It seems like there are people that get so offended by these things, but why get offended when the context is simply taken directly from the book?

Why are some rules followed and the others not?

Please explain this to me.

Religious identity is oftentimes an exercise in tribalism, rather than a reasoned application of texts and precepts.

MAH GOD'LL KICK YOUR'NS AYSS, essentially.

I often wonder if people subscribe to a religion for the comfort of conformity.

It seems more often than not, most people don't actually understand the religion they associate with.

Perhaps its just the gang mentality of being attached to a group in order to both feel a sense of belonging and support.

I guess I just still don't understand the logic of "those rules don't apply anymore" and who gets to decide which rules do and do not apply.

The hypocrisy is what continues to bother me.

If Christians actually READ the bible and studied how the book came into existence, there would be a mass exodus from churches. Unfortunately, the masses have a short attention span and less than stellar reading skills.

Did it ever occur to any of you who waste so much time hand-wringing over this, that it might be human nature to hold out fleeting hope for something beyond a black hole at the end of the trail?

Even the most cynical of you or avowed non-believer, probably has a spot in the darkest recesses of the mind, that cries out for some sort of eternal reward for Mothers and eternal justice for infidels, transgressors and Republicans. And, of course, it can't be justice unless one is there to witness it....

So it's never-ending and the "book" really doesn't matter, as the goal is to end up in one place and not the other. The fight has always been over who has the map.

"Religion" is the hope for "eternal life" by most mortal beings, and it's been the core concept of "belief" from the time hominids became self-aware, right up to the present day. The concept to cling to in spite of pi^^-poor reading skills....

I know this is difficult for you to fathom, but the alternative really doesn't have much of a selling point, which is probably why nobody listens to atheists.

Oddjob, if the "book" doesn't really matter, why is it the one determining factor in what is right and what is wrong in the vast majority of those with faith?

I'm in no way attempting to deny the existence of an afterlife, I'm just so completely lost as to why some of the items within this "book" which according to you really doesn't matter, are so vastly more important than others... and who decides which is which?

"Man shall not lie with man as woman"
has caused national uproar, whereas;
“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."

That's where I'm lost.

People cling to certain passages as the most important words of God, yet others... just don't matter?

When we have candidates running for president who get to pick and choose which passages should be considered when looking at the laws of the land, it becomes a very important "book." That's my issue.

I just want to know why, from true followers, this is the case.

No one has ever explained to me in any logical sense, why some passages MUST be followed and others are merely suggestions or outdated.

"If Christians actually READ the bible and studied how the book came into existence, there would be a mass exodus from churches. Unfortunately, the masses have a short attention span and less than stellar reading skills."



Could you save me some time and tell me how it came into existence and why it would probably cause me to leave my faith?

Tribalism seems to be a re-occurring theme amongst some liberal regressives.

In this video we can plainly see, by his own admission, that Obama has made some sort of a deal with ISIS and the Sunni fighters. And since the US has inserted its 2 cents in Syria and Iraq a few days ago, we are already helping ISIS by bombing the Syrian government. Obama is a Sunni Muslim, and he loathes European people especially Christians.

Sorry.

If you're looking for a theological discussion, I can't help you. As a reformed Catholic, I quit giving a s**t years ago. You need to bond with the great milescity.com moralists posting here daily to find that which you seek.

My only point is; for mortal beings, it's understandable that they would hope for something greater than this veil of tears. The never ending argument over what that might be and how to achieve it, just helps large numbers of them find the answer to their question sooner than they might have expected.

As a result, I put more faith in Sam Colt than I do Bibles.

Carlos wasn't asking WHY people believe, he was asking why people don't take their OWN TEXTS seriously.

Those are two different questions.

I seek no conflict, only a public spot to show a video.

People are welcome to do as I do and only respond to that which they feel inclined. Have a good day.

Brandy, when you post things that have NOTHING to do with the topic at hand, it's called spam.

Feel free to create another 'Brandy's All Knowing Truths' thread, but it contributes nothing to this conversation.

Bridgier- Exactly.

I completely understand the desire for "something more"

I'm not questioning WHY people subscribe to a particular faith.

I'm only questioning why people who do so only have to follow some of the rules of that particular faith.

More importantly, I'd love for someone to explain to me why some of the "rules" are written in stone and are the most important, while others are not to be considered at all or are to be considered outdated or merely suggestions.

That's what I'm really getting at. No one has ever been able to explain that to my small, ignorant mind.

"Let the punishment fit the crime" comes to mind. This is a clear indication by the lord to distinguish apples from oranges.

Thou shalt not kill is much more important than not eating fish on a prescribed day, it is a higher priority to preserve life than to keep with the dietary regulations of the old testament. I hope you will agree that a move by the Christian faith to lend more credence to not murdering is better for society than pushing the eat fish deal.

"Let the punishment fit the crime"?

First off, that doesn't answer the question.

Second, I feel like perhaps you should brush up on your biblical punishments and crimes.

"Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death."


So working on a weekend should be punishable by death?

Seems like the "punishment should fit the crime" is a fairly ridiculous response to my question of:

"Why do you get to choose which laws to follow?"

[Edited by CarlosSantos (12/8/2015 5:37:24 PM)]

Posted by Brandy Allen 2 hours ago
 
"Let the punishment fit the crime" comes to mind. This is a clear indication by the lord to distinguish apples from oranges. 

Thou shalt not kill is much more important than not eating fish on a prescribed day, it is a higher priority to preserve life than to keep with the dietary regulations of the old testament. I hope you will agree that a move by the Christian faith to lend more credence to not murdering is better for society than pushing the eat fish deal.

Only on MC.com will you find someone using Mikado by WS Gilbert to interpret and explain the bible.

I am unaware of a form of Christianity that does not eat fish on a prescribed day. I ate a ton of fish sticks as a kid because we couldn't eat meat on Fridays.

[Edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (12/8/2015 7:37:14 PM)]

Could you save me some time and tell me how it came into existence and why it would probably cause me to leave my faith?

