Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Smelling The Coffee: 2010
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 270 (541608)
01-04-2010 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Hyroglyphx
01-04-2010 11:38 AM


Re: Its Education, Stupid
Hydroglyphx writes:
Buzsaw, religion and secular education has nothing to do with one another in this republic. The only time religion should play a role in school is during religious courses or the semenary.
Hydroblyphx, did you miss a few messages back where I said:
The nature of a republic is that the voters determine who represents them who in turn implement what is taught.
None of our founders would agree to your statement above. They regarded the value of things like The Ten Commandments and other Biblical principles to the extent that they were implemented in many aspects of government including church services in the halls of Congress accompanied by the US Marine Band, the insistance that the Bible and Watts Hymnal be integral to public school education and commissioning missionaries to evangelize the pagan Indians into Christianity.
As I stated in the same message, in case you missed it, in the course of time, the elected heads of state became more secularized and as a republic works, the later elected officials implemented a more liberal and secularist agenda in education and government.
Today, of course, some would agree with your views on this and some would be more inclined toward the free practice of religion in and out of government. Who's views prevail should be determined in the elections.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-04-2010 11:38 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-10-2010 7:40 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 270 (541618)
01-04-2010 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Straggler
01-04-2010 5:54 PM


Re: Religion vs Secularism
Erm OK. And Moslems also say that the Quran is a book that
Straggler writes:
advocates peace. Yes?
Which Muslims? Mohammed, author of the Koran/Quran and who ordered the beheading of hundreds of infidels, his successors who implemented the Haddith and the Sunnahs, the majority of fundamentalist immams and the majority of heads of Islamic totalitarian heads of state OR the peon Muslim sheeple who either are not apprised on the violence advocated in the Koran, the Haddiths and Sunnahs and who are obliged to obey the totalitarian politico-religious dictators?
Fact: The Islamic official manuals of the religion's fundamentals are laced with violence whereas this is not the case with the NT manual of Christian fundamentals .
Straggler writes:
Well many Islamisists might disagree. Buz you have been one of the most vocal I have seen here regarding the use of torture, imprisonment and "pre-emptive strikes" in the "war on terror".
There you go again putting up your strawman when relative facts fail. War is war and warriors should fight to win. Buzsaw advocates reasonable interrogation tactics. What is reasonable is debatable. LOL. Muslims should regard thngs like waterboarding lightly, given what Muslim dictatorial regimes dish out in 20 to 30 Islamic totataliarian regimes.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Straggler, posted 01-04-2010 5:54 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Straggler, posted 01-04-2010 6:50 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 48 of 270 (541623)
01-04-2010 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Buzsaw
01-04-2010 6:36 PM


The Inherent Danger of Religious Fundamentalism
Fact: The Islamic official manuals of the religion's fundamentals are laced with violence whereas this is not the case with the NT manual of Christian fundamentals .
And the OT.........?
War is war and warriors should fight to win.
So war justifies warrior behaviour. Right?
Rightly or wrongly that is exactly what many Moslems believed about the ascendancy of the decadent West, it's evil cultural world influence and it's support of Israel.
Rightly or wrongly these were genuinely held beliefs. Do you deny that? So those who commit terrorist attrocities think they are warriors waging war and that all is justified. Exactly as you do? Yes?
You have hit the nail on the head as to why irrational religious fundamentalism is so dangerous in all it's forms. And that includes yours.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Buzsaw, posted 01-04-2010 6:36 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 49 of 270 (541632)
01-04-2010 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by iano
01-04-2010 6:04 PM


Re: Oh please, are you serious?
The basis of the emnity wasn't so much religion as it was the result of (the often very cruel) colonialistation of Ireland by the 'Brits'.
The same can be said these days between the Shia and the Sunni.
source
quote:
Sunni and Shia Muslims share the most fundamental Islamic beliefs and articles of faith. The differences between these two main sub-groups within Islam initially stemmed not from spiritual differences, but political ones. Over the centuries, however, these political differences have spawned a number of varying practices and positions which have come to carry a spiritual significance.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by iano, posted 01-04-2010 6:04 PM iano has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 50 of 270 (541635)
01-04-2010 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Buzsaw
01-03-2010 9:48 PM


