Just a quick note...another terrorist attack in Iraq...one in India not so long ago, a few others in various parts of the world. All attacks by...wait for this...muslims! Wow. Islam, again, the biggest threat to the world. We'll continue to see attacks by Muslims...too bad we have so many that refuse to look at the history of the deadly religion, too many that want to keep calling it a religion of peace. Remember kids, Jesus never fought a war, Muhammed- well, that's about all he did...
By the way...anyone see the fat kid with the huge titties that got arrested by the FBI for changing the blaster worm and spreading it? The worm that has caused me to get bounced off of a bunch of lists because the masked e mail addresses that automated systems think is actually coming from me (the networks are infected, not my computer), and I've had to hit delete, delete, delete about 1, 000 times! I'd to personally have a chance to kick this idiot in his big boobs. Nice haircut, btw, buddy...
If people don't shut up about Hillary 'corruption is my middle name' Clinton, I will scream. Dems and Republicans alike say that she's a terrible disease on both parties and the entire country. When leftie Susan Estrich says you need to go away for good, because you're sucking all the oxygen up, you know you're bad. But, like her husband, she's only interested in her obscenely large ego.
On that subject- what is with the democrats and their crazy opinions on Califorina? I have yet to hear a democrat say anything good about the recall. They all say that it's a right wing conspiracy, and that it's killing democracy. Idiots! It's what democracy is about. Davis lied...he's increased taxes AND spending by huge amounts...he's corrupt. Democracy is all about the people taking back control!
Posted by Josh at August 30, 2003 04:06 AM | TrackBackKILL ALL MUSLIMS! THATS RIGHT! IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO SECURE PEACE!
NEVERMIND THE FACT THAT IT'S ONLY A HANDFULL OF EXTREEMESTS, JUST KILL ALL MUSLIMS!
O'RIELLY 4 LIFE!
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at August 30, 2003 10:45 AMumm okay? who said kill all muslims? and who is "o'rielly?"
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at August 30, 2003 02:48 PMWELL HOW ELSE DO WE GET RID OF THIS RELIGION OF TERROR AND THE NUMBER ONE THREAT TO THE WORLD? LOCK THEM ALL UP?
JOSH, YOU'RE A GENIUS!!
LOCK UP ALL MUSLIMS!!!!! GET THEM OFF THE STREETS!!!!!
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at August 30, 2003 06:49 PMumm ok? never said that. just making an observation that most terror worldwide is muslim based. and terrorism is clearly the biggest threat to world peace right now...simple 2 plus 2.
we have to realize that islam itself, not ONLY so called radical islam is dangerous. learn of the history of the religion, and youll see that much clearly.
so, we need to realize that its not the peaceful religion that many make it out to be (in general, not all muslims are terrorists, of course)...and we need to combat terrorism across the globe, terrorism that is almost entirely muslim in its foundation.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at August 30, 2003 07:02 PMEverytime we get into it with you about Islam, you bring out spicific quotes from the Koran, and try to make people believe how bad it is, but when we take spicific quotes from the Bible, you tell us "you're not supposed to take that part literally"...
So anything in the Koran has to be taken literally, but the Bible doesn't...
Kind of conveniant for you to argue that way huh?
But anyway, I'm not going to get into it again. You know my stance.
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at August 30, 2003 08:59 PMokay? i never said anything about the bible and how youre not supposed to take this part literally and this part figuratively. so,what on earth are you talking about? btw.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at August 30, 2003 09:06 PMI'm talking about past debates on this subject.
My how fast we forget huh?
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at August 31, 2003 09:08 PMthats the problem. ive never once said that everything in the bible is to be taken figuratively, and everything in islam is supposed to be taken literally.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at August 31, 2003 09:10 PMYOu see, thats the thing. I never said you said "everything" in the Bible should be taken figuratevly.
But what you do when you compare Islam though, is take a verse from the Koran and make it out to be ecil and full of war and hate.
For instance, our last debate about this, you gave a verse from the Koran that went along the lines of "All must forfeit to islam" or something like that....and how "dangerous" it was because it says something like that.
Hence, you took it literally...
But when we give examples from the bible such as Lowdown did like "its a sin to wear polyesther" for example, you dismiss it because "such things shouldn't be taken literally" according to you.
You argue along the lines where everything bad and evil in the Koran must be taken literally, and everything bad in the Bible must be taken figuratevly...
A pointless double standard, so no reasonable debate could come of it...
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at August 31, 2003 11:52 PM"You argue along the lines where everything bad and evil in the Koran must be taken literally, and everything bad in the Bible must be taken figuratevly..."
never said that one time.
not to mention, there are some laws in the bible that were meant for certain people only, and some old testament laws are not in effect anymore, so that would be a silly argument to take to begin with.
"never said that one time.
not to mention, there are some laws in the bible that were meant for certain people only, and some old testament laws are not in effect anymore, so that would be a silly argument to take to begin with."
- Those old testament laws "not in effect anymore" include the "homosexuality is a sin" passages you said supported your anti-gay argument. And I agree, that WAS a silly argument for you to make.
- Josh has selective memory.
- Remember when I pointed out specific passages in the Bible that justified SLAVERY and also stated that wearing polyester was a sin? They happened to be right above the same passages that said homosexuality was sin. But I guess me and Hoodlum are delusional, so why don't you tell us what you replied to that?
"All attacks by...wait for this...muslims!"
What about that attack on Iraq? You know, the one WITHOUT PROVOCATION. I believe that one was done by...WAIT FOR THIS... CHRISTIANS!