Can I? Yes, I can. Will I? You would be better served to take up your own personal study. 

Consider the following concerning salvation:

Paul taught the following:

Ephesians 2: 8 - 9  
"for by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God - not the result of works, so that no one may boast."

While Jesus said this:  

"Thus you will know them by their fruits. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?' Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.' "?

Paul says:

". . . a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law" ? Gal 2:16

"For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law." Rom 3:28] 

Jesus is reported as saying:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
"You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, 'You shall not murder'; and 'whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, 'You fool,' you will be liable to the hell of fire. " Matt 5:17-22

" The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of Yahweh is preached, and every man presseth (forces his way) into it. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Luke 16:16-17

"One day an expert on Moses' laws came to test Jesus' orthodoxy by asking him this question: "Teacher, what does a man need to do to live forever in heaven?" Jesus replied, "What does Moses' law say about it?" "It says," he replied, " that you must love the lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind. And you must love your neighbor just as much as you love yourself. " "Right!", Jesus told him. "Do this and you shall live!"" Luke 10:25-37 

While Paul clearly taught that we are saved by being passive beneficiaries of what Christ did, JESUS clearly taught that our salvation hinges on what we do (our "works"), along with what God does ( God's "grace")


"You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything, but is thrown out and trampled under foot. "You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid. No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven. Matt 4:17-19

" "Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven. Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one's foes will be members of one's own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it. Matt 10:32-36 

Again, which should we obey and which should me ignore? I could go on with numerous other passages. 

If the New Testament does not present a unified message in how one is saved, which is the whole point of being a christian, why should we believe anything it says?

Consider the internal discrepancy concerning the resurrection:

What time did the women visit the tomb?

 Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1) 
 Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV) 
 Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)

Who were the women? 

 Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1) 
 Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1) 
 Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women (24:10) 
 John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)

Was the tomb open when they arrived?

 Matthew: No (28:2) 
 Mark: Yes (16:4) 
 Luke: Yes (24:2) 
 John: Yes (20:1)

Where were these messengers situated?

 Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2) 
 Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5) 
 Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4) 
 John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12) 

What did the messenger(s) say? 

 Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7) 

 Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7) 

 Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen:
remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7) 

 John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)

Where did the ascension take place?

 Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee 

 Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:1912) 

 Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51) 

 John: No ascension 

 Paul: No ascension 

 Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)


These are just two small examples of key doctrines that christianity teaches from the NEW TESTAMENT. There are hundreds of additional examples of such discrepancy. If the bible is the inerrant "word" why didn't God take more care to make sure and present a consistent message?

Bridgier wrote:

Carlos wasn't asking WHY people believe, he was asking why people don't take their OWN TEXTS seriously.

Those are two different questions.

Carlos is just trolling, and quite successfully, I might add. But since you feel you need to be here, why don't you answer his question?

Allen and Bonine are just dancing for the troll, but it's all good. The part where the troll accuses somebody else of being a spammer was a knee-slapper.

Carlos said

So working on a weekend should be punishable by death?


This again is one of the ideals that we as Christians choose to not give much priority to, a day off to pay homage may come on a Wednesday. Carlos and everyone else knows this, but by bringing up some centuries old doctrine which hasn't been followed in a long while, only creates division and that is Carlos's goal. I would think that is evident by the fact that no one has been killed in a few centuries for missing church as a Christian.

But Islam has not assigned priorities yet, because the koran doesn't allow for priority based ideals. That's why there was a women stoned to death last week in Saudi Arabia. You folks have a distorted idea of what progressive ideals are. Christianity has evolved to incorporate many people, not Islam.

And Buddhism is not a belief in a creator or higher power, it is a government control network. And all Buddhist admit that Buddha was a mortal man. Buddhism is a way of life manual mixed with a moral compass and nothing more.


And I don't think he is trolling well at all. He asked a question, He got an answer, but he didn't like the answer, so he knit picked the subject matter a bit more to change the narrative. Maybe Carlos would be more comfortable with Satanism, which evolves to fit whatever any individual seeks to justify. That's the kind of troll he is. Atheist believe in chaos, and worship at the alter of division. Is there a difference in an anarchist and an atheist, I think not.

And chaos will lose to radical Islamism everyday, Carlos, amoretti, Richard, and liberal progressives = sharia by accident "fools"

One thing I've noticed about those most worried about sharia law - their brand of Christianity is closer to sharia law than others. Was it Huckabee or Santorum (I get them confused) who, in a recent stump speech, went after ISIS for being an apocalyptic cult (which they are)? I had to laugh. Anyone ever seen any of those silly left behind movies (besides Brandy)?

Brandy Allen wrote:

This again is one of the ideals that we as Christians choose to not give much priority to, a day off to pay homage may come on a Wednesday. Carlos and everyone else knows this, but by bringing up some centuries old doctrine which hasn't been followed in a long while, only creates division and that is Carlos's goal. I would think that is evident by the fact that no one has been killed in a few centuries for missing church as a Christian.

At what point have I ever tried to create division?

You tell me that by bringing up a centuries old doctrine I'm trying to cause division. The entire Christian religion, as well as many others, is based on that doctrine. I was raised in a devout household and all I'm trying to do is start a civil conversation about why some rules of the bible are mandatory and others are "not given priority"

You never answered that question. Just that YOU decide what to give priority. That's completely hypocritical and not at all in accordance with the text of the bible and the word of God himself.

I'm not here to "troll" but to engage in a theological conversation, which is the entire point of a forum.

You can't just yell "TROLL" when someone has a legitimate point that differs from your belief. Its a pathetic excuse for not having any rebuttal at all.

You, however constantly post your anti-Muslim propaganda videos which have NOTHING to do with the conversation. (definition of Spamming and Troll)

If you don't have a legitimate answer to WHY some of the specific rules of the religion are not important, though they are written in the text as being EXTREMELY important, then so be it.

