd ever write such a long post.... :shock:

[General Leang 0]

Only problem is that Moses wasn't mocked- he was still an great man.

 

Perhaps mocked is not the right word. He is argueably shown in a very diffirent light in passages such as Acts and Corinthians, I say argueably because even in the Old Testement he argues with God and angers him over his refusal to do as He commands. I could find the exact passages if you desire.

 

The most important story in the Bible by far is the story of Jesus, the story of his death and resurrection for our sins and God showing mercy. It is so important that it it what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John cover in the New Testement, and Acts, Romans, Corithians, Galations, ect either continue the story after Jesus or revolves around the Romans, the Corithians and the Galations being told about Christ and Christianity. People do not keep banging on about the Israelites going out to maim, pillage, slaughter and burn the Philistines, or Ananias and Sapphira being put to death by God because they did not give everything they had to the church. It is always 'Jesus this' and Jesus that'. This is the important thing to look at. At the same time, I think such passages serve to teach that God is just and at times vengeful, and virtually all the passages you can throw up where God does instruct to kill or seeks retribution for sin is before mercy and forgiveness came into things.

[BWare 0]

Brilliantly put Leang. Yes, God is angered with Moses at times, but isn't this the case with just about every person in the Bible? I can't think of one who pleased God completely. Even David, a "man after God's own heart," was oftena horrible mess. That's why the Bible is not about the great people of God- it's about the great God of people :wink:

 

-Also, just for those with very little knowledge of the Bible (and who like to react emotionally before processing it :roll:), Ananias and Sapphira weren't struck dead by God because they didn't give everything they have- they were killed because they sold their land and gave most of the money to the church though they lied and said they'd given it all. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with keeping a portion like they did, but they lied about it. They were confronted by this and defiantly they stuck to the lie in front of the whole confrontation, so they were struck dead.