Who Supports the War(s)

[elSicomoro]

Well golly gee, do we have ourselves a Holy Roller here?

Originally posted by Cairo
The Bible is a Historical journey of events that happened from Third Century B.C.E. thru 68 C.E.
Sounds like History to me...unless you haven't the faith that it happened. The Bible is also a book of instructions by God.

That is your interpretation. There are at least 2 interpretations with which I am familiar (and there may be even more): The first is literal interpretation, which is used by more conservative Protestants. They tend to take the Bible word-for-word, and as a history book (i.e. The Earth was created in 6 days, everything that Revelation describes is indeed going to happen). The second is contextual interpretation, which is used by Catholics and more liberal Protestants. They tend to believe that the Bible is a book of faith, not a history book, and that many parts of the Bible are more symbolic than anything.

Which one is right? No one really knows...it all depends in how you look at it.

Your link is not working now, and was not earlier as well.

No, 6 months ago some councilman here

Where is here?

He lost and the courts upheld the true History!

I'd certainly be curious to learn more about this. Do you have any links or references?

How does a perspective born out of lies enhance ones knowledge? I contend it "dumbs-down" our children because the truth is erased.

It depends on if it is actually "lies" or not. You haven't provided any real detail on the situation yet, other than some of your cute color commentary...

Originally posted by Cairo on 12/9/2002
No, 6 months ago some councilman here petitioned the court to revise the History of the Alamo to omit parts of the last stand because some Hispanics might be ancestors and be offended at the slaughter, or some such B.S....He lost and the courts upheld the true History!

Given your penchant for slant, I'd love to see some sources for this.


Then you threw this out...

As for Jefferson...there ya go propagating the truth again! Seems the revisionist fabrication into History fooled even you!
The link clearly states that Eaton Hemings has the same Y-chromosome as 25 different Jefferson males in that area at that time, who ranged in age from 16-68 years old,

Call me crazy, but...

Originally posted by Sycamore on 12/5/2002
the only definite link is that a male descendant of Sally Hemings has the same Y-chromosome DNA as the Jefferson males.

Male descendant--a male-line descendant of Eston Hemings
Jefferson males--the "s" at the end of "males" means "more than one." I am well-aware that there were many.

So, where is the revision in my above quote? Go ahead, try and find it.

Thomas Jefferson being the oldest at 68 years when this boy was conceived! 68 years old back then, is equivalent to 88 years by todays standard of life, and there was NO VIAGRA back then, Dumbazz!

Viagra was not necessarily needed. Men can father children well into their later years, as opposed to women. (e.g. Tony Randall)

I merely provided the statement from the Monticello folks for further information. Again, I think it's worthy of talk in the annuls of history.

I believe I was asked Why do "you think" or How do "you know" binLaden is dead...ask for my opinion, and you get it! That's what this forum is for, 'nes pas?

I did not ask for your opinion.

Originally posted by Cairo on 12/4/2002
Our forces killed bin Laden during the attack on Tora Bora. Bin Laden is dead

As I mentioned previously, this is considered by most folks to be a statement of fact. I merely asked you to back up this "fact" you were claiming. Sources...you know...BBC, Fox News, MSNBC, The Washington Times, etc.

Then you come back with...

Originally posted by Cairo on 12/4/2002
I can tell you how I reached my opinion that bin Laden is dead...

And you added to this what appears to be your opinions on why bin Laden is dead. No sources, nothing. Just a bunch of shit I could hear on any cable news channel.

Debating the issue is NOT crying about it, crying about it is what you do when I check your sorry socialist rear! Typical!

Checking me? Please! I don't get checked too much on shit like this b/c it's unwarranted. When I come to the table, I tend to either qualify myself (by using "I think," "I believe," etc.) or back it up with sources. (Go ahead, look through my 2900 posts.) Therefore, there is little need to check me. And when I do stumble, I admit my fault and roll on.