Or how about all those terrorist attacks in Ireland, huh? ALL DONE BY CHRISTIANS. Big suprise there, eh?
What about Hitler? CHRISTIAN!!! That's right kids.
And don't forget the...wait for it... Crusades and Spanish Inquisition!
I see a pattern. Think about it...
Posted by: Lowdown at September 1, 2003 01:51 AMlol. i cant even begin to debate anything with you. youre clearly ignorant on all the facts, since you had the audacity to claim hitler was a christian. someone needs to reread that ol' history book
homosexuality isnt a sin anymore? its a law thats no longer in effect? weird. im sure you could find a whole ten biblical scholars that would agree with that one!
christians attacked iraq without provocation? get real! the war in iraq was a terrorist act, huh? i hope you never come to america...i know a few hundred million people who wouldnt like the fact that you imply the U.S. is a terrorist faction.
the crusades? reread your history book again. youre gonna claim now that the crusades was just a bunch of events where christians killed a bunch of innocent people, right?
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at September 1, 2003 03:18 AM"lol. i cant even begin to debate anything with you. youre clearly ignorant on all the facts, since you had the audacity to claim hitler was a christian. someone needs to reread that ol' history book"
Don't mix Nazism with his religion up-bringing.
He turned his back on the church and deemed Nazism as the religion in Germany, but that doesn't make him any less of a "child of god" since his baptism.
You are missing the bigger picture (again). What Lowdown is trying to say is, not only Muslims know war, but christians have caused more war and death in the 20th centure than all wars combined since the dawn of time.
Yeah, I guess muslums are the real threat huh?
"the war in iraq was a terrorist act, huh?"
I don't recall him saying that. Why do you feel the need to put words into his mouth to prove a point? We prove our points with facts and statistics, you prove yours with hear say and opinions. It wouldn't hold up in court my friend.
"i hope you never come to america...i know a few hundred million people who wouldnt like the fact that you imply the U.S. is a terrorist faction. "
That number could very well be quite less, especially now with US public opinion shifting concerning the war in Iraq. Dead soldiers every day, no WMD found, shotty intel used to convince the public, etc etc...
Lets see how long Jr can keep his spot in the administration now...
And for the record, im not a "leftest hippie" who was against the war with everything in me. At the begining of the war, I was for it. Saddam shouldn't have been allowed to develope WMD, because he could have sold or used them to attack his enemies. Not only that, but he wasn't exactly man of the year.
I, like "hundreds of millions of Americans", don't like being lied to, so check what you say before you say it.
Not everyone is sitting there with a plate of "freedom fries" and a side order of American Apple Pie in front of them with a goofy smile on their face you know.
But anyway...i'm "ignorant on all the facts"
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at September 1, 2003 11:01 AMfirst off, for the love of jesus, learn how to spell. no offense, but how can anyone take you seriously in a complicated debate when you cant even spell 'extremists' or 'specific?' just some friendly advice.
second...you guys back up your facts with stats and such and mine is all hearsay? interesting. thats about as laughable as it gets.
hitler was in no way a christian. you say he was baptised so that makes him christian? what do you call someone who is baptised and then turns atheist?
christians have killed more people in wars in the 20 century than any other wars combined? again, not factual. take the wars of the 20th century and combine all the "christian caused deaths" or however you think we should state it. then take the rest of history. that fact alone is pointless, since were talking about terrorism not military actions.
as for americans being lied to...im really not sure where you get anyone was lied to, but more off the wall statements- not too surprising!
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at September 1, 2003 11:24 AM"first off, for the love of jesus, learn how to spell. no offense, but how can anyone take you seriously in a complicated debate when you cant even spell 'extremists' or 'specific?' just some friendly advice."
I apologize for my spelling. Most times I write this in my room, in the dark, and having a black keyboard doesn't help, so I don't even look at it while I type. I haven’t perfected writing without looking yet, and I don't bother with the spell check, but that's aside the point and you know it.
"second...you guys back up your facts with stats and such and mine is all hearsay? interesting. thats about as laughable as it gets."
Tell me about it. We come here, with our facts, and URL's to back those facts up, and you simple dismiss it without providing any proof of your own. If that's not funny, I don’t know what is.
"hitler was in no way a christian. you say he was baptised so that makes him christian? what do you call someone who is baptised and then turns atheist?"
Hitler later being a National Socialist, religion really has no place. He rejected religion later in his life. It still doesn't mean he wasn't born a Christian.
But lets take Kaiser Wilhelm for instance. He was Christian. Or are you going to tell us we're wrong again?
"take the wars of the 20th century and combine all the "christian caused deaths" or however you think we should state it."
Well, when you walk about the prophet Mohamed, you talk about Muslim caused deaths and how "evil and dangerous" a religion it is....but when we talk about Christians who caused war and death, you simply dismiss it. The irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife..
Silly double standards....
But anyway, we're wrong, you're right.....I don't know what I was thinking with all my proof....
"lol. i cant even begin to debate anything with you"
- No, you can't. But admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery. Congratulations.
"had the audacity to claim hitler was a christian. someone needs to reread that ol' history book"
- The book that supports my claim is Mein Kampf, and it was written by Adolf himself. For instance, in Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote :
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
- He also writes of his love for the church and clergy: “I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal.”
- Then, in a speech in 1922 he said: "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth!"
