I'm glad to hear it. My information is rather old. But still a million is too much for the West to have to absorb. I knew Jordan and Turkey had taken some in but that Turkey is more of a jumping-off place into Europe. No?
I don't think a million refugees is too many for the West to absorb. How they're distributed can be problematic however; and of course here 'refugee' does not just mean 'Syrian'. Most of the refugees in Italy that we were talking about are from Africa, for example.
Regarding how many of the refugees in Turkey want to continue to Europe - I haven't a clue, to be honest.
Bringing in Catholics to overwhelm America is one of their strategies. I did a blog post on it recently
Well, if it is on your blog, that surely settles the issue.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
Since it's not really the topic, and given the season, perhaps those who cannot be charitable toward their fellow man or fellow religions or fellow anyone or anything could find somewhere else to post such things for a few weeks. Maybe in a thread titled "Hate". Maybe their blog. They could even become genuinely inactive, instead of being false about it.
Let me quess: You are actually arguing that because of the crusades we should let Muslims into the country to rape, riot, burn cars and murder us? And eventually take over the country for Allah?
I am arguing no such thing. I am arguing that Christianity has a long history of attacking other religions, setting up ideologic theocracies, and committing genocide in the name of religion. I find it interesting that you ignore that.
It's lying propaganda. What do you mean by "attacking?" What do you mean by "setting up ideologic theocracies?" And what do you mean by "Christianity?" Roman Catholicism is not Christian, and it has murdered millions as "heretics" against its false doctrine, and it ruled all Europe as the "Holy Roman Empire" for centuries. Is that what you are talking about? The "genocide" allegations are false and pernicious, unless you are talking about the Roman Church, which, again, is antiChristian, not Christianm and murdered CHRISTIANS in greater numbers than any other group. If you are talking about American policies against native Americans that is pernicious propaganda to attribute it to Christians. Christians got along well with the natives in the early centuries of settlement.
Also, the Crusades were a papal operation, nothing to do with the genuine Christianity which founded this country.
Christianity didn't found this nation. We are a constitutional republic, not a theocracy.
The federal founding was founded by Deists, but it was founded by Christians in the sense that the original settlers were dedicated Christians, and it remained Christian in that the majority of the population through the founding generation and beyond by a century or so was strongly Christian, you could say the nation was a Christian nation. The main Founders unfortunately were not and they sold out the Christians, who did protest but I'm sure you know nothing about their protests. The nation could be a constitutional republic that acknowledges God without being a theocracy, and that is what it should have been. The English Constitution puts God above all. That's what our Constitution should have done.
But I get the message. You'd rather be under Islam. Well, you may get your wish. I think there may be some competition between Islam and the RCC but maybe they'll find a way to split the pie or something.
In any case it's you who need the lesson. I recommend the book I mentioned, "Philistine" by Ramon Bennett. He quotes Muslim leaders revealing the real agenda of Islam. The fact that some Muslims have adapted and not become radicalized is a good thing, but that doesn't change the fact that Islam itself is a totalitarian ideology that refuses to adapt or respect other religions who are all "infidels." There is no way of knowing, either, whether apparently adapted Muslims have really adapted or are "sleepers," who would become jihadists once there are enough of them to make it effective. I'd only be reassured if they renounced Islam altogether.
Same could be said of Christians in this very country.
Christianity does not seek to rule the world. It is not totalitarian, it seeks personal freedoms. Christians are born again by God, we can't force it on anyone. There is no violence whatever in Christianity, any violence by Christians is against doctrine; in Islam it's a fulfillment of doctrine; same with the RCC which is a man-made religion.
But you don't care, you hate Christianity and love the false propaganda you get from the Left. So again I see the handwriting on the wall: we're going down. Truth is losing, evil is winning. The Left may find a violent way to wrench the legitimate Trump victory away from us. There has been nothing like this in American history that I know of. The lies in the media, even lies actually promoting violence, it's unbelievable. Well, I think I've said my piece. Back to my blog before the evil empire censors it.