In the end, you're just a sad oxygen-stealing puke who was fortunate enough to get an internet connection so that you can spew your shit online. You could stand to take a cue from others in the community in the areas of diplomacy and responsibility of your posts. You apparently have no diplomacy, and that's why I have no desire to try and converse with you in an overly diplomatic and respectful manner.

So, why don't you wrap yourself up in that big blanket of ignorance for now, get your shit together, and come back when you're ready to play some real ball, mmmkay? Until then, I can no longer spend time dealing with your insanity.

[hermit22]

Most of your post is pretty garbled and worthless, and I don't feel like fellating your ego anymore by giving you a real response. So I'll respond to your vague insults and little else.

Originally posted by Cairo

3. Kashmir, Columbia, Israel, and America are all in the "During War" phase...if their enemy has not been defeated and still wants to defeat them, what do you call it?
No, sometimes the State is under the impression that the enemy has surrendered, when in fact, he was buying time to get his ass out of the sling!

Most of these countries are in war in the same way that the whole world is constantly in conflict. I would get philopsophical on you, but it's not really worth it. Look up some Clausewitz if you're really interested. What I was referring to was the higher level; not the low level state. I'll go into further discussion of this if you figure out how to ask me nicely.

4. Hey little boy, I already am an active member of society, and have been since 1981...when your contributions amounted to about 7 diapers a day, right? How many employees do you have? How much in taxes do you contribute per year? How many houses, property, cars, stocks,and insurance policies have you paid for and OWNED?....None yet? THAT'S what I thought, little boy!

So you've proved that your argument is based on insults. How humourous. About as funny as you not mentioning how much you contribute.
And yes, I have had and currently do have many of those things.

Yes, my husband used to think and act exactly like you. So much so, that he was about to join the French Foreign Legion and before that, held such little regard for human life, he carried a bullet for the purpose of suicide! Then we had children, and he says, the Lord found him and awakened his purpose. Now he spends everyday righting his past wrongs. You seem to be at your Anti-America stage of your life, my husband was there too...with age comes wisdom.

I'm about as far from being anti-American as it gets. I'm training to spend my life directly serving my country. So go blow your smoke up some other chimney.
And it sounds like your husband was a pretty close minded liberal - maybe he did fit into the far left/communist group. My version, and the one that I suspect most progressives believe in, respects humanity above all else.

5. Wrong! The Parliment Lenin was going to install never came to be because he was shot in the neck!

No, actually, you're wrong. His Testament was a series of letters suggesting what he thought should be done, and nowhere in there did he suggest a brand new, full Parliament. The official story is that he died of a stroke - which is completely plausible considering the number that he had been having in the years before his death.

7. How convenient! They couldn't find a single trace of some 9/11 victims either, do we assume that they too are indeed alive as well?

I think we all saw the footage of that on tv.

8. The Bush Administration has always claimed that Saddam has proven ties with terrorists, in fact, he IS A TERRORIST! Many other Countries say the same!
The Bush Administration has also said from the beginning that some Countries will help US in secret for their own safety, the Czech Republic is one such Country, and President Bush will not, nor should he, betray their trust! When the Czech Republic says we can make the satellite tapes public, we will, otherwise the proof is a need to know basis...Countries who have come on board with US after being against, have seen the proof. Our own Congress, made an about face after perusing the proof! I'll side with the inner-circle who has all the intel available to them since I don't.

So you don't trust them when they say bin Laden isn't dead, but you do when they say Saddam's a terrorist (and then later drop the line)?

In 1998 he said that regime change in Iraq was the only solution for Saddam...what's changed since '98,

Hmm. A Second Intifada, a few major terrorist attacks, increased hostilities in the region coupled with increased information access (ie. al-Jazeera, Internet)...nope, nothing new.

"higher education"! And you are another for considering lying under oath in a court of law, and getting others to perjure in order to obstruct justice is "relatively trivial"! Breaking the law is only "relatively trivial" to CRIMINALS!

