Sunday, November 22, 2009

Exodus 23:1,2 - "Do not spread false reports. Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness. Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd, and do not show favouritism to a poor man in his lawsuit just because he is poor.

18 comments:

JD Curtis said...

"Was Cromwell Irish?"
Was Ireland part of the U.K.?


This is almost as breathtakingly stupid as Tink-a dink's statement that started this entire topic. Flute, at the next soccer match played in Ireland by the their national team,. simply stand up in front of the crowd at the half and yell You're all ENGLISH!. See if you make it out alive. The same may be applicable at an match involving England except substitutiing the word "English" with "Irish".

I do not know what world you live in, but Oliver Stone is no historical authority. Sorry sweetie, I will not even entertain that one.

What part of "These are Castro's words, not Stone's" did you not understand?

Since you seem to think that Oliver Stone is such a legitimate authority

I never claimed he was legitimate. If Kermit the Frog pointed a camera at Castro and made a documentary about him, it wouldnt make any difference. They are Castro's words.

The "first intention" is to kill?,
oh yeah sure.. women just love having abortions because its just such a real extremely fun way to go on a killing spree.


Whether they "love to" or not is irrelevant. The intention is to kill the infant. In war it is a military objective. Read the article again Einstein.

What utter bollocks!!. What a sad feeble pitiful attempt to try equalizing it to war.

Thank you for verification Copernicus. People in the country (US) equated abortion to war in order to justify voting for most pro-abortion president ever who even supported a form of infanticide. They are not the same.

Judgements made on any moral grounds need to take all angles of what matters into account,whats best cannot simply rely always on emotion lest it wrongfully be the (instigator) of much more long term pain than really need be suffered.

What "long term pain"? She can give the child up for adoption, thus avoiding the violent option.

In my opinion the person who who wrote that article, is a real right wally !! to try and compare abortion with warfare.What a complete twat

Interesting. Since Fr. Dwight argued that they DON'T compare to one another at all and theyre different, what shall we call the person who (supposedly) read the article and could not understand that? "Imbecile" comes to mind but I think your imagination is better than mine when it comes to thinking up such descriptive adjectives.

J Duh is saying that George W Bush is not responsible for all of the deaths that his troops have caused for his country because there is no evidence that he directly and personally gave the orders for each murder.

No Tink-tank-tunk, JD said nothing of the sort. GWB could not have launched war without the consent of Congress. Hillary, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid ALL voted to give him authorization. In order to substantiate your claim that Bush equal to the atheist murderers on the list, who did Bush ordered to be murdered? Who?

when their own son of god will freely admit the divisive nature and problems god belief poses,and its all even written there right within the book they all read.

God belief? Who made the statement that "God belief" would cause division? Wasnt Jesus criticizing the so-called "religious" leaders of that time? At no time did he criticize "God belief".

JD Curtis said...

Where is the proof that they gave the order?

How about a link for each of the names on your list that show they ordered the non-martial deaths of the numbers you (Or more correctly Vox) claim.

From a personal email that I received from Vox Day. One person in a philosophy club I attend questioned the veracity of Mr Day's claims. An atheist (Steve) wrote...

""Please substantiate the claim that "the statistical analysis will show that the
58 percent chance an atheist leader will order the deaths of more than 20,000 people is
greater is much greater than the 16 percent probability that a lifetime habit of smoking
cigarettes will cause lung cancer". Please precisely define 'atheist' and 'leader'
(apparently they don't even have to be head of state) in a way we both can agree on.
Please list the other 38 atheist leaders who did not order the deaths of 20,000 or more
people or provide additional information on the total number included in the ratio. If
this claim is based on a sampling of 'leaders' who have existed at some point in the
history of humanity and not on absolute numbers, please provide an explanation of the
methodology used and explain why this methodology is suited to represent the 'leader'
group as a whole and make predictions on the behavior of future leaders as implied by
your claim. "

JD Curtis said...

Vox Day replied....

"That's amusing. He appears to want to believe that I just made stuff up, when a little thinking would show him it's obvious I didn't.

Atheist: Individual who is historically confirmed to have claimed to be is an atheist, or to have stated that there is no God, or that there are no gods.

Leader: Head of state or member of oligarchy with sufficient power to directly order military forces into action without limiting oversight from a superior.

38 others: It is an absolute number and he has only to look at the other atheist leaders of those nations listed in Appendix A. For example, the GDR's Walter Ubricht and Erich Honecker were on the list, Wilhelm Pieck, Willi Stoph, and Egon Krenz were not, even though they were atheist leaders, because they weren't responsible for the killings of at least 20,000 people. If he's not going to take my word for it, then he should be looking up every single leader himself. He's never heard of Choibalsan, for example, so how does he even know the guy deserves to be on the list? It's possible that I missed one or two, of course, but there's no escaping the overall conclusion.