I came here seeking a civil conversation with those who are devout in the faith they subscribe to.

If you have nothing but ignorant rhetoric to add to an intelligent conversation that you have no rebuttal for, by all means, feel free not to respond.

For ANYONE else that feels the desire to actually engage in a theological conversation about priority of religious law in doctrine... PLEASE contribute as I started this thread with the intent of enlightening both myself and others.

Danny's TL;DR - We choose what's important and what's not.

Brandy Allen wrote:

But Islam has not assigned priorities yet, because the koran doesn't allow for priority based ideals. That's why there was a women stoned to death last week in Saudi Arabia. You folks have a distorted idea of what progressive ideals are. Christianity has evolved to incorporate many people, not Islam.

Nowhere in the bible does it tell us that we can assign priorities to which laws to follow. Muslims are just following the doctrine of their religion. It doesn't make it right. It just makes them devout. Christians just decided that they get to pick which laws to follow... I assume God does not approve as his word says quite the contrary.

Brandy Allen wrote:

And Buddhism is not a belief in a creator or higher power, it is a government control network. And all Buddhist admit that Buddha was a mortal man. Buddhism is a way of life manual mixed with a moral compass and nothing more.

Buddhism is so far from a government controlled network that I don't know where to start. Buddhism is a philosophy that can best be summed up as "being the best version of you possible at any moment, causing no harm, and exuding kindness." - A philosophy I suggest you look into. Being someone who's studied Buddhist teachings in-depth, I highly recommend it.

Brandy Allen wrote:

And I don't think he is trolling well at all. He asked a question, He got an answer, but he didn't like the answer, so he knit picked the subject matter a bit more to change the narrative. Maybe Carlos would be more comfortable with Satanism, which evolves to fit whatever any individual seeks to justify. That's the kind of troll he is. Atheist believe in chaos, and worship at the alter of division. Is there a difference in an anarchist and an atheist, I think not.

You'd do well to invest in a dictionary.
anarchist: a person who believes in the absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

Those are absolutely and completely different, by definition alone.

Many devout Christians however are anarchists as they believe that the law of God supersedes the government and the laws of land should not be considered.

Brandy Allen wrote:

And chaos will lose to radical Islamism everyday, Carlos, amoretti, Richard, and liberal progressives = sharia by accident "fools"

This sentence makes no sense, not that much of the rest did. You call us fools because its your default. You don't have a response other than, "YOU DONT THINK LIKE ME - ISLAM, SHARIA, LIBERAL, END OF THE WORLD" That isn't a response.

Its just ignorant and childish.

IF you'd like to engage in an actual theological conversation, I invite you to at least try instead of resorting to calling people "fools"

Grow up.

My advice to Carlos was going to be:

Don't keep feeding Brandy.

However, its a thread Carlos started and with what seems to be good intent. Brandy is just a derailer of intelligent conversation. I'd suggest just not acknowledging his existence and carrying on with any semblance of your discussion.

The points here are valid. I'm constantly questioning why its acceptable to choose which of the ALMIGHTY's words were the end-all and be-all and which ones were merely "recommendations."

I'm assuming if God wasn't serious about those rules you ignore, they wouldn't have been punishable by death. To me, it seems like he took those pretty seriously. Sounds to me like he thought the "punishment fit the crime" and the crime seems to be taken seriously by him.

But what would I know? I'm a mere mortal and not QUALIFIED to speak on what GOD'S intent was.

Luckily we have the Prophet Allen here to be our Holy Interpreter.

The brandied one LOVES to go from Point A to Point 3.56 via a hallucination. He knows the Glen Back told him liberals will lead to a theocracy without bothering to explain WHY or HOW. It will just happen, dammit!

Me? No religion. No superstitions. Never gonna join any Middle Eastern or Far Eastern or any other faith. Being extremely liberal tends to drive me AWAY from a superstition rather than to it.

If the brandied one could explain HOW being a liberal leads to one taking up a conservative suppressive religion, I would be happy to see if I am following that route. However, he never explains HOW.

Tell me HOW being liberal will make me suddenly fond of a particular faith. Well?

Buddhism is about doing away with desire. And in oriental culture that means or has become to mean letting government decide your fate, while you the individual do as your instructed, and meditate on it. Don't lecture me about Buddhism.

No.

Buddhism is about ending suffering, which includes desire. That's one small portion of ending personal suffering. When you rid yourself of desires for things you don't posses, you rid yourself of the suffering that occurs from not obtaining those things. Thus creating a more perfect version of yourself at any moment.

Your lecturing me on Buddhism will go over just as well as your lecturing me on Islam. I suggest you stop now. It will get you nowhere.

If the Buddhist people are so willing to turn themselves over to the government to make their decisions, explain to me why the Tibetans fled and are now refugees. Sounds to me like they are a self-actualized society that left when an unjust government threatened to snuff them out. Sounds to me like they stood for their beliefs in the face of an oppressive government.

But what would I know...

You're so enlightened.

Have another sip of your Conservative Koolaid.

The most effective way to dissolve a nation is to destroy its national identity.


I know this is the goal and purpose, of atheist revolutionaries with no loyalty to anyone or anything. But to those of us with a little known affliction called loyalty and honor, a national identity is the foundation upon which a strong nation is built.

The United States' National Identity:

Revolutionaries who fled an oppressive theocracy in order to start a nation where they were free to practice religion as they saw fit, without those religions interfering with the laws of the land. Freedom, liberty, and justice for ALL.

I agree with you, in some twisted way.

I love our National Identity.

Perhaps you just misinterpret history to fit the Brandied Nation of your Dreams.

“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”

~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789

“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”

~John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” 1787-1788

and one of my personal favorites:

“The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”

~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams

Brandy wrote:

Buddhism is about doing away with desire. And in oriental culture that means or has become to mean letting government decide your fate, while you the individual do as your instructed, and meditate on it. Don't lecture me about Buddhism.