Re: Oh please, are you serious?
Hi Buz,
Can you cite any mainstream media, including Fox which has covered any of the stuff you cited to any extent in the past six months or year? Mmm, must be it's not so prevalent.
That's the point- the mainstream media isn't promoting anything these days that doesn't involve Islam and Muslims. We need an enemy to focus on, and the Middle East is our current target.
Not in a conspiratorial way (relax Straggler) just in a: they have to promote what's popular and trendy - and currently Middle Eastern terrorist threats are drawing a mass audience. Just look at the movie industry (who is always a good indicator for what's popular.)
Btw, communism is one way athiestic and secularistic sheeple could ban and restrict religion.
As has been pointed out to you by others, communism doesn't have to be atheist. North Korea, which is more a form of Fascism, is considered communism by the media, yet they worship the Emperor.
Also, communism, along with fascism must take out all other insitutions who control peoples opinions - like the church, any church.
Yet, even Hitler had a connection to the Roman Catholic Church - so it can also have a religious affiliation.
Perhaps the real solution to make the planet more peaceful is for the lord and christ Jesus, champion of fundamentalist Christians, who is prophesied to come to rule and reign on the planet at Jerusalem, to come soon. YES!
Let me know a month before that happens so I can cancel my Netflix subscription.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 01-03-2010 9:48 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Straggler, posted 01-04-2010 8:13 PM onifre has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 51 of 270 (541636)
01-04-2010 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by onifre
01-04-2010 8:10 PM


Re: Oh please, are you serious?
That's the point- the mainstream media isn't promoting anything these days that doesn't involve Islam and Muslims. We need an enemy to focus on, and the Middle East is our current target.
OK. And are "we" not their target also?
Not in a conspiratorial way (relax Straggler) just in a: they have to promote what's popular and trendy - and currently Middle Eastern terrorist threats are drawing a mass audience. Just look at the movie industry (who is always a good indicator for what's popular.)
Well does art reflect reality or does reality reflect art? Are we saying that the Moslem world had no grievances against the West before Hollywood decided it needed a new "baddy"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by onifre, posted 01-04-2010 8:10 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by onifre, posted 01-04-2010 8:20 PM Straggler has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 52 of 270 (541638)
01-04-2010 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Straggler
01-04-2010 8:13 PM


Re: Oh please, are you serious?
And are "we" not their target also?
Yes, but we are also the target of other terrorist organizations, yet its not that popoular to talk about it in our media. That's why Buz asked me to show him stories in the mainstream media. Because he knew I wouldn't find any.
Not that there aren't stories to cover, its just that the mainstream only covers middle eastern terrorist groups.
Are we saying that the Moslem world had no grievances against the West before Hollywood decided it needed a new "baddy"?
Hollywood promotes what's popular.
Not conspiratorial, Straggler!
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Straggler, posted 01-04-2010 8:13 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Straggler, posted 01-04-2010 8:29 PM onifre has replied
 Message 54 by Buzsaw, posted 01-04-2010 10:47 PM onifre has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 53 of 270 (541640)
01-04-2010 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by onifre
01-04-2010 8:20 PM


Conspiracy?
Yes, but we are also the target of other terrorist organizations, yet its not that popoular to talk about it in our media.
Fair enough. Who did you have in mind? And how much of a practical threat do you think they are?
That's why Buz asked me to show him stories in the mainstream media. Because he knew I wouldn't find any.
OK. I accept that. But who do you think deserves equal attention based on practical reality as opposed to media bias?
Not that there aren't stories to cover, its just that the mainstream only covers middle eastern terrorist groups.
OK. I accept that. But who do you think deserves equal attention based on practical reality as opposed to media bias?
Hollywood promotes what's popular.
True. But that could be translated as Hollywood promotes what people will believe is (semi) realistic. Enviro-disaster movies are the buzz-pic of the moment. This is regardless of any truth or otherwise in global warming catastrophe theories whether the wider media supports that view or not. I would suggest likewise with regard to Middle East terror movies.
Oni writes:
Not conspiratorial, Straggler!
When you are as paranoid as me there are conspiracies at every turn!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by onifre, posted 01-04-2010 8:20 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by onifre, posted 01-05-2010 12:00 PM Straggler has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 270 (541648)
01-04-2010 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by onifre
01-04-2010 8:20 PM


Re: Media Coverage
onifre writes:
Not that there aren't stories to cover, its just that the mainstream only covers middle eastern terrorist groups.
Hi Onifre. Actually, the mainstreams LOVE to get some scoop on fundis; anything. Why? Because they are for the most part leftist ideologically and their significant leftist viewership and constituency including Hollywood have a similar attitude towards fundamentalist Christians as is prevalent here at EvC.
Similarly the mainstreams other than Fox hated Bush who leaned towards Christianity whereas Obama whom they love clearly leans towards Islam, the religion of his family and his childhood and the religion his so called Christian church became close to, i.e. Farakan's Nation of Islam. The drive bys as Rush calls them give Obama an undue pass on his Islamic connections as well as his socialistic connections.
All of the mainstreams give Islamic terrorism a pass, in that they attribute the doctrine of Jihad to an extremists fringe rather than from the fundamentals of the books/manuals from Mohammed and his successors which call for and are finally on the fast track for achieving global domination, thanks to the media and Western government policies.
The fact remains that there is no terrorist thread from bonafide NT Christian fundamentalists.
Straggler: Though Christianity recognizes the OT as inspired, no violence depicted in the OT applied to Christianity or the Christ of Christianity. All of the violence in the OT related to Israel and the land which God had designated to be the nation of his ultimate kingdom on earth. ,

