PDA

View Full Version : Why not just tell the truth?


rockdawg21
03-11-2009, 03:02 AM
President Obama openly admits that his plan of a cap and trade system on energy will skyrocket energy costs. He's supposed to be taking money from the rich (Socialism at it's best - Marxist theory) and redistributing it back to the middle class at a whopping $13 per week. How much of a difference is $13 per week going to matter when we are paying higher gas prices, energy prices, food prices, or anything that uses energy to be manufactured?

What 52% of people failed to realize is they will have much less money as a result of this. Not to mention Obama is currently selling our futures, our childrens' futures, grandchildrens' futures, etc. When we have no money to fund our military, then what do we have?

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWEzNjBhM2ZhZDRjNzI3ZjM2M2MzMjUyMTI3Njc4ZDk=


Waiting Game

He’s telling the poor he’s only soaking the rich, when he’s in fact soaking everyone.

By Jonah Goldberg

‘We are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” Barack Obama proclaimed many times during the campaign. He and his throngs of supporters preened in the glow of their own righteousness like cats in a puddle of sunlight. They were for “shared sacrifice” and a “new era of responsibility.” They wanted to put aside the “old politics” and the “tired arguments” of the past.

Well, where are those people now?

Obama brags — albeit dishonestly — that he’s only raising taxes on rich people. Ninety-five percent of the American people will get a tax cut, the president insists.

Well, which is it? Do the times demand shared sacrifice from us all, or from just 5 percent of Americans?

If I say to ten co-workers, “We all need to chip in together to get this done,” and then say, “So, Todd, open your wallet and give five bucks to everyone else in the room,” it would sound ridiculous. But when Obama says the same thing to 300 million Americans it’s called “leadership.”

“The problem with socialism,” Margaret Thatcher once said, “is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” What Obama is proposing isn’t socialism — yet — but it runs into the same problem. You could take all of the money made by the richest one percent in this country and it wouldn’t come close to covering government’s expenses — even if those rich people for some reason kept working.

Our income-tax system is already extremely progressive, and it provides roughly half of all government revenue (add corporate income taxes, and it covers nearly three-fifths of all government revenue). The top five percent of earners pay more than 60 percent of income taxes. The top ten percent of earners pay more than 70 percent. And the top half of earners pay just shy of 100 percent of income taxes. Estate and gift taxes are even more progressive.

Now, it’s true that the low-wage earners who pay no income taxes do contribute in other ways. Sales taxes, payroll taxes, and other hidden taxes take a mighty bite out of the working poor and lower-middle class.

And, thanks to Obama, the poor will pay even more. President Obama’s proposed carbon tax will raise the price of energy. In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle in early 2008, candidate Obama admitted as much: “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

Liberals will defend Obama’s carbon tax by saying it’s vitally necessary to combat climate change, end our dependence on foreign oil, and boost our embryonic green industries like wind and solar. Fine, fine. We can have that argument, as weak as I think it may be.

But why isn’t Obama honest about the fact that he’s asking the working poor and middle class to pay even more? He’s the guy who talks such a big game about shared sacrifice. He’s the one talking about a “new era of responsibility.” Heck, that’s the title of his proposed budget — you know, the one that will irresponsibly explode the deficit?

Instead, Obama sticks to his promise that everyone who isn’t rich will get a “tax cut.” That tax cut, by the way, amounts to $13 dollars more a week for the typical worker, according to the Associated Press. In 2010, that cut will be worth $7.70 a week. Will that cover “skyrocketing” electricity rates? Or higher gas prices? How about higher prices for things that use energy to get manufactured, i.e. everything?

I don’t know the answer myself. Maybe $1.85 a day in 2009 and $1.10 in 2010 will cover that. But I doubt it, particularly when your job is outsourced to carbon-tax-free China or India. The point is that Obama’s rhetoric about shared sacrifice is bogus on every level.

He tells people they are the upright ones for supporting his policies when what he’s actually saying is that he’s taking from the rich and giving it to them. “Shared sacrifice” really means taking other people’s money, while “greed” is not wanting to give it up and “responsibility” is when the government takes it anyway.

In reality, he’s giving with one hand and taking with the other. He’s telling the poor he’s only soaking the rich, when he’s in fact soaking everyone. The amazing thing is that his supporters, rich and poor alike, buy it. No wonder they’re the ones they’ve been waiting for.

medic92
03-11-2009, 03:35 AM
This tax "cut" could end up costing you if you're not careful. It's actually a tax credit and you'll have to pay taxes on it. The tax tables for next year are NOT changing, so if you just take that extra $13 a week and don't adjust your withholding accordingly, you could be in for a nasty surprise when you file your taxes next year.

I really hope the folks who voted for Obama are enjoying what they've done. I'd be hanging my head in shame if I were them.

logrus
03-11-2009, 03:38 AM
I've seen more bitcching about Obama in the last 2 weeks here then I seen for Bush in the 3 years I been a member...

medic92
03-11-2009, 03:43 AM
I've seen more bitcching about Obama in the last 2 weeks here then I seen for Bush in the 3 years I been a member...

Obama has done more damage in his first 50 days then Bush allegedly did in his eight year term.

I call it the "Barackolypse". I haven't decided on the four horsemen of the Barackolypse yet. I was leaning toward his policies like nationalization of banks, nationalization of healthcare, abortion and the destruction of the stock market, but I also like the idea of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Tim Geitner and Rahm Emanuel as the four horsemen too.

It's a shame I can't draw. It would make a great political cartoon.

rockdawg21
03-11-2009, 03:45 AM
Obama has done more damage in his first 50 days then Bush allegedly did in his eight year term.

I call it the "Barackolypse". I haven't decided on the four horsemen of the Barackolypse yet. I was leaning toward his policies like nationalization of banks, nationalization of healthcare, abortion and the destruction of the stock market, but I also like the idea of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Tim Geitner and Rahm Emanuel as the four horsemen too.

It's a shame I can't draw. It would make a great political cartoon.
I believe there are some artists on the website. Perhaps one of them will read your post and share their drawing? You might get famous getting it published in the NY Post :laugh:

Moose
03-11-2009, 03:45 AM
Obama has done more damage in his first 50 days then Bush allegedly did in his eight year term.


Horse****. No one has died from his warmongering.

rockdawg21
03-11-2009, 03:49 AM
Horse****. No one has died from his warmongering.
No, but when people lose their homes and jobs, you'll see a significant increase in divorces, murders, and suicides. More people are dying from crime within our own country than in the war on terror. Of course, it's ignored by the press.

Moose
03-11-2009, 03:53 AM
No, but when people lose their homes and jobs, you'll see a significant increase in divorces, murders, and suicides. More people are dying from crime within our own country than in the war on terror. Of course, it's ignored by the press.

Actually, nearly every single murder is reported in the news. I've heard of a few cases where the murder is gang-related and therefore the police will keep it hush hush for awhile, but let's be real. That stuff IS reported.

medic92
03-11-2009, 03:54 AM
Horse****. No one has died from his warmongering.

Is that really the best you can do? I hope this thread stays active. I need to get some sleep right now, but Friday I'd really like to continue this when I have more time.

Protecting us from further terror attacks after 9/11 is "warmongering"?

Just for the fun of it, how do you feel about Obama's "warmongering"? He's committing more troops to Afghanistan and is following Bush's policy for the Iraq withdrawal almost to the letter, with the exception of setting a firm date for the withdrawal.

logrus
03-11-2009, 03:57 AM
No, but when people lose their homes and jobs,

Umm this was goin on for most of Jrs last 3 years. It was only overshadowed by the War on Terror. We had a lot of crazy murder spree while he was in office as well.

but whatever continue your bashing.

NateR
03-11-2009, 03:58 AM
Horse****. No one has died from his warmongering.

Except those people Obama bombed in Pakistan during his first few days in office.

And Bush is no warmonger, in fact, he's just the opposite. It's the warmongers that we are trying to stop over there. Those same warmongers that planned the attack that killed nearly 3000 American citizens on 9/11.

medic92
03-11-2009, 04:04 AM
Defending Obama by attacking his predecessor is a sure sign of a weak position. It's a typical tactic from the left.

As for the folks who are blaming Bush for the recession, keep in mind that the entire problem started with Fannie Mae and Bernie Mac, which the Bush administration was warning Congress about since 2001. 17 different times the Bush administration warned Congress of problems in the housing sector, and each time democrats like Barney Frank and Charles Schumer ignored the warnings and said everything was fine.

Funny how democrats have ignored that irritating little fact while they spend all day claiming Obama "inherited" the problems he begged the country to let him take on. Now they're all someone else's problem and he's just trying to pick up the pieces.

Some president. Excuses and blaming others are the only things he seems to be able to come up with.

BReal28
03-11-2009, 04:04 AM
Except those people Obama bombed in Pakistan during his first few days in office.

And Bush is no warmonger, in fact, he's just the opposite. It's the warmongers that we are trying to stop over there. Those same warmongers that planned the attack that killed nearly 3000 American citizens on 9/11.

Agreed. People hate on Bush waaaay too much, if people don't like him, fine, but people don't need to constantly throw dirt on his name. :talktothehand:

Moose
03-11-2009, 04:16 AM
Is that really the best you can do? I hope this thread stays active. I need to get some sleep right now, but Friday I'd really like to continue this when I have more time.

Protecting us from further terror attacks after 9/11 is "warmongering"?

Just for the fun of it, how do you feel about Obama's "warmongering"? He's committing more troops to Afghanistan and is following Bush's policy for the Iraq withdrawal almost to the letter, with the exception of setting a firm date for the withdrawal.


I'm (along with a large chunk of this country, and the world) all for winning the war in Afghanistan. Commit more troops. As of a few months ago, the only place in the country that we controlled and had power and supplies was the capital, Kabul. With Iraq, FPB set us up for failure. We can't just yank our boys out before at least doing what we can to ensure the region doesn't get engulfed in civil war (which still might be impossible to do, even if we stayed there for a generation).

Please, for my sanity's sake, you may look at any one of the hundreds of threads in which I outline that going into Iraq won't protect us from terrorist attacks:

1. They had no WMDs.
2. The Saddam/Osama link was fabricated and false.
3. Turns us into the bad guys, we're seen abroad as over-aggressive.
4. We would have to kill every single Sunni, Shiia, Baath party member, Kurd, and anyone else in that country to prevent Iraq from being embroiled in war. Which of course is zero-sum and counter-productive, to say the least.
5. We're not sowing peace over there, largely just hatred and bitterness. We're not going to turn Baghdad into Bavaria, even perhaps with a gun to their backs.
6. America WILL be attacked again. Sometime in the future. We can't possibly kill them all, we need to focus on the agencies here that would help support our citizens in the case of terrorist attack. Also, we need to keep New-CLE-ur weapons and dirty bombs out of the hands of extremists, which is something that Obama has a conviction pertaining to. With one hand we need to prepare ourselves at home from danger, both foreign and domestic. With the other hand, we need to scatter the seeds of international goodwill and peace to all of our fellow inhabitants of this, our Terra Firma.

As you can see, I have well thought out points and reasons why I believe them to be so. I will no longer debate about this war that's gone on now for years, as my convictions and beliefs aren't going to change. I try to keep an open mind, keeping in the front of my mind that Obama or anyone short of Christ Jesus could fix our nation's and world's problems in 50, 100, or 500 days. I will remain a positive, and a loyal God/Flag/Country American, and in 4 years, if I have reason to believe Obama isn't the right guy for the job anymore, I will do my best to vote him out.

Moose
03-11-2009, 04:20 AM
Agreed. People hate on Bush waaaay too much, if people don't like him, fine, but people don't need to constantly throw dirt on his name. :talktothehand:

Do you see the double standard on this board? Or are all of the trees blocking your view of the forest? :huh:

medic92
03-11-2009, 04:22 AM
I'm (along with a large chunk of this country, and the world) all for winning the war in Afghanistan. Commit more troops. As of a few months ago, the only place in the country that we controlled and had power and supplies was the capital, Kabul. With Iraq, FPB set us up for failure. We can't just yank our boys out before at least doing what we can to ensure the region doesn't get engulfed in civil war (which still might be impossible to do, even if we stayed there for a generation).

Please, for my sanity's sake, you may look at any one of the hundreds of threads in which I outline that going into Iraq won't protect us from terrorist attacks:

1. They had no WMDs.
2. The Saddam/Osama link was fabricated and false.
3. Turns us into the bad guys, we're seen abroad as over-aggressive.
4. We would have to kill every single Sunni, Shiia, Baath party member, Kurd, and anyone else in that country to prevent Iraq from being embroiled in war. Which of course is zero-sum and counter-productive, to say the least.
5. We're not sowing peace over there, largely just hatred and bitterness. We're not going to turn Baghdad into Bavaria, even perhaps with a gun to their backs.
6. America WILL be attacked again. Sometime in the future. We can't possibly kill them all, we need to focus on the agencies here that would help support our citizens in the case of terrorist attack. Also, we need to keep New-CLE-ur weapons and dirty bombs out of the hands of extremists, which is something that Obama has a conviction pertaining to. With one hand we need to prepare ourselves at home from danger, both foreign and domestic. With the other hand, we need to scatter the seeds of international goodwill and peace to all of our fellow inhabitants of this, our Terra Firma.

As you can see, I have well thought out points and reasons why I believe them to be so. I will no longer debate about this war that's gone on now for years, as my convictions and beliefs aren't going to change. I try to keep an open mind, keeping in the front of my mind that Obama or anyone short of Christ Jesus could fix our nation's and world's problems in 50, 100, or 500 days. I will remain a positive, and a loyal God/Flag/Country American, and in 4 years, if I have reason to believe Obama isn't the right guy for the job anymore, I will do my best to vote him out.

Thanks for the reply, now I can go to bed. I drove over 600 miles today through the Rockies in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming and I'm wiped out! I should get home Thursday evening and I'll address your "points" on Friday, time and wife permitting. :)

This is going to be fun!

BReal28
03-11-2009, 04:22 AM
it goes both ways, I don't agree with Republicans who trash talk our current President either. They can disagree all they want, but disrispect is unnecessary in my opinion.:)

Moose
03-11-2009, 04:26 AM
it goes both ways, I don't agree with Republicans who trash talk our current President either. They can disagree all they want, but disrispect is unnecessary in my opinion.:)

You can certainly understand my confusion with your position when you post in a thread dedicated to nailing Obama, and your post contained your displeasure in venom for our former prez.

Moose
03-11-2009, 04:27 AM
Thanks for the reply, now I can go to bed. I drove over 600 miles today through the Rockies in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming and I'm wiped out! I should get home Thursday evening and I'll address your "points" on Friday, time and wife permitting. :)

This is going to be fun!

Maybe for you. Enjoy your rest. Like I said, I don't really debate anymore. I try to stay respectful of FPB and our current elected leader.

BReal28
03-11-2009, 04:32 AM
You can certainly understand my confusion with your position when you post in a thread dedicated to nailing Obama, and your post contained your displeasure in venom for our former prez.

sure, but just cause I posted in it doesn't mean I support it, and you assumed that I was just defending Bush, I said in my last post, I don't care peoples' positions, just how they present them. This thread is a good place to post what I thought.

Miss Foxy
03-11-2009, 02:11 PM
I'm (along with a large chunk of this country, and the world) all for winning the war in Afghanistan. Commit more troops. As of a few months ago, the only place in the country that we controlled and had power and supplies was the capital, Kabul. With Iraq, FPB set us up for failure. We can't just yank our boys out before at least doing what we can to ensure the region doesn't get engulfed in civil war (which still might be impossible to do, even if we stayed there for a generation).

Please, for my sanity's sake, you may look at any one of the hundreds of threads in which I outline that going into Iraq won't protect us from terrorist attacks:

1. They had no WMDs.
2. The Saddam/Osama link was fabricated and false.
3. Turns us into the bad guys, we're seen abroad as over-aggressive.
4. We would have to kill every single Sunni, Shiia, Baath party member, Kurd, and anyone else in that country to prevent Iraq from being embroiled in war. Which of course is zero-sum and counter-productive, to say the least.
5. We're not sowing peace over there, largely just hatred and bitterness. We're not going to turn Baghdad into Bavaria, even perhaps with a gun to their backs.
6. America WILL be attacked again. Sometime in the future. We can't possibly kill them all, we need to focus on the agencies here that would help support our citizens in the case of terrorist attack. Also, we need to keep New-CLE-ur weapons and dirty bombs out of the hands of extremists, which is something that Obama has a conviction pertaining to. With one hand we need to prepare ourselves at home from danger, both foreign and domestic. With the other hand, we need to scatter the seeds of international goodwill and peace to all of our fellow inhabitants of this, our Terra Firma.

As you can see, I have well thought out points and reasons why I believe them to be so. I will no longer debate about this war that's gone on now for years, as my convictions and beliefs aren't going to change. I try to keep an open mind, keeping in the front of my mind that Obama or anyone short of Christ Jesus could fix our nation's and world's problems in 50, 100, or 500 days. I will remain a positive, and a loyal God/Flag/Country American, and in 4 years, if I have reason to believe Obama isn't the right guy for the job anymore, I will do my best to vote him out. Right on!!

Moose
03-11-2009, 08:29 PM
Right on!!

Cute and intelligent. Now if you can make a mean Tofu dish you might score the rare hat trick.

Crisco
03-11-2009, 08:32 PM
Cute and intelligent. Now if you can make a mean Tofu dish you might score the rare hat trick.

Any and all credibility you had with me is gone.


You sir are a fairy.

bradwright
03-11-2009, 08:39 PM
Any and all credibility you had with me is gone.


You sir are a fairy.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
good one.

Moose
03-11-2009, 08:42 PM
Any and all credibility you had with me is gone.


You sir are a fairy.

A fairy? Oh ssstop it you guyz!

LOLZ! :laugh:

NateR
03-11-2009, 10:38 PM
1. They had no WMDs.

Untrue. We know for a fact that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction because he used them in the past:
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/Barada73/halabja.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/Barada73/halabja-1.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/Barada73/Kurds.jpg
Images from Hussein's mustard gas attack on Halabja in 1988.

So the question is not, "Did he have them?" because we know that he did. The question is, "What happened to them?" If he didn't have them, then we have to somehow believe that he denied UN inspectors and willingly accepted 10 years of sanctions imposed on his country for something he knew he wasn't guilty of.

J.B.
03-11-2009, 11:08 PM
Nate beat me to shooting down Moose's point about WMD's. Also, I know there were reports of finding some caches of chemical weapons in Iraq, but it went largely unnoticed because of the media.

I also disagree that the connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda was fabricated. Do some research on Ansar-Al Islam. They are directly tied to Al-Qaeda and they were in Iraq before we invaded. Also, what about Saddam cutting checks to the families of suicide bombers?

I can understand the argument that Bush made some mistakes in the way he handled the war in Iraq, but there is no argument that Iraq is a better place without Saddam. In the long run it is better for us to have a vested interest in Iraq rather than doing nothing and eventually having to deal with them later. The war in Iraq may be coming to "end" as we know it, but this war is FAR from over.

rockdawg21
03-12-2009, 12:25 AM
Ah, I got home too late to make that post. Oh well, Nate got it done.

Tyburn
03-12-2009, 01:23 AM
the end is nigh :rolleyes:

We know that Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people...but that was many years ago...as in...years before the war...and thats NOT the reason the US gave for the invasion. It was that he had weapons of mass destruction capable of reaching them within 24 hours

Sorry but thats an outright lie...because if that were true he wouldnt have had time to dismantle or hide any weapons...they would have been found in the silo with the lauch sequence in progress...THATS what Bush sold to Blair, and thats what Blair sold to Europe

Methinks he never had any, he had a few that he used up years before gassing his own people, and he was just playing silly beggers...he certainly didnt have anything capable of imediate launch against anyone other this his own....hed had that for a good long time, and used it, and it never bothered the Americans before...he was playing silly beggers with the United Nations...and America seized the opportunity. They dont care about the United Nations, or International Law so why would they care if Saddam was messing the UN around?

They did it because he was a dictator that needed to be removed, they did it because they had their confidence back after Afghanistan, they did it because they could re-set up the government, creating trade and industry and influence in the middle east, they did it in the interests of national security and securing a future in oil and natural gas, they did it because the President at the time was fighting and winning a war for his Father and previous President...it was a grudge match.