– He also said in a speech to catholic bishops, on 26 June 1934, that "The National Socialist State professes its allegiance to positive Christianity. It will be its honest endeavor to protect both the great Christian Confessions in their rights, to secure them from interference with their doctrines (Lehren), and in their duties to constitute a harmony with the views and the exigencies of the State of today."
- Hitler was also baptized as a Roman Catholic, he attended monastery school, and he was an altar boy in a Catholic church.
But Hoodlum's right, in the later stages of his life he decided Christianity was a communist/jew creation, but the fact remains that he was born and raised as a Christian. Incidentally, so was Mussolini, Franco, Salazar and most Latin American dictators.
"homosexuality isnt a sin anymore? its a law thats no longer in effect? weird. im sure you could find a whole ten biblical scholars that would agree with that one!"
- You're the one who said "there are some laws in Bible that were meant for certain people only", and "some old testament laws are not in effect anymore". Tell me, what "biblical scholars" agree on that? The fact is, the passages in the Bible that condone slavery and condemn polyester are the same ones that say homosexuality is a sin, so how come you get to decide which ones are "not in effect anymore", and which ones are?
"christians attacked iraq without provocation? get real!"
- Ouch. You sure got me. "GET REAL!" Now that is one persuasive argument. The next time you try to make a point, I'm just gonna say, "GET REAL!" Apparently, that's all you think needs to be said to support an argument. For instance,
Josh: "Adolf Hitler wasn't a nice man"
Me: "GET REAL, BABY!!!!!!!!"
...
Josh: "Good point."
"the war in iraq was a terrorist act, huh"
- Where did I say this? Where did you read this? Are you hearing things? Please seek help.
"i know a few hundred million people who wouldnt like the fact that you imply the U.S. is a terrorist faction"
- I didn't really imply that, although the U.S. has been found guilty of international terrorism by the World Court for their action in Nicaragua. What I was implying is that Christians have commited their share of atrocities too (although not all would be defined as "terrorism"), so it's unfair to indict an entire religion because of what a small percentage of it's followers do.
"the crusades? reread your history book again. youre gonna claim now that the crusades was just a bunch of events where christians killed a bunch of innocent people, right?"
Essentially, yes. Invading a country just because, as Pope Urban II said, "God wills it!" is despicable. According to most history books, the Muslims and Jews were defending themselves from an invasion, I'm curious as to what history books you've read that say otherwise. If there was nothing wrong with them, then why did the Pope apologize for them?
Josh, what about all the other examples of Christians commiting atrocities and terrorism? Why have you ignored my point about Ireland? The Spanish Inquisition? What about the KKK Josh, they're christian? Or are you just gonna tell me to "GET REAL!" again?
hitler claimed to be a christian for part of his life...so, you say that he, as a christian, killed millions. rather silly, wouldnt you say?
the crusades...muslims werent involved in that? i guess you forgot that side of it all! wait...muslims were taking over the world- country by country, and had to be stopped. forgot to mention that aspect as well, i see.
the other people you mentioned as christians. funny stuff. anyone can CLAIM to be a christian, but we know that none of these people WERE actually christians.
terrorism in ireland? again, were talking about global terrorist threats. and you did imply the US is a terrorist faction...you just said that the world court said as much. you also mentioned iraq in a discussion on TERRORISM. golly, how did i make the jump that you were implying the military action in iraq as a form of terrorism?
"get real" is about all a sane person can say in regards to iraq. no country on earth (besides iraq!) disagreed on that fact that hussein had WMD and that he had spent 12 yrs breaking how many? 14 or 15 UN resolutions? come on, make us laugh by claiming some crazy motive in iraq! when you start bringing up iraq in a discussion about TERRORISM...id really like to know what you expect a person to say.
the kkk? again...not global terrorism. and we can hardly compare the kkk and islamic terrorist groups! but, im sure youll try.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at September 1, 2003 07:17 PM
oh, and about homosexuality. im not a biblical expert...but i can tell you there are no scholars out there that agree that wearing polyester is a sin! but, very few disagree that homosexuality, which is called an abomination, is sinful! youre simplifying the bible to suit your purpose, but it clearly doesnt work too well.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at September 1, 2003 07:19 PM"as for americans being lied to...im really not sure where you get anyone was lied to, but more off the wall statements- not too surprising!"
Ok, well, gear yourself for some more "off the wall" proof....
http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/dn/Qaustralia-iraq-poll.RSYT_DlM.html
Here is a snip from it, and I quote:
{{{The Newspoll published by The Australian found 67 percent of respondents believed Howard's conservative government either lied or unknowingly misled them over its claim that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction justified sending Australian troops to war.}}}
So 67 persent of a countries population (your allie in the war to boot) felt they were lied to or un-knowingly mis-led (by US and UK intel of course) on Iraq.
How's that for off the wall. Shall I go on?
http://www.namibian.com.na/2003/june/world/03DF75F959.html
Here's a snip from that article:
{{A poll by the University of Maryland found that 52 per cent of respondents said they believed Bush and his aides were "stretching the truth, but not making false statements" about Saddam Hussein's chemical, biological and nuclear programs.))
I ask you, do people who think their president has to "stretch the truth" to go to war really trust their leader?
Here's more:
{{Only 32 per cent said they thought the government was being "fully truthful" about the Iraqi arsenal.}}
Wow...
More?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/eveningnews/main560449.shtml
((The statement was technically correct, since it accurately reflected the British paper. But the bottom line is the White House knowingly included in a presidential address information its own CIA had explicitly warned might not be true.}}
Sounds like an administration you can trust huh?