Yes, it is. Until you can accept this obvious fact, you are simply lying through your teeth.
The federal founding was founded by Deists, but it was founded by Christians in the sense that the original settlers were dedicated Christians, and it remained Christian in that the majority of the population through the founding generation and beyond by a century or so was strongly Christian, you could say the nation was a Christian nation.
That's like saying baseball was founded by Christianity since the guys who invented the game were Christians. One has nothing to do with the other.
In fact, a large part of the founding of the US was in direct response to the evils perpetrated by Christian theocracies. They went out of their way to PREVENT Christians from abusing power in the name of Christianity.
But I get the message. You'd rather be under Islam.
Yet another lie. I would rather be in a country that does not discriminate against people based on their religious beliefs.
Catholicism is not Christian since they put human wisdom above the Bible, add all kinds of pagan irrelevancies such as worship of "saints" and "Mary" which are contrary to the Bible, use the rosary which is a pagan instrument (I was startled to discover that my Zen priestess friend kept a rosary wrapped around her wrist0; light candles the way pagans do; use the "sign of the cross" which is a superstition; relics, that are usually fake, but even if real are a pagan superstition; are extravagantly wealthy which contradicts the character of Christ and His disciples; wear fancy robes and expensive gems; wear pagan headgear (the "mitre" is the same headgear worn by the worsippers of the "god" Dagon, the fish god mentioned in the Bible) and so on and so forth. All this is pagan and contrary to Christianity. They do teach some of the gospel so it is possible for a Catholic to be a Christian in spite of all this, but the papacy was identified by ALL the Protestant Reformers and reformers back hundreds of years before them, as the "Antichrist." I understand that a lay person wouldn't know all this and just accept the Romanist claim to be Christian, but you really shouldn't for all these reasons and a lot more besides.
The federal founding was founded by Deists, but it was founded by Christians in the sense that the original settlers were dedicated Christians, and it remained Christian in that the majority of the population through the founding generation and beyond by a century or so was strongly Christian, you could say the nation was a Christian nation.
That's like saying baseball was founded by Christianity since the guys who invented the game were Christians. One has nothing to do with the other.
Not at all. Christianity is a worldview that colors everything in a culture through the beliefs and practices of those who hold it, and that was the vast majority of Americans for most of our history. The character of the nation, the character of its people, the way life was lived, the way law was understood, the morality that governed everything, was Christian, and it was reflected in all our institutions despite the deism of the founders. Even they couldn't avoid the Christian concepts they'd grown up with, they permeated everything they did and said in spite of themselves, and they even acknowledged the importance of Christian morality in the nation's stability and success. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are both strongly Christian in concept. The whole idea of individual freedoms is ultimately Christian. But since they refused to define the nation as Christian they did a huge disservice to the Christians who founded it and continued to display its fundamentally Christian character. From the beginning it was inherently Christian. It has changed largely because of conspiracies designed to change it. That's an intersting story, but I think I'll just let you scoff yourself to death instead of explaining it at this point.
In fact, a large part of the founding of the US was in direct response to the evils perpetrated by Christian theocracies. They went out of their way to PREVENT Christians from abusing power in the name of Christianity.
How ignorant of you not to know that they took that view from the Christian colonies whose founding was largely a protest against the tyranny of Catholicism in Europe, and later the Church of England. It is true that they each had their own state church and that is what the federalists opposed for the nation at large, because it would have created the power conflict between denominations you describe, but also because it would give the state power over the churches. Not having a federal denomination was necessary, but not to define the nation as at least generically Christian was a big mistake. Odd that you wouldn't know also that most of the delegates to the Constitutional convention were Christian leaders from the different colonies. I say this because you talk as if you think "they" who put together the Constitution were a completely different class of people from the colonists.
They had Christian prayer in the name of Jesus in the Congress, which showed the recognition that the nation was Christian in character. Now it's gone pagan and they pray in the name of every religion and every demonic thing. Unfortunately that will probably not change and will be a major reason for the nation's ultimate destruction.