Thats why they did it. There were probaly minor terrorist links, like I expect there are in every country run like that. But America is selective on who she choses to make an example out of.

As the title of this thread says "why not just tell the truth" I think that if they had...then the United Nations would have seen them as a saviour coming to their rescue and supported them right away. Hey, they were doing it because of the disrespect for international law that Iraq showed to the UN of course

Ever watched a film called "the international" only...it uncovers a terrible truth....sometimes the only way to bring a law breaker to justice is to....break the law...

:)

rockdawg21
03-12-2009, 01:31 AM
the end is nigh :rolleyes:

We know that Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people...but that was many years ago...as in...years before the war...and thats NOT the reason the US gave for the invasion. It was that he had weapons of mass destruction capable of reaching them within 24 hours

Sorry but thats an outright lie...because if that were true he wouldnt have had time to dismantle or hide any weapons...they would have been found in the silo with the lauch sequence in progress...THATS what Bush sold to Blair, and thats what Blair sold to Europe

Methinks he never had any, he had a few that he used up years before gassing his own people, and he was just playing silly beggers...he certainly didnt have anything capable of imediate launch against anyone other this his own....hed had that for a good long time, and used it, and it never bothered the Americans before...he was playing silly beggers with the United Nations...and America seized the opportunity. They dont care about the United Nations, or International Law so why would they care if Saddam was messing the UN around?

They did it because he was a dictator that needed to be removed, they did it because they had their confidence back after Afghanistan, they did it because they could re-set up the government, creating trade and industry and influence in the middle east, they did it in the interests of national security and securing a future in oil and natural gas, they did it because the President at the time was fighting and winning a war for his Father and previous President...it was a grudge match.

Thats why they did it. There were probaly minor terrorist links, like I expect there are in every country run like that. But America is selective on who she choses to make an example out of.

:)
It doesn't mean they couldn't have been smuggled out of the country without any trace. But, that's just my speculation. :)

Neezar
03-12-2009, 01:37 AM
It doesn't mean they couldn't have been smuggled out of the country without any trace. But, that's just my speculation. :)

Yeah, it isn't like they didn't know we were coming. We know they moved other things out.

Tyburn
03-12-2009, 01:37 AM
It doesn't mean they couldn't have been smuggled out of the country without any trace. But, that's just my speculation. :)
Erm...could they have had weapons and smuggled them out.

Yes.

But not if the missiles were ready to go in 24 hours

now IF they had that power...why not just use it?? and if the Missiles have been smuggled out...why hasnt some other organization found and used them?? its been years!!

These people would probably use them if the US Military actually showed up on their door if they had them...it would be their only chance to succeed.

Also...everyone knows if you want to get to the US...attack Israel. Dont launch a nuke at Washington...Try Tel Aviv...(dont nuke Jerusalem, its Holy to the Terrorists also...small arms fire only, and avoid the Dome of the Rock)

Tyburn
03-12-2009, 01:38 AM
They moved Jet fighter planes out during that time. I have a hard time accepting that they couldn't have moved pretty much anything else out if they wanted to.
:huh: Tell me about this? I've not heard that before!

NateR
03-12-2009, 01:49 AM
It was that he had weapons of mass destruction capable of reaching them within 24 hours

Sorry but thats an outright lie...because if that were true he wouldnt have had time to dismantle or hide any weapons...they would have been found in the silo with the lauch sequence in progress...THATS what Bush sold to Blair, and thats what Blair sold to Europe

Actually it wasn't a lie, since it would take less than 24 hours to get a biological or chemical weapon from Iraq into the US via commercial airlines.

You're thinking of these massive missile silos, but those don't take 24 hours to reach US shores once they are launched. More like 30 minutes, 2-3 hours at the most. So, we obviously weren't talking about missile silos.

Also, it's not like we took them by surprise when we invaded them. Iraq literally had weeks and weeks of notice to the American invasion and there were entire convoys of trucks leaving the country, that were not being inspected, in the days before the actual invasion.

NateR
03-12-2009, 01:52 AM
and if the Missiles have been smuggled out...why hasnt some other organization found and used them?? its been years!!

The Soviet Union collapsed about 15 years ago and their nuclear arsenal has essentially disappeared, sold off the highest black market bidders. So, does the fact that we haven't had a nuclear strike since 1994 prove that the USSR never had any nuclear weapons to begin with?

Tyburn
03-12-2009, 02:03 AM
Actually it wasn't a lie, since it would take less than 24 hours to get a biological or chemical weapon from Iraq into the US via commercial airlines.

You're thinking of these massive missile silos, but those don't take 24 hours to reach US shores once they are launched. More like 30 minutes, 2-3 hours at the most. So, we obviously weren't talking about missile silos.

Also, it's not like we took them by surprise when we invaded them. Iraq literally had weeks and weeks of notice to the American invasion and there were entire convoys of trucks leaving the country, that were not being inspected, in the days before the actual invasion.
No it was a lie.

We werent talking smuggling into the United States, they were claiming that the Missiles would be READY FOR LAUNCH in 24 hours. I know it doesnt take 24 hours from launch...believe it or not I have studied Military Strategic Studies

but if you are preparing a nuclear strike...you arent in the process of dismantling your arsenal...you are setting it up ready to go. Are you telling me that within 24 hours they set it up completely, and then got rid of it quickly enough before the Americans arrived.

Saddam didnt think you were going to invade. He wasnt planning on running and hiding. He didnt think America could or would do what she did...and she shouldnt have. She broke the same bloody set of laws that he did by messing the weapons inspectors around in the first place.

He used the word "launch capability" Nathan...he wasnt talking about a suicide bomber with a dirty bomb...I'm not that stupid. The President was talking about long range tactical Nukes or some kinda weapons with a biological component that could be launched FROM Iraq and be capable of hitting targets in the United States...that is a feat on its own it has to be said. Long Range is usually limited to Nuclear Powers.

As for the USSR...I think the Russians still have most of the arsenal intact. I think its very much in their control. Lets face it...if Terrorism was as big as the US make out...and we know it is, because we have seen the results...it wouldnt take 20 years for a terrorist to launch an attack.

...and I dont believe that Nukes just get "lost" or "dissapear" someone, somewhere has them. if they arent being used...Russia still has her Nukes, she's just not telling you how many she has, and she's letting you live under the assumption that nukes are with terrorists because that will at least keep you from looking at her. You of all people should know what a Cold War Russian is like and Putin is still Prime Minister...maybe not President...but he's there...

thats how we know at present that Iran is not Nuclear...because if she were...she wouldnt just talk shyte...she'd back it up...she'd do what others have done, an accidental test of nuclear capability...

NateR
03-12-2009, 02:20 AM
but if you are preparing a nuclear strike...you arent in the process of dismantling your arsenal...you are setting it up ready to go. Are you telling me that within 24 hours they set it up completely, and then got rid of it quickly enough before the Americans arrived.

Actually I do believe that would be possible. Many of those missiles can be launched from temporary positions.

If that information was incorrect, then I believe it was misinformation, not intentional lying. EVERYBODY believed Saddam Hussein had WMD before the invasion, we had seen him use them over a decade earlier. It was only after they weren't discovered right away that the left-wing changed their tune and started to say, "Well it's obvious they were never there to begin with."

Dave, we've been through this argument ever since you first arrived and you haven't stopped being 100% wrong about the situation. I don't understand why you continue to cling to the same flawed arguments.

As for Russia, their arsenal is being sold off, we know that. However, I believe the fact that we haven't been attacked is simply proof that GOD doesn't need the world to enter a nuclear holocaust just yet. That time has not yet come, so GOD is holding those people back in the same way that He held back the Pharisees from accosting Jesus in public.

Neezar
03-12-2009, 02:25 AM
No it was a lie.

We werent talking smuggling into the United States, they were claiming that the Missiles would be READY FOR LAUNCH in 24 hours. I know it doesnt take 24 hours from launch...believe it or not I have studied Military Strategic Studies

but if you are preparing a nuclear strike...you arent in the process of dismantling your arsenal...you are setting it up ready to go. Are you telling me that within 24 hours they set it up completely, and then got rid of it quickly enough before the Americans arrived.

Saddam didnt think you were going to invade.



Dave, how much time passed between the statement that the missiles could be ready for launch in 24 hours and the time the we arrived at the place where the arsenal was alledged to be?

Nothing about that statement claims that they could be set up, tore down, and moved all within 24 hours. :rolleyes:

Also, was the claim that the Missiles would be READY FOR LAUNCH in 24 hours or that the missiles could be ready in 24 hours?

Tyburn
03-12-2009, 02:42 AM
1)Actually I do believe that would be possible. Many of those missiles can be launched from temporary positions.

2)If that information was incorrect, then I believe it was misinformation, not intentional lying. EVERYBODY believed Saddam Hussein had WMD before the invasion, we had seen him use them over a decade earlier. It was only after they weren't discovered right away that the left-wing changed their tune and started to say, "Well it's obvious they were never there to begin with."

3)Dave, we've been through this argument ever since you first arrived and you haven't stopped being 100% wrong about the situation. I don't understand why you continue to cling to the same flawed arguments.

4)As for Russia, their arsenal is being sold off, we know that. However, I believe the fact that we haven't been attacked is simply proof that GOD doesn't need the world to enter a nuclear holocaust just yet. That time has not yet come, so GOD is holding those people back in the same way that He held back the Pharisees from accosting Jesus in public.
1) Do you think?

2) Well, I dont mean an intentional lie. I think they believed the information they were given, I think they wanted to believe it also because of the other reasons why it was good to dethrone Saddam, unfortunatley the main public reason hasnt turned out to be unequivically in their support.

There is a big gap between seeing someone use weapons and then ten years later supposing they still have them Nathan...and when you talk about the Left changing its views (which it did, not just on that, but also on the whole idea of the war) remember that was the American Left...it was not the reflection of the Left in Europe. We were against the war, because we didnt think there was enough proof, certainly not to warrent something the UN couldnt handle. We knew if you went in you would be in for years because most of us have done that before...you havent done it much. Then when you showed that you were going to do it with or without us, we just thought you were rude. You would go after a country that breaks the law...but in order to bring justice you break the same set of laws...and then with Israel, suddenly you come back to the UN to sort it all out due to conflict of interests.

You may not care that you broke international law, but I assure you, you cared when someone else broke it. You may not recognise its authority, but I assure you, your nation helpped set it up in the first place. In retrospect it doesnt matter...because the Left in Europe changed when the Invasion was a success and in hindsight changed their minds to support the action (well..except for France...but they are always difficult)

3) I Believe what I'm saying. I believe that lots of other Europeans feel the same as I do (or they did at the time) I was studying the right subjects at the right time to have more knowledge then usual on the subject..

You said you dont like people who argue and change their stance to continue an argument...ive never changed my stance on this. I have admitted certain things like

*The US and UK never broke their own laws
*The UK caused the French Veto by issuing a time based ultimatum
*George Bush held his course and his nerve, and when his country bottled on him and wanted him to make a second mistake, he did well
*that George Bush, considering what he faced did exceptionally well
*That the United Nations later embraced the Invasion (after it was successful...make of that what you will)

I often get criticised for saying I love America...because Americans cant cope with criticism. But I accept a Country for who and what they are. I feel I know what America is in Constitution, I feel like she is like We were, she embraces the Sacred, and she is the last bastion of Christianity. But Just like with Israel. I know she aint perfect. She has made some mistakes and I dont mind pointing them out if the subject arises. I dont look at her through rose tinted Glasses, Just like I dont look at Israel through Rose tinted Glasses, she's fallen, both are like any other.

I believe what I'm saying to be truth. but at least we have got to the stage where we dont shout at each other anymore, and we can talk around the views, each discussion brings something new.

4) Its a theory. GOD can work like that. He's worked like that before in Military History. He will wait for the appropriate moment to allow the Japanese to strike and Pearl so the Americans dont come in to soon...but dont come in to late either. He deliberately removes all the Military Strategists in the German Army with any common sense, so that Hitler makes gross and dumbass mistakes...the sort that would make Army Chiefs cringe with embarissment.

Perhaps you are right.

or perhaps the russians are lieing, crafty...and as much still in the cold war frame of mind as some Americans...who knows...I hope we dont find out in my lifetime.

I suppose also some weapons could have been decomissioned...I never thought of that :)

Tyburn
03-12-2009, 02:52 AM
1)Dave, how much time passed between the statement that the missiles could be ready for launch in 24 hours and the time the we arrived at the place where the arsenal was alledged to be?

2)Nothing about that statement claims that they could be set up, tore down, and moved all within 24 hours. :rolleyes:

3)Also, was the claim that the Missiles would be READY FOR LAUNCH in 24 hours or that the missiles could be ready in 24 hours?
1) You were already on the way. As I understood it, you already had a presence in oceans of that part of the world. You had aircraft carriers capable of launching planes. I dont think you were trying to so much find weapons as stop a launch that you felt was an imediate threat

2) No...but these things arent easily moved Denise. They need equipement to set them up and dissasemble them, and programme them, and launch them...its a massive undertaking.

They aint gonna be able to slip them quietly into the night...and the Americans arent stupid. its not like trying to remove a nuke from under the eyes of France for example :laugh:

3)He used the word "launch capability" I think the idea was they could be ready in as little as 24 hours. presumable he though they would be ready after that.

Neezar
03-12-2009, 11:48 AM
Dave, you are a testimony to the amazing abilities of the human mind. You can be so smart in some things and so dumb in others. :laugh:



Bless yer heart.

rearnakedchoke
03-12-2009, 12:37 PM
Well in the end, GWB put the US in the worst shape it has been in since the great depression ... If he had done a good job, people would have been more readily to vote in mccain who was seen as closer to bush than obama was (obviously) ... so now that the country was left in shambles, obama is trying to bring it back and getting hammered for it ... obama has some pretty bad nuthuggers, but GWB nuthuggers are the worst of all time .... even worse than BJ Penn nuthuggers

NateR
03-12-2009, 12:54 PM
Well in the end, GWB put the US in the worst shape it has been in since the great depression ... If he had done a good job, people would have been more readily to vote in mccain who was seen as closer to bush than obama was (obviously) ... so now that the country was left in shambles, obama is trying to bring it back and getting hammered for it ... obama has some pretty bad nuthuggers, but GWB nuthuggers are the worst of all time .... even worse than BJ Penn nuthuggers

Uh, no. Obama supporters take the cake in their man-worship. When you have reporters talking about getting tingly feelings whenever Obama speaks and magazines commenting on Obama's pectoral muscles, then you know that the Obama-love has crossed a very disturbing line.

Besides 90% of the George W. Bush hate is just brainwashing from the liberal media. The man wasn't perfect and he did make some major mistakes during his Presidency (allowing the Palestinians to gain land in Gaza, the economic crisis/bank bailout, etc.), but he definitely wasn't evil and he did a good job of keeping our nation safe from terrorism for 7 years.

And this is most definitely not the worse shape that the nation has been in since the Great Depression. That's another bit of liberal propaganda, playing off of the average person's historical ignorance. This is the worst shape this nation has been in since Jimmy Carter.

Finally, whatever economic mess this nation fell into during Bush's watch has been made at least twice as bad by Obama within his first 50 days in office.

rearnakedchoke
03-12-2009, 01:18 PM
Uh, no. Obama supporters take the cake in their man-worship. When you have reporters talking about getting tingly feelings whenever Obama speaks and magazines commenting on Obama's pectoral muscles, then you know that the Obama-love has crossed a very disturbing line.

Besides 90% of the George W. Bush hate is just brainwashing from the liberal media. The man wasn't perfect and he did make some major mistakes during his Presidency (allowing the Palestinians to gain land in Gaza, the economic crisis/bank bailout, etc.), but he definitely wasn't evil and he did a good job of keeping our nation safe from terrorism for 7 years.

And this is most definitely not the worse shape that the nation has been in since the Great Depression. That's another bit of liberal propaganda, playing off of the average person's historical ignorance. This is the worst shape this nation has been in since Jimmy Carter.

Finally, whatever economic mess this nation fell into during Bush's watch has been made at least twice as bad by Obama within his first 50 days in office.

i don't think i said he was evil ... but maybe you weren't saying i was ... all i am saying is that the people who voted for mccain or who didn't vote for obama aren't even giving him a chance .. i don't remember him saying things were gonna change overnight ... i do remember him saying these are tough and trying times and it is going to be a long, harsh road ... something along those sentiments ...

rockdawg21
03-12-2009, 01:27 PM
i don't think i said he was evil ... but maybe you weren't saying i was ... all i am saying is that the people who voted for mccain or who didn't vote for obama aren't even giving him a chance .. i don't remember him saying things were gonna change overnight ... i do remember him saying these are tough and trying times and it is going to be a long, harsh road ... something along those sentiments ...
I'll be honest, I don't remember him saying that either, but I do remember his promise to cut earmark spending "line by line" of every bill that passes his way. They've already allowed billions of our dollars to go towards frivolous projects and there's currently 8 billion worth of earmarks in the current bill. Bush wasn't the greatest, I have no problems admitting that, but one thing I liked about Bush, if he said he was going to do something, he did it. Obama is just a talker, not a man of action.

rearnakedchoke
03-12-2009, 01:29 PM
I'll be honest, I don't remember him saying that either, but I do remember his promise to cut earmark spending "line by line" of every bill that passes his way. They've already allowed billions of our dollars to go towards frivolous projects and there's currently 8 billion worth of earmarks in the current bill. Bush wasn't the greatest, I have no problems admitting that, but one thing I liked about Bush, if he said he was going to do something, he did it. Obama is just a talker, not a man of action.

well, you got him for the next 4 at least ... and if he was a bad president, then i will be the first to say he was, as i have no bearing on who or who isn't a bad pres ... only time will tell

NateR
03-12-2009, 01:35 PM
i don't think i said he was evil ... but maybe you weren't saying i was ... all i am saying is that the people who voted for mccain or who didn't vote for obama aren't even giving him a chance .. i don't remember him saying things were gonna change overnight ... i do remember him saying these are tough and trying times and it is going to be a long, harsh road ... something along those sentiments ...

Well, Obama won with 52% (maybe 53%) of the vote, which means that 47-48% of the people who voted, voted against him. That's hardly a landslide or a mandate from the masses to drive this country full speed down the road of liberalism. Obama seems to believe that, since he won the election, then he can do whatever he wants. To me, that's an extremely dangerous attitude for our President to have.

The reason that John McCain lost was because of John McCain. He was a bad choice for the Republican candidate because he's not a true conservative. In fact, when I first heard that McCain was the choice, I knew the election was lost and I initially believed that the Republican party was intentionally trying to throw the election.

Also, McCain was simply too meek during his campaign. He could have pressed plenty of issues (Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Obama's questionable citizenship), but decided to go the high road. Obama had no trouble dragging George Bush, McCain and Sarah Palin through the mud and, no big surprise, the politician who played dirty won the election.

Crisco
03-12-2009, 01:38 PM
It it works he will go down as one of the best Presidents we have had whether we like it or not...


The sad truth is even if it doesn't work the media will make him out to be one of the best we have had.

Crisco
03-12-2009, 01:41 PM
A true conservative represents the minority of this country..

rearnakedchoke
03-12-2009, 01:48 PM
Well, Obama won with 52% (maybe 53%) of the vote, which means that 47-48% of the people who voted, voted against him. That's hardly a landslide or a mandate from the masses to drive this country full speed down the road of liberalism. Obama seems to believe that, since he won the election, then he can do whatever he wants. To me, that's an extremely dangerous attitude for our President to have.

The reason that John McCain lost was because of John McCain. He was a bad choice for the Republican candidate because he's not a true conservative. In fact, when I first heard that McCain was the choice, I knew the election was lost and I initially believed that the Republican party was intentionally trying to throw the election.

Also, McCain was simply too meek during his campaign. He could have pressed plenty of issues (Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Obama's questionable citizenship), but decided to go the high road. Obama had no trouble dragging George Bush, McCain and Sarah Palin through the mud and, no big surprise, the politician who played dirty won the election.

well, go back 8 years .. i believe that election was even closer, which was a larger divide in the country ... then bush did what he wanted in going to war when pretty much the rest of the world said he shoudn't .. so he did what he wanted and his supporters were with him on that .. just like obama's are with him now ...

and let's not talk about dirty elections .. bush was the winner of the most scutinized election with issues in recent history ...

NateR
03-12-2009, 01:53 PM
A true conservative represents the minority of this country..