Yes, the book was written in 2007. Now, I imagine he'll try to switch the topic to imagining theoretical atheist leaders of the past or secret atheist leaders of the present. But his problem is that in a modern democracy, it's very hard for an atheist to get elected, and in most countries, the elected head of state does not have the power to start slaughtering his own people. But the point that everyone seems to keep missing is that it is not atheism alone, but atheism combined with the desire to remake society, that is the dangerous problem.

Cheers,
Vox"

JD Curtis said...

So I stand corrected. I thought it was 56% of atheist leaders that murdered at least 20,000 of their own people. It's actually 58%. Pardon me.

Flute said...

This is almost as breathtakingly stupid as Tink-a dink's statement that started this entire topic. Flute, at the next soccer match played in Ireland by the their national team,. simply stand up in front of the crowd at the half and yell You're all ENGLISH!. See if you make it out alive. The same may be applicable at an match involving England except substitutiing the word "English" with "Irish".

I lived in Northern Ireland during the 1980's. We were part of the U.K. Our currency is the British Pound. (And confusingly, the banks also made their own money!)
I'm afraid you've confused England with the United Kingdom. At the time of Cromwell, England had expanded to cover what is now Ireland.

JD Curtis said...

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. (Democrat "Yea" votes)

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

Link from senate.gov

Flute said...

How about a link for each of the names on your list that show they ordered the non-martial deaths of the numbers you (Or more correctly Vox) claim.

So... no links?

JD Curtis said...

Was Cromwell English or Irish?

Did he slaughter 20,000?

Are the Irish English and vice-versa?

What percentage of Christian rulers slaughtered that many of their own people for comparison? I'd start with the St Bartolomew's Day Massacre and go from there.

JD Curtis said...

So... no links?

What part of " If he's not going to take my word for it, then he should be looking up every single leader himself. He's never heard of Choibalsan, for example, so how does he even know the guy deserves to be on the list?" did you not understand? You want 55 links. I merely asked for one. It was mindnumbingly stupid to assert that Castro was somehow "Catholic" when he states that he is not himself and has been excommunicated for decades.

Flute said...

Did he slaughter 20,000?

Personally?

Flute said...

Are the Irish English and vice-versa?

A lot of people get this wrong, even I has accidentally called England the UK on occasion. Northern Ireland, like England, is part of the U.K. Some people in Ireland would consider themselves English. People from England are not Irish.

Was Cromwell English or Irish?
At the time of Cromwell, Ireland was part of England.

Gorth Satana said...

I thought Ireland was absorbed by England BECAUSE of Cromwell.
Cromwell's original title was Lord Protector of England, Scotland, and Ireland.
Cromwell blamed the Catholics for persecution of Protestants in Europe hence the "Kill them all"-style killings of Irish Catholics.

JD Curtis said...

"Kill them all" if they resusted. He's quite devisive as a historical figure and has been cast in a more favorable light in recent years.

"Cromwell's reputation is now in the ascendant. More than twenty biographies by academic historians have been published in the past fifty years; all but one have been laudatory. They praise his integrity, his reliance upon his God, his brilliance as a soldier, his restless energy as head of state. There are varying estimates of the long-term effects of his role in the British Revolutions; but no recent biographer doubts that he was a man to be admired." Link

Gorth Satana said...

I live in a country that is mostly filled with Catholics, in their eyes Cromwell is basically Hitler.

Gandolf said...

JD Curtis-->"Whether they "love to" or not is irrelevant. The intention is to kill the infant. In war it is a military objective. Read the article again Einstein."

Well rosebud its such a shame upsetting jesuses friendly happy lil moonbeams is so very easily,makes a real complete utter mockery out of jesus and of what use faith really is for folks.Not that its anything so very surprising.We have known god beliefs often turn people into real mouldy old grumps!,for thousands of years now.

But to be honest i still dont see that its so very likely there was simply always just an intention to set out to kill children .Thats rubbish.

If it really were like you or this other moonbeam is trying to tell us it is,well we would likely see and hear many women all excitedly discussing how they got pregnant with an (intention) to set out to kill their own offspring.That is what ammounts to what simple intent.

What utter crap,i have yet to meet even one women who had and abortion,who simply set with an (intention) to hopfully get to kill a infant...It just dont ever really happen quite that way,does it JD?.

JD to suggest the original intention a women who goes through such a horrible situation as abortion, simply was to set out with INTENT to kill a infant ...Is just ignorant and stupid propaganda...Its so easy to see all the available evidence hasnt been thought through very well has it.

Im definately not pro abortion ..Id much prefer to see less women having them... But im not ignorant in understanding things either,and i know its not often something they simply set out hoping to be involved in...It not an intent its more like a subsequent situation they find themselves needing to deal with,whether it be beacuse of a mistake or stupidity or for what ever reason it might be ....It stupid to think many set out with intent of hopefully having an abortion.