Yet another lie.
You sling that epithet around rather loosely. I'm not lying, I'm saying that your attitude invites Islam to rule over you. I'm sure you don't consciously choose it, of course, but for all practical purposes that's what you are doing.
I would rather be in a country that does not discriminate against people based on their religious beliefs.
I do wish I had a better grasp of history -- although it's a lot better than yours on this subject in any case -- because I could then remember how it was understood that freedom can't be granted to any "religion" that advocates the overthrow of the government. That was grounds for keeping Catholics from political power -- a wise move that they foolishly abandoned. Even John Adams felt it necessary to let in the Jesuits after calling them the most evil bunch of men that ever existed, deserving of hell if anyone ever was. I don't know how one recognizes that and still allows them any kind of power to influence the nation, but that's what happened. SHould make you very happy. We now tolerate all kinds of religions, every sort of seditious power-hungry wolf in sheep's clothing and even satanism. So Muslims have all the freedom they need to take over the nation when the time comes. With your blessing. Enjoy.
Nope. Christianity does NOT seek to rule the world, is NOT totalitarian. Conscience can't be forced, persuasion is the Christian method, and of course we hope many will be persuaded so that they can have eternal life. Islam and Romanism have no such scruples and do want to rule the world.
That bothered me too, that Trump rejects the standard explanation of the downing of the twin towers, as I've considered the "truthers" to be total nuts questioning that.
But I hadn't heard his particular take on it before: how could a plane just slice through those vertical steel frames that girded the outside of the entire building, segments of which we can see standing eerily in the wreckage afterward?
That's pretty standard 9/11 truther nonsense to be honest, surprised you hadn't heard it.
Take two empty drinks cans. It is likely you can stand on the top of them and they'll support your weight. Now hold one of them firmly in one hand and with on finger push into the side of the can. Observe how easy it is to crush it in that direction compared with the other.
Also note, there was a denser packing of support columns at the bottom of the building.
Wouldn't the wings of the plane just be sheared off by the collision?
Sure, but then the wings of a 767 are not light objects and they were going at 500mph. This stupendous amount of momentum is not going to be stopped trivially.
In fact wouldn't the metal body of the whole plane just break up?
Well...it did. But that didn't eradicate the momentum. The fragments continue to move at stupendous rates even as some frontal parts are being slowed by support columns.
Instead it cut right through the skin of the building like butter.
130T of metal, fuel, people and luggage travelling at 500mph is incredibly difficult to stop or at least significantly redirect within 14 inches. I expect even a mountain would have difficulty with the task. After that initial barrier, there are no support columns until the centre of the building, so debris has clear paths in all directions until the centre.
(130,0000 / 2) x 200 x 200 = 2,600,000,000 Joules of energy.
That's half a ton of dynamite exploding, in a single direction. Oh and then that's not including the amount of energy contained in the fuel itself when combusted: 10,000 gallons of jet fuel has about 1,422,000,000,000 Joules of energy in it - although that was not directional and most of it went up the sides of the building I expect.
The Hoover dam *can* put out about 2GJ a second. Most power stations put out like 10-50 Million Joules a second.
It's pretty catastrophic. For comparison the Gunpowder Plot of Fawkes et al, used 2.5T of gunpowder which was thought to be 20-30 times more than was needed to convincingly destroy the House of Lords...being underground meant there was more directionality.
And maybe just the speed of the plane is enough to account for it?