What evidence do you have to support that claim? Because I don't believe it. In fact, I've lived in several different states in this country (Missouri, Texas, New Mexico, Georgia, Oklahoma, Illinois) and true conservatives have almost always been the majority (except maybe in Georgia). It's just in the big cities that they are rare. However, I would think that they represent over half of this nation. Otherwise, why would the last three Presidential elections have been so close?

In fact, a Democrat Presidential candidate has never won a landslide victory in my lifetime. However, Ronald Reagan won re-election by the biggest landslide in American history in 1984. Bush Sr. was elected by a landslide as well, IIRC. So, I don't buy the notion that true conservatives are the minority.

NateR
03-12-2009, 01:56 PM
well, go back 8 years .. i believe that election was even closer, which was a larger divide in the country ... then bush did what he wanted in going to war when pretty much the rest of the world said he shoudn't .. so he did what he wanted and his supporters were with him on that .. just like obama's are with him now ...

and let's not talk about dirty elections .. bush was the winner of the most scutinized election with issues in recent history ...

Actually, Bush had a lot of support going into Iraq, from the American people, the UK and Canada. So it's not like he was playing the lone wolf. And he NEVER ONCE said, "We won! Deal with it!" to the American people.

And Bush's election was controversial because of flawed voting methods (primarily in Florida), not because of anything that Bush did.

rockdawg21
03-12-2009, 01:58 PM
Actually, Bush had a lot of support going into Iraq, from the American people, the UK and Canada. So it's not like he was playing the lone wolf. And he NEVER ONCE said, "We won! Deal with it!" to the American people.

And Bush's election was controversial because of flawed voting methods (primarily in Florida), not because of anything that Bush did.
Yeah, but Bush's brother was governor of that state, so that means his brother was the cause! :frantics:

NateR
03-12-2009, 02:01 PM
Yeah, but Bush's brother was governor of that state, so that means his brother was the cause! :frantics:

Actually, Democrats have been working on ways to steal elections since the Reagan years. It just backfired on them in 2000, but it looks like they figured out how to fraudulently get someone elected 8 years later, so they're not totally daft. :laugh:

:Whistle:

rockdawg21
03-12-2009, 02:02 PM
Actually, Democrats have been working on ways to steal elections since the Reagan years. It just backfired on them in 2000, but it looks like they figured out how to fraudulently get someone elected 8 years later, so they're not totally daft. :laugh:

:Whistle:
ACORN!!!!

NateR
03-12-2009, 02:08 PM
ACORN!!!!

Yep. :laugh:

But of course, it would only be illegal if the candidate benefitting from it was a Republican. Nothing is illegal for a Democrat, not even drunken manslaughter.

rockdawg21
03-12-2009, 02:13 PM
Yep. :laugh:

But of course, it would only be illegal if the candidate benefitting from it was a Republican. Nothing is illegal for a Democrat, not even drunken manslaughter.
Or murder *cough* Gardy Condit *cough* *cough*.

Tyburn
03-12-2009, 02:24 PM
Dave, you are a testimony to the amazing abilities of the human mind. You can be so smart in some things and so dumb in others. :laugh:



Bless yer heart.
:laugh: :laugh: Thats probably the most succinct summary of myself from anyone else ever written!! :laugh: :laugh:

At least I'm not Dumb in everything :ninja: :laugh:

NateR
03-12-2009, 02:29 PM
Or murder *cough* Gardy Condit *cough* *cough*.

Yep, however, the next time a Democrat brings up Richard Nixon as an example of a corrupt Republican, we now have the ultimate trump card to throw at them:

Rob Blagojevich!


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Tyburn
03-12-2009, 02:32 PM
allowing the Palestinians to gain land in Gaza,


.

That was Ariel Sharon, former Prime Minister of Israel who allowed that, actually...and you neednt worry...their next Prime Minister is..a Hardliner...Benyamin!!! He's like got sense and sees the larger picture, but he's also a Staunch Israeli, he's already rulled once before.:ninja:

Plus...if anything, pulling out of palastine has been a blessing for Israel because its led to the Palestinians fracturing against themselves. They arent even a united front now, plus its led to the whole world refusing to acknowledge Hamas and Fatah, and they cant now blame that on Israel can they.

They fail to support their own citizens...and they just got their ass kicked by Israel recently, showing they are pathetic without her support.

Nope...she's shown them for who they are, whilst moving herself into a place of objectivity rather then intimacy that could lead people to condemn BOTH. Now...they only see Palestine as being difficult...Israel is seen as being mature in an area noone thought she could be...not even the Palestinians...who now dont know what to do :laugh:

MattHughesRocks
03-12-2009, 02:34 PM
They just recently arrested someone for her murder.It wasnt Gary.

Or murder *cough* Gardy Condit *cough* *cough*.

rearnakedchoke
03-12-2009, 02:35 PM
Actually, Bush had a lot of support going into Iraq, from the American people, the UK and Canada. So it's not like he was playing the lone wolf. And he NEVER ONCE said, "We won! Deal with it!" to the American people.

And Bush's election was controversial because of flawed voting methods (primarily in Florida), not because of anything that Bush did.

I am pretty sure Canada stayed out of Iraq, Afganistan we were down for, but for Shock & Awe, we were against it .. and if i remember correctly, Shock & Awe commenced on my b-day ...

Tyburn
03-12-2009, 02:39 PM
Actually, Bush had a lot of support going into Iraq, from the American people, the UK and Canada. So it's not like he was playing the lone wolf. And he NEVER ONCE said, "We won! Deal with it!" to the American people.

2) And Bush's election was controversial because of flawed voting methods (primarily in Florida), not because of anything that Bush did.
1) indeed. The decision to go to war by Bush with Afghanistan was praised and called for. Bush even told his own people to wait whilst he issued a fair ultimatum. That showed remarkable repose and it what won him international support.

When going to war with Iraq he was also supported by the government and the populas. They wanted War. His allies supported him, even if their populas were less in favour, and the international community which was against the war, supported it as soon as the invasion was a success. AT THAT POINT, Bush was abandoned by his population and the Administration followed. Bush remained, and he was right to remain. His population are fickle and they didnt realize what the war would cost them, but all those Liberals in America were supportive of the war when it first happened. They might now have joined the International Liberals...but we were against the war from the start, the Democrats were IN FAVOUR

2) That, to the international community, looks like a fix. Whether it was or not :laugh:

NateR
03-12-2009, 02:44 PM
1) indeed. The decision to go to war by Bush with Afghanistan was praised and called for. Bush even told his own people to wait whilst he issued a fair ultimatum. That showed remarkable repose and it what won him international support.

When going to war with Iraq he was also supported by the government and the populas. They wanted War. His allies supported him, even if their populas were less in favour, and the international community which was against the war, supported it as soon as the invasion was a success. AT THAT POINT, Bush was abandoned by his population and the Administration followed. Bush remained, and he was right to remain. His population are fickle and they didnt realize what the war would cost them, but all those Liberals in America were supportive of the war when it first happened. They might now have joined the International Liberals...but we were against the war from the start, the Democrats were IN FAVOUR

2) That, to the international community, looks like a fix. Whether it was or not :laugh:

Yep, Bush had more support going to war with Iraq than Roosevelt had in going to war with Germany. The American people wanted revenge on Japan, they didn't really care about the Nazis (in fact, a lot of Americans supported Hitler, including Henry Ford). It was only after the discovery of the Concentration Camps that Americans truly understood why we were there.

Tyburn
03-12-2009, 02:45 PM
I am pretty sure Canada stayed out of Iraq, Afganistan we were down for, but for Shock & Awe, we were against it .. and if i remember correctly, Shock & Awe commenced on my b-day ...
I think your right.

I think it was a step to far for much of the commonwealth.

Does anyone know if Austrailia contributed to Iraq? I bet they didnt either..I think Iraq was where Bush lost the international community, and then eventually his own people turned on him aswell.

In England, Tony Blair refused to let the public do a referendum because the public were against the war. The government he could, and did convince by having one on one meetings with almost everyone before the final vote. The public...he just ignored.

Thats why he didnt finish his term in office.

The American people loved the British Prime Minister more then The English....and one of the first things Obama did when he came to office was undermine Blair by sending his own Envoy to represent the Middle East rather then continue using Tony. :laugh: Blair at first said that it was good to be working with the Americans...but they didnt want to work with him, they wanted to replace him...and England stood back and laughed at him :wink:

rockdawg21
03-12-2009, 02:47 PM
They just recently arrested someone for her murder.It wasnt Gary.
Wow, that's recent news. March 3, 2009 - Ingmar Guandique.

Tyburn
03-12-2009, 02:54 PM
Yep, Bush had more support going to war with Iraq than Roosevelt had in going to war with Germany. The American people wanted revenge on Japan, they didn't really care about the Nazis (in fact, a lot of Americans supported Hitler, including Henry Ford). It was only after the discovery of the Concentration Camps that Americans truly understood why we were there.
I was shocked to hear that the US still has the biggest Neo-Nazi groups in the world. I guess it stems back to those who didnt really mind Hitler. He wasnt ever a direct threat to the United States, except through Japan, because his scientists deserted him, and his military strategiests all had a crisis of confidence even before dunkirk.

But I was watching on the news about some fascist groups (not government, just political lobbies) and I always assumed the biggest would be in Europe...but in the United States.

I think the Americans empathise with their national identity, which at the start, is all it looked like Hitler was doing. He was only, to begin with. Making Patriotic Promises to his people. Americans understand that...and embrace those who infact display that, you mentioned Obama yourself, but look at how he makes Patriotic Nationalism. It echos with peoples sense of Identity.

Of course Fascism is one step further right. When because you believe you are superior you then act against people. America has never done that any more then any centrist or western country with super power status. The closest she got was Iraq...and that was more like frustration that noone aggreed with her, rather then a sence of ignoring the world. it wasnt to dominate. it wasnt for the sheer hell of dominating another country, that was never the issue, not ever. If that had been the case, she'd have taken Canada and Mexico. But that national identity frightens Europeans now because they have seen what can happen if it gets out of hand. It never will under Obama because he's far to centrist. He might make promises, but he will bearly keep them, let alone exceed them in the glory of battle against lesser peoples. But that is why some Europeans are weary and a little, almost, frightened of Americans.

I dont mind it. I like people who take a strong belief in something. Some may take it too far...but not everyone. The vast majority of Americans are just firm believers, they arent oppressors, big difference IMO

rearnakedchoke
03-12-2009, 02:58 PM
I think your right.

I think it was a step to far for much of the commonwealth.

Does anyone know if Austrailia contributed to Iraq? I bet they didnt either..I think Iraq was where Bush lost the international community, and then eventually his own people turned on him aswell.

In England, Tony Blair refused to let the public do a referendum because the public were against the war. The government he could, and did convince by having one on one meetings with almost everyone before the final vote. The public...he just ignored.

Thats why he didnt finish his term in office.

The American people loved the British Prime Minister more then The English....and one of the first things Obama did when he came to office was undermine Blair by sending his own Envoy to represent the Middle East rather then continue using Tony. :laugh: Blair at first said that it was good to be working with the Americans...but they didnt want to work with him, they wanted to replace him...and England stood back and laughed at him :wink:
i am pretty sure australia were part of the war ... they sent some shrimps to be thrown on the barby ... but really, i think they were there ..

rearnakedchoke
03-12-2009, 03:00 PM
I was shocked to hear that the US still has the biggest Neo-Nazi groups in the world. I guess it stems back to those who didnt really mind Hitler. He wasnt ever a direct threat to the United States, except through Japan, because his scientists deserted him, and his military strategiests all had a crisis of confidence even before dunkirk.

But I was watching on the news about some fascist groups (not government, just political lobbies) and I always assumed the biggest would be in Europe...but in the United States.

I think the Americans empathise with their national identity, which at the start, is all it looked like Hitler was doing. He was only, to begin with. Making Patriotic Promises to his people. Americans understand that...and embrace those who infact display that, you mentioned Obama yourself, but look at how he makes Patriotic Nationalism. It echos with peoples sense of Identity.

Of course Fascism is one step further right. When because you believe you are superior you then act against people. America has never done that any more then any centrist or western country with super power status. The closest she got was Iraq...and that was more like frustration that noone aggreed with her, rather then a sence of ignoring the world.

I don't know, but i think that is a small pop of idiots who don't really know their a$$ from their heads ... i have seen some of the nazi rally's and they are just a bunch of fools who recruit even bigger fools ...

Miss Foxy
03-12-2009, 03:01 PM
Well, Obama won with 52% (maybe 53%) of the vote, which means that 47-48% of the people who voted, voted against him. That's hardly a landslide or a mandate from the masses to drive this country full speed down the road of liberalism. Obama seems to believe that, since he won the election, then he can do whatever he wants. To me, that's an extremely dangerous attitude for our President to have.

The reason that John McCain lost was because of John McCain. He was a bad choice for the Republican candidate because he's not a true conservative. In fact, when I first heard that McCain was the choice, I knew the election was lost and I initially believed that the Republican party was intentionally trying to throw the election.

Also, McCain was simply too meek during his campaign. He could have pressed plenty of issues (Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Obama's questionable citizenship), but decided to go the high road. Obama had no trouble dragging George Bush, McCain and Sarah Palin through the mud and, no big surprise, the politician who played dirty won the election. I personally could not cast a vote to McCain not because I love Obama or because hes Republican. I did not like either candidate. However I was going to be *amn*ed if I was gonna vote for a candidate who has health problems and could have a heart stroke/attack at any moment and our country would be placed in the hands of an idiot like Palin!! I just think she was the worst running mate for anyone! I would have rather elected Mickey Mouse.

rockdawg21
03-12-2009, 03:01 PM
I don't know, but i think that is a small pop of idiots who don't really know their a$$ from their heads ... i have seen some of the nazi rally's and they are just a bunch of fools who recruit even bigger fools ...
:funny:

NateR
03-12-2009, 03:07 PM
I personally could not cast a vote to McCain not because I love Obama or because hes Republican. I did not like either candidate. However I was going to be *amn*ed if I was gonna vote for a candidate who has health problems and could have a heart stroke/attack at any moment and our country would be placed in the hands of an idiot like Palin!! I just think she was the worst running mate for anyone! I would have rather elected Mickey Mouse.

I actually voted for McCain because of Sarah Palin. I think she would make an excellent President.

Of course, the media hated her because she was a legitimate threat to Obama, so they went on a character assassination crusade against her. 90% of the stories they reported about Sarah Palin were complete fabrications and the press knew it; but they ran the stories anyway because they desperately wanted to discredit Palin.

So, she is most definitely not an idiot, that was just more liberal media propaganda.

Moose
03-12-2009, 03:07 PM
I personally could not cast a vote to McCain not because I love Obama or because hes Republican. I did not like either candidate. However I was going to be *amn*ed if I was gonna vote for a candidate who has health problems and could have a heart stroke/attack at any moment and our country would be placed in the hands of an idiot like Palin!! I just think she was the worst running mate for anyone! I would have rather elected Mickey Mouse.

Careful dear, that's Nate's honeybunny. :laugh:

Miss Foxy
03-12-2009, 03:09 PM
Careful dear, that's Nate's honeybunny. :laugh: Lol.. Is it cause shes been a lifelong member of the NRA??!! Haha!!?? j/k

Miss Foxy
03-12-2009, 03:10 PM
I actually voted for McCain because of Sarah Palin. I think she would make an excellent President.

Of course, the media hated her because she was a legitimate threat to Obama, so they went on a character assassination crusade against her. 90% of the stories they reported about Sarah Palin were complete fabrications and the press knew it; but they ran the stories anyway because they desperately wanted to discredit Palin.

So, she is most definitely not an idiot, that was just more liberal media propaganda.
I hate to say it, but I personally would never ever want a woman as president. I don't care if everyone gets mad at me yes I said it...:scared0011:

Tyburn
03-12-2009, 03:10 PM
I don't know, but i think that is a small pop of idiots who don't really know their a$$ from their heads ... i have seen some of the nazi rally's and they are just a bunch of fools who recruit even bigger fools ...
You'd be suprised.

if you were depressed and oprressed and poor, and longed for a return to the glory days and some brilliant speaker came along and passionatley delivered all these promises and seemed in a position to fulfil them.

Your nutty if you cant see the attraction. You just got to learn to be objective.

I'm alright with Barack Obama at present. I think that he's playing a dangerous game with flooding the markets, but I dont know what else he could do. I love the way he's returned to being our allie...but also he's made sure to distance himself from any hippy type friendship, especially with an unellected prime minister who may not be around too long...and I just adore the way he's completely snubbed tony blair in the middle east.

What I dislike about Obama is that he overturned a motion on stem cell research. Thats not nice. That opens the U.S up, just like Europe and England to Eugenics...and I dislike anything to do with Eugenics...I know the excuse is the health benefits, but they are small. Thats one area the US shouldnt become a world leader in, on an ethic standpoint. Designer Babies, even the screening out of possible diseases before conception and birth make me sick. But...thats part of his left from centrist side coming out. He will try to appease the pro-life and medical sectors...I'm still waiting on what he promised about working WITH the republicans...coz so far...I've not seen him make an effort with them. He's pulling troops out of Iraq slowly, he's flooding the market, and he's overturned an ethical legislature...where is his peace offering to the Republicans...he's now satified the Left, the international, and various big businesses....I'm still waiting on the Republican handshake... :ninja:

NateR
03-12-2009, 03:11 PM
Lol.. Is it cause shes been a lifelong member of the NRA??!! Haha!!?? j/k

Well, the fact that she respects the 2nd Amendment and isn't intent on finding ways to strip Americans of their Constitutional rights, was a big plus on her side. You can't necessarily say that about our current President.

Tyburn
03-12-2009, 03:12 PM
Careful dear, that's Nate's honeybunny. :laugh:
:laugh:

Come on guys...rather Palin then, GODFORBID, Hillary Clinton....or Condi Rice

at least Sarah Palin stood in between them...plus...I dont think McCain was gonna die. He's only got four years to live through :rolleyes:

NateR
03-12-2009, 03:15 PM
....I'm still waiting on the Republican handshake... :ninja:

Well, he's made token gestures towards Republicans; but once they decide to disagree with him, Obama goes on the attack.

So far, the only true bipartisanship in our government has been in opposition to Obama. :laugh:

Miss Foxy
03-12-2009, 03:18 PM
Well, the fact that she respects the 2nd Amendment and isn't intent on finding ways to strip Americans of their Constitutional rights, was a big plus on her side. You can't necessarily say that about our current President.
Like I have stated before I am not a huge Obama fan, however he is our president and just like GWB he will have lovers/haters. I think each American has reasons dear to his/her heart as to why they like/dislike the president and we will never agree 100% on politics. I personally don't believe bashing each other, because one is liberal or conservative. I cannot support only one party. I vote Democrat/Republican/Independent whoever I feel is the best candidate in my eyes, brain, and heart.

Miss Foxy
03-12-2009, 03:23 PM
All I want is some peace in the Middle East!! lol. :Whistle:

rearnakedchoke
03-12-2009, 03:25 PM
You'd be suprised.

if you were depressed and oprressed and poor, and longed for a return to the glory days and some brilliant speaker came along and passionatley delivered all these promises and seemed in a position to fulfil them.

Your nutty if you cant see the attraction. You just got to learn to be objective.

I'm alright with Barack Obama at present. I think that he's playing a dangerous game with flooding the markets, but I dont know what else he could do. I love the way he's returned to being our allie...but also he's made sure to distance himself from any hippy type friendship, especially with an unellected prime minister who may not be around too long...and I just adore the way he's completely snubbed tony blair in the middle east.

What I dislike about Obama is that he overturned a motion on stem cell research. Thats not nice. That opens the U.S up, just like Europe and England to Eugenics...and I dislike anything to do with Eugenics...I know the excuse is the health benefits, but they are small. Thats one area the US shouldnt become a world leader in, on an ethic standpoint. Designer Babies, even the screening out of possible diseases before conception and birth make me sick. But...thats part of his left from centrist side coming out. He will try to appease the pro-life and medical sectors...I'm still waiting on what he promised about working WITH the republicans...coz so far...I've not seen him make an effort with them. He's pulling troops out of Iraq slowly, he's flooding the market, and he's overturned an ethical legislature...where is his peace offering to the Republicans...he's now satified the Left, the international, and various big businesses....I'm still waiting on the Republican handshake... :ninja:
i have no problem with a group who is proud of their heritage, or even who think they should live separately from other races, but when a group thinks they are superior than others and promotes/preaches hate and violence, then they are a bunch of morons ...