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by onifre, posted 01-04-2010 8:20 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Straggler, posted 01-05-2010 8:29 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 55 of 270 (541651)
01-04-2010 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Granny Magda
01-04-2010 5:06 PM


Re: Oh please, are you serious?
Hi Granny,
Granny Magda writes:
In which case, you have watered down the meaning of the term so completely that it ceases to be meaningful.
No I just use the definition of the original word.
Not the watered down version you want to use to be able to include anyone and everyone that claims to be religious.
Granny Magda writes:
By your standards, Vincent Otti is not a Christian. But then, by your absurd standards, you are not a Christian, the Pope is not a Christian and no-one on the face of the Earth is a Christian.
They are not my standards.
Now you getting the idea. "There is none that doeth good no not one." Rom 3:12.
Now if you want to say they are very religious people I will agree with you.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Granny Magda, posted 01-04-2010 5:06 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Granny Magda, posted 01-05-2010 4:32 AM ICANT has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 56 of 270 (541667)
01-05-2010 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by ICANT
01-04-2010 11:05 PM


Re: Oh please, are you serious?
ICANT, please stop it.
No I just use the definition of the original word.
I don't care whether your chosen definition is the original meaning or whether you simply pulled it out of your ass. Your definition is unable to correctly identify the Pope as a Christian. therefore, you are wasting my time with meaningless noise.
Not the watered down version you want to use to be able to include anyone and everyone that claims to be religious.
This is a straightforward lie. I have used no such definition. My colleague Yakub, for instance, is not a Christian, he is a Muslim. The Dalai Lama is not a Christian, he is a Buddhist. The prime minister of India is not a Christian, he is a Sikh.
Are you really dumb enough to imagine that anyone is going to fall for such transparent lies?
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by ICANT, posted 01-04-2010 11:05 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by ICANT, posted 01-06-2010 12:42 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 57 of 270 (541676)
01-05-2010 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Buzsaw
01-04-2010 10:47 PM


Re: Media Coverage
Buz - Didn't GWB say that God told him to invade Iraq?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Buzsaw, posted 01-04-2010 10:47 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Buzsaw, posted 01-05-2010 8:45 AM Straggler has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 270 (541678)
01-05-2010 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Straggler
01-05-2010 8:29 AM


Re: Media Coverage
Straggler writes:
Buz - Didn't GWB say that God told him to invade Iraq?
LOL. GWB, if he did, was Commander In Chief of the nation's military, as George Washington was while he prayed in the hot of battle for victory over the enemy: another strawman, not applicable to my point.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Straggler, posted 01-05-2010 8:29 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Straggler, posted 01-05-2010 8:58 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 59 of 270 (541679)
01-05-2010 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Buzsaw
01-05-2010 8:45 AM


Re: Media Coverage
So a born again Christian says he has gone to war with another country because God told him to and you don't think that has any relevance to fundamentalist beliefs and violence at all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Buzsaw, posted 01-05-2010 8:45 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by onifre, posted 01-05-2010 12:02 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 63 by Buzsaw, posted 01-05-2010 5:08 PM Straggler has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 60 of 270 (541690)
01-05-2010 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Straggler
01-04-2010 8:29 PM


Re: Conspiracy?
I accept that. But who do you think deserves equal attention based on practical reality as opposed to media bias?
Funny how you mentioned it to Buz but didn't catch that my cynicism would lead to the same answer.
The US is the biggest threat, guilded in it's previous admin by a fundamentalist CHRISTIAN - as was his father - as is the support of Israel, which is also a terrorist state - One that has the weapons to destroy us all. You can argue semantics if you want, try to point out the political problems if you like, but Israel and the US are fundamentalist states (at least the US was - but I fear it will be yet again). And there should be no argument that Israel is a fundamentalist state, right?
However, and I don't want to get into a long list of terrorist groups and how they affect us all, but the groups around the world, Asia and South America specifically, are groups that terrorize (not at the level of Al Qaeda for example) but to a lesser degree. Yet the news covers very little if any at all.
I could get specific if you really wanted to get into that. It would require some effort on my part to dig up news stories from independent sources.
True. But that could be translated as Hollywood promotes what people will believe is (semi) realistic.
True, but also, like you mention with the environment, they tackle crap that is irrelevant and complete bullshit (like 2012 for example). But yes, their current Middle East terror movies (some) are pretty accurate.
When you are as paranoid as me there are conspiracies at every turn!!
Aluminum hat is on!
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Straggler, posted 01-04-2010 8:29 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Straggler, posted 01-05-2010 12:10 PM onifre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024