Anyway...I have given my proof. You can claim it to be "off the wall" all you want, but now we both know the real truth ;)
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at September 1, 2003 07:31 PM"oh, and about homosexuality. im not a biblical expert...but i can tell you there are no scholars out there that agree that wearing polyester is a sin! but, very few disagree that homosexuality, which is called an abomination, is sinful! youre simplifying the bible to suit your purpose, but it clearly doesnt work too well."
After everything he said, that's the best you have?
This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at September 1, 2003 07:32 PMlol. some surveys say that some australians think the admin lied, so that confirms they did? i dont believe anyone lied. they said we need to take this guy out...they said that wmd was part of the reason, no one denied he had wmd, not even iraq a cpl yrs ago. hes used wmd, so he clearly has them! the un even agreed and said he had them...there are a lot of people that believe elvis is still alive. i guess theyre right since they think so!
as for homosexuality and what he said...what on earth does that mean? name one respected scholar that believes that homosexuality is okay. you cant.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at September 2, 2003 01:06 AM"hitler claimed to be a christian for part of his life...so, you say that he, as a christian, killed millions. rather silly, wouldnt you say"
- I said he was raised an educated as a Christian. According to Hitler himself, his religious upbringing feuled his hatred of jews. It's all documented in Mein Kampf.
"the crusades...muslims werent involved in that?"
- Where did I say this? Are you hearing things? You have to learn to drown out the "voices in your head". Again, please seek help.
"i guess you forgot that side of it all! wait...muslims were taking over the world- country by country, and had to be stopped. forgot to mention that aspect as well, i see."
- Define "taking over the world". Give me one source that supports that claim. Explain why the Pope felt the crusades were wrong, but you don't. Also, I'm curious how invading a country is needed to prevent Muslims from "taking over the world"?
"anyone can CLAIM to be a christian, but we know that none of these people WERE actually christians"
- Funny, Mussolini and Hitler both had the Vatican supporting them, but I guess they weren't real Christians. Tell me, who decides who's a "real christian", and who isn't. Why don't you tell me the difference? Or is it that when a Christian does something wrong, he's not a "REAL CHRISTIAN", but when someone who happens to be Islamic commits a crime, it's "ISLAM THE GLOBAL THREAT!"
"terrorism in ireland? again, were talking about global terrorist threats."
- No, YOUR talking about global threats, I'm arguing a larger issue that you can't seem to understand. I'm saying that it's wrong to judge an entire religion based on the actions of a few people. I've been very clear about that from the beginning. Please try and catch up.
"and you did imply the US is a terrorist faction...you just said that the world court said as much."
- At the time of your accusation I had not implied that the U.S. was a "terrorist faction". After you made the accusation, I pointed out the fact that the World Court found the U.S. (under the Reagan administration) guilty of International Terrorism.
"you also mentioned iraq in a discussion on TERRORISM. golly, how did i make the jump that you were implying the military action in iraq as a form of terrorism? "
- Josh, when I brought up the war in Iraq I quoted you saying: "All ATTACKS by...wait for this...muslims!" I responded by bringing up the ATTACKS on Iraq. (if you don't believe me just scroll up and read the posts) I never quoted you saying anything about terrorism because I was arguing a larger point. I'm not sure how much clearer I could have been.
"no country on earth (besides iraq!) disagreed on that fact that hussein had WMD"
- Name one country other than the U.S./Britain that said they knew for a fact Saddam had WMD.
"and that he had spent 12 yrs breaking how many? 14 or 15 UN resolutions?"
- Right, compare that to 60 or so that Isreal breaks. I think Spain has broken more resolutions then that. Not only was Isreal not attacked, they also get more financial aid from the U.S. then any other country on earth. If breaking resolutions was really something the U.S. cared about, wouldn't they apply their standards universally?
"come on, make us laugh by claiming some crazy motive in iraq!"
- Where did I say anything about a crazy motive in iraq? All I said was there was no provocation. Seriously, are you hearing things?
"when you start bringing up iraq in a discussion about TERRORISM...id really like to know what you expect a person to say."
- My discussion is not limited to terrorism. I'm arguing something broader in scope and significance. I hope you can understand that.
"the kkk? again...not global terrorism."
- Yeah, duh. I'm not saying that Christianity is guilty of global terrorism, I'm saying it's wrong to generalize and entire culture and faith because of a small percentage of it's members. I bring up some past wrong-doings of christians to illustrate my point that every group has it's "bad apples", so to speak.
- This isn't like "shooting fish in a barrel" Hood, it's like beating my head against a (very thick) wall.
"im not a biblical expert...but i can tell you there are no scholars out there that agree that wearing polyester is a sin! but, very few disagree that homosexuality, which is called an abomination, is sinful!"
- Incidentally, there were numerous southern preachers who used to claim that they were "Bible Experts", and used the Bible passages to justify slavery. So this phenomenon is not without precedent.
- Name one biblical scholar who says homosexuality is a sin? I know you can't because biblical scholars study and discuss the Bible, but don't claim that they can accurately interpret it. Passages in the Bible can mean different things to different people, and no Biblical expert will say otherwise. They just say things like "maybe this is what it means".. So find me one Biblical Scholar who can say for certain that homosexulaity is a sin and slavery is not. (Jerry Falwell is NOT a biblical expert).
"youre simplifying the bible to suit your purpose, but it clearly doesnt work too well"
- If you say so.