Look at Eisenhower, or Johnson, or Reagan's aides, who all lied to the public or had their aides perjure themselves. History is full of leaders whose lies sent people to their death. So why is a blowjob so important?

btw, I have no patience for anti-educationalism. I think that's a pretty good indication of intelligence level. Anti-establishmentism, however, is completely different, and is often practiced by those in higher education - sometimes to extremes. You seem to not be able to figure out your own opinion on these things. For example -- do you want your children to go to college?

10. Excuse me Stalin, BUT Self-defense is not terrorism! "propaganda by deed" Indeed! Tell it to the Japanese Shinto's...Bin Laden's and Saddam's terrorist network weren't the first quasi-religious fanatics to challenge US with homicide bombers, hell they weren't even the first to slam planes into US! We defeated the Shinto fanatics without destroying the Religion itself...and we will defeat these Islamic fanatics without destroying Islam itself. Japan polices itself, now fist-fights break out in the Japanese Parliment anytime the idea of deploying troops beyond their shores is brought up!

It's amazing the attitude adjustment that a stout ass-kicking will produce! [emphasis added]

I believe that was Stalin's tactic, yes.

And please tell me of the other examples of people "slam[ming] planes into US!"

Quit making yourself look like an idiot. Even the best people, or the best countries, have a soiled history. It's foolish to think otherwise, and close your mind off to anything but yourself and your beliefs.

[Radar]

The scrolls that were later compiled and translated (twice - once from ancient Aramaic to Greek, and then from Greek to old English) for the King James Version of the bible were written 400 - 500 years after the supposed death of Jesus of Nazareth. During those hundreds of years, the stories were told from father to son for generations upon generations. I've read the bible several times among other religious texts. I prefer the NIV version for accuracy because it was translated directly from Aramaic to English and the King James for it's poetry.

I don't know if any of you remember the telephone game children play, but it goes something like this. You line up 10 or so children and the first one whispers something in the ear of the child next to them and they pass it on until it gets to the end. By the time it gets to the end it's completely different than the original message. This is undoubtedly the case with the bible stories. They've surely been embellished and changed to the point where they're hardly recognizable from anything that may or may not have happened in reality.

I don't recognize the bible as "divine" or as "factual". I don't recognize it as a moral authority or as an accurate historical record. I see it as one of many religious texts out there with some well known stories and parables intended to teach a set of values. The same is true with Zen Buddhism, Islam, and every other religion. They all have similar stories.

I personally believe that if you boil all religions down to their essence they teach the same thing. Once you remove ignorant things like restrictions on diet, wardrobe, grooming, etc. you find that they all have the same universal message. Whether you call that message the golden rule, karma, or something else the message is far older than any organized religion. Far older than Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, or any other religion that has ever existed. The 10 commandments are based on this rule. Thou shalt not steal. Why? Because you wouldn't want other people to steal from you. Thou shalt not commit adultery? Why? Because you wouldn't want your spouse to do it and you wouldn't want someone else to do it with your spouse. Thou shalt not kill? Why? Because you don't want to be killed and you don't want your friends or family killed. It goes on and on and it's all about being a decent human being. The worse part is that more people have been killed in the name of god than for anything else in the history of the world. This is ridiculous when you consider the basic message is the same and people can't focus on similarities, but rather differences.

I’m personally sickened by all organized religion. I’ve seen far far far too much hypocrisy in the Christian religions. And I’d rather just be a decent person who makes a genuine effort to treat others the way I’d be treated. At least those I care about and aren't so offensive personally that they deserve nothing more than my contempt.

Cairo -

In the upper right hand corner of your browser window, you should see six buttons. On one, the text "user cp" appears. This stands for "user control panel" - ambiguous at best. Click it and wait for the page to load. On the new "user cp" page, look at the strip of options across the top - "My vB Home", "Edit Profile"... that's the one you want. Click "Edit Profile". Half way down the page, there's a large text area. That's where the signature goes. I'm sure you can figure it out from there.

Originally posted by Radar
Once you remove ignorant things like restrictions on diet, wardrobe, grooming, etc.

Just curious how you would justify labeling these things as "ignorant".