Also, Dude, "Oriental" is not the proper nomenclature.

Wow. The brandied one knows NOTHING about Buddhism as well as NOTHING about Islam and NOTHING about women, socialism and progressivism. The amount of NOTHING in his head is impressive. I bet there is an echo in there.

A simple note:

I studied and practiced Buddhism for 4 years, and I can say you amoretti are ignorant about religion in the Asian region. You should shuck the pacific orientalist glasses and get a true grassroots opinion of your own.

Or you can keep spouting Leona Huxley's opinions (unknowingly of course).

And as far as the feminist movement, you are blind. Let these islamist in, lets get their opinion on how to treat women, maybe you'll find it more to your liking. That is, if you like being buried up to you neck with rocks coming your way. These people will kill you liberal women. You will do what everyone else will do, beg the young Caucasian Christians with guns to defend you against these invaders. Traitor is what u r.

The liberals think they can perpetuate a war between islam and Christianity so they can create their world of control on the other side. Why else would we invade Iraq when a bunch of Saudis flew into our buildings.

Because that region needed to be infuriated to cause this coming war, which is not religiously motivated, it is instigated by a liberal government seeking to topple the 2 largest forces in their way, (Christianity and Islam). Albert pike and Huxley stated this very clearly. The only people whom win from this war are the atheist that had no courage to fight.

But we as Christians can win if we don't allow a controlling factor to take hold after this conflict. Defiantly not the world council of churches, they need to be dismantled. The world council of churches is the foundation upon which the new world order will sit. I left catholism because I worship God, not a liberal pope seeking to turn his followers into atheist.

Why else would we invade Iraq when a bunch of Saudis flew into our buildings.

Because George W. Bush was a moron.

I predict a right wing president this time, because it is what the liberals need to perpetuate there war, out of which the atheist will say look at what Gods rules bring.
And America will leave God behind, in exchange for peace and happiness called multiculturalism, that will not be happy or peaceful for European Jews or Caucasians.

Our officials are selected not elected, The machines we vote on are owned by Diebold corp, and are fake, they give us the results, not the other way around.

What's your position oh HAARP?

NO George bush was a liberal globalist, theirs a difference. He did his job to stoke the flames of discontent, as did Obama, as did Clinton, as will the next puppet. How else do you explain Clintons and bushes and Obamas having drinks together and planning the world without religion, or without a loyalty to someone other than government. and government is now merged with the world council of churches.
Bush started what every liberal wanted to start a war to demonize God and replace religious rule with atheist rule. However Obama could never have pulled this off without the Christians saying no, so bush did a great job as far as the liberal atheist agenda goes.
We have been given our elected officials, so that a contrived end result may appear. The liberals have won, and God is disappearing for the houses of government, and being replaced with a humanistic view. Exactly as pike predicted.

But remember this, we reap what we sow, these other cultures will kill you out of envy. No "white saviors" is their new slogan in Ferguson, I suspect this will spread. It is not just whites they are after, it is European Jews. As I have said, this liberal progress will lead to another holocaust.

Haarp seems to be a project that was started to help farmers with rain fall. Rainfall was increase with cloud seeding, so they are trying to do more.
I think we are in the middle of ice ages right now, and the globe will change a bit from isolated droughts and weather patterns. I also believe the government we have believes in not letting an opportunity pass by.

So they will certainly say these troubles are man made, and you should feel guilty for hurting the planet. But we didn't do anything, we are just in the middle of a cooling and heating trend. But our government will certainly say it is our fault. Even though they are cloud seeding and using all the fossil fuels rather than a bloom box. They could get us off of fossil fuels today with the bloom box, if they wanted to. That would not meet their goal of one world government, without God being involved. Loyalty to government not god or any other identity is their goal, I think they would use harp or anything at their disposal to control the world and its resources.

And I am not sure what amoretti means by the word feminist. I love women, and think their place is where ever they want it to be, except in the abortion clinic.
Those good women that don't kill babies and don't consider the pill or abortion as their liberator from male domination are great.

I will gladly pick up a gun and die for them.

But those who attribute their freedom, from a man, to baby killing are not women. And it is sad to say that women have let the feminist trash speak for them for far too long. Feminist are not procuring the sanctity of women, they are destroying it.

hmmm

[Edited by Bridgier (12/11/2015 10:21:09 AM)]

Brandy Allen wrote:

I studied and practiced Buddhism for 4 years, and I can say you amoretti are ignorant about religion in the Asian region. You should shuck the pacific orientalist glasses and get a true grassroots opinion of your own.

I can assure you that per your comments previously, your study and practice was clearly ineffective as you lack a complete understanding of Buddhism. You're great at throwing nonsensical insults, however. That seems to be a Christian trait you now practice quite well.

Brandy Allen wrote:

And as far as the feminist movement, you are blind. Let these islamist in, lets get their opinion on how to treat women, maybe you'll find it more to your liking. That is, if you like being buried up to you neck with rocks coming your way. These people will kill you liberal women. You will do what everyone else will do, beg the young Caucasian Christians with guns to defend you against these invaders. Traitor is what u r.

Caucasian Christians with Guns. You should move to Northern Idaho. There's an entire Klan that would love your ideals. The racist, bigot force is strong with this one.

Brandy Allen wrote:

The liberals think they can perpetuate a war between islam and Christianity so they can create their world of control on the other side. Why else would we invade Iraq when a bunch of Saudis flew into our buildings.

This comment proves you understand nothing about the political war practices. Liberal Atheists are behind the war in Iraq... Which was started by YOUR republican, conservative, Christian President. Bravo on the connection there.

Brandy Allen wrote:

Because that region needed to be infuriated to cause this coming war, which is not religiously motivated, it is instigated by a liberal government seeking to topple the 2 largest forces in their way, (Christianity and Islam). Albert pike and Huxley stated this very clearly. The only people whom win from this war are the atheist that had no courage to fight.