Miss Foxy
03-12-2009, 03:28 PM
i have no problem with a group who is proud of their heritage, or even who think they should live separately from other races, but when a group thinks they are superior than others and promotes/preaches hate and violence, then they are a bunch of morons ...
Good one!! There is no way to justify preaching hate and violence! My mums family is from Germany and you would be surprised! My grandfather who lives here in sunny California hates most of his grandchildren (including me) that are brown skinned. He only recognizes the ones that came out light skinned. Those evil thoughts were promoted to him probably in utero! His parents left Germany, but were so brainwashed and go figure as to why they came to America?

Tyburn
03-12-2009, 03:57 PM
Well, he's made token gestures towards Republicans; but once they decide to disagree with him, Obama goes on the attack.

So far, the only true bipartisanship in our government has been in opposition to Obama. :laugh:
Well he's not made any big international gestures that I've seen...and he has to almost everyone else.

How does he attack? what is he like on the offensive? I've seen him play the diplomat on the defensive, but I've never seen him on the attack...you havent got a nice youtube video or something of him in dissagreement with some Republican and smashing them down that I could watch...have you :w00t:

Tyburn
03-12-2009, 03:58 PM
All I want is some peace in the Middle East!! lol. :Whistle:
Your supposed to say "World Peace" :laugh: *thinks of Sandra bullock in that stupid prom queen film* :scared0011:

Crisco
03-12-2009, 04:16 PM
World peace won't be achieved until we are all wearing turbans.


I can't wait for Jesus to come back I'm so tired of this muslim nonsense.

Miss Foxy
03-12-2009, 04:24 PM
World peace won't be achieved until we are all wearing turbans.


I can't wait for Jesus to come back I'm so tired of this muslim nonsense.
Its not just Muslims and most Muslims aren't like that. We only see the extremists. How bout the innocent ones getting killed everyday..And they don't all wear turbans.

rockdawg21
03-12-2009, 04:24 PM
All I want is some peace in the Middle East!! lol. :Whistle:
It hasn't changed since Biblical times, I wouldn't expect it to ever change, no matter how much Obama reaches out to them.

Miss Foxy
03-12-2009, 04:24 PM
Your supposed to say "World Peace" :laugh: *thinks of Sandra bullock in that stupid prom queen film* :scared0011:
LOL!! Miss Congeniality!! haha!! Yeah exactly!! :)

Miss Foxy
03-12-2009, 04:25 PM
It hasn't changed since Biblical times, I wouldn't expect it to ever change, no matter how much Obama reaches out to them.
It was a figure of speech. It would be nice, but any kind of peace is nice. I was just trying to make some humor out of our conversation..:blink:

rockdawg21
03-12-2009, 04:26 PM
It was a figure of speech. It would be nice, but any kind of peace is nice. I was just trying to make some humor out of our conversation..:blink:
Yeah, I know, but I still wanted to say it :wink:

Miss Foxy
03-12-2009, 04:27 PM
Yeah, I know, but I still wanted to say it :wink:
Anytime Rockdawg21 you know I always come back!! lol:)

Moose
03-12-2009, 04:28 PM
It hasn't changed since Biblical times, I wouldn't expect it to ever change, no matter how much Obama reaches out to them.

See, this is what truly prevents us from realizing that people are people. They have hatreds, and loves. We have them too. Why are we destined to fight forever? That's a dangerously pessimistic attitude.

Crisco
03-12-2009, 04:35 PM
See, this is what truly prevents us from realizing that people are people. They have hatreds, and loves. We have them too. Why are we destined to fight forever? That's a dangerously pessimistic attitude.

If you were a Christian then you would understand it a bit better.


Their faith is an evil perversion and it is the single greatest threat to salvation because of the rate it's message and violence is spreading.

We are ment to fight because they are evil and stand for everything God warned us about.

Mohammed is a false prophet and millions follow his word to death and damnation. If Mohammed were alive today I would stop at nothing to see him silenced.

Moose
03-12-2009, 04:46 PM
If you were a Christian then you would understand it a bit better.


Their faith is an evil perversion and it is the single greatest threat to salvation because of the rate it's message and violence is spreading.

We are ment to fight because they are evil and stand for everything God warned us about.

Mohammed is a false prophet and millions follow his word to death and damnation. If Mohammed were alive today I would stop at nothing to see him silenced.

So now I'm not a Christian? I've read the Bible. Several times. I know the stories. I was baptized. I may be a sheep that's wandered a bit, but don't go assuming too much. Their faith is NOT an evil perversion. Christ was clear that our battles are not of this earth, but instead of soul and spirit. So until Muslims somehow figure out how to separate us from the love of Christ, which the Bible says is impossible- we should love them and try to coexist.

To respond to your bolded point:

So what, you're a modern day crusader? You would kill the man to silence him? How are you different than the Jews who stoned Stephen, or the Islamic fundamentalists that kill missionaries? You ever thought about that?

Crisco
03-12-2009, 04:55 PM
So now I'm not a Christian? I've read the Bible. Several times. I know the stories. I was baptized. I may be a sheep that's wandered a bit, but don't go assuming too much. Their faith is NOT an evil perversion. Christ was clear that our battles are not of this earth, but instead of soul and spirit. So until Muslims somehow figure out how to separate us from the love of Christ, which the Bible says is impossible- we should love them and try to coexist.

To respond to your bolded point:

So what, you're a modern day crusader? You would kill the man to silence him? How are you different than the Jews who stoned Stephen, or the Islamic fundamentalists that kill missionaries? You ever thought about that?

I assumed you were not a Christian because you appear to think it is perfectly fine to be a muslim.

Even the Devil believes in God doesn't make him a Christian brother.

The Crusaders were catholic I most certainly am not.

Mohammed is responsible for some of the worst atrocities in history of both body and SOUL. ESPECIALLY OF THE SOUL.

One cannot reach heaven without being born again through Christ and if you are a muslim sir it is impossible to do.

Mohammed crimes are not of this earth they are of the soul.

You wouldn't stop Adolf Hitler if you had the chance? You wouldn't save those 6 million lives he stole?

Moose
03-12-2009, 05:03 PM
I assumed you were not a Christian because you appear to think it is perfectly fine to be a muslim.



That's their problem with God. Don't make it yours. Don't condemn what you don't understand. You're not going to win over any hearts and minds by being hardheaded. Pray for your enemies.

rockdawg21
03-12-2009, 05:04 PM
See, this is what truly prevents us from realizing that people are people. They have hatreds, and loves. We have them too. Why are we destined to fight forever? That's a dangerously pessimistic attitude.
It's called realism. They haven't changed in 10,000+ years, it's always going to be that way.

They hate us and they hate on each other. It's not going to change.

Crisco
03-12-2009, 05:07 PM
That's their problem with God. Don't make it yours. Don't condemn what you don't understand. You're not going to win over any hearts and minds by being hardheaded. Pray for your enemies.

God's problems are our problems.

I understand enough of it to condemn it. Islam is not Christianity therefore it is an evil faith responsible for corrupting people.

End of story.

I do pray for them and I hope they see the light.


Moose you need to rethink were you stand. If you think it is perfectly fine to not be a Christian and to encourage people to do so then you are not a Christian. We may believe in Christ but you most certainly are not his follower bro.

NateR
03-12-2009, 05:10 PM
The Bible states that Jesus Christ is the Son of GOD, and only through Jesus can the world attain salvation. There are no other options available.

Muslims claim that Jesus was not GOD, but just a prophet and that Mohammed was greater prophet then Jesus. According to the Apostle John, anyone who denies the deity of Christ is a form of Anti-Christ.

The simple fact is that anyone who claims that Jesus Christ was not the Son of GOD or that Jesus is not the only way to salvation cannot possibly be a Christian. It just doesn't work that way. As Jesus said, "He who is not with Me is against Me."

So, the only way for Muslims and Christians to reconcile is for Christians to convert the Muslims to Christianity. Any sort of compromise in Christian doctrine would be blasphemy.

Finally, as the Bible tells us, there will be no peace on Earth until Christ returns.

rockdawg21
03-12-2009, 05:13 PM
The Bible states that Jesus Christ is the Son of GOD, and only through Jesus can the world attain salvation. There are no other options available.

Muslims claim that Jesus was not GOD, but just a prophet and that Mohammed was greater prophet then Jesus. According to the Apostle John, anyone who denies the deity of Christ is a form of Anti-Christ.

The simple fact is that anyone who claims that Jesus Christ was not the Son of GOD or that Jesus is not the only way to salvation cannot possibly be a Christian. It just doesn't work that way. As Jesus said, "He who is not with Me is against Me."

So, the only way for Muslims and Christians to reconcile is for Christians to convert the Muslims to Christianity. Any sort of compromise in Christian doctrine would be blasphemy.

Finally, as the Bible tells us, there will be no peace on Earth until Christ returns.
See? Even God wants to kill them!

Moose
03-12-2009, 05:14 PM
Moose you need to rethink were you stand. If you think it is perfectly fine to not be a Christian and to encourage people to do so then you are not a Christian. We may believe in Christ but you most certainly are not his follower bro.

I don't encourage anyone to covert to Islam. I also don't blame someone who grew up in Iraq for being one. It's the way things are over there. I don't hate them for it. I'm not saying they're going to heaven. Don't twist my words, which is all you seem to do, you have no recourse for what I say, so you tweak what I believe to make it easier on you not to dwell on it.

And as far as being his follower goes:

Luke 18:
9To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
13"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

14"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

Who is more righteous in front of God? Someone who admits their faults or someone who believes themselves to be blameless? If God can use a donkey to preach to Balaam then why not me to you?

Backtracking to commence in 3...2...1...

Moose
03-12-2009, 05:16 PM
Finally, as the Bible tells us, there will be no peace on Earth until Christ returns.

It doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Blessed are the peacemakers.

NateR
03-12-2009, 05:21 PM
It doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Blessed are the peacemakers.

Yes, but a peacemaker is not someone who merely talks about peace. A true peacemaker is a soldier to put his life on the line to fight for peace.

VCURamFan
03-12-2009, 05:21 PM
I'm just going to step in & say that I have yet to read anything in this thread from Nate with which I disagree. It's really nice that everytime I read something I want to respond to, I just need to scroll down a post or two & see that Nate's already made the point much more eloquently than I could have!

O, & here's a little something for those of us who took the SATs before 2004 - Obama:Polotics::GSP:MMA.

Moose
03-12-2009, 05:23 PM
Yes, but a peacemaker is not someone who merely talks about peace. A true peacemaker is a soldier to put his life on the line to fight for peace.

The truest peacemaker didn't call down five legions of angels and wipeout everyone in a righteous fit of indignation.

Crisco
03-12-2009, 05:30 PM
I don't encourage anyone to covert to Islam. I also don't blame someone who grew up in Iraq for being one. It's the way things are over there. I don't hate them for it. I'm not saying they're going to heaven. Don't twist my words, which is all you seem to do, you have no recourse for what I say, so you tweak what I believe to make it easier on you not to dwell on it.

And as far as being his follower goes:

Luke 18:
9To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
13"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

14"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

Who is more righteous in front of God? Someone who admits their faults or someone who believes themselves to be blameless? If God can use a donkey to preach to Balaam then why not me to you?

Backtracking to commence in 3...2...1...

Zero back tracking needed here my friend.


I never pray for anything accept strength to do God's will and for God to help others see the light.

Islam is not of God.. It is the opposite of what God is.

If a muslim admits that they are wrong for being a muslim and choose to become a Christian then they are indeed righteous. However, the man that does as God commanded and spreads the word to those who do not even want to hear it he is indeed righteous. Your analogy does not work here as both man shared faith in a true God however, one was not truly understanding the purpose of prayer. I do not condescend to anyone but if you do not know the word of God or follow what is asks It is my job as a Christian to call you out as commanded by God.

I don't claim to be righteous but I choose to live by the word of our lord and part of that word says to try to open the minds of non-believers so that they can open their hearts to God.

EVERY EFFORT MUST BE MADE to save as many souls as we can. Those who are deaf to it have made their own beds and they must lay in them.

Crisco
03-12-2009, 05:31 PM
The truest peacemaker didn't call down five legions of angels and wipeout everyone in a righteous fit of indignation.

The time when he comes back will be violent and purging for the world.

Peace for the first time and the sword for the second

Moose
03-12-2009, 05:32 PM
Those who are deaf to it have made their own beds and they must lay in them.

Be careful not to become a self-fulfilling prophesy. The parable was right on the money.

Crisco
03-12-2009, 05:43 PM
Be careful not to become a self-fulfilling prophesy. The parable was right on the money.

I really don't understand your position...?

So your saying my condemning a religion that teaches the opposite of what God commands we believe is a bad thing?


What would you have me do? Be perfectly fine that it's going on? Be perfectly content with millions of souls being tossed into hell for a belief started by a muslim dictator?

I don't follow what you want from me exactly? Your asking me to commit blasphemy and I'm the one fullfilling prophesy?

Your the snake my friend I'm not biting the apple.

Miss Foxy
03-12-2009, 05:43 PM
Be careful not to become a self-fulfilling prophesy. The parable was right on the money.
Wow, I have such a bad taste in my mouth over reading all this. I agree with you Moose. I just can't believe what im reading. Im really upset and sad :sad:

Crisco
03-12-2009, 05:46 PM
Wow, I have such a bad taste in my mouth over reading all this. I agree with you Moose. I just can't believe what im reading. Im really upset and sad :sad:

The reality is not suppose to be sweet. This world sucks. People are evil creatures(God stills wants us to be saved so we have to help eachother along the way. Our love for one other comes from God not because we are ment to love the evils of peoples souls. I'm just as sinful as the next man but my faith in Christ allows me to be forgiven if I am truly sorry for my actions)

The only thing worth truly loving in this world is faith in God.

1 John 2:15 (New International Version)

Do Not Love the World
15Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

Miss Foxy
03-12-2009, 05:51 PM
If you were a Christian then you would understand it a bit better.


Their faith is an evil perversion and it is the single greatest threat to salvation because of the rate it's message and violence is spreading.

We are ment to fight because they are evil and stand for everything God warned us about.

Mohammed is a false prophet and millions follow his word to death and damnation. If Mohammed were alive today I would stop at nothing to see him silenced.
So is John Smith a false prophet? Because aren't LDS Christians? Or do you cast them out as well?

Miss Foxy
03-12-2009, 05:54 PM
The Bible states that Jesus Christ is the Son of GOD, and only through Jesus can the world attain salvation. There are no other options available.

Muslims claim that Jesus was not GOD, but just a prophet and that Mohammed was greater prophet then Jesus. According to the Apostle John, anyone who denies the deity of Christ is a form of Anti-Christ.
The simple fact is that anyone who claims that Jesus Christ was not the Son of GOD or that Jesus is not the only way to salvation cannot possibly be a Christian. It just doesn't work that way. As Jesus said, "He who is not with Me is against Me."

So, the only way for Muslims and Christians to reconcile is for Christians to convert the Muslims to Christianity. Any sort of compromise in Christian doctrine would be blasphemy.

Finally, as the Bible tells us, there will be no peace on Earth until Christ returns.
Ok so that leads me to according to that statement wouldnt that include other faiths than muslim? Or how about an atheist??

Crisco
03-12-2009, 05:58 PM
So is John Smith a false prophet? Because aren't LDS Christians? Or do you cast them out as well?

I believe you mean Joseph Smith is an extremely false prophet.

I put him in the same category as L. Ron Hubbard.

Any faith that attempts to add on to the bible or use another book to interperate the bible is false. The book of Mormon is a false doctrine as is the watch tower for the Jehovas witnesses.

Miss Foxy
03-12-2009, 05:59 PM
I believe you mean Joseph Smith is an extremely false prophet.

I put him in the same category as L. Ron Hubbard.

Any faith that attempts to add on to the bible or use another book to interperate the bible is false. The book of Mormon is a false doctrine as is the watch tower for the Jehovas witnesses. oops lol must have watched too much Pocahontas!! :wink:

Crisco
03-12-2009, 06:00 PM
Ok so that leads me to according to that statement wouldnt that include other faiths than muslim? Or how about an atheist??

Any faith that does not acknowledge Jesus Christ as lord and Saviour is evil because it misguides people from God.

The only possible exception are the Jews because they have a special bond with God.

Moose
03-12-2009, 06:03 PM
I really don't understand your position...?

So your saying my condemning a religion that teaches the opposite of what God commands we believe is a bad thing?


What would you have me do? Be perfectly fine that it's going on? Be perfectly content with millions of souls being tossed into hell for a belief started by a muslim dictator?

I don't follow what you want from me exactly? Your asking me to commit blasphemy and I'm the one fullfilling prophesy?

Your the snake my friend I'm not biting the apple.

What I'm asking of you is to examine your own heart when you stand in front of God. Take a hard look at yourself and your position of hatred against not a religion, but a people. The parable in Luke shows us what happens to those who think they are on the right path due to their own righteousness, but in reality Jesus teaches us that only humility towards God and others gives us any chance at salvation and the winning of other souls.

No one is good except God himself. Jesus said so. The ones that will be seen as righteous are the ones who humble their hearts in front of God.

I'm not asking you to kiss a Koran and declare it the word of God. I just implore you to love others, and not to hate. If that's not the Christian thing to do then I don't know what is.

Miss Foxy
03-12-2009, 06:07 PM
Any faith that does not acknowledge Jesus Christ as lord and Saviour is evil because it misguides people from God.

The only possible exception are the Jews because they have a special bond with God.
I just think that its hurts me to read posts that seem so mean even for the conviction of Christ. I can't imagine children in regions where Christianity is not allowed how are they supposed to know about Christ? So they are evil? I believe those muslims that are killing each other and others for the "jihad" are insane and crazy no arguing that! They are evil. I just have mixed feelings about the kids and others who don't know any better.

Crisco
03-12-2009, 06:08 PM
What I'm asking of you is to examine your own heart when you stand in front of God. Take a hard look at yourself and your position of hatred against not a religion, but a people. The parable in Luke shows us what happens to those who think they are on the right path due to their own righteousness, but in reality Jesus teaches us that only humility towards God and others gives us any chance at salvation and the winning of other souls.

No one is good except God himself. Jesus said so. The ones that will be seen as righteous are the ones who humble their hearts in front of God.

I'm not asking you to kiss a Koran and declare it the word of God. I just implore you to love others, and not to hate. If that's not the Christian thing to do then I don't know what is.

I do not hate Arabic people.

I hate Sin. Islam is evil and I hate it. Islam is detestable because I saw care about the people who follow it. It's condemning them.

You are the one twisting things to make me seem like some sort of Racist.

The ones who are not afraid to call a sin a sin will also be applauded by God. I don't bow down to the islamic theocracy that is quickly taking hold in our world. It is against God plan and simple.

It is Blasphemy. For someone who claims to be a Christian how can you not find Islam detestable for distracting faith from Christ?

rearnakedchoke
03-12-2009, 06:09 PM
The reality is, is that some people on here who call themselves Christian, have a warped sense of Christ and are actually worse than those who say they are not Christian ... They pick and choose what was taught by Jesus to suit their lifestyles .. killing is wrong, but ok if it is during unjust wars, if people don't convert, killing them is fine ... etc ... Jesus is looking at these people with shame and realizing they are the ones that need saving ...

Crisco
03-12-2009, 06:10 PM
I just think that its hurts me to read posts that seem so mean even for the conviction of Christ. I can't imagine children in regions where Christianity is not allowed how are they supposed to know about Christ? So they are evil? I believe those muslims that are killing each other and others for the "jihad" are insane and crazy no arguing that! They are evil. I just have mixed feelings about the kids and others who don't know any better.

It's called the age of accountablity. Young children are exempted by God to some degree.

It is the adults who are truly accountable. Living in a place that denys you the ability to be a Christian does not stop you from having faith in Christ. You can pray to him secret and in your mind.

It is not outward appearences that are the problem. Christ wants your heart and mind not for you walk around with a Crucifix t-shirt on.

NateR
03-12-2009, 06:11 PM
Ok so that leads me to according to that statement wouldnt that include other faiths than muslim? Or how about an atheist??