"hes used wmd, so he clearly has them! the un even agreed and said he had them...there are a lot of people that believe elvis is still alive. i guess theyre right since they think so!"
- He used them, yes, and according to weapons inspectors, he was DISARMED in 1995. The fact that he had them before the gulf war is therefor irrelevant. Bush and company argued that he had started rebuidling his weapons aresenal after the weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998. Nobody knew for sure that he had or hadn't.
"as for homosexuality and what he said...what on earth does that mean?"
- I think he's reffering to the fact that you ignored all my questions about who decides what to ignore in the Bible and what not to.
"name one respected scholar that believes that homosexuality is okay. you cant"
- That's becuase it's not up to Biblical scholars to decide how to interpret the Bible with any certainty. You can't find a Biblical Scholar who absolutely condemns Homosexuality either. It's not what they do.
- Josh, it's like this: The Bible has a passage, written by Leviticus, that says Homosexuality is a "abomination". Right above that, is another passage by Leviticus, that condones slavery. What makes one right, and one wrong? Do you really need a Biblical expert to explain this to you?
Posted by: lowdown at September 2, 2003 03:08 AM
you surely are not understanding a thing i wrote. this discussion was never about singling out a religion by calling all of those who follow the religion bad or evil. any terrorism expert will tell you that global terrorism is carried out almost exclusively by muslim terrorist. the entry was about the threat of islam as a whole...such as racial profiling works, so does religious profiling, if you want to call it that. defeating radical islam, and in many forms basic islam- is one thing that has to be done to fight terrorism.
about hitler- no one with any sense thinks that the man was a christian, so bringing him up and claiming christians caused deaths of millions is absurd to begin with.
we are talking about global terrorism...youre bringing up ireland as tho it affects anyone outside of ireland! were talking about terrorism on a global scale...im sure there arent too many muslims in ireland btw...since we ARE talking about islam and it's relationship with global terrorism.
you were implying the US a terrorist state...you even said that the world court said the us is a terrorist state. nonsense, but any sane person knows that much. i wont go into the anti israel sentiment within the UN btw, which wholly explains all these so called un violations by that nation. anyone who tries to demonize israel by comparing them to iraq in who has 'broken' more un resolutions shouldnt be involved in a civil discussion at all. thats just a joke to bring up a peaceful, democratic nation like israel up in a discussion on terrorism!
no biblical scholar says what is right or wrong? hmm. thats rather odd, you should tell them that, because they dont seem to agree. of course they study the text and decide what is what...whats wrong and whats not. and yes, 99.9% of respected biblical scholars will tell you that homosexuality is clearly a sin. and yes, i would definitely call falwell a biblical scholar on some level, considering the fact that he knows the book fairly well, and he has spent much time studying it and coming to conclusions based on the text.
the final UN resolution in iraq was passed unanimously...and it said that iraq still had weapons and must disarm immediately, and come clean with ALL records on all weapons programs. every security council member signed off on it, so how do you claim no one outside of the us or uk agreed that hussein had wmd? when the inspectors left in 1998, because they couldnt get full access, they agreed that there was still wmd in iraq. no one on the sec. council disputed the se facts. they all agreed that inspections needed to continue, BECAUSE of the fact that iraq has not accounted for huge quantities of weapons they already admitted to having.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at September 2, 2003 04:34 AMhttp://www.christianity.ca/news/commentary/2003/06.000.html
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at September 2, 2003 04:40 AMgreat point in that article...the bible CLEARLY says that sex outside of marriage is always wrong. and marriage is clearly the union between a man and a woman. it doesnt take a genius to see that the bible in no way condones homosexuality...and the only churches who DO condone it today or ones led by or have large memberships of homosexuals who want to tailor the bible to suit their own lifestyle. just like robinson has done with the church. hes decided he wants to live with a man, breaking off his marriage (a sin itself) and he decided that he had to make the bible fit his lifestyle, so he twists some words around, says that it was all a big misunderstanding, and boom- homosexual relations are just fine in gods eyes. not quite!
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at September 2, 2003 04:44 AMhttp://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f019.html
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at September 2, 2003 04:44 AMHoly good god.....has Josh finally provided a link to some sort of proof to back his claims?
This must be the 7th sign of the apocolypse or something....
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at September 2, 2003 09:10 AM"this discussion was never about singling out a religion by calling all of those who follow the religion bad or evil."
- Interesting. Josh, this is exactly what you wrote:
"Wow. Islam, again, the biggest threat to the world."
- You judged an entire religion the biggest threat to the world. The only evidence you provided to support this claim was the actions of extremists who make up a small percentage of it's followers. So even though you feel the Islam faith is the biggest threat to the world, and have little in the way of evidence to support the claim, you wouldn't say that those who are part of it are a threat aswell?
"any terrorism expert will tell you that global terrorism is carried out almost exclusively by muslim terrorist."
- Oh boy. Find one. FIND ONE. Just one. A single "expert" who will say global terrorism is carried out EXCLUSIVELY BY MUSLIMS.
"defeating radical islam, and in many forms basic islam- is one thing that has to be done to fight terrorism."
- First off, a few paragraphs below this you say "we are talking about global terrorism". But here you just say we need to fight Islam to fight TERRORISM. Which is it Josh? Is this discussion about terrorism or global terrorism. Why does it matter? Isn't a dead body a dead body anywhere in the world?