You say the war is not religiously motivated, it's a war started by Atheists to conquer Christianity and Islam. Even your own crazy theories directly contradict themselves. When one group of a certain belief starts a war to conquer groups of other beliefs, that's called a religious war. FYI

AND Win what? What exactly do Atheists stand to win? Who are these Atheists that are masterminding the destruction of your civilization. Are they the voices in your head at night? It's starting to sound like it. You are so blinded by ignorant hate that you've fallen into a complete and utter conspiracy theorist nightmare. I pity you in the deepest way.

Brandy Allen wrote:

But we as Christians can win if we don't allow a controlling factor to take hold after this conflict. Defiantly not the world council of churches, they need to be dismantled. The world council of churches is the foundation upon which the new world order will sit. I left catholism because I worship God, not a liberal pope seeking to turn his followers into atheist.

You hate Atheists. You hate Muslims. You hate Catholics. You hate the Church council. You hate the "liberal" pope who's converting people to Atheism.

It sounds like you HATE EVERYONE that isn't a white, American born, Christian conservative.

When you come to a place where you hate EVERYONE who isn't exactly like you in everyway, its a sign that YOU are the one in the wrong, not everyone else.

An early sign of Schizophrenia is actually when a patient expresses concern that everyone is out to get them or those in the same geopolitical group.

You should look into counseling. It would probably do you a lot of good.

You should also be on an FBI watch list, because you are about as Extremist as it gets. You worry me and I feel horrible for your children and the children you "mentor" for having to be subjected to your massive hate for the world's people.

[Edited by CarlosSantos (12/11/2015 10:30:31 AM)]

Does anyone else miss Rob?

At the very least, his conspiracy theories were personal and his attacks were targeted at those who he feel wronged him. There's at least some logic and understanding in where he was coming from.

This is just wide spread insanity. It reminds me of the news reports where they start to release all of the extremist things a terrorist posted online before their heinous act.

So much hate without understanding.

I think I miss Rob.

The hate word, where did I write that exactly?

Oh, you make stuff up, keep speaking to yourself in double talk Carlos danger, it is comical.

The realization, in understanding how far from reality your accusations are, is astounding.

I let in, for free, many people of different ideals to my facility, and none of them say I hate anyone. I wonder what some of the kids and parents around here would say? Let me guess, thanks for helping my kid with some free boxing lessons, thanks for the great birthday celebration, thanks for the free entry since were broke right now. I think it would sound like that. And I would say your welcome, and I will continue to do what is appropriate to help my community.

And my yard is much more tidy than Robs.

Your yard may be tidy but your mind is a mess.

And I can defend myself, thank you. I don't need some pea-brained white gun nut to protect me from a threat that doesn't exist. And, were I threatened and needed protection, I would not care the genetic background of the person protecting me.

You are a twit and I have nothing more to say.

A threat that doesn't exist?

sounds like Obama saying Isis is a JV team.

Well... they kind of are. Beyond their immediate region, what existential threat do they pose to ANY OTHER NATION on earth?

Bridgier wrote:

Well... they kind of are. Beyond their immediate region, what existential threat do they pose to ANY OTHER NATION on earth?

Tell that to 14 dead in San Bernardino. Oh. You can't. They're dead.

130 in Paris? Nope. Same deal.

Well, the 4 stabbing victims at UC Merced are still alive.. As are a lot of wounded from Ft. Hood. Have a discussion with them about existential threats.

Obama's s**t is getting pretty weak on what he perceives as threats and the unfolding reality.

14 dead is not an existential threat to America. The contitutional framework of France is not imperiled by 130 deaths.

When they use the 14 dead as a battle cry for future jihad, it becomes an existential threat.

Really. How? Do they have some sort of super secret invisible navy that will carry their armies to our shores, or even to cross the Mediterranean, where they will be able to capture and hold former american (or european) territory?

They're not procreateing ghosts, and they're not procreateing mutants - they have no means of imposing and sustaining their political will beyond the borders of their neighboring territories, but yet you are already wetting your bed over something that's even more laughable than the plot of Red Procreateing Dawn.

I was driving through Merced the morning knife freak got dusted and I was just north of San Berdo, sitting in a County H&E office when homeboy and his goat-herder bride were murdering the Health and Environment people at their Christmas Party. I do business with H&E people in a number of CA counties and I'm not legal to carry in California.

I guess I don't feel quite as removed from the threat as you do, sitting in a secure building on Micron's campus in Boise f'n Idaho.

Then get a better job, loser.

Besides, I would imagine Bridgier encounters more Muslims at Micron each day than you do in a month.

Or "goat-herders," as an unnamed racist POS referred to Muslims as earlier in this thread.

And, since ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS, Bridgier is likely in much more danger than you.

BOOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!!!!

Bridger said

Do they have some sort of super secret invisible navy that will carry their armies to our shores, or even to cross the Mediterranean.

They do have the super high, you know the one that they (extremist Muslims) recruited many jihadi fighter abroad with.

And I just must say, near my old hometown in a place called trinity teaxs a Muslim was busted trying to by 12 gauge shot guns that are short enough to conceal. When the good ole boy behind the counter thought this was fishy, he called the Arab fellow out on his intentions with the gun. The Muslim guy ran out yelling about discrimination. I just want to thank that good ole boy for possibly saving an American life or two.

Please, post another BS story where the only source is you.

If we're all quiet enough, maybe we could acyually hear the voices in Brandy's head.

So the longer your comment that are not really your own words usually the more stupid you look.

Punctuation can go a long way in getting your meaning across to others.

truck wrote:

So the longer your comment that are not really your own words usually the more stupid you look.

Looks like you do just fine in the stupid department with very few words that are your own.

I want to apologize for that last comment I made about being stupid. I read all these comments that people leave and I guess I let myself go to another level that is negative. I am not gonna name names beings that some use their computer as a way to show their mentality or agression toward others. I didnt realize how certain topics can bring the worst out in people. All the name calling is not gonna solve anything. Who cares if ones puncuation is a little off, it does not mean that you know or are any better then the next person. I will mention one name, that would be Bob L, I will pray for you that those that you have belittled dont smack you up along side of the head. Again I apologize....