Any person who doesn't accept Jesus Christ as the Son of GOD, repent of their sins, and dedicate their life to Him is going to Hell. Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Wiccans, Satanists, Atheists, Agnostics and even many Christians will be in Hell after the final judgement. The Jews are kind of a special case, however most of them will be in Hell also; but GOD will preserve Himself a remnant of Jews just before Jesus returns.

The simple truth is that the vast majority of people walking the Earth today are lost and going to Hell.

There are many things we can do to help save those who are lost. However, the first thing is to NOT compromise our beliefs for the sake of pluralism and political correctness.

Miss Foxy
03-12-2009, 06:13 PM
I do not hate Arabic people.

I hate Sin. Islam is evil and I hate it. Islam is detestable because I saw care about the people who follow it. It's condemning them.

You are the one twisting things to make me seem like some sort of Racist.

The ones who are not afraid to call a sin a sin will also be applauded by God. I don't bow down to the islamic theocracy that is quickly taking hold in our world. It is against God plan and simple.

It is Blasphemy. For someone who claims to be a Christian how can you not find Islam detestable for distracting faith from Christ? No one said you were racist. If that comment was brought up I would have been the first to say so considering I am 1/4 Arabic and my ancestors were Muslim. I don't think that way though I am not always on the defense. I ask questions and voice my opinion no matter what. I know 1/2 of what I say is not the favorable opinion around here, but I don't care as long as no one including myself takes it to the limit by disrespecting.

Crisco
03-12-2009, 06:14 PM
Any person who doesn't accept Jesus Christ as the Son of GOD, repent of their sins, and dedicate their life to Him is going to Hell. Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Wiccans, Satanists, Atheists, Agnostics and even many Christians will be in Hell after the final judgement. The Jews are kind of a special case, however most of them will be in Hell also; but GOD will preserve Himself a remnant of Jews just before Jesus returns.

The simple truth is that the vast majority of people walking the Earth today are lost and going to Hell.

There are many things we can do to help save those who are lost. However, the first thing is to NOT compromise our beliefs for the sake of pluralism and political correctness.

Hit the nail on the head.


Nate if you see anything biblically wrong with anything I have said could you please help me by pointing it out so I may go back and do more study? Your much more studied then I am. I'm just scratching the surface in comparison.

Miss Foxy
03-12-2009, 06:14 PM
It's called the age of accountablity. Young children are exempted by God to some degree.

It is the adults who are truly accountable. Living in a place that denys you the ability to be a Christian does not stop you from having faith in Christ. You can pray to him secret and in your mind.

It is not outward appearences that are the problem. Christ wants your heart and mind not for you walk around with a Crucifix t-shirt on.
How if they live in tribes in the desert or caves?

Crisco
03-12-2009, 06:16 PM
How if they live in tribes in the desert or caves?

It comes down to responsiblity.

If you have been compeltely cut off from Christ your entire life and have no idea he ever existed and have neverh ad access to a bible that is a grey area that God must answer.

He has his reasons for doing some things we don't quite understand.

Very few people have any excuse on the matter these days but true there are some who have been completely cut off.

I don't really know the answer to that question to be honest.

Maybe Nate can help with that a bit better then I can. I'm not sure if the bible addresses this issue.

Miss Foxy
03-12-2009, 06:19 PM
It comes down to responsiblity.

If you have been compeltely cut off from Christ your entire life and have no idea he ever existed and have neverh ad access to a bible that is a grey area that God must answer.

He has his reasons for doing some things we don't quite understand.

Very few people have any excuse on the matter these days but true there are some who have been completely cut off.

I don't really know the answer to that question to be honest.

Maybe Nate can help with that a bit better then I can. I'm not sure if the bible addresses this issue. I guess I just love people all people and always feel bad for the weak, poor, and uneducated. I was always told my heart is too big so thats why I am asking all these questions to try to understand.

rearnakedchoke
03-12-2009, 06:20 PM
It comes down to responsiblity.

If you have been compeltely cut off from Christ your entire life and have no idea he ever existed and have neverh ad access to a bible that is a grey area that God must answer.

He has his reasons for doing some things we don't quite understand.

Very few people have any excuse on the matter these days but true there are some who have been completely cut off.

I don't really know the answer to that question to be honest.

Maybe Nate can help with that a bit better then I can. I'm not sure if the bible addresses this issue.
Read the bible for yourself and come to conclusions .. don't let someone else interpret Jesus' life and words for you ... sounds like you have taken some warped interpretations and made them yours ... think for yourself man ..

Crisco
03-12-2009, 06:24 PM
I guess I just love people all people and always feel bad for the weak, poor, and uneducated. I was always told my heart is too big so thats why I am asking all these questions to try to understand.

I feel you.

I'm the same way. I love people and I use to do the same thign when I first started coming to this forum..

I couldn't comprehend why God would allow such horible things and condemn so many people...

It doesn't always make sense but that goes with the sheer magnitude that God is... He is all powerful and our puny logic has no place for him.

Think of God has a force not just like a man on a thrown... He is a life force watching and caring but still very human in some of his behaviors... Anger and sadness... God is a very complex and layered being from what I've learned... Sometimes figuring him out is just beyond our ability.. It sounds like a cop out I know but do you really think you would be able to comprehend a being capable of creating the universe that easily?

County Mike
03-12-2009, 06:27 PM
Read the bible for yourself and come to conclusions .. don't let someone else interpret Jesus' life and words for you ... sounds like you have taken some warped interpretations and made them yours ... think for yourself man ..

How can you say he's not thinking for himself when he calls it a "gray area" and says he really doesn't know the answer? That pretty much sounds like he's thinking for himself. No matter what his interpretation is, how do you know it's not his own interpretation? I might not agree with everything someone says, but I'm not too likely to accuse them of spewing someone elses thoughts.

Crisco
03-12-2009, 06:27 PM
Read the bible for yourself and come to conclusions .. don't let someone else interpret Jesus' life and words for you ... sounds like you have taken some warped interpretations and made them yours ... think for yourself man ..

What are you talking about? What exactly do you people think I warped I don't understand.... God hates sin... Blasphemy is a sin... Islam=Blasphemy=sin It's not just Islam it's all non-Christian faiths. I simply choose to concentrate on Islam because it is responsible for MILLIONS. It's the fastest growing religion in the world.

I have not dissected the bible word for word yet I still have a ways to go. Nate has done it many times and if there is a section of the bible that holds a passage regarding the issue he is one of the first people on this forum to know where it is.

Crisco
03-12-2009, 06:28 PM
How can you say he's not thinking for himself when he calls it a "gray area" and says he really doesn't know the answer? That pretty much sounds like he's thinking for himself. No matter what his interpretation is, how do you know it's not his own interpretation? I might not agree with everything someone says, but I'm not too likely to accuse them of spewing someone elses thoughts.

Glad someone else noticed haha thanks Big Mike.

NateR
03-12-2009, 06:32 PM
Hit the nail on the head.


Nate if you see anything biblically wrong with anything I have said could you please help me by pointing it out so I may go back and do more study? Your much more studied then I am. I'm just scratching the surface in comparison.

While there is a certain level of "righteous anger" that Christians will naturally feel towards those people who seem intent on dragging as many people down to Hell with them, vengeance is not something that we as Christians are supposed to seek.

To non-believers, "righteous anger" just looks like hatred and revenge. So, there is nothing wrong with having feelings of righteous anger, but it's best to keep them between you and GOD and maybe a small group of Christians that you trust. Because it's guaranteed to be misunderstood by non-Christians.

GOD expresses righteous anger plenty of times in the Bible and Jesus will display the greatest example of righteous anger when He returns to "slay all the nations." However, we need to display love. Maybe a tough love in some cases, but love nonetheless.

Of course, that's never easy and young Christians always struggle with their hatred of unrighteousness and the love we are commanded to express; but it all just boils down to "Hate the sin, love the sinner."

rearnakedchoke
03-12-2009, 06:33 PM
How can you say he's not thinking for himself when he calls it a "gray area" and says he really doesn't know the answer? That pretty much sounds like he's thinking for himself. No matter what his interpretation is, how do you know it's not his own interpretation? I might not agree with everything someone says, but I'm not too likely to accuse them of spewing someone elses thoughts.
he himself said he thought differently before he came here .. sounds plain as day that he is letting other people think for him and interpret things for him .. so yes, he is spewing other peoples warped ideas ...

County Mike
03-12-2009, 06:34 PM
Or maybe coming here inspired him to read the bible and make some conclusions.

Crisco
03-12-2009, 06:36 PM
he himself said he thought differently before he came here .. sounds plain as day that he is letting other people think for him and interpret things for him .. so yes, he is spewing other peoples warped ideas ...

Before I came here I never read the bible or bothered to understand it.

Your changing what I said to attack me.

I make my own decision but I base them on the bible not other people.

Often other people lead me to passages to read and discuss but don't kid yourself at the end of the day I'm my own man and I make my own choices.

Some stuff makes sense and others don't.

Your beef is most likely with my looking to the bible for guidence and not much else.

Crisco
03-12-2009, 06:37 PM
Or maybe coming here inspired him to read the bible and make some conclusions.

Damnit beat me to it again lol

Crisco
03-12-2009, 06:38 PM
Or maybe coming here inspired him to read the bible and make some conclusions.

Also that's a pretty hardcore wolf. Do you have a wolf T-shirt to match?


:tongue0011:

rearnakedchoke
03-12-2009, 06:38 PM
Before I came here I never read the bible or bothered to understand it.

Your changing what I said to attack me.

I make my own decision but I base them on the bible not other people.

Often other people lead me to passages to read and discuss but don't kid yourself at the end of the day I'm my own man and I make my own choices.

Some stuff makes sense and others don't.

Your beef is most likely with my looking to the bible for guidence and not much else.
i don't have a beef .. just pointing things out ...

rearnakedchoke
03-12-2009, 06:39 PM
Damnit beat me to it again lol

Now you are letting Mike do the thinking for you ...

Crisco
03-12-2009, 06:40 PM
Now you are letting Mike do the thinking for you ...

lol. See me on the Mat.

/endthread

County Mike
03-12-2009, 06:40 PM
Also that's a pretty hardcore wolf. Do you have a wolf T-shirt to match?


:tongue0011:

No, just found that picture online. I want to get it as a tattoo. I've always liked Wolves and played ice hockey on a team called the "Wolves" for 15 years. Just can't decide how big and where on my body to put it. Also have to save up enough money where I don't have more important expenses instead.

Crisco
03-12-2009, 06:42 PM
While there is a certain level of "righteous anger" that Christians will naturally feel towards those people who seem intent on dragging as many people down to Hell with them, vengeance is not something that we as Christians are supposed to seek.

To non-believers, "righteous anger" just looks like hatred and revenge. So, there is nothing wrong with having feelings of righteous anger, but it's best to keep them between you and GOD and maybe a small group of Christians that you trust. Because it's guaranteed to be misunderstood by non-Christians.

GOD expresses righteous anger plenty of times in the Bible and Jesus will display the greatest example of righteous anger when He returns to "slay all the nations." However, we need to display love. Maybe a tough love in some cases, but love nonetheless.

Of course, that's never easy and young Christians always struggle with their hatred of unrighteousness and the love we are commanded to express; but it all just boils down to "Hate the sin, love the sinner."

Yea at the risk of letting you make my decisions for me *cough*

I think your right... I did get a little too worked up over it..

I have to work on it I suppose...

I always say I have a long way to go and it rings true all the time.

Thanks Nate.

Crisco
03-12-2009, 06:43 PM
No, just found that picture online. I want to get it as a tattoo. I've always liked Wolves and played ice hockey on a team called the "Wolves" for 15 years. Just can't decide how big and where on my body to put it. Also have to save up enough money where I don't have more important expenses instead.

Right butt cheek bro. Kelli will get a kick out ofi t :tongue0011:

County Mike
03-12-2009, 06:45 PM
Right butt cheek bro. Kelli will get a kick out ofi t :tongue0011:

haha. I was thinking large on center of back or smaller on one of my arms.

Of course, if I went with the butt, the artist could save ink and just blend it into my own hair. Ewwwww!

NateR
03-12-2009, 06:45 PM
Yea at the risk of letting you make my decisions for me *cough*

I think your right... I did get a little too worked up over it..

I have to work on it I suppose...

I always say I have a long way to go and it rings true all the time.

Thanks Nate.

And now that I have control of your mind, I want you to pay my rent for me. :Whistle:

On a serious note, check your PM box if you haven't done so already. :)

rearnakedchoke
03-12-2009, 06:45 PM
lol. See me on the Mat.

/endthread
are you right or left handed??? let me know .. i will be nice and let you tap with your dominant hand ...

rearnakedchoke
03-12-2009, 06:47 PM
And now that I have control of your mind, I want you to pay my rent for me. :Whistle:

On a serious note, check your PM box if you haven't done so already. :)


LOL ... good one Nate, you let him in on it ..

Crisco
03-12-2009, 06:48 PM
are you right or left handed??? let me know .. i will be nice and let you tap with your dominant hand ...

which is your favorite arm? =) I'll let you keep that one :ninja:

rearnakedchoke
03-12-2009, 06:49 PM
which is your favorite arm? =) I'll let you keep that one :ninja:
it'll have to be the left, as my right arm will be tied behind my back ...

Crisco
03-12-2009, 06:50 PM
haha. I was thinking large on center of back or smaller on one of my arms.

Of course, if I went with the butt, the artist could save ink and just blend it into my own hair. Ewwwww!

I would do upper back if you still have the room.. Center back may look ackward. Same for the arm. Not sure how it would mesh with your frame...

They shave your butt anyway before they tattoo you would be fine. :tongue0011:

Tyburn
03-12-2009, 06:51 PM
See, this is what truly prevents us from realizing that people are people. They have hatreds, and loves. We have them too. Why are we destined to fight forever? That's a dangerously pessimistic attitude.
Because we live in a fallen world

We live as imperfect beings, and we are unique, this creates difference, difference leads to dispute, dispute leads to war. Its the consequences of living

Because there is a spiritual war.

We are also being used as pawns. You dont need to be religious to be used, just alive. GOD can use people that are not Christians, can change their circumstances so certain people meet. The Devil is far worse, he actually makes a habit of using people who are "neutral" GOD tends to use people who offer there service of their own free will. Whereas the Devil will use anyone. We are surrounded by Angels, some good, some not so good, and they war constantly around us. Sometimes you hear them because they can effect your thoughts. Its not always YOU that you hear inside your brain. You can be influenced, we all are, all the time, constantly, in a war between Good and Evil

There can be no peace, there never will be. Peace comes only after a Massicre where the opposition is completely distroyed. One side Wins, and doesnt live in harmony with the other, it wins via the complete destruction of all that is sinful, forever.

Crisco
03-12-2009, 06:51 PM
it'll have to be the left, as my right arm will be tied behind my back ...

I lol'd :laugh:

Miss Foxy
03-12-2009, 06:52 PM
Before I came here I never read the bible or bothered to understand it.

Your changing what I said to attack me.

I make my own decision but I base them on the bible not other people.

Often other people lead me to passages to read and discuss but don't kid yourself at the end of the day I'm my own man and I make my own choices.

Some stuff makes sense and others don't.

Your beef is most likely with my looking to the bible for guidence and not much else.
I am sorry I don't think he was attacking you. I feel responsible. I think he was comforting me in being upset over your interpretations. No harm he's just expressing his thoughts as you have. I was raised Catholic, but converted to LDS in my young 20's. I was baptized born-again in my mid 20's.

County Mike
03-12-2009, 06:52 PM
I would do upper back if you still have the room.. Center back may look ackward. Same for the arm. Not sure how it would mesh with your frame...

They shave your butt anyway before they tattoo you would be fine. :tongue0011:

I have no tattoos right now. Back is fairly wide in respect to the rest of my body. You think upper back, one side instead of centered? I did hear that the needle hurts like crazy right on the spine area. Kinda go with one shoulder blade area?

I was kidding about the butt hair. I have it waxed. :tongue0011:

Tyburn
03-12-2009, 06:54 PM
The Crusaders were catholic I most certainly am not.


One Faith, One Church, One Lord :ninja:

Crisco
03-12-2009, 06:55 PM
I am sorry I don't think he was attacking you. I feel responsible. I think he was comforting me in being upset over your interpretations. No harm he's just expressing his thoughts as you have. I was raised Catholic, but converted to LDS in my young 20's. I was baptized born-again in my mid 20's.

I'm sorry if I was to forceful with what I was saying,...

I just feel very strongly about it the whole issue and like you care very much for people... Not just their physical bodies but their souls and I'm sure you can understand why based upon Christian belief the subject could really push my buttons...

:)

Crisco
03-12-2009, 06:57 PM
I have no tattoos right now. Back is fairly wide in respect to the rest of my body. You think upper back, one side instead of centered? I did hear that the needle hurts like crazy right on the spine area. Kinda go with one shoulder blade area?

I was kidding about the butt hair. I have it waxed. :tongue0011:

I tell everyone never pick your Tattoo based on pain. The ink lasts forever for the most part the pain is temporary bro.

When it hit my spain it made me shiver it didn't really hurt. Who is doing the work for you? If they use a stencil it should be really easy for you to see what it would look like when it is done.

Something like a wolf is dominant and being on one shoulder blade seems kinda wasted. Put that across the blades man thats my choice =)

Miss Foxy
03-12-2009, 06:57 PM
I'm sorry if I was to forceful with what I was saying,...

I just feel very strongly about it the whole issue and like you care very much for people... Not just their physical bodies but their souls and I'm sure you can understand why based upon Christian belief the subject could really push my buttons...

:)
No I don't mind.. Only time I get worked up myself with things I am passionate or sensitive about. Just the way I was raised spiritually speaking it was a different approach.

Tyburn
03-12-2009, 06:58 PM
Finally, as the Bible tells us, there will be no peace on Earth until Christ returns.
Not quite True. :ninja:

The Anti-Christ is able to create Peace, thats how he gets his following remember. When there is peace in Israel, BE AFRAID, because thats a sign that the Tribulation has well and truely begun.

Obviously the Anti-Christs peace is not lasting, nor extended to those who see right through him. But to say that people wont see peace until the millenial reign is...slightly misleading.

Many from other faiths and many Heathen will see Light in Lucifers False Light. Many Christians may also be tempted. This comes well before the Millenial Reign and the Return of Christ.

County Mike
03-12-2009, 07:00 PM
I tell everyone never pick your Tattoo based on pain. The ink lasts forever for the most part the pain is temporary bro.

When it hit my spain it made me shiver it didn't really hurt. Who is doing the work for you? If they use a stencil it should be really easy for you to see what it would look like when it is done.

Something like a wolf is dominant and being on one shoulder blade seems kinda wasted. Put that across the blades man thats my choice =)

I haven't even picked an artist yet. Still in the "maybe someday" stage. If I do go with it, I'll use Alfie's artist. He highly recommends him. I misunderstood your earlier post. I thought you were saying to not center it. I guess you meant vertically. So - top of back, centered across the span of the shoulder blades is how you'd go? Afterwards, if anyone takes my back it will scare them off. haha I'd go black and white (gray shades) but with bright green eyes.

Tyburn
03-12-2009, 07:00 PM
So is John Smith a false prophet? Because aren't LDS Christians? Or do you cast them out as well?
The Mormons are not Christian, they are a Cult, known as a "Sect" They have an extra book which they claim is Scripture. The Book of Mormon.

Crisco
03-12-2009, 07:04 PM
I haven't even picked an artist yet. Still in the "maybe someday" stage. If I do go with it, I'll use Alfie's artist. He highly recommends him. I misunderstood your earlier post. I thought you were saying to not center it. I guess you meant vertically. So - top of back, centered across the span of the shoulder blades is how you'd go? Afterwards, if anyone takes my back it will scare them off. haha I'd go black and white (gray shades) but with bright green eyes.

Yea I have a few of those maybe some days haha.

I ment right across yea. Would look pretty hardcore with it angeled right.

When they take your back just start growling and stuff it will freak them out haha.

Tyburn
03-12-2009, 07:06 PM
I just think that its hurts me to read posts that seem so mean even for the conviction of Christ. I can't imagine children in regions where Christianity is not allowed how are they supposed to know about Christ? So they are evil? I believe those muslims that are killing each other and others for the "jihad" are insane and crazy no arguing that! They are evil. I just have mixed feelings about the kids and others who don't know any better.
It can be done.