One was at near 500 the other nearly 600mph. A massive freight train probably has only 1% of the energy - those things can swat large trucks aside and carry on going. It's a phenomenal amount of energy.
quote:
In each case, the force of the speeding plane knocked out a number of vertical columns around the building perimeter, damaged large sections of floor, sent furniture and plane wreckage flying through the offices and presumably damaged support columns in each building's core. Most likely, the initial impact also destroyed the sprinkler system on those floors. The evaluation team estimates that the first plane -- a 395,000-pound (180,000-kg) Boeing 767-200ER going about 470 miles per hour (756 kph) -- fractured as many as 36 perimeter support columns over a four-story area of WTC 1's north face. The connected floors partially collapsed, and the central core suffered undefined damage. The second plane, a Boeing 767-200ER flying at about 590 miles per hour (950 kph), inflicted similar damage on WTC 2. The collision fractured as many as 32 perimeter columns over a five-story area, collapsing sections of connected floor and damaging the central core. In each attack, the crash ignited the plane's' fuel supply, causing a massive fireball -- an expanding area of burning gas. While the ignited fuel didn't really explode, the fireball did spread fire down the side of the building, throughout the nearby floors and down interior shafts to lower floors. The investigators hypothesized that nearly all of the jet fuel was consumed in the initial fireball and first few minutes of the building fire, but it ignited enough office equipment, paper and building materials to keep the fire raging until the collapse. -- FEMA
Love
Loving one another specifically means brothers and sisters IN CHRIST.
The Samaritan could be a brother. Even though he was from what was perceived to be a blasphemous and wicked religious sect by many at the time.
Helping Muslim refugees by bringing them into another culture is being an agent of violence, rape andmurder and subjugation of that culture.
quote:But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
You know, Christian refugees also result in Crime problems.
Eminent domain
quote:"... The property of subjects is under the eminent domain of the state, so that the state or he who acts for it may use and even alienate and destroy such property, not only in the case of extreme necessity, in which even private persons have a right over the property of others, but for ends of public utility, to which ends those who founded civil society must be supposed to have intended that private ends should give way. But it is to be added that when this is done the state is bound to make good the loss to those who lose their property." -- Hugo Grotius in 1625
quote:"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." -- The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution
During WWII the American government 'stole' 20 million acres of land for airports, infrastructure, storage, etc. Since then it has been used to expand national parks. Eminent domain was used by the government to get premises to work out of after September 11th 2001. Lots of land has been 'stolen' this along the borders, especially the Mexican border.
The Italian government are facing an emergency and some presumably thought the emergency procedures were necessary in this particular case.
But the main topic is whether a government has the right to force anyone, the example being the hotel owner, to use his hotel for any purpose against his will, such as to accommodate refugees no matter who the refugees are.
Yes. They can knock his hotel down and build a refugee support centre if they want. That is their right as the people's representatives in a sovereign democracy.
The land of the dead, the home of the knave
Also, the Crusades were a papal operation, nothing to do with the genuine Christianity which founded this country.
A good point. Say, what happened to all those native people's that roamed the land?
quote: the natives are neere all dead of the smalle Poxe, so as the Lord hathe cleared our title to what we posses. -- John Winthrop Early American Christian
quote:Philanthropy could not wish to see this continent restored to the condition in which it was found by our forefathers. What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute, occupied by more than 12,000,000 happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion. -- Andrew Jackson 1830
Toxic lies kill kids
Soon as you bleeding heart suicidal maniacs acknowledge that there could be GOOD reason in the case of Islam to be wary of Muslim refugees, then we can start talking about real ways of helping them.
There are good reasons to be wary of refugees in general. They are generally broken people, desperate and having lived for years on whatever they could get their hands on, being betrayed by the most trusted of friends...
We have Christian refugees in this country practising all sorts of weird and illegal acts. Not real Christians you say? Well there is as much reason to call them Christian as there is to call members of ISIS, Muslims.
Even if there was some degree of truth in what you say, the numbers strongly suggest the effect is small compared with the numbers of people. Can you not tolerate some crime, a few deaths, over thousands of deaths, refugee camp levels of crime?
These unfounded fears are toxic, they are killing people. I am appalled they got someone elected. I hope they were just empty campaign rhetoric, I fear not.
Wait until they have the population they have in France where they are torching the cars,
I looked into this. Turns out the rabbit trail tends to lead back to a single video of some cars on fire, the culprits of which have never been identified. Someone uploaded the video and titled it something like 'Muslims set fire to 25 cars in France' or something. And that's the source, a title of a video uploaded by some random person. That was enough to spin a story. Given the French burn cars like Americans burn flags, it's easy to build up a whole mythos around it.
and in Sweden where they are raping the women.