Truck,

I did not intend to imply that I am better than anyone else. All I meant was that your post was difficult to understand without it. I'm still not sure what you meant.

Wendy Wilson that comment wasnt made in your direction. Not sure who it was directed toward,maybe thats what happens to a lot of people when they read topic after topic and seeing the harshness that some thrive on. Saying something negative and not being directed at any one.

And I just must say, near my old hometown in a place called trinity teaxs a Muslim was busted trying to by 12 gauge shot guns that are short enough to conceal. When the good ole boy behind the counter thought this was fishy, he called the Arab fellow out on his intentions with the gun. The Muslim guy ran out yelling about discrimination. I just want to thank that good ole boy for possibly saving an American life or two.

One would hope that this good ole boy would have done the same if it had been a non-muslim, trying to buy sawed-off shotguns.

As far as being in fear for my life at meetings, I WAS a little worried last week that I might have to tackle somebody. He wasn't worked up over jihad or the Palestinians or anything like that - but he was REALLY GODDAMNED ANGRY that someone was suggesting a change to the LPP layers being passed through OPC/SiVL. Just this side of pounding on the table angry. Pretty much the whitest dude you ever saw though, not an extra dollop of melanin in his family tree.

I feel the same way as truck, I hate that these ultra leftist get to me, but I cant give up free speech before my sons get their chance to speak. However this atheist stuff just gets under my skin. Even worst, when anyone in the world looks up miles city Montana on the web, they get an ultra left anti-European Jewish perspective first. And that's not at all what Miles City is about. I really am concerned that our new Mayor claims to be one of them. I think Miles City became weaker the day Butch lost office. Here is a video of current gun grabbing events by Obama.

And I meant to say super highway a few post back, as the new way of recruiting jihadi fighter abroad. So the Mediterranean is not a problem for them any longer.
Sorry need new keyboard.

Brandy Allen wrote:

I feel the same way as truck, I hate that these ultra leftist get to me, but I cant give up free speech before my sons get their chance to speak. However this atheist stuff just gets under my skin.

I'm confused on why you carry so much distain for a group of people who put their faith in science and reason.

In what ways are these Atheists "anti-European Jew" and how have you come to this conclusion?

Please explain what the Atheists agenda is, because I'm unaware of one.

So... how many battalions do you think ISIS can drum up via the 'information superhighway'? How effective do you think this force would be, operating within a population that, for the most part, would have NO SYMPATHY for their stated end goals?

How would ISIS maintain their supply lines? Amazon? Overstock.com? The internet IS amazing, but it's not magic.

The french went to the polls this weekend, and told the National Front that their party was not congruent with French values and ideals, even in the face of a terrorist attack. I would hope that we would react the same, but I am reminded here of a joke:

Two muslim brothers emigrated to the united states. They decided to have a competition, to see who could become the most American. They went their separate ways, agreeing to meet again in 20 years.

Upon their reunion, the first brother said "This is what I have done to become American. I married a beautiful woman, and we raised several wonderful children. I worked two jobs so that we could afford a fine house, and so that we could send our children to the finest colleges. We have two nice cars and a boat - life is good, and I praise Allah for all the blessings he has given us, here in this wonderful land."

The second brother replied, "PROCREATE YOU TOWELHEAD"

The atheist agenda is actually one and the same as Luciferianism. Luciferianism is nothing more than humanism. Humanistic views are actually already in place. Don't the left always resort back to "aren't we all just people"? These refugees, the illegal aliens, etc, we are just people looking for a better life. Saying "We are all just people" is a humanistic view which includes all peoples, not just ones own subset.

We are seeing the world and its populations move to a globalist view in the political realm, and a melting pot of mixed cultural groups in the social realm. Sounds a lot like the rebuilding of Babylon to me, one race one religion, one language. We are now looking at different sects or groups, as our own group. This replaces old loyalties and dedications from a small individual group to include all human groups. All just to avoid conflicts and show dedication to peace rather than dedication to their old group. Pike predicted this, and it is playing out.
This issue speaks to the core of mankind, and my answer is loyalty to the conservative principles of the past that have gotten us this far. I am not going to sell out the old ways for some theoretical utopian society which can not even prove its self on paper.

BY that I mean the highly disproportionate crime rates in America? The Knock out game that is running crazy in this nation, is actually only a game of get whitey. Can you imagine the public outrage by liberals, if this game was a bunch of white youths running around sucker punching strangers based on them being black or brown? These so called liberals would be all on the ACLU's case about investigations and equal rights violations, and civil liability would be brought to bear on any and everyone involved.
But since its white men and women being taken advantage of and being attacked, these people are not saying there's a racial aspect of these crimes at all. The same reason that the progressives refuse, or are reluctant to tie any act of terrorism to radical Islam. Obama still hasn't recognized the radicalized shooter in Oregon. And they will refuse that anyone is racist or bigoted accept white Christians and European Jews.

Liberal progressive just means "white Christian" and "European Jew" hater.

So the Atheist agenda is to avoid conflict and promote peace through Humanist practices... and you find issues with that?

Just because someone does not subscribe to a particular God, does not mean they lack loyalty. Loyalty to reason and striving for peace is not, in any way, a detriment to character.

Please explain to me how a group that strives toward global peace and all inclusive humanism, leads to another Holocaust?

Tell us more about your thoughts on race mixing...

"Race Mixing is not Christian"

http://kinsmanredeemer.co...istian.htm

I present Mark Downey.

Wow.

My favorite part might be:
"South Africa Enjoyed Apartheid until..."

The words spoken are not only asinine, but they could literally have come out of Mr. Allen's mouth.