Think of the Pharoe of Egypt, who was the Father of Tutankhamun. Achnatun was his name. He abandoned the whole parthanon of "gods" and he built his own City in the desert dedicated to "The ONE GOD"

Achnatun was so certain he named his Son Tut-Ankh-Amun (Eternal Life though the Singular of GOD)

Tutankhamun was murdered. I suspect that to be a good reason why. With the pair out the way, the Egyptians returned to Amun Ra (The Sun god) and back came all the gods.

This was Prior to the Jews being Jews, prior to the Law being Given...this maybe prior Abraham.

But like you I struggled for years with the knowledge that some people, good people, will be lost because they are not perfect and dont know the secret of Eternal Life. That is why Life is important, and why Christians should never cease talking about the "Gospel" (Goodnews)

Tyburn
03-12-2009, 07:10 PM
Any person who doesn't accept Jesus Christ as the Son of GOD, repent of their sins, and dedicate their life to Him is going to Hell. Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Wiccans, Satanists, Atheists, Agnostics and even many Christians will be in Hell after the final judgement. The Jews are kind of a special case, however most of them will be in Hell also; but GOD will preserve Himself a remnant of Jews just before Jesus returns.

The simple truth is that the vast majority of people walking the Earth today are lost and going to Hell.

There are many things we can do to help save those who are lost. However, the first thing is to NOT compromise our beliefs for the sake of pluralism and political correctness.

Indeed. :)

Tyburn
03-12-2009, 07:13 PM
While there is a certain level of "righteous anger" that Christians will naturally feel towards those people who seem intent on dragging as many people down to Hell with them, vengeance is not something that we as Christians are supposed to seek.

To non-believers, "righteous anger" just looks like hatred and revenge. So, there is nothing wrong with having feelings of righteous anger, but it's best to keep them between you and GOD and maybe a small group of Christians that you trust. Because it's guaranteed to be misunderstood by non-Christians.

GOD expresses righteous anger plenty of times in the Bible and Jesus will display the greatest example of righteous anger when He returns to "slay all the nations." However, we need to display love. Maybe a tough love in some cases, but love nonetheless.

Of course, that's never easy and young Christians always struggle with their hatred of unrighteousness and the love we are commanded to express; but it all just boils down to "Hate the sin, love the sinner."

:cry: :cry: I'm welling up :cry: :cry:

NateR
03-12-2009, 07:16 PM
Not quite True. :ninja:

The Anti-Christ is able to create Peace, thats how he gets his following remember. When there is peace in Israel, BE AFRAID, because thats a sign that the Tribulation has well and truely begun.

Obviously the Anti-Christs peace is not lasting, nor extended to those who see right through him. But to say that people wont see peace until the millenial reign is...slightly misleading.

Many from other faiths and many Heathen will see Light in Lucifers False Light. Many Christians may also be tempted. This comes well before the Millenial Reign and the Return of Christ.

True, but that will be a false peace, so I didn't consider it. It might look like peace on the surface, but a secret war against Christians and Jews will still be going on behind the scenes.

Tyburn
03-12-2009, 07:18 PM
True, but that will be a false peace, so I didn't consider it. It might look like peace on the surface, but a secret war against Christians and Jews will still be going on behind the scenes.

Yes, but we shouldnt kid ourselves on how convincing a peace it might look like. You dont want a heathern to say to you "but you said that there wont be peace until Christ comes, and this looks like peace to me"

Its a technical point that I've come to include....best to try and tell people everything...or else they get sucked into the false peace. Do you follow? LOL It wasnt really a criticism, more just a footnote. :laugh:

Tyburn
03-12-2009, 07:19 PM
lol. See me on the Mat.

/endthread
:laugh: Crisco...have we talked about the myth of might makes right before havent we :laugh:

Tyburn
03-12-2009, 07:21 PM
are you right or left handed??? let me know .. i will be nice and let you tap with your dominant hand ...
Pride comes before a Fall....Just ask Lucifer.

I'd quit whilst you were ahead if I were you. :ninja:

Tyburn
03-12-2009, 07:32 PM
I tell everyone never pick your Tattoo based on pain. The ink lasts forever for the most part the pain is temporary bro.

When it hit my spain it made me shiver it didn't really hurt. Who is doing the work for you? If they use a stencil it should be really easy for you to see what it would look like when it is done.

Something like a wolf is dominant and being on one shoulder blade seems kinda wasted. Put that across the blades man thats my choice =)
I'm have in mind my next Tattoo...its going to be some sparrow. All my Tattoos have religious significance, they are there to remind me of something.

Many birds have Christian Symbolism attached, but people forget the sparrow, they go for peace doves, or pentecostal doves, or they go for eagles.

But a sparrow was used to demonstrate something I'm overcoming in my struggles. Something known as "intrinsic Value" Jesus uses them in two illustrations. Firstly, sparrows are really quite dull, they dont fend well for themselves, they depend on GOD to provide for them...but despite that they do not worry.

I worry so much I get effected by an axiety disorder :unsure-1:

Sparrows are also ten-a-penny. They are like pigeons, numerous, and of litter regard to people. And Yet Jesus tells us that He knows each sparrow intimately, and he cares for them enough to provide for them. If thats how he feels about sparrows...imagine how he feels about Human beings.

I often feel doubtful, unloved, and of little worth. Its a lie, and its fed to me by thoughts, active thoughts in my mind. My own bloody mind tells me lies. I HEAR it...and then the feelings of depression come.

The truth regardless of how I feel is that I'm as important to GOD as the sparrow...even if Lucifer sends Demons to tell me otherwise. Its made me think about my thought life, about how you get these "self talk" episodes. BE WEARY of Self Talk...because I'm not convinced its SELF talk at all. I think it can be a form of control and persuation...I think its sometimes more like a suggestion posing as a comon thought.

Why do I think this? Because the Bible tells the truth and the two aint matching up. As I know the truth...I'm wondering why my Mind is trying to convince me otherwise...Intreguing isnt it.

I'm bloody having none of it. :ninja: do you hear? NONE of it :angry:

rockdawg21
03-12-2009, 07:51 PM
Wow, all this because Obama isn't telling the whole truth?!

Neezar
03-13-2009, 03:27 AM
I have no tattoos right now. Back is fairly wide in respect to the rest of my body. You think upper back, one side instead of centered? I did hear that the needle hurts like crazy right on the spine area. Kinda go with one shoulder blade area?

I was kidding about the butt hair. I have it waxed. :tongue0011:

Mike, don't put that in the center of your shoulder blades. It is round. It wouldn't flow with your shape or the movement there. He is round and strong. He needs to be in a steady place.

I say do the inside of your arm, bicep area but a little to the back and upside down. That way when you raise your arm and put it behind your head then the tattoo is face up and looking at whoever is looking at it. Otherwise folks can only see the edges of a tattoo and curiousity makes them ask to see it. Moving you arm up like that makes your bicep look good. Hubby has one there and it is HOT. The women love it. :cool: Another benefit is that you can cover it just fine with a t-shirt if you want to be non-tatoo guy. :)

County Mike
03-13-2009, 12:05 PM
Mike, don't put that in the center of your shoulder blades. It is round. It wouldn't flow with your shape or the movement there. He is round and strong. He needs to be in a steady place.

I say do the inside of your arm, bicep area but a little to the back and upside down. That way when you raise your arm and put it behind your head then the tattoo is face up and looking at whoever is looking at it. Otherwise folks can only see the edges of a tattoo and curiousity makes them ask to see it. Moving you arm up like that makes your bicep look good. Hubby has one there and it is HOT. The women love it. :cool: Another benefit is that you can cover it just fine with a t-shirt if you want to be non-tatoo guy. :)

I'm not sure how you're saying to position it on my arm. Have any photo examples? The "upside down" part has me confused.

Neezar
03-13-2009, 01:38 PM
I'm not sure how you're saying to position it on my arm. Have any photo examples? The "upside down" part has me confused.

Put him like this....

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i47/neezar086/1photo-1.jpg

Then if your arm is hanging down then he is upside down and facing your ribs. Then when the women ask to see it they get to check out the biceps, too. :cool:


But this may defeat your purpose if you want it seen a lot. Hubby has more than one so this is just an interesting place for it. But when he is wearing a tank top it usually gets the most questions and attention because you can only see the edges of it but can't tell what it is until he raises his arm. Curiousity seems to get the best of everyone. :laugh:

County Mike
03-13-2009, 01:57 PM
That looks like a good option. Will definitely consider it.

eric84
07-16-2009, 10:59 PM
Any person who doesn't accept Jesus Christ as the Son of GOD, repent of their sins, and dedicate their life to Him is going to Hell. Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Wiccans, Satanists, Atheists, Agnostics and even many Christians will be in Hell after the final judgement. The Jews are kind of a special case, however most of them will be in Hell also; but GOD will preserve Himself a remnant of Jews just before Jesus returns.

The simple truth is that the vast majority of people walking the Earth today are lost and going to Hell.

There are many things we can do to help save those who are lost. However, the first thing is to NOT compromise our beliefs for the sake of pluralism and political correctness.


I don't know the Teachings of Hindu's, Muslims, Buddhists or Wiccans, but you probably don't know much about them either. I do find it interesting that you list Mormons as people that don't accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God, or repent of their sins, or dedicate their lives to him(I am a member, so I can speak from my own experience). That couldn't be farther from the truth. You don't see me bashing on your religion, and trust me, I could easily find scriptures to refute your beliefs. The Bible was inspired by God, but it was written by men(Holy men, but still men), and thus it isn't completely perfect. God didn't just hand us a book that he had written. Also mainstream Christianity tries to say people aren't Christian if we don't go along with the mainstream Christian beliefs, many of which aren't even scripturally based, being cultural or man made creeds(trinity anyone?)

Since you don't know what we believe, if you would like to give a fair comment next time about us, you should check out www.mormon.org.

Tyburn
07-16-2009, 11:07 PM
I don't know the Teachings of Hindu's, Muslims, Buddhists or Wiccans, but you probably don't know much about them either. I do find it interesting that you list Mormons as people that don't accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God, or repent of their sins, or dedicate their lives to him(I am a member, so I can speak from my own experience). That couldn't be farther from the truth. You don't see me bashing on your religion, and trust me, I could easily find scriptures to refute your beliefs. The Bible was inspired by God, but it was written by men(Holy men, but still men), and thus it isn't completely perfect. God didn't just hand us a book that he had written. Also mainstream Christianity tries to say people aren't Christian if we don't go along with the mainstream Christian beliefs, many of which aren't even scripturally based, being cultural or man made creeds(trinity anyone?)

Since you don't know what we believe, if you would like to give a fair comment next time about us, you should check out www.mormon.org.
The Latter Day Saints are not considered part of the Christian Church by any Denomination.

They relay on an addition to Scripture called The Book of Mormon...plus some other book that has some other things, could be the sayings of Mr Smith...I cant remember.

They are Considered in the same bracket as Jehovahs Whitnesses, and Scientology, and First Church of Jesus Christ, Scientist.

They are known as Sects because the word Cult describes a small group, Sects are vast. These Three Sects are MASSIVE, they are not small.

There is one good thing about Mormonism...thats the Music that comes out of the Tabernakle :w00t:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFV7E58wtRo (very beautiful)

Tyburn
07-16-2009, 11:25 PM
He has again established the gospel of Jesus Christ on the earth through a prophet. This prophet whom the Lord called to restore God’s truth is named Joseph Smith. The evidence of this Restoration is found in the Book of Mormon, which you can read, ponder, and pray about.

The Book of Mormon is not recognised by the Church as Scripture. I'm not saying its lies. I am saying its NOT scripture. To treat it as Scripture is wholly wrong.

I think the problem is that the Mormons dont seem to understand the role of a prophet. There is little need for BIG style Prophets, sinse they almost always were foretelling either Judgement (which we know about) or Christ (which has been chronologically) There is nothing left for a Prophet to say...infact there should be a distinct lack of them as we move towards the End. GOD has said what he needs to say using Prophets like those of old.

There may still be minor prophets of course :ninja:

eric84
07-17-2009, 12:05 AM
He has again established the gospel of Jesus Christ on the earth through a prophet. This prophet whom the Lord called to restore God’s truth is named Joseph Smith. The evidence of this Restoration is found in the Book of Mormon, which you can read, ponder, and pray about.

The Book of Mormon is not recognised by the Church as Scripture. I'm not saying its lies. I am saying its NOT scripture. To treat it as Scripture is wholly wrong.

I think the problem is that the Mormons dont seem to understand the role of a prophet. There is little need for BIG style Prophets, sinse they almost always were foretelling either Judgement (which we know about) or Christ (which has been chronologically) There is nothing left for a Prophet to say...infact there should be a distinct lack of them as we move towards the End. GOD has said what he needs to say using Prophets like those of old.

There may still be minor prophets of course :ninja:

The prophets spoke what God told them to speak, so in that logic, your saying there is no more need for God to speak, which obviously is incorrect. The Book of Mormon is not recognized by "the church" ? What Church? It doesn't even matter which church, what matters is if God recognizes it, and when reading the Book of Mormon I can feel in my heart that He does, the same with the Bible. Your wrong about Prophets, they also told the people how to live and constantly encouraged them to follow the commandments. They were spiritual leaders, and saying we don't need them today is pretty ridiculous, just look at the world around us.

Tyburn
07-17-2009, 12:19 AM
The prophets spoke what God told them to speak, so in that logic, your saying there is no more need for God to speak, which obviously is incorrect. The Book of Mormon is not recognized by "the church" ? What Church? It doesn't even matter which church, what matters is if God recognizes it, and when reading the Book of Mormon I can feel in my heart that He does, the same with the Bible. Your wrong about Prophets, they also told the people how to live and constantly encouraged them to follow the commandments. They were spiritual leaders, and saying we don't need them today is pretty ridiculous, just look at the world around us.
GOD didnt need the Prophets to speak. He chose certain people to tell revelations he gave them. ALL glorify GOD (not a man named Smith)

As for not having a Prophet in this day and age. Do you believe that what is outlined in Revelation will happen? Because if you do, you have to see that in order for the Antichrist to gain power, there must be little to no resistance.

Tell me...if you have been invading a country, and you are surrounding the capital city with your Troops...if you planned to drop a Nuke, would you not withdraw your troops first?

MANY theologians are speculating that GOD is slowly retreating ready for the End Times. Retreating enough that the AntiChrist can rise to power, that the corruption and systems that will ensure he reaches the top, be created.

Your argument says that GOD cant talk without a Prophet, and that he cant reveal without an open cannon. Thats because in order for Mormonism to be valid, both those points have to be true. They are not. So say the rest of the Church (by that I mean Protestant/Roman Catholic/Orthodox)

Scripture doesnt contradict scripture. When it says dont add to the Cannon, like it says in Revelation...do you want to quote what it says will happen to those who add to, or remove from, the Cannon?

eric84
07-17-2009, 03:14 PM
Of course God can talk without a Prophet, he can do whatever he wants. Mormons don't worship Joseph Smith, just look at the name of the church. Are we grateful for what Joseph Smith did, yes. Is he put on a sort of pedestal, yes. Is that pedestal even close to Jesus, not even close. Just think about the Israelites when Moses led them, he was their great spiritual leader that they revered(well, most of the time).
- Of course I believe what will happen in Revelations, but I might have a different interpretation than you. I also don't base it off "theologians", I base it off teachings from Gods Prophets... I'll stick with my interpretation.
- So God is going to drop a nuke? Look throughout the Bible, there are plenty of Prophets that God had that weren't able to stop the wide spread of wickedness. Just because you have a prophet doesn't mean that the "antichrist" won't come to power.
- I love when people cite Revelations 22:19, it shows a complete lack of understanding of the scriptures. The Book of Revelations was written when? The Bible was compiled into a book when? It's obvious it was written so no one took away from the prophecy as written in The Book of Revelations, not the Bible.
- To go off the basis that the mormon church is wrong because we don't believe the same thing as the "rest of the church"(Protestant/Roman Catholic/Orthodox), doesn't make much sense. I don't base my belief on other beliefs, I base it off the truths taught in the scriptures and confirmed to me through the Holy Spirit.

I don't want you to think that I'm mad or anything, I enjoy healthy debates, and I like people to know why we believe what we do. Thanks for playing along :)

Tyburn
07-17-2009, 05:04 PM
1) Of course God can talk without a Prophet, he can do whatever he wants. Mormons don't worship Joseph Smith, just look at the name of the church. Are we grateful for what Joseph Smith did, yes. Is he put on a sort of pedestal, yes. Is that pedestal even close to Jesus, not even close. Just think about the Israelites when Moses led them, he was their great spiritual leader that they revered(well, most of the time).

2) - Of course I believe what will happen in Revelations, but I might have a different interpretation than you. I also don't base it off "theologians", I base it off teachings from Gods Prophets... I'll stick with my interpretation.

3) - So God is going to drop a nuke? Look throughout the Bible, there are plenty of Prophets that God had that weren't able to stop the wide spread of wickedness. Just because you have a prophet doesn't mean that the "antichrist" won't come to power.

4) - I love when people cite Revelations 22:19, it shows a complete lack of understanding of the scriptures. The Book of Revelations was written when? The Bible was compiled into a book when? It's obvious it was written so no one took away from the prophecy as written in The Book of Revelations, not the Bible.

5) - To go off the basis that the mormon church is wrong because we don't believe the same thing as the "rest of the church"(Protestant/Roman Catholic/Orthodox), doesn't make much sense. I don't base my belief on other beliefs, I base it off the truths taught in the scriptures and confirmed to me through the Holy Spirit.

6) I don't want you to think that I'm mad or anything, I enjoy healthy debates, and I like people to know why we believe what we do. Thanks for playing along :)
1) Most people in England wouldnt even know Latter Day Saints WERE Mormons. The term Mormon is used far to often. In all the old testament anaologies you use, the people are dependant on a Human role model. They needed guidence because GOD was a booming voice from the sky. They needed someone to represent GOD and to rule over them. GOD didnt like that ideal. Originally when they had no land it was a one of the Patriarchs, when they had land, he tried them all by Judges, when that didnt work he insituted a Monarchy, and when that got out of line it would be complimented by a Prophet, who would in essence be the link between the Government acting on behalf of GOD under a Monarch, and GOD himself. The Human Version of a Hevenly Host, who is to go with some revelation, a revelation that has bearing on the Gospel, something that is important.

Eventually GOD himself comes as Christ.

From that time on, we needed no Human Role Model, and within a generation of Christs death there were no more Apostles, and no more Major Prophets, and no more need for either of them. The Prophecies were fulfilled in Christ. Those that were not, relate to the End times which is no longer an unknown, and yet still a mystery. Christ is the perfect Role Model. As he wrote a book or to Mr Smith, if the writings are true, could possibly be considered for sainthood...but thats as far as it goes. He isnt a Prophet, he's the composer of an apokraphal Text

2) No you base it off ONE very particular "Prophet" someone whose writings arent prophetic, and who doesnt fit the time, or the style of a Prophet. You base your interpretation off the Author of an Apokraphal Work, that may or may not even be true. The Most you can push for is Sainthood, IF his life was conducted in the manner of a GODly role model.

He deserves, at most, a Festival Day in the callendar along with all the other saints. Red if he was killed for his Faith, White if he just died. Along with that he deserves the celebration of a Eucharist on his feast day (which would be on his historical years-mind) a few lines about his life and the apokraphal texts he composed in the liturgical workings.

You could say his work should be entered into the Apokrapha, although Rome wont do that with any newfound apokraphal texts, which would entitle some of his work to be read out in services during the week.

3) In a manner of speaking. The Spiritual alternative...maybe even the physical, the Battle of Armageddon is supposed to be taking place in a VERY physical Valley. You can go visit, on Holiday, the site at which GOD will defeat Evil permanetly. I've heard its nothing special, a valley, some wasteland outside of Jerusalem somewhere.

Jerusalem is His Capital City. After the Millenial Reign, he will want it back and he will take the City by Force. That may well be physical aswell as spiritual.

4) If you believe that GOD wrote the Bible, then you look beyond the different books and can judge the Library as a whole. The Revelational Warning applies to BOTH. In its literal sense it is warning you not to add or take away from a specific prophecy. in a wider sense, its telling you that the whole Bible is absolute Truth...dont diminish it, dont extend it.