Again, this comes down to some very simple origins. Some women were assaulted by half a dozen youths. One of the women said they were probably 'immigrants' but this was never confirmed. Another assault happened, some of the media blamed it on Afghan refugees, but there wasn't any evidence that verified this. The sexual assault rate in Sweden has been tending downwards in the last few years.
Obviously some refugees, some immigrants and some locals will commit crimes - but they aren't the epidemic you are being sold.
The solution
Yes, this is a real dilemma because these are real suffering people. The question is how to help them without denying that Islam is evil. All you guys have to offer is denial. Try acknowledging the real danger so something realistic can come of it.
Invite them in, give them warm food and a roof over their head. Show them a better way to live. Show them Christian love and forgiveness. Let them take those memories back with them and maybe things will change.
Or you can tell them Americans are lazy fearful ignoramuses and that 'freedom' and 'Christianity' seem to lead to hate and sin.
While occupied with other things I've been nevertheless picking up bits of news about the recounts in Wisconsin and Michigan to the effect that both Hillary and Trump have picked up more votes, but Trump a lot more than Hillary. Anybody else heard about this?
Sorry I can't read your whole post but I saw the last part of it: Yes, I've thought that CHristian families ought to adopt Mulsim families as one solution to the problems I've been talking about and wherever that's feasible I would hope many would, but I don't know how feasible it is. I suspect that any attempt to teach them the gospel would be strenuously opposed by the Left too.
ABE: Glancing over the rest of your post, mostly by accident, I gather you are of course hearing nothing but the Leftist propaganda. The rapes have been staggeringly increased not just in Sweden but also in the UK, something like three times the normal rate since the increase in the Muslim population. You are getting a trivializing whitewashed pack of lies.
P.S. It's not that I don't want to read and answer your post but you always write tomes and this one looks like it covers too much for me to spend time on right now. If I can I'll try to respond later.
Yes, I've thought that Muslim families ought to adopt Christian families as one solution to the problems I've been talking about and wherever that's feasible I would hope many would, but I don't know how feasible it is. I suspect that any attempt to teach them the Glorious Qur'an would be strenuously opposed by the Right too.
ABE: Glancing over the rest of your post, mostly by accident, I gather you are of course hearing nothing but the Leftist propaganda. The rapes have been staggeringly increased not just in Sweden but also in the UK, something like three times the normal rate since the increase in the Muslim population. You are getting a trivializing whitewashed pack of lies.
That's not what government figures show, even ones from our Conservative government. Without reference to right-wing propaganda, can you correct me?
Oh well I guess I'll have to starve to death since I have to answer at least some of your post.
That's pretty standard 9/11 truther nonsense to be honest, surprised you hadn't heard it.
All I'd heard was that claim that the building couldn't possibly have fallen straight down as it did, which is the way buildings fall from intentional demolition, so that bombs must have been planted in them the same way they are for demolition. The problem with that is that the noises they attribute to bombs are known to have been caused by bodies hitting the ground -- AND there was nothing systematic about the noises, to put it mildly.
I had not heard the idea that a plane couldn't just slice through those upright girders and it does seem difficult to understand now that I've heard it. But I also can't think of any way things could have been contrived to make it possible either. Your analogy of the cans doesn't work for me because crushing is exactly what I'd expect to have happened to the planes; instead they cut right through the building, didn't crumple on impact, wings didn't shear off. I do find that amazing, but I would have to suppose the speed was the factor that made it possible, speed and angle. Isn't that how that trick is done with the outer edge of the hand splitting a stack of wood planks? It's the speed, and the angle that does it as I understand it. So I don't see Trump's idea working either.
OK I see you are saying pretty much the same thing.
That's enough for now. After this you are getting in to some vexed areas I'll leave until later.
™ Version 4.2
(1)