"Identity...Identity...Identity. Plan of God. White Nationalism. Separation, Selection and Discrimination. Enemies of the White Race... White people fulfilling God's plan of White Rule and prohibiting race mixing. Mixed races are bastards and will not enter heaven...White Christian Identity"

Wow.

Just Wow.

Brandy said:

The atheist agenda is actually one and the same as Luciferianism. c is nothing more than humanism.

Umm... No, the atheist agenda is NOT the same as Lucuferianism. Luciferianism is vastly different then humanism.

A quick Google search will debunk these lies in about 30 secs depending on your ISP's baud rate.

There is one Bible verse that I do care about and promote the use of: 2 Tim 2:15, Study to show thyself approved. The modern day equvialent is: Google them big-ass words before you use them and understand what they mean.

http://bfy.tw/3HST

And there is THIS...

Nice meme

And yes Luciferianism and Humanism are essentially the same. Neither one of them recognize a higher power, as with atheism.

When man believes in his own rule rather than the rule of a supreme being, his flaws show through in the fabric of society. They show in the form of civil unrest and chaos, resulting from poor leadership that is non representative or inclusive of a significant portion of its subjects.

Brandy Allen wrote:

Nice meme

And yes Luciferianism and Humanism are essentially the same. Neither one of them recognize a higher power, as with atheism.

Saying:

Luciferianism, Atheism and Humanism are all essentially the same because none of them recognize a higher power...

is the same as saying:

Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all essentially the same because they all recognize a higher power.

Theistic Luciferians believe in Lucifer as an actual deity=god. They follow what is know as The Lefthand Path which practices black magic and opposed to the Righthand path which practices white magic.

None of this is the same as Atheism or Humanism.

When man believes in his own rule rather than the rule of a supreme being, his flaws show through in the fabric of society. They show in the form of civil unrest and chaos, resulting from poor leadership that is non representative or inclusive of a significant portion of its subjects.

Which supreme being are we talking about here? There are 22 major religions in the world and BILLIONS of followers that believe the rules of their chosen "supreme bieng". And yet there is STILL chaos and civil unrest. WHY IS THAT? WHY DON'T ALL OF THE SUPREME BEINGS BEING WORSHIPED SHOW THEIR POWER AND BRING A HALT TO THE CHAOS AND UNREST???

Brandy Allen wrote:

When man believes in his own rule rather than the rule of a supreme being, his flaws show through in the fabric of society. They show in the form of civil unrest and chaos, resulting from poor leadership that is non representative or inclusive of a significant portion of its subjects.

So it's Atheism that creates civil unrest and chaos?

It's the lack of belief that causes civil unrest?

That's odd.

You previously informed us that it was Islam and the countries who followed the laws of Islam that caused those things. If I'm not mistaken, that particular group, as a whole, tends to be far more devout to their belief in God than most.

Seems to me that it's in the countries where God's law is supreme to man's law that the most unrest occurs.

But again, what do I know.

The first two minutes of this video completely contradict you three yo-yo's. And ill take his word over you guys any day.


[youtube]R2FmP51u6NY{/youtube}

Fixed it for you

First off, you didn't code your video correctly.

Second, you are honestly listening to William Cooper?

Seriously?

The conspiracy theorist who was certain that HIV was created by the government to rid the population of minorities?

The guy who claimed to have secret documents that prove the existence of aliens and proof of a government cover-up?

The guy who believed JFK was killed because he was about to reveal the proof of extra-terrestrials?

The guy who thought Bill Clinton was out to get him?

The guy who had a warrant for openly evading taxes?

The guy who shot an officer in the head during a shootout with police before he was finally killed?

That guy is a source of valid information for you?

The death of bill has been questionable.

Here is a man that speaks for humanist views, and it is easy to see how there growth is booming, because it is not much different than the mega revival churches preaching do what feels right. I wonder where all of those millions that have left the churches have been going? Well they have become atheist/ humanist/luceferians.

Here's a video that might be worth your time Mr. Allen

Conspiracy or reality, whatever you want to call it, humanism is silently sweeping the world. It is not just the catholic ranks that are in decline world wide, but nearly all religions "except Islam" have seen drops in new members.

If the Christians and Islamic revolutionaries go to war, atheist win. But if the Christians and Islamic revolutionaries don't go to war, the Christians lose. Either way, Albert Pike has been proven to be a genius, and a master at drawing conclusions.

And to refute that the core leaders of Luciferianism are not humanistic is futile and short sided. Luciferian leaders seek to become gods themselves through technology and genetic manipulation, not worship Lucifer as a god.

[Edited by Brandy Allen (12/14/2015 6:34:05 PM)]

There is no point debating with someone who just continues to repeat the things that have been repeatedly proven incorrect.

There is no hope for those who refuse to listen to conversations of reason thus I fear there's no hope for you.

Good luck in your new millennium Christian conquest of the world.

Predictably Mr. Allen has picked up his brandy and skated to the Tempo side of the building.  

1Pe 3:15 says "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you". You ought to follow what the bible says and answer the questions you've been asked. And if you can't answer them maybe you should study to show yourself approved.

To do anything less is hypocritical.

Bs, you ask questions in order to steer a narrative. I make a few post, if you like it and want to comment then do, if you don't then don't. Either way I don't care if you think you are owed an explanation or answer to a question that is meant to demean the post I made in the first place. You are atheist, you will not like or agree with many of my post. And I will ignore questions that are designed to confuse and mislead.

You liberals ask things such as how does stricter gun laws restrict your second amendment? When all data shows that these laws are only for law abiding people, criminals don't follow the law. And the second amendment says you can not restrict guns. But you libs find a little word play and run with it, bend the constitution with liberal interpretations of the law.

I seen all kinds of tactics from Richard, Bridger and some others. You have every right to ask a question or 20. I have the right to answer 1 or 2 if I want to. but I am done with thread. I can not make one perspective see another perspective, that his character forbids him from seeing.

Honestly, my questions are aimed trying to cause you to think about your point of view and consider why others might have a different point of view. It's disappointing that you don't appear to have any intellectual curiosity.