You choose to rule out that interpretation, by essentially saying the Bible is a man made construction. That way you can say that the warning only applies to the Book of Revelation. Thus your addition, you presuppose is fine.

Christondom dissagrees with you. That is just another reason why your Sect is oestracised from The Church. When push comes to shove, you actually dont truely believe the Word of GOD, is purely from GOD. You believe its inspired by GOD, but really thats just a way of saying it was written by GODly men. That would of course also help you, as there would thus be no difference between the Bible, composed by man, but inspired by GOD, and the book of Mormon and other assorted apokraphal texts, again, composed by a man, and again, so you claim inspired by GOD.

its not a bad arguement. But We know the Bible is more then a collection of books written by a few GODly men, and compiled by an Established Church. THAT is the basis where you, and the rest of Christianity part company. Without the Word as your Foundation, you create something based on false premises

5) You mentioned somewhere about the Roman and Protestant Bible being Different. Actually, they are not different at all. There is something known as "Apokrapha" the Old Testament used to contain the books you see in the Roman Apokrapha, until a Jewish Council removed them, changing the Canon. The Protestants sided with the Jews, and consequently cut the Old Testament down. The Roman Catholics kept the Old Testament intact, but out of respect for the Jews I suppose, they removed the books from the Canon, and simply keep them as a reference to what the Jews used to consider canonized.

Whether you consider them canonized depends on if you hold to the Jewish Reformational Council or not. Originally, all those extra books were recognised by the Jewish. Those who would hold to those books would say that it is impossible for the Canon to be wrongly compiled. Thus the Jews were wrong to remove the books later....for that implies they got it wrong in the first place....if thats True then GOD did not obviously inspire their choice well enough the first time to omit the books in the first place.

So essentially, there is a case that says, the Bible was complete before the Jewish council changed it...and those original books are still included in the Roman Bible.

I personally would say that the apokrapha of the Bible should be treated as the TRUE and Verified Apokrapha

The other use of the term "apokrapha" is implied over any text considered and rejected by Rome as Scripture during the compilation of the canon. I personally believe that The Book of Enoch is True. But I recognise its not Scripture.

6) I dont mind debating. I appologise if you think I am being unkind. I just believe that Mormonism isnt part of Christianity. I wouldnt be doing you any Just service if I said otherwise. I'm not here to change your mind. I'm here to tell the Truth, and in some cases to argue or debate, to defend what the Truth is. Whether you believe me or not, is completely up to you.

So long as things dont get personal in terms of pettiness, name calling, and totally uncalled for behaviour, I will persist in replying to any counters you have for my presentation. If things get personal, I'll probably withdraw. I have decided I dont like bickering, and that I am confident enough, not to have to go to foolish lengths to make what will only end up to be a non-too-convincing point to people who are actually hostile to the idea of reconcilliation, to the point where they no longer debate rationally :)

eric84
07-17-2009, 05:29 PM
That's alot to reply to, hehe. I take it your Catholic? Ok a few things I have comments about.
1 - I agree, "Mormons" is used WAY too often, but unfortunately that's what most people know us by, so for communication purposes it is easier. We prefer to be known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. No matter how many times I tell people differently, they still call us Mormons. I completely disagree with the concept of the Trinity, and any Church that believes in it. There are so many scriptures to back up that God the Father and Jesus are 2 seperate beings. A common phrase cited by believers of the Trinity is that Jesus and God are one. I really like this article, to me it clearly outlines why we DON'T believe in the "trinity". We believe in God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and The Holy Ghost.
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=00d51b3e50cf5110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

2 - According to the Jews, Jesus didn't fit the profile either. It all comes down to praying about it, which I have done, and received my answer from God.

3 - I agree to an extent, there will be both physical and spiritual things taking place. Revelations has a lot of symbolism in it though, and I think some people take it overboard(not saying you are, just saying some people do).

4 - Again you bring up The Church... which church? The Catholic church.... I have relatives and friends who are Catholic, and they are great people. But if you want to go off scripture, there is plenty that clearly show the Catholic Church has gone from alot of the teachings of the Bible. Your right about the Word not being the foundation of my belief(or that of our church). God himself is the foundation, there was truth long before any of it was written down in books, and the Bible only REFLECTS the teachings, whereas the ultimate source of the knowledge is God. Sadly, people today worship the Book more than the source from whence it came. Another good article why we believe this way, lays it out pretty simple.
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=ab64279c7c699110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

5 - I've owned a Catholic Bible(Given to me by a Catholic), and it has additional books in it than the standard KJV I see most Christians use. That is what I meant by different. Plus all the so called "translations' of the Bible, which i the correct one? I personally use the KJV, but if the Bible is 100% perfect, why are there so many?

6 -

Crisco
07-17-2009, 05:36 PM
That's alot to reply to, hehe. I take it your Catholic? Ok a few things I have comments about.
1 - I agree, "Mormons" is used WAY too often, but unfortunately that's what most people know us by, so for communication purposes it is easier. We prefer to be known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. No matter how many times I tell people differently, they still call us Mormons. I completely disagree with the concept of the Trinity, and any Church that believes in it. There are so many scriptures to back up that God the Father and Jesus are 2 seperate beings. A common phrase cited by believers of the Trinity is that Jesus and God are one. I really like this article, to me it clearly outlines why we DON'T believe in the "trinity". We believe in God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and The Holy Ghost.
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=00d51b3e50cf5110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

2 - According to the Jews, Jesus didn't fit the profile either. It all comes down to praying about it, which I have done, and received my answer from God.

3 - I agree to an extent, there will be both physical and spiritual things taking place. Revelations has a lot of symbolism in it though, and I think some people take it overboard(not saying you are, just saying some people do).

4 - Again you bring up The Church... which church? The Catholic church.... I have relatives and friends who are Catholic, and they are great people. But if you want to go off scripture, there is plenty that clearly show the Catholic Church has gone from alot of the teachings of the Bible. Your right about the Word not being the foundation of my belief(or that of our church). God himself is the foundation, there was truth long before any of it was written down in books, and the Bible only REFLECTS the teachings, whereas the ultimate source of the knowledge is God. Sadly, people today worship the Book more than the source from whence it came. Another good article why we believe this way, lays it out pretty simple.
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=ab64279c7c699110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

5 - I've owned a Catholic Bible(Given to me by a Catholic), and it has additional books in it than the standard KJV I see most Christians use. That is what I meant by different. Plus all the so called "translations' of the Bible, which i the correct one? I personally use the KJV, but if the Bible is 100% perfect, why are there so many?

6 -


Dave is an Anglican but he has an affinity for the catholics.

God told us to be aware of false prophets and when you look at Joseph Smiths past and the actual founding of your church it has to raise a little doubt doesn't it?

I can pray about something and it could be anything and I would still find a reason to justify it. God gave us his word so we could live by rules instead of our own emotions because they are easily manipulated.

Joseph Smith was a heretic.

Maybe I'm wrong and maybe you're right only God knows. There is enough in scripture to make me feel strongly enough that Joseph Smith was most definately a false prophet who used his position for ill gains.

Tyburn
07-17-2009, 06:15 PM
1) That's alot to reply to, hehe. I take it your Catholic? Ok a few things I have comments about.

2) - I agree, "Mormons" is used WAY too often, but unfortunately that's what most people know us by, so for communication purposes it is easier. We prefer to be known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. No matter how many times I tell people differently, they still call us Mormons. I completely disagree with the concept of the Trinity, and any Church that believes in it. There are so many scriptures to back up that God the Father and Jesus are 2 seperate beings. A common phrase cited by believers of the Trinity is that Jesus and God are one. I really like this article, to me it clearly outlines why we DON'T believe in the "trinity". We believe in God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and The Holy Ghost.
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=00d51b3e50cf5110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

3 - According to the Jews, Jesus didn't fit the profile either. It all comes down to praying about it, which I have done, and received my answer from God.

4 - I agree to an extent, there will be both physical and spiritual things taking place. Revelations has a lot of symbolism in it though, and I think some people take it overboard(not saying you are, just saying some people do).

5) - Again you bring up The Church... which church? The Catholic church.... I have relatives and friends who are Catholic, and they are great people. But if you want to go off scripture, there is plenty that clearly show the Catholic Church has gone from alot of the teachings of the Bible. Your right about the Word not being the foundation of my belief(or that of our church). God himself is the foundation, there was truth long before any of it was written down in books, and the Bible only REFLECTS the teachings, whereas the ultimate source of the knowledge is God. Sadly, people today worship the Book more than the source from whence it came. Another good article why we believe this way, lays it out pretty simple.
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=ab64279c7c699110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

5 - I've owned a Catholic Bible(Given to me by a Catholic), and it has additional books in it than the standard KJV I see most Christians use. That is what I meant by different. Plus all the so called "translations' of the Bible, which i the correct one? I personally use the KJV, but if the Bible is 100% perfect, why are there so many?

6 -

1) No, I am Anglican. I would probably call myself Anglo-Catholic...which bassically means, most of Rome, except for The Pope :laugh:

I'm Moderately Anglo-Catholic in my theology, but in practicality, I dont got to a High Church except on special occasions :laugh:

2) If you dont believe in the Trinity, then you arent Christian. That means one of two things. Either you believe that Christ wasnt GOD (in which case you are calling him a liar, for he states exactly who he is) OR...possibly worse...you say there are THREE gods...again, Christ says that there is ONE GOD, and that HE is Also GOD.

The Trinity thus is the theological concept that the Church used...infact this caused so much contriversy that a whole Creed was developed to point out how you can have three personalities, but ONE GOD.

See it in full, below.

3) Actually, According to the Jews, Christ does fit the profile. The problem is, they are only aware of the Second Coming. When Christ arrives the Jews will recognise him because he will come in Glory to Save them. The first time He came was actually about Salvation for the whole Human race...he wasnt officially on State business for the Jews. He has still ongoing issues with them.

Jews are simply Christ-less Christians...Christians are simply Messianic Jews. Up until Christ Jews had been, not about Faith, but about Family. They were a blood clan. Christianity is the Faith side of Judaism when understood with full revelation. We have been adopted by Christ into his Family, which is Israel, the Jews.

Thats complex to understand, feel free to ask questions on that :laugh:

4) :)

5) Every time you say something like that, you move further from Christianity. To be a Christian, you must adhere to the Gospel of Christ. In doing that you must believe He is GOD, and that there is only One GOD...you cant do that without the Trinity, and you MUST beleive that the closed canon of Scripture is his direct Word...not a reflection, not inspired by, not man made. DIRECTLY GOD...to the extent where I think the authors were probably possesed by the Spirit of GOD when writing, and I think behind every choice of Rome in the formation, was GODs pure choice on the documents. Finally...you cant add to scripture...so you fail to meet almost all the essential critieria.

No Trinity
No Word
An Addition

The only thing that unites us is the believef that Christ will save us. Who Christ is, and how to follow him are completely different. utterly different....and this would be a difference that could cost someone their salvation. This is not a minor issue. Christ IS GOD...he wont save you unless you believe that about Him I dont think :unsure-1:

6) The Correct Version of the First Canon is Hebrew. The Correct Version of the Second Canon is Greek

The Correct version of the first combined Canon is Latin.

Preferably, to full understand, you need a full Roman Catholic Bible complete with Apokrapha in Latin

Alongside that you need a full New Testament in Greek

Alongside that you need a Reformed Version of the Old Testament in ancient Hebrew

Reading Aramaic would be a plus, since thats what Jesus Christ spoke.

I assume you can read English...I can do German...thats really about as close to the truth as we will ever get in its raw form. But I tell you something. I dont need to read it. I just want it in the original languages...I believe just seeing it written, full of mystery, will be spiritual sustinance...a little like the Catholics dont believe you have to receive in order to be effected by the Eucharist...you only need hear the words :)

7) :unsure-1: what happened to number 6 :unsure-1: :huh:

Tyburn
07-17-2009, 06:29 PM
The two most commonly used are The Apostles Creed, and The Nicene Creed.

Combining those two to help include a trinitarian belief just prior to Roman State Christianity, was the following

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

Crisco
07-17-2009, 06:35 PM
Not a fan of the pointy hat fellow myself.

Tyburn
07-17-2009, 06:47 PM
Not a fan of the pointy hat fellow myself.
You know he doesnt wear his Mitre outside of ceremonial? mostly he wears a little white skullcap :blink:

I like some of them, and not others. I dont particularly like Benedict...although he's begining to soften from the conservative he was when he came to the papacy.

I cant except their version of Apostolic Succession...therefore, I cant say I believe to be true what they say about the Office of Pope, nor its powers.

Neither, in totality do they...for The Catholic Church actually runs on common law. One Pope can over-ride the decisions of an earlier Pope! Well if they were all in apostolic succession, surely they wouldnt undo a former Popes bidding...wouldnt that be, by their own definition...going against Christ?

Also...they dont hold to their powers anymore. They say they dont accept any other Church outside of Rome...so why DO they accept the Orthodox Church?? They also said at the Reformation that noone goes to Heaven without a ROMAN CATHOLIC burrial...because the Pope has the keys to Heaven and may lock the doors on earth, thus sealing them in Heaven.

They dont still think that, obviously :laugh:

To me, the Office of Pope was never given the power. The power went to a particular person of that Office...when he died, the power died with Him.

We have no need for modern Day Apostles...just like we dont need Modern day Major Prophets....The Pope is simply in a dynastic line...not unlike a Monarchy, not unlike The President of The United States...its nothing more then an entry into a long line. A line that only goes back to Peter if backdated three centuries during the persecution and Early Church.

Besides...the Role of the Pope, even by Vatican Standards has nothing whatsoever to do with Saint Peter. Saint Peter was about Jewish Conversion...Do you see Benedict talking to Jews??? No, he only talks to specific Christians...the ancestors of which are Converts from Heathens...and who appealed to them? Saint Paul.

So...in practicallity Saint Peters successors are now Exclusively doing the work of Saint Paul in ancestoral times.

What a bloody cock-up :rolleyes: Why cant they just be like the Orthodox Church who have several patriarchs who are from Apostles in succession, but make no attempt to rule the world, and would probably communicate still with Jews.


Incidently there is a servere lack of Saint Peter in Scripture. I'm sure he wrote a gazzillion letters...yet he wasnt chosen to write much of the Canon on behalf of GOD. Thats partly why I think Rome got the canon right. If they had made the testament all petran I would have been suspicious...but their Patron takes second place to a pauline view which now dominates.

Noone has done the work of Saint Peter sinse...well...Saint Peter himself!

Somewhere, both Saint Peter and Saint Paul are turning in their graves :mellow:

Play The Man
07-17-2009, 06:55 PM
The two most commonly used are The Apostles Creed, and The Nicene Creed.

Combining those two to help include a trinitarian belief just prior to Roman State Christianity, was the following

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

The Athanasian Creed (for those not aware)

Tyburn
07-17-2009, 07:01 PM
The Athanasian Creed (for those not aware)
Indeed.

You know that there was some sorta belief that very specific Old Testament Prophets would return to Earth as Heralds before The End Times, held by the Jews?

You know...they actually thought John the Baptist...might be Elijah.


Well, about two years ago, a very great scholar inhabited these Forums and His Focus was mainly the Christian Section. His Screen Name was Parmenides, he left shortly after his Wife began having babies.

Your SO like Parmenides :) I've had more fun debating on this Forum, this last month, then I've had sinse he left.

Sparring with people like Andreas is one thing...but learning and challenging a true philosophical scholar is quite another :w00t:

eric84
07-17-2009, 07:15 PM
1) No, I am Anglican. I would probably call myself Anglo-Catholic...which bassically means, most of Rome, except for The Pope :laugh:

I'm Moderately Anglo-Catholic in my theology, but in practicality, I dont got to a High Church except on special occasions :laugh:

2) If you dont believe in the Trinity, then you arent Christian. That means one of two things. Either you believe that Christ wasnt GOD (in which case you are calling him a liar, for he states exactly who he is) OR...possibly worse...you say there are THREE gods...again, Christ says that there is ONE GOD, and that HE is Also GOD.

The Trinity thus is the theological concept that the Church used...infact this caused so much contriversy that a whole Creed was developed to point out how you can have three personalities, but ONE GOD.

See it in full, below.

3) Actually, According to the Jews, Christ does fit the profile. The problem is, they are only aware of the Second Coming. When Christ arrives the Jews will recognise him because he will come in Glory to Save them. The first time He came was actually about Salvation for the whole Human race...he wasnt officially on State business for the Jews. He has still ongoing issues with them.

Jews are simply Christ-less Christians...Christians are simply Messianic Jews. Up until Christ Jews had been, not about Faith, but about Family. They were a blood clan. Christianity is the Faith side of Judaism when understood with full revelation. We have been adopted by Christ into his Family, which is Israel, the Jews.

Thats complex to understand, feel free to ask questions on that :laugh:

4) :)

5) Every time you say something like that, you move further from Christianity. To be a Christian, you must adhere to the Gospel of Christ. In doing that you must believe He is GOD, and that there is only One GOD...you cant do that without the Trinity, and you MUST beleive that the closed canon of Scripture is his direct Word...not a reflection, not inspired by, not man made. DIRECTLY GOD...to the extent where I think the authors were probably possesed by the Spirit of GOD when writing, and I think behind every choice of Rome in the formation, was GODs pure choice on the documents. Finally...you cant add to scripture...so you fail to meet almost all the essential critieria.

No Trinity
No Word
An Addition

The only thing that unites us is the believef that Christ will save us. Who Christ is, and how to follow him are completely different. utterly different....and this would be a difference that could cost someone their salvation. This is not a minor issue. Christ IS GOD...he wont save you unless you believe that about Him I dont think :unsure-1:

6) The Correct Version of the First Canon is Hebrew. The Correct Version of the Second Canon is Greek

The Correct version of the first combined Canon is Latin.

Preferably, to full understand, you need a full Roman Catholic Bible complete with Apokrapha in Latin

Alongside that you need a full New Testament in Greek

Alongside that you need a Reformed Version of the Old Testament in ancient Hebrew

Reading Aramaic would be a plus, since thats what Jesus Christ spoke.

I assume you can read English...I can do German...thats really about as close to the truth as we will ever get in its raw form. But I tell you something. I dont need to read it. I just want it in the original languages...I believe just seeing it written, full of mystery, will be spiritual sustinance...a little like the Catholics dont believe you have to receive in order to be effected by the Eucharist...you only need hear the words :)

7) :unsure-1: what happened to number 6 :unsure-1: :huh:

I don't believe in the "trinity" as outlined by the Catholic Church. Going along the basis that the Catholic Church is not God's church, then why would I believe in a false teaching like that, which is NOT backed up in the Bible. I think our debate stems off a couple key points.

- Is the Bible 100% perfect.
* How can you know the Bible is God's word? Just because it says it in there doesn't mean it is. Just because their is historical proof that a man named Jesus lived doesn't prove it true. The ONLY way you can know the Bible is true is by a witness of the Holy Spirit(or if an Angel came down and told ya!, but that usually isn't the case.). You do have to be carefull when people claim to have visitations and such, but I don't see any other way to know that the Bible is Gods word. Being as is, I also by the same witness know the Bible is foolproof. Did you check out the Links? If not, I suggest you read them and bring up why it's wrong.
- Is "The Church" God's church
* Where in the scriptures does it state the Catholic church is God's church? No where. So how can it be "The Church"? The only way I can see finding God's church(if you believe in one church) is to pray about it, which I have done. I don't leave my salvation to chance, I don't rely on anything a person says, or what a book says, no matter how inspired. I rely on the God, because he will never lead me astray.


As for number 6..... I was in a rush and had to go, poor 6 left by himself.

Crisco
07-17-2009, 07:20 PM
I don't believe in the "trinity" as outlined by the Catholic Church. Going along the basis that the Catholic Church is not God's church, then why would I believe in a false teaching like that, which is NOT backed up in the Bible. I think our debate stems off a couple key points.

- Is the Bible 100% perfect.
* How can you know the Bible is God's word? Just because it says it in there doesn't mean it is. Just because their is historical proof that a man named Jesus lived doesn't prove it true. The ONLY way you can know the Bible is true is by a witness of the Holy Spirit(or if an Angel came down and told ya!, but that usually isn't the case.). You do have to be carefull when people claim to have visitations and such, but I don't see any other way to know that the Bible is Gods word. Being as is, I also by the same witness know the Bible is foolproof. Did you check out the Links? If not, I suggest you read them and bring up why it's wrong.
- Is "The Church" God's church
* Where in the scriptures does it state the Catholic church is God's church? No where. So how can it be "The Church"? The only way I can see finding God's church(if you believe in one church) is to pray about it, which I have done. I don't leave my salvation to chance, I don't rely on anything a person says, or what a book says, no matter how inspired. I rely on the God, because he will never lead me astray.