[slang]

Originally posted by dave

Just curious how you would justify labeling these things as "ignorant".

<h2>A friendly note to Radar</h2>
This is not confrontational or insulting, please respond in a friendly way.

(Dave can be insulting, and this aint it )

[elSicomoro]

I don't see any problem here...after all, Radar is here to educate us fools.

[hermit22]

Actually, I think Radar is mostly correct on this one. The only part he got wrong is in summarily dismissing the dietary, etc. restrictions. Most scholars believe those were put into religion to act as a stabilizing force for the society they were serving. For example - the whole idea of kosher, or clean products, was probably put in to protect the society from getting sick, etc.

Of course, I'd like to add - to each their own. The reason there are so many different religions is because the same idea needs to be taught in different ways. There's an idea in some of the more contemporary interpretations of Islam that the religion can be interpreted in different ways because God wants to ensure everyone has the opportunity to accept Him. I believe that this is the best way to look at religion, no matter which particular one you believe in.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by hermit22
Actually, I think Radar is mostly correct on this one.

I agree...although what do you and I know? We're idiots.

[Radar]

Dave: 2000-4000 years ago (the time period in question) people didn't have refrigerators and the middle-east tends to be hot. Eating pork was a genuinely dangerous thing. So when people started dying off they most likely assumed they were being punished by god. At that time the most scholarly people were the religious leaders. When people had trouble this is where they came for help. These leaders most likely figured out the common element in these deaths was pork and in order to stop those people from dying said something like, "God says eating pork is evil" which worked then but now pork isn't such a dangerous thing.

Now if I'm to assume that there's an all powerful creator of all things and that all my deeds on earth will be judged, I refuse to believe that my diet, fashion choices, or grooming habits will come into consideration. Maybe it's just me, but I happen to believe if we're to be judged by a supreme being, they won't be that petty and small. I would like to believe if there's a god, the way we treated those around us and the legacy we left behind will be judged rather than our meals, haircuts, and wardrobe. It's become painfully obvious that nobody on this board is allowed to have a personal opinion without being attacked, but I have them and will express them as I see fit. I personally think the ultimate power in the universe would be far too concerned with things like genocide, racism, war, priests raping alter boys, etc. to be concerned with what we ate for dinner, the outfit we wore to the restaurant, and whether or not our hair got into the soup.

I hope this explains why I consider things like dietary, fashion, and grooming restrictions to be ignorant. They mean nothing in the grand scheme of things; at least in my own personal opinion.

I don't disagree, but I guess I wasn't clear enough. That's not really the question I'm interested in.

My question is about <b>semantics</b>. I want to know why you would ever use the word "ignorant" to describe those things. The word "ignorant" is the most important aspect here, and your justification of why you used that word instead of others available to you is the only argument that really interests me.

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by Radar
It's become painfully obvious that nobody on this board is allowed to have a personal opinion without being attacked

Kinda like calling people who disagree with you "idiots"?

[perth]

Originally posted by Tobiasly

Kinda like calling people who disagree with you "idiots"?

in all fairness, i think i called him an idiot first. i could be wrong.

~james

[Radar]

ignorant

\Ig"no*rant\, n. A person untaught or uninformed; one unlettered or unskilled; an ignoramous.

I suppose I used the word "ignorant" because I think people who consider dietary restrictions vitally important to be ignorant about the nature of an all powerful creator, or at least ignorant of how something so petty and small as the menu we order from would be to such an all powerful entity that, according to every religion, is concerned with our deeds in terms of good and evil. I think it's ignorant to consider food, clothing, or a hiarcut evil. I find the notion that an all powerful creator of the universe would be as concerned with what people eat for lunch when there are things like murder, rape, theft, adultery, and other things going on. This is my personal opinion to which I'm entitled. You may or may not agree with me which is of no concern to me. But you asked why so there you go.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by perth

in all fairness, i think i called him an idiot first. i could be wrong.

Truth be told, I think it started with Shepps saying, "Let the kool aid wear off." But then again, he has issues, according to Radar.