- And you believe this why? Because a small portion of muslims have allegedly commited terrorist acts? Try to follow me. If we use that logic and apply to the KKK or the IRA we could say that because these members of the the christian faith have commited terrorism (local instead of global) then we should fight CHRISTIANITY to fight local terrorism.
"about hitler- no one with any sense thinks that the man was a christian, so bringing him up and claiming christians caused deaths of millions is absurd to begin with"
- Nobody but the Pope. The Vatican. His parents. The man himself. I guess you know better then them though.
- Josh, keep your opinions about what's absurd and what's not to yourself. Unless of course you can back them up with facts and proof. Just saying "that's absurd" won't convince anybody. You actually have to offer facts to carry on an intelligent conversation. When you say something like "no one with any sense thinks.." and don't back the statement up, you're just wasting our time.
"we are talking about global terrorism...youre bringing up ireland as tho it affects anyone outside of ireland! were talking about terrorism on a global scale"
- I'm trying to argue that it's wrong to judge an entire religion based on the actions of a few. Whether those actions include global terrorism, or local terrorism, or rape, or whatever is academic. I've explained this to you several times already. You're really starting to come off as a little "slow" here.
"you were implying the US a terrorist state...you even said that the world court said the us is a terrorist state"
- Yes, I said that AFTER you accused me of implying the US is a terrorist state. I already told you this. Please start reading my posts.
"you even said that the world court said the us is a terrorist state. nonsense, but any sane person knows that much."
- I guess the WORLD COURT isn't sane? Funny, the US seemed to think they were sane when they used the court to sue Iran over hostage taking. I guess they're only "sane" when it's convenient.
"thats just a joke to bring up a peaceful, democratic nation like israel up in a discussion on terrorism"
- Wow, good point Josh. I never thought of it that... wait... oh yeah, you have no point. No proof. No evidence. You're just offering your opinion again. Oh well.
"no biblical scholar says what is right or wrong? hmm. thats rather odd, you should tell them that, because they dont seem to agree. of course they study the text and decide what is what...whats wrong and whats not. and yes, 99.9% of respected biblical scholars will tell you that homosexuality is clearly a sin"
- My point is that Biblical Scholars can only offer opinions. They can't say anything for certain. Different Biblical Scholars interpret the Bible different ways. But go ahead Josh, prove to me that 99.9% of Biblical Scholars believe homosexuality is a sin. I won't hold my breath though.
"i would definitely call falwell a biblical scholar on some level, considering the fact that he knows the book fairly well, and he has spent much time studying it and coming to conclusions based on the text."
- I really don't care what you would call Falwell. Jerry Falwell has never, to my knowledge, called himself a Biblical Scholar. If you have any evidence that would suggest otherwise, I would appreciate seeing it.
"the final UN resolution in iraq was passed unanimously...and it said that iraq still had weapons and must disarm immediately, and come clean with ALL records on all weapons programs."
- Link please? I don't recall any resolution explicitly saying "We know for certain that Saddam has WMD". You know what, just tell me the resloution number and I'll look it up for you.
- Did you even read that first christian link? You'll notice that all the way through it they say "some people interpret this as".. or "what these revisionists are saying" which further supports my statement regarding the subjective nature of the Bible. All that link did was present one interpretation of the Bible. As I said, and if you don't believe me read your own link, there are many different ways to read the Bible.
- If you want to convince me that homosexuality is a sin, you'll have to explain to me why passages about polyester and slavery are to be ignored, but passages about homosexuality are to be taken seriously. Please use facts.
lol. you clearly dont read. i found hundreds of quotes by hitler himself where he talked about how he had to destroy christianity...and how new reports were done by students at rutgers (i think it was rutgers) that his plan was actually two pronged...destroy judaism and christianity. youre part of .000009% of the population when you CLAIM the man was a christian. but, no matter, because we all know he wasnt.
i used the word terrorism without global in front of it, so were suddenly talkimg about just terrorism in general? funny. try to remember, people arent stupid, and its a given that global terrorism is the topic. right now, i can say YOU and we know im referring to YOU lowdown...not someone else. bright one there, arent ya?
in a conversation about global terrorism...you bring up the US and its attack on iraq. youre trying to get out of implying the US terrorists, thats okay, i wouldnt want to be caught making insane statements like that...but whatever. keep trying to convince yourself you never implied such.
the UN resolution passed, giving the un the ability to use force if iraq didnt comply with completely disarming...so you still claim that the countries that signed off just did it because it was something to do? not because they really thought he had the weapons? they all agreed as much! thats WHY they signed off on 1441!
in my link...the author was referring to 'progressive' individuals in the church...which we all know means homosexuals who want to justify their lifestyle. you ignore the most basic point- sex outside of marriage in any way (man-woman, man-man, woman-woman) is a sin and not tolerated by God. There is clearly very little if any debate about that fact among scholars. So, how do you work your way around that and say that scholars who arent trying to justify their own sinful lifestyles actually disagree and say that homosexual sex is okay? its outside of marriage, which is clearly sex that is banned. sex was made FOR marriage. then, we have the verses that discuss homosexuality itself, which many (and yourself) try to twist and read it as being okay. wont work...
discussing this with either of you is a joke...because you pass over large facts that are quite relevant to the issue at hand...you twist words that i use and others use to suit your own flimsy arguments, etc.
my first point about islam being the threat and not singling out EVERYONE muslim- you totally turned that around to say i was accusing every muslim of being a terrorist basically. never said that, i even went as far to clarify that that clearly isnt the case.