As for number 6..... I was in a rush and had to go, poor 6 left by himself.


Do you believe Joseph Smith always told the truth?

Tyburn
07-17-2009, 07:45 PM
1)I don't believe in the "trinity" as outlined by the Catholic Church. Going along the basis that the Catholic Church is not God's church, then why would I believe in a false teaching like that, which is NOT backed up in the Bible. I think our debate stems off a couple key points.

2) - Is the Bible 100% perfect.
* How can you know the Bible is God's word? Just because it says it in there doesn't mean it is. Just because their is historical proof that a man named Jesus lived doesn't prove it true.

3) The ONLY way you can know the Bible is true is by a witness of the Holy Spirit(or if an Angel came down and told ya!, but that usually isn't the case.). You do have to be carefull when people claim to have visitations and such, but I don't see any other way to know that the Bible is Gods word. Being as is, I also by the same witness know the Bible is foolproof. Did you check out the Links? If not, I suggest you read them and bring up why it's wrong.

4) - Is "The Church" God's church
* Where in the scriptures does it state the Catholic church is God's church? No where. So how can it be "The Church"? The only way I can see finding God's church(if you believe in one church) is to pray about it, which I have done. I don't leave my salvation to chance, I don't rely on anything a person says, or what a book says, no matter how inspired.

5) I rely on the God, because he will never lead me astray.


6) As for number 6..... I was in a rush and had to go, poor 6 left by himself.
1) If you dont believe the Roman Catholic Church is Christian...why do you believe their Scriptures to be True???

2) Just because Smith says that Christ visited the United States, doesnt mean its true

3) Its called Faith. One has to have Faith before the imparting of the Holy Spirit inside them. You have to ask GOD into your heart before you are saved...and you dont get The Holy Spirit until you are saved.

Three most important things in this world to nourish Christianity are Faith, Hope and Love :)

4) where in Scripture does it say Mormonism is Christianity? It tells you what you have to be, to be a Christian...I've pointed out at least three MAJOR faults in Mormonism

5) GOD wont lead you astray, but a devil will. Try to understand that Devils arent always obviously Devils, they pretend to be Good. They deal in semi-truthes...but truthes enough to contain grains of the real stuff. Demons can appear in exactly the same way as a Heavenly Host, because they are also Angels of a kind.

How do you know what is true? you go on your "feelings"?? The flesh is weak according to the Bible...and the Heart is not always to be trusted according to Saint Paul....but your ignoring those points aswell. :unsure-1:

6) :laugh:

eric84
07-17-2009, 07:52 PM
1) If you dont believe the Roman Catholic Church is Christian...why do you believe their Scriptures to be True???

2) Just because Smith says that Christ visited the United States, doesnt mean its true

3) Its called Faith. One has to have Faith before the imparting of the Holy Spirit inside them. You have to ask GOD into your heart before you are saved...and you dont get The Holy Spirit until you are saved.

Three most important things in this world to nourish Christianity are Faith, Hope and Love :)

4) where in Scripture does it say Mormonism is Christianity? It tells you what you have to be, to be a Christian...I've pointed out at least three MAJOR faults in Mormonism

5) GOD wont lead you astray, but a devil will. Try to understand that Devils arent always obviously Devils, they pretend to be Good. They deal in semi-truthes...but truthes enough to contain grains of the real stuff. Demons can appear in exactly the same way as a Heavenly Host, because they are also Angels of a kind.

How do you know what is true? you go on your "feelings"?? The flesh is weak according to the Bible...and the Heart is not always to be trusted according to Saint Paul....but your ignoring those points aswell. :unsure-1:

6) :laugh:


1 - I don't use THEIR scripture, I use the scriptures written by inspired men that the COMPILED. Big difference.

2 - Of course not, I don't go off Joseph Smiths words, I ask God about them.

3 - I agree with this. Hey, we agree!

4 - I never said it mentioned Mormonism in there, I said it never mentioned the Catholic Church, since you seem to feel they are absolutely 100% THE CHURCH. Yes, it teaches you how to be a follower of Christ, no one is arguing that point.

5 - Of course a Devil will try to lead you astray, that's why I pay attention to the fruits of the spirit, which NOWHERE in the Bible does it say a Devil can duplicate. Galatians 5:22-23. If I feel the love of God and at peace while I'm reading the Bible, that's God telling me what I am doing is right. Same goes for the Book of Mormon. I don't get that reading other books.

So your saying I shouldn't go off those feelings I get, when clearly in the Bible it says that's one of Gods way of communicating with us.

- So why do you believe the Catholic Church is true, and the Bible is Gods word?

Crisco
07-17-2009, 07:55 PM
1 - I don't use THEIR scripture, I use the scriptures written by inspired men that the COMPILED. Big difference.

2 - Of course not, I don't go off Joseph Smiths words, I ask God about them.

3 - I agree with this. Hey, we agree!

4 - I never said it mentioned Mormonism in there, I said it never mentioned the Catholic Church, since you seem to feel they are absolutely 100% THE CHURCH. Yes, it teaches you how to be a follower of Christ, no one is arguing that point.

5 - Of course a Devil will try to lead you astray, that's why I pay attention to the fruits of the spirit, which NOWHERE in the Bible does it say a Devil can duplicate. Galatians 5:22-23. If I feel the love of God and at peace while I'm reading the Bible, that's God telling me what I am doing is right. Same goes for the Book of Mormon. I don't get that reading other books.

So your saying I shouldn't go off those feelings I get, when clearly in the Bible it says that's one of Gods way of communicating with us.

- So why do you believe the Catholic Church is true, and the Bible is Gods word?


So how exactly do you know by asking yourself? You are aware that you are a sinful creature with finite knowledge of the universe and its workings. Not to mention you are led around by pure emotion in times of distress.

Where is your rock?

Feelings are misleading that is why there is a guideline.

eric84
07-17-2009, 08:13 PM
So how exactly do you know by asking yourself? You are aware that you are a sinful creature with finite knowledge of the universe and its workings. Not to mention you are led around by pure emotion in times of distress.

Where is your rock?

Feelings are misleading that is why there is a guideline.


So your saying the Bible was wrong in Galatians where it talks about the fruits of the spirit? Emotions are misleading, yes, but the feelings God gives you aren't. Where is your rock? It seems to me that your basing your rock off a Book, while I am basing mine off of Gods spirit... I'll stick with mine.

I don't ask myself, I ask God. James 1:5, I've tried it out, and know it's true. As before mentioned I had to try my faith, I took it on faith that, hey, maybe the Bible is true. So i prayed about it, and God answered me, thus I know it's true, and that God does answer people, even today.

Crisco
07-17-2009, 08:23 PM
So your saying the Bible was wrong in Galatians where it talks about the fruits of the spirit? Emotions are misleading, yes, but the feelings God gives you aren't. Where is your rock? It seems to me that your basing your rock off a Book, while I am basing mine off of Gods spirit... I'll stick with mine.

I don't ask myself, I ask God. James 1:5, I've tried it out, and know it's true. As before mentioned I had to try my faith, I took it on faith that, hey, maybe the Bible is true. So i prayed about it, and God answered me, thus I know it's true, and that God does answer people, even today.

Well I can understand your way of thinking. I respectfully disagree and my feelings tell me that Joseph Smith was a heretic swindler who made up the book of Mormon from his own diluted mind in order to manipulate people.

He coveted his neighbors wives and had relations with numerous teenage girls. He was involved with numerous banking swindles resulting in crimincal prosecution.

and indeed the tales he made up from his top hat are very much like the fiction written by samuel spalding.

Play The Man
07-17-2009, 08:39 PM
Indeed.

You know that there was some sorta belief that very specific Old Testament Prophets would return to Earth as Heralds before The End Times, held by the Jews?

You know...they actually thought John the Baptist...might be Elijah.


Well, about two years ago, a very great scholar inhabited these Forums and His Focus was mainly the Christian Section. His Screen Name was Parmenides, he left shortly after his Wife began having babies.

Your SO like Parmenides :) I've had more fun debating on this Forum, this last month, then I've had sinse he left.

Sparring with people like Andreas is one thing...but learning and challenging a true philosophical scholar is quite another :w00t:


Are you saying: Play The Man is to Parmenides as John The Baptist was to Elijah?:blink: Do you know what the punishment is for a false prophet?:scared0011:

eric84
07-17-2009, 08:40 PM
Well I can understand your way of thinking. I respectfully disagree and my feelings tell me that Joseph Smith was a heretic swindler who made up the book of Mormon from his own diluted mind in order to manipulate people.

He coveted his neighbors wives and had relations with numerous teenage girls. He was involved with numerous banking swindles resulting in crimincal prosecution.

and indeed the tales he made up from his top hat are very much like the fiction written by samuel spalding.

I can see why people would automatically discredit him based on things they have read or heard, I felt the same way once. Hear me out for a second, hehe. The Judges and Lawyers in the time of Christ spread lies about him, and the people believed on it, so at the end they were crying for his crucifixion. We know Jesus was innocent, so their accusations weren't correct, but how were the people to know that. Many of the Judges/Lawyers/Rabbi's were held in high and trusted regard. If we truly want to know something for sure, we can ask God, he is much more trusting(to say the least), than any wordly thing. All I'm saying is, not everything, no matter how trusted in todays world, is correct. Does that prove Joseph Smith was right, of course not, I'm just saying those things to me can't prove he was wrong, because God's servants have been blacklisted wrongly many times before.

Crisco
07-17-2009, 08:44 PM
I can see why people would automatically discredit him based on things they have read or heard, I felt the same way once. Hear me out for a second, hehe. The Judges and Lawyers in the time of Christ spread lies about him, and the people believed on it, so at the end they were crying for his crucifixion. We know Jesus was innocent, so their accusations weren't correct, but how were the people to know that. Many of the Judges/Lawyers/Rabbi's were held in high and trusted regard. If we truly want to know something for sure, we can ask God, he is much more trusting(to say the least), than any wordly thing. All I'm saying is, not everything, no matter how trusted in todays world, is correct. Does that prove Joseph Smith was right, of course not, I'm just saying those things to me can't prove he was wrong, because God's servants have been blacklisted wrongly many times before.

True enough.

If you don't believe the bible to be fact then it is quite easy to believe Joseph Smith is a real prophet.

If you do believe it to be the word of God then it becomes much easier to see through the man.

eric84
07-17-2009, 08:51 PM
True enough.

If you don't believe the bible to be fact then it is quite easy to believe Joseph Smith is a real prophet.

If you do believe it to be the word of God then it becomes much easier to see through the man.

*sigh*, seems like you ignored everything I said, but anyways. Which would you trust more, God's Spirit(feelings of happiness/peace), or a Book(a holy Book, but a Book nonetheless). It seems to me your faith is actually based off the Book, and not God. I don't mean to bash you, that's just what it appears to me. Remember WHY the book was written. God is what matters, not necessarily the Book.

Crisco
07-17-2009, 08:59 PM
*sigh*, seems like you ignored everything I said, but anyways. Which would you trust more, God's Spirit(feelings of happiness/peace), or a Book(a holy Book, but a Book nonetheless). It seems to me your faith is actually based off the Book, and not God. I don't mean to bash you, that's just what it appears to me. Remember WHY the book was written. God is what matters, not necessarily the Book.

With all due respect it seems to me that you base your faith off of however your feeling at that moment.

I base my faith in God off of my heart but I base my understanding of his law and will from the bible.

I think YOU forget WHY the book was written. The book is law handed down by God. Faith and love are much different then the law. The way to salvation is through belief in Jesus Christ and the adherence to his teachings.

I use to be just like you but the fact is God is not what you make him to be he is what he is. God is the creator and ruler who is spoken of in the bible not he who makes you feel good and fuzzy when you read made up fairy tales like the book of mormon.

Your a "feel good Christian" and I get that. The only problem with that is not every part of being a Christian is about feeling good. It's also about sacrifice and submission to God.

Try and keep that in mind when reading your bible. That it's not all about you.

Rev
07-17-2009, 09:04 PM
I believe God's Spirit, and it tells me that the Bible is right. We can listen to our heart all the time, our heart can be led the wrong way. This sounds alot like........ well.......... Galatians 1:6-10

6. I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7. which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

10. For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.

But hey thats just me.

Crisco
07-17-2009, 09:05 PM
I believe God's Spirit, and it tells me that the Bible is right. We can listen to our heart all the time, our heart can be led the wrong way. This sounds alot like........ well.......... Galatians 1:6-10

6. I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7. which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

10. For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.

But hey thats just me.

Amen brother.

eric84
07-17-2009, 09:12 PM
I believe God's Spirit, and it tells me that the Bible is right. We can listen to our heart all the time, our heart can be led the wrong way. This sounds alot like........ well.......... Galatians 1:6-10

6. I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7. which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

10. For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.

But hey thats just me.

How do you know that is correct in the first place? It goes back to that I don't believe the Bible is 100%. The original speakers were 100%, but the bible was we have today isn't. Thus I don't follow another gospel, or distort it, but it has already been done, and I go back to the ORIGINAL source of the Gospel, which is God. I can easily turn that around and say you are trying to please men by following the Bible, which was compiled and written by men, while I am trying to please God by following his Spirit.

Crisco
07-17-2009, 09:15 PM
How do you know that is correct in the first place? It goes back to that I don't believe the Bible is 100%. The original speakers were 100%, but the bible was we have today isn't. Thus I don't follow another gospel, or distort it, but it has already been done, and I go back to the ORIGINAL source of the Gospel, which is God. I can easily turn that around and say you are trying to please men by following the Bible, which was compiled and written by men, while I am trying to please God by following his Spirit.

Again your a different type of Christian brother.

I'll pray for you so you can make the right choices.

But just understand God isn't always what you feel in your heart. Be careful not to be fooled by the devil into the warm fuzzies with false doctrine and prophets because they made you feel happy.

That can threaten your salvation.

Really a good question is do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal saviour?

Neezar
07-17-2009, 09:16 PM
How do you know that is correct in the first place? It goes back to that I don't believe the Bible is 100%. The original speakers were 100%, but the bible was we have today isn't.

Interesting.

I haven't read the rest of this thread so forgive me if this has already been answered? Which parts of the bible do you believe? And how did you decide?

eric84
07-17-2009, 09:16 PM
With all due respect it seems to me that you base your faith off of however your feeling at that moment.

I base my faith in God off of my heart but I base my understanding of his law and will from the bible.

I think YOU forget WHY the book was written. The book is law handed down by God. Faith and love are much different then the law. The way to salvation is through belief in Jesus Christ and the adherence to his teachings.

I use to be just like you but the fact is God is not what you make him to be he is what he is. God is the creator and ruler who is spoken of in the bible not he who makes you feel good and fuzzy when you read made up fairy tales like the book of mormon.

Your a "feel good Christian" and I get that. The only problem with that is not every part of being a Christian is about feeling good. It's also about sacrifice and submission to God.

Try and keep that in mind when reading your bible. That it's not all about you.

So your saying I just think about me? And I am a "feel good Christian"? Come on now, you have no idea how I live my life. Ever heard of mormon missionaries? I went out for 2 years, paid my own way, to spread the message of Christ. I didn't get paid, I didn't get glory or anything like that, it was for God, and God only. Have you spent 2 years completely devoted to Gods work, without getting paid? If you have, then you can relate how unselfish and how much of a sacrifice and submission to God it is. And then for you to say I only think about myself... you can see how that would irk me just a tad.

The book was made for God, not the other way around. You are setting the book higher than God.

Crisco
07-17-2009, 09:19 PM
So your saying I just think about me? And I am a "feel good Christian"? Come on now, you have no idea how I live my life. Ever heard of mormon missionaries? I went out for 2 years, paid my own way, to spread the message of Christ. I didn't get paid, I didn't get glory or anything like that, it was for God, and God only. Have you spent 2 years completely devoted to Gods work, without getting paid? If you have, then you can relate how unselfish and how much of a sacrifice and submission to God it is. And then for you to say I only think about myself... you can see how that would irk me just a tad.

The book was made for God, not the other way around. You are setting the book higher than God.

WRONG!

I am setting them on the same level because the bible is the WORD of God.

Also:

I say you think about yourself because your more worried about how you feel then what God actually says.

eric84
07-17-2009, 09:20 PM
Again your a different type of Christian brother.

I'll pray for you so you can make the right choices.

But just understand God isn't always what you feel in your heart. Be careful not to be fooled by the devil into the warm fuzzies with false doctrine and prophets because they made you feel happy.

That can threaten your salvation.

Really a good question is do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal saviour?

This is getting a little out of hand, just back and forth, but I'll try to say this again. You believe the Bible to be 100%, and yet you don't believe Galatians 5:22-23. I don't see anywhere in the Bible where it shows the Devil can mimic this, and yet your saying he can, and that I shouldn't listen to it, because it isn't God, when in the Bible it specifically says he is. Sounds to me like your contradicting it.

Atleast you called me a Christian Brother! Of course Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, just how he is for everyone that comes unto him. Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven.

Play The Man
07-17-2009, 09:22 PM
I opened a debate thread on Mormonism/LDS in the Christian section. Perhaps this thread can go back to Obama and "Cap and Trade" and the LDS argument can jump over to the new thread?

eric84
07-17-2009, 09:23 PM
WRONG!

I am setting them on the same level because the bible is the WORD of God.

Also:

I say you think about yourself because your more worried about how you feel then what God actually says.

I justdon't see how they can be on the same level. God inspires men to write scripture. MANY years go by, with different copies and translations, and eventually it is compiled into a large book, aka The Bible. And you take that on the same Level as God himself? Don't get me wrong, I love the Bible, I study from it quite often, and have read it many times(well, honestly only twice all the way through completely.... but a lot of parts countless times). Just seems to me when a conflict occures, its better to trust the source and not the go between.

Crisco
07-17-2009, 09:28 PM
This is getting a little out of hand, just back and forth, but I'll try to say this again. You believe the Bible to be 100%, and yet you don't believe Galatians 5:22-23. I don't see anywhere in the Bible where it shows the Devil can mimic this, and yet your saying he can, and that I shouldn't listen to it, because it isn't God, when in the Bible it specifically says he is. Sounds to me like your contradicting it.

Atleast you called me a Christian Brother! Of course Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, just how he is for everyone that comes unto him. Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven.

Matthew 4:1 brother

"Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil"

The devil can most certainly tempt us with all kinds of emotions and feelings.

Crisco
07-17-2009, 09:30 PM
I justdon't see how they can be on the same level. God inspires men to write scripture. MANY years go by, with different copies and translations, and eventually it is compiled into a large book, aka The Bible. And you take that on the same Level as God himself? Don't get me wrong, I love the Bible, I study from it quite often, and have read it many times(well, honestly only twice all the way through completely.... but a lot of parts countless times). Just seems to me when a conflict occures, its better to trust the source and not the go between.

When going to God himself sometimesthe answers are cryptic at best.

The bible is God's guideline for how you should live. It's quite simple really.

Rev
07-17-2009, 09:32 PM
How do you know that the Bible isnt 100%?

Mark 13:5-8

5. And Jesus began to say to them, “See to it that no one misleads you.
6. “Many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He!’ and will mislead many.
7. “When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be frightened; those things must take place; but that is not yet the end. 8. “For nation will rise up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will also be famines. These things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.

Jeremiah 17:9

“The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick;
Who can understand it?

I am not trying to start a fight I am just doing my job. I made a commitment this morning to become a "Radical Christian" Kind of a rededication of sorts and I hope all of my brothers and sisters will decide to be radical in his/her christianity as well. We need it in this war.

Tyburn
07-17-2009, 09:34 PM
Are you saying: Play The Man is to Parmenides as John The Baptist was to Elijah?:blink: Do you know what the punishment is for a false prophet?:scared0011:
:laugh: :laugh:

I am wondering who you are.

Crisco
07-20-2009, 02:38 PM
Jeremiah 17:9

“The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick;
Who can understand it?

This verse sums up everything I've been telling you Eric.

If you feel your heart is pure enough to answer all of your questions regarding God's will then you are in a serious crisis of faith.