JD -->"What "long term pain"? She can give the child up for adoption, thus avoiding the violent option."

Oh i see and you consider this is always the best option.This in your opinion is about morally considering everything from all angles,and is the best decision to avoid the most (long term suffering).

Tell me sunshine...What happens if some poor child put up for adoption ends up with some religious grumpy old fart like you for a parent?...What kind of nasty unkind thoughtless ignorant action would this be for some person to sentence their adopted offspring with?.

Hell heaven forbid it!,i personally would much much rather be aborted before needing to be subjected to such lenghtly torture of such a long unbearable sad outcome for existence of life, anyday.

If i was the embryo i would be crying out saying look please just throw me in the briar patch!!briar fox ...Do anything else with me you like!!...But whatever happens!! please please! dont let me be donated to some nasty christian like JD....It will only end up a life of complete boring misery and suicide!.

JD-->"Interesting. Since Fr. Dwight argued that they DON'T compare to one another at all and theyre different"

Yes very different ..So different i still cant see why he even mentions abortions with matters of war.They dont even belong in the same discussion in my opinion.

tinkbell13 said...

To Gandolf and Flute

Do not waste your time with J Duh.... He is so not worth it.

JD Curtis said...

What utter crap,i have yet to meet even one women who had and abortion,who simply set with an (intention) to hopfully get to kill a infant

Really? What was their intent then if I may ask? (Of getting an abortion)

JD to suggest the original intention a women who goes through such a horrible situation as abortion, simply was to set out with INTENT to kill a infant ...Is just ignorant and stupid propaganda

Technically, it was the intention of the abortionist, not the mother (or "host" as the case may be). Irregardless, do they delude themselves into thinking they are "putting the child to sleep" or something?

Yes very different ..So different i still cant see why he even mentions abortions with matters of war.They dont even belong in the same discussion in my opinion

This is brought up by democrats who to justify voting for someone who doesnt want any restrictions on abortion whatsoever by mentioning the Gulf War, Bush lied, people died etc.

Tell me sunshine...What happens if some poor child put up for adoption ends up with some religious grumpy old fart like you for a parent?

Who are you calling OLD? And besides, I'm willing to bet I'm LOADS more fun than you are, and a better dancer to boot.

What kind of nasty unkind thoughtless ignorant action would this be for some person to sentence their adopted offspring with?

Compared to what? An atheist parent? If he/she grows up Christian, they'll live longer, be more likely to marry and less likely to be depressed/commit suicide. Oh the JOYS of atheism.

Gandolf said...

JD -->"Really? What was their intent then if I may ask? (Of getting an abortion)"

Often to save extended suffering or avoid future situations they might not yet be prepared for or ready to be in charge of.Yes there is the idea of adoption but this is not necessarily alway the best choice when taking all the very important matters into acount.As i explained some children have adopted out into a horrible lifes by ending up with horrible adopting parents.Or their being a adoptee can cause psychological problems and all sorts.That can quite easily end up being very much a far worse long term suffering, than death as a fetus.

It is just not always so black and white these decisions JD,there is many reasons.And many possible situations that need to be all considered.

Sure even i would far prefer folks were more careful,and that these mistakes never had to happen! ...But this does not prove that any women goes purposly out with (intent) to get pregnant so to get the chance to kill their own offspring.

Do fat people mostly simply get overweight, with an INTENT to become obese?

Or is there quite often lots and lots of differing reason and situations that can all contribute to these problems.

JD -->"Technically, it was the intention of the abortionist, not the mother (or "host" as the case may be). Irregardless, do they delude themselves into thinking they are "putting the child to sleep" or something?"

The abortionist is just part of society outcome and the decision.If there is going to be abortions then its better they be done as safe as possible,not in some back street.

Id say its a lot about not enough thought rather than delusions,but maybe society is partly to blame with what our societies have become.However i dont see how religion can honestly try to lay claim to any high road,when religions for so very very many years now have also played such a big part of the divisions within our families and communities.

I suspect if religion had concentrated more on keeping families more together, rather than being quite often so fully prepared to divide like a sword to fit their translation of a faith.

Then its also highly likely (less) abortions would exist.

Religion makes such a big deal over things like abortion,yet the same faithful folks think it (no big deal) religion has "aborted many family relationships" and subdivided folks all over the whole world.Causing more and more likelyhood of these problems like abortion in the process.

If only you and other christians realized there is many non believers like myself who are not necessarily so pro people having as many abortions as possible.No not at all.Its never really so nice for anyone involved is it.

We agree with christians it would honestly be best to see many more less of them.

But we just disagree that christians trying to simply make it illegal, is actually doing anything at all towards addressing or helping fix the real root of the problem.