racial profiling, like i mentioned- works. anyone with common sense will tell you that racial profiling (along with background checks which will include the persons muslim background) would be very effective in screening passengers on airlines or people coming into the US. islamic men are more likely to commit acts of terrorism worlwide than any other group of people. we all know that. so, of course you have to defeat the foundations of radical islam and in some aspects basic islam itself.
then i said that any terrorism expert will tell you that global terrorism is ALMOST exclusively carried out by muslims. you twisted what i said there, taking out the word ALMOST, claiming i said every act of terror on earth is muslim related. never said it. of the major conflicts around the world (terrorism, civil war, etc)- something like 90% is muslim related. it might be even higher now. thats taking EVERYTHING into consideration...even things outside of terrorism in the form were used to seeing. of course most terrorism on the earth is carried out by muslim terrorists. name one major non-muslim terrorist bombing (or any other attack) in the past month.
and finally..its ONLY MY OPINION that israel is a democratic peace loving nation? funny. you did notice that they agreed to the terms of the road map to peace...right? and they froze new settlements, and they agreed to a palestinian state, and they lived up to their side of the deal, right? they even went further and released terrorists from prison, tho the road map never ever called for any release of ANY prisoners. who broke the deal? maybe abbas, who said that he wouldnt bring in the terrorist groups? abbas, who said he DID have the control over them that the road map called for, then spoke out saying he had no control over them, and that he was ultimately going to arafat (A KNOWN TERRORIST!) for all the decicions? golly. which side is on the side of good and which the side of evil? could it be the side led by the terrorist or the one who heads up the only democratic govt in the entire region? youre a joke! no proof, huh? no proof would suffice for you.
ill say it again...youre a joke. face it. you claim hitler was a christian, tho you can find a thousand or so quotes where he talks about how christianity is soon to be dead and how he will help destroy it. he clearly lives by zero of the tenants of the religion, and so on. gosh, he was baptized as a child a christian, so he must be one! and therefore, thats my proof that a christian killed millions! ha, i win! hilarious! truly hilarious.
alright. im done with this discussion, because its just silly to debate whether or not hitler was a christian. its like asking if the pope is an atheist.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at September 2, 2003 11:24 PM"i found hundreds of quotes by hitler himself where he talked about how he had to destroy christianity...and how new reports were done by students at rutgers (i think it was rutgers) that his plan was actually two pronged...destroy judaism and christianity"
- Why did you go through the trouble of "finding quotes" (something you've never done before) when both Hoodlum and I already stated that Hitler was, eventually, very anti-christian?
"i used the word terrorism without global in front of it, so were suddenly talkimg about just terrorism in general? funny. try to remember, people arent stupid, and its a given that global terrorism is the topic. right now, i can say YOU and we know im referring to YOU lowdown...not someone else. bright one there, arent ya?"
- That's hardly an apt metaphore, in my opinion, since the meaning of a single pronoun is much easier to determine then the meaning of noun without a nessesary adjective. Anyway, all I did was ask you to clarify, is it really so difficult to attach the word "global" to terrorism?
"in a conversation about global terrorism...you bring up the US and its attack on iraq. youre trying to get out of implying the US terrorists, thats okay, i wouldnt want to be caught making insane statements like that...but whatever. keep trying to convince yourself you never implied such"
- In response the statement regarding muslim "ATTACKS" (and I've quoted you several times already) I brought up the U.S. attack against Iraq to further illustrate the point that muslims aren't the only people who "attack" without provocation. I fail to see, and you have failed to show me, how that statement implies that the US is guilty of anything more than ATTACKING Iraq. You continue to claim that this discussion only concerns "global terrorism", yet we both know that issues ranging from homosexulaity to the validity of biblical scholars have been debated in this discussion. Why can't we add on the larger issue of discrimination to this debate?
"the UN resolution passed, giving the un the ability to use force if iraq didnt comply with completely disarming...so you still claim that the countries that signed off just did it because it was something to do? not because they really thought he had the weapons? they all agreed as much! thats WHY they signed off on 1441!"
- Resolution 1441 demanded that "Baghdad give UNMOVIC and IAEA a complete and accurate declaration of all aspects of its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and ballistic missiles systems, as well as information on other chemical, biological, and nuclear programs that are supposed to be for civilian purposes, within 30 days." They wanted Iraq to comply with weapons inspectors, meaning they wanted Iraq to report what weapons they had. It is possible, however, that Iraq had no WMD. Nowhere in resolution 1441 does it suggest that they knew of Iraq's alleged WMD for a fact. Basically, all it said was that Iraq had to let weapon inspectors see what weapons they might have had.
If you don't believe me read these two links:
http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm
"in my link...the author was referring to 'progressive' individuals in the church...which we all know means homosexuals who want to justify their lifestyle."
- Progressive = Homosexual? I didn't know that. Would you be good enough to "enlighten" me with some... wait for it... evidence?
"So, how do you work your way around that and say that scholars who arent trying to justify their own sinful lifestyles actually disagree and say that homosexual sex is okay?"
- You need to prove that scholars who disagree that homosexuality is a sin are "trying to justify" their lifestyles to make any kind of convincing argument.
"discussing this with either of you is a joke...because you pass over large facts that are quite relevant to the issue at hand...you twist words that i use and others use to suit your own flimsy arguments, etc"
- Funny, I'm the one who takes every single one of your statements and fully responds to them. You've yet to answer my question about why passages regarding slavery are to be ignored, but those regading homosexulity are important.