Curiosity and wherewithal I have, the inclination to argue with the opposition is what I lack. I am merely posting some information to share.

I have seen a lady make a post saying the federal reserve is not federal, it is private. And that's all she said, and your atheistic group pounced all over her with belittling remarks. Eventually one of your hoards spoke up on her behalf because they new her from her job. It is this insistence by the liberals to dictate the narrative of the day, by shouting down opposition that I don't like.
Let me just pass this alternative information along, without debate on my half. I shouldn't have to answer all the question that you can just investigate in come to your own conclusion. And your conclusion doesn't have to be mine or the rest of the worlds. I don't want everyone to be the same, I like diversity.

A student was suspended from college for six months for saying that black women are “not hot,” while another individual who commented that white people have “small dicks” and are always f**king their cousins” was not punished.

I do think this is nearly exactly what amoretti said to me and some others on this site. She claims white men are jealous due to the size of their extremities vs a black person. When the only man she has at this time to compare size proportionality to is her man. She just cant see how she is announcing to any potential visitor to miles city that Steve is hung like a pimple. Your logic is always deniable, but I am not obligated to point out your ignorance every time. Investigate yourself dick.

Liberal progressive just means anti god. and everything he created. Humanist and trans humanist seek to become gods through technology and genetic manipulation. Therefore they can not accept a god that they seek to be an equal with. You are not equal to god, and never will be, not even if you were megatron.

Actually, I used to consider myself the christian of christians. Dig back in the religion forum on this website prior to 2010 and you will find all manner of comment from me from a position that was scarily simular to your own.

What changed is that I started studying how the bible came into existance and trying honestly to answer many of the questions I have asked you. You may well come to a different conclusion and that's fine. But at least make the effort toward understanding and self-improvement.

Personally, I want nothing more than people to live in all of the mental freedom and discovery that I have found since I have moved on from my 50+ year entrenched position in religion. The world is a really beautiful place once you remove the jaded prizm of doctrine and move beyond Invisible Cosmological Existence Syndrome.

[Edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (12/15/2015 8:09:03 AM)]

“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.”
~Thomas Paine

I have seen a lady make a post saying the federal reserve is not federal, it is private. And that's all she said, and your atheistic group pounced all over her with belittling remarks. Eventually one of your hoards spoke up on her behalf because they new her from her job. It is this insistence by the liberals to dictate the narrative of the day, by shouting down opposition that I don't like.

You mean this thread? http://milescity.com/foru...iew/168635?

[Edited by Bridgier (12/15/2015 8:44:16 AM)]

(PIKE)
Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view.

So on to the true light through the manifestation of pure doctrine of Lucifer for you? Or just the disillusioned with Christianity part, be the first of the masses to leave, so you can say I told you so?

I have seen the numbers on the churches decline, and no one has been able to adequately explain where all of these would be parishioners have gone. I see now, they just quit, and push the reason off on education. I guess you don't need God anymore, you to smart to fall for that creationist stuff? Or did you find some hard truth about human existence that you haven't been able to manifest in words capable enough of turning the rest of us from our wicked Christian ways.

Remember this, Pike predicted 2 wars correctly, and the third is looking more and more likely as time goes on. He says we are all going to kill each other not just over god, but over no god as well. Also the revolutionaries of the world, can only be the massive influx of cultures that are not considered to be civilized to current day standards. Sounds a lot like third world nations with unacceptable social practices to me. Recalls to mind the child brides that are found to be acceptable in South America and Mexico, as well as Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.

You will disenfranchise too many with your atheistic views of life, and you can not even tie your ideas into an acceptable alternative for a disciplined approach to life. You only shout out, blame the white man! he has a secret privilege.

You liberals are more racially motivated than any Nazi I ever meet.

I heard that that the New York times posted an article saying it should be a crime for a white women to get married before she has had the chance to be sexually exposed to other cultures. This is premonacta!!!

And the liberals are starting to plant the seeds in the minds by just mentioning it here and there.

Now don't bend this to mean that I said anything is wrong with a people falling in love with some one that's different, because I didn't say that. I am saying the purposeful act of putting different bulls around different cows is at its core a eugenics decision. And eugenics is NAZISM. You Richard are an atheist eugenics driven Nazi as is Carlos and some others that regularly post here.

That is the post, and I dare to say that it appears to have been edited. However there the sarcasm on bobs behalf as usual.
Truth is liberals can not have a balanced budget, they can not afford themselves.

I dare to say that it appears to have been edited.

Everything's a conspiracy with you, isn't it?

 I am saying the purposeful act of putting different bulls around different cows is at its core a eugenics decision. And eugenics is NAZISM. You Richard are an atheist eugenics driven Nazi as is Carlos and some others that regularly post here.

Cool Beans! I've got Cactus calling me "Big Cow Bonine" and you upset about my cross-breeding program. Thanks to my clever crossing of Line zero herford bulls on black angus cows I have invisable livestock. You can drive by and "nazi" them.  Sounds like a win to me. My life is complete. 

So this thread made it to 100. Stick a fork in it cause it's done.

[Edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (12/15/2015 9:50:23 AM)]

Everything is not a conspiracy with me, and that was only an instance, I can give others. But I'll stick with amoretti saying white males are privileged and racist. There, don't take one instance and over analyze it. Generalizations are made when proof of ideal similarity can be proven so easily.
Eugenics is still the Nazi ideal. It appears the torch of fascism has been passed to the progressive from my view. Eugenics is still eugenics even if the other side is holding the gun..

I think this has just crossed over into Rob Shipley territory. Maybe everyone should stop baiting the crazy.

The wicked witch of the south said it, so let it be done. As I am.

But... how do we KNOW she's a witch?

"Show forgiveness, speak for justice and avoid the ignorant."
~Some little 'ol book.

The latter being the most important here.

Posted by Bridgier 2 hours ago

But... how do we KNOW she's a witch?

Does she float?