"my first point about islam being the threat and not singling out EVERYONE muslim- you totally turned that around to say i was accusing every muslim of being a terrorist basically. never said that, i even went as far to clarify that that clearly isnt the case."
- Ok, so that's not the case. I'm sorry if read your statement wrong. But please explain what you meant when you said "islam.. the biggest threat to the world". If Islam is the biggest threat to the world, then aren't those who follow it also a threat? Just explain to me how you can condemn the entire Islamic faith becuase of the actions of only a few of it's followers.
"racial profiling, like i mentioned- works."
- I have evidence to the contrary:
http://www.talkleft.com/archives/001822.html
Here's an excerpt:
"Statewide, black and Hispanic drivers received traffic tickets at a rate twice their share of the population. Once ticketed, they were 50 percent more likely than whites to have their cars searched. But a HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF THE WHITE DRIVERS WHOSE CARS WERE SEARCHED WERE ARRESTED, the study found."
- Call me skeptical, but I would like to see some evidence that supports your claim. I can't just take your word for it...
"islamic men are more likely to commit acts of terrorism worlwide than any other group of people. we all know that"
- I did not know that. Why don't you teach me more with some... some... uhhh.. oh right, evidence.
"then i said that any terrorism expert will tell you that global terrorism is ALMOST exclusively carried out by muslims. you twisted what i said there, taking out the word ALMOST, claiming i said every act of terror on earth is muslim related. never said it"
- I apologize for misquoting you. So then... can you find me one expert that says global terrorism is carried out ALMOST EXLCUSIVELY by muslims? Getting proof from you is like pulling teeth.
"and finally..its ONLY MY OPINION that israel is a democratic peace loving nation? funny. you did notice that they agreed to the terms of the road map to peace...right? and they froze new settlements, and they agreed to a palestinian state, and they lived up to their side of the deal, right? they even went further and released terrorists from prison, tho the road map never ever called for any release of ANY prisoners. who broke the deal? maybe abbas, who said that he wouldnt bring in the terrorist groups? abbas, who said he DID have the control over them that the road map called for, then spoke out saying he had no control over them, and that he was ultimately going to arafat (A KNOWN TERRORIST!) for all the decicions? golly. which side is on the side of good and which the side of evil? could it be the side led by the terrorist or the one who heads up the only democratic govt in the entire region? youre a joke! no proof, huh? no proof would suffice for you."
- Why didn't you offer all that evidence when you first made your claim? Why do I have to beg you to prove EVERYTHING you say? Have you ever had to ask me to prove my statements? Probably not, since I usually offer evidence shortly after making an argument. It's common sense and common courtesy.
- As far as the allegation that "no proof would suffice" for me: What has led you to this conclusion? You've offered so little in the way of proof I'm not sure how you could come to such a determination.
"ill say it again...youre a joke. face it."
- Is this an argument? What has given you the impression that your opinion of me is relevant to this discussion? Have I asked you for it? Why go through the trouble of a personal attack when neither one of us is affected by it?
"you claim hitler was a christian, tho you can find a thousand or so quotes where he talks about how christianity is soon to be dead and how he will help destroy it."
- Those quotes came later on in his life, as I've stated, repeatedly.
"gosh, he was baptized as a child a christian, so he must be one!"
- He was also educated as one. That's not a small point, in my opinion.
" he clearly lives by zero of the tenants of the religion, and so on"
- Josh, I couldn't agree more. Understand? I AGREE WITH YOU. He clearly "lives by zero of the tenants of his religion" just as Bin Laden lives by "zero of the tenants" of his..
"therefore, thats my proof that a christian killed millions!"
- There are many other examples that support my argument that christians have done bad things aswell, and we shouldn't judge an entire relihgion becuase of the actions of a few. The KKK, the IRA, abortion doctor killers ect.. There's a larger issue here, and I wish you would take the time to try and understand it.
"alright. im done with this discussion, because its just silly to debate whether or not hitler was a christian. its like asking if the pope is an atheist."
- That's a little odd since Hitler made up a very small part of this discussion. I'm willing to drop him anyway since I have plenty of other examples to illustrate my points. I guess we can continue this discussion, unless of course there's some other reason you won't (can't?) argue with me.
Posted by: lowdown at September 3, 2003 02:46 AM
"my first point about islam being the threat and not singling out EVERYONE muslim- you totally turned that around to say i was accusing every muslim of being a terrorist basically. never said that, i even went as far to clarify that that clearly isnt the case."
Funny, I got the impresssion you were talking about all muslims too...
You might want to re-think the way you say things Josh. Lowdown didn't twist anything around. He took your statement word for word.
"gosh, he was baptized as a child a christian, so he must be one! and therefore, thats my proof that a christian killed millions! ha, i win! hilarious! truly hilarious."
What about Kaiser WIlhelm II? He was an open practicing christian. So were most leaders in Europe in the early 1900's....and they were the cause of WW1, which killed millions in just a few years.
"no proof, huh? no proof would suffice for you."
Or is that just a scapegoat you are going to use to pass off your opinions as fact again? hmmmm
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at September 3, 2003 09:57 AMMuslums have to kill Non-Muslums In order to be good Muslums...We have no choice but to distroy them and their religion...They are as mad beasts that can't be reasoned with...They have the form of humans, but they are not...Bottom line is we have to kill every last one of them in order to live with our fellow humans...Be strong and fight the good fight...With every death of a Muslum you do the will of good...
Posted by: Richard Raed at August 27, 2004 12:46 AM