amerigal1 #fundie

amerigal1 #fundie americanthinker.com

It's not our products or materials that make America great. I'm not throwing in the towel with those who have made a choice to disown their heritage and have chosen to forget the ideals that make up the great country we live in. hussein obama is hitler, a disaster, a toxic substance dredged up from the pits of hell made to look like every grifter's, revenge artist's and loser's savior and friend. America didn't forget itself----hussein obama spoke to the basest, most self centered desires of human beings. He plays and dotes on corrupting all that is good and decent. Those who chose him and chose to cheat for him have their reward. Most Americans are still good people who love this country. I don't believe that we are "done" or have forgotten who we are. I just don't buy it. And I don't buy the last "And it did." I've become very suspect of posters who at the end of their diatribe seem to be saying, It's all over, Give up!" Perhaps that's not what you intended, but it seems that way to me.

63 comments

old comment by Captain Bacardi

hussein obama spoke to the basest, most self centered desires of human beings.

Let's see...

Obama supporters wanted to:
-Protect the right of women to have the final say over what happens with their own bodies
-Protect the right of individuals to choose who they can marry
-Ensure that all Americans have access to affordable health care (flawed as the Affordable Healthcare Act may be)
-Ensure that top income earners pay their share in taxes
-Register disgust at the nasty race-baiting tactics utilized by Republicans over the past few years
-Enact sensible legislation over the ownership of guns that would, say, prevent psychopaths from shooting up public gatherings
-Continue funding our schools so that future generations might have the tools necessary to compete with the youth of other nations.

Yup. Seems pretty base and self-centered to me.

Thanks Hasan of Kosovo [nom de plume]
But amerigal1 hasn't said anything. There's nothing on her flag.

When Obama was at a prayer breakfast a speaker riled against toxic political correctness and the president nodded. The speaker was equally, either evasive or vacuous. It was another empty platitude.

Pragmatic specificity Hasan. The devil's in detail. Reform us to what destination.

As one of those who think the West is finished by way of Melanie Phillip's baffling incoherence I'll cite you a list of reforms that will be instantly howled down here with screams of blue murder and "witch".

You, I accuse of being a historical revisionist. A black arm band historian. But where are you progressing your civilization to? details. details. details.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4e0VZnV9oE

[Ps. what was the newspaper, what were the words and context - remember it was an editorial page I was interested in - and really it was English I was looking for/ unrelated to war in the middle east(people nuking each other was the euphemism I used)]

Ps. The Koran doesn't have the words "thou shalt not lie"
“... the curse of Allah be on him if he is one of the liars.” (Surah an-Nur 24:8)
“Surely Allah does not guide him aright who is a liar, ungrateful.” (Surah az-Zumar 39:3)
“...therefore avoid the uncleanness of the idols and avoid false words.” (Surah Hajj 22:30)

Quite right, it doesn't have "thou shalt not lie"

And speaking of lying and liars, P-G, where are my sixty bucks?

The link didn't work = but now I've gone looking.

How many of those citations were on the Editorial page? And it was more than one paper; and how many were published that day? Still if any one of those words was in the paper that day. You've got a tenner coming to you. Do you have an ebay account and I'll paypal you the money before this weekend.

I say again, this was the exercise/
pick up any of today's newspapers and I'll give you ten dollars for each time one of those words appears in on an editorial page

So there Hasan. Where do I send your 10 pound? note? Is it still something that belongs to you?

Not to mention fraud among liars

"While no one can question the need for financial prudence in an economy still rife with uncertainties" (New York Times) May 12, 2013

"Coaches at all levels must do a better job reminding players that self-restraint is a necessary facet of athletic competition" (Boston Globe) MAY 13, 2013

"Rather than contradict its narrative of relentless moderation, the administration refused to see that the Benghazi attack symbolized the worst expression of rising anti-American Islamism" (New York Times) May 12, 2013

"The solution to excessive borrowing has been debt restructuring and one-off debt relief in the form of forbearance on official sector loans rather than institutionalized fiscal transfers. This response has carried a high social and economic cost." (Wall Street Journal)May 13, 2013

"And yet, Allegheny County Judge Lester Nauhaus used his discretion to disregard the recommendation of prosecutors for jail time" (York Daily Record) May 13, 2013

"Some of that is humility" (Washington Post)May 12, 2013

the exercise was for a demonstration of the potential of diagnostic statistical linguistic topology. cheers

Were these all dated? 5/13/2013 An No they weren't. Were they in a paper you picked up. No they weren't. Were they on the editorial page?
editorial page
Web definitions
The editorial page (also known as the opinion page) is the page reserved in a newspaper or magazine for the publication's editorial..

Question, as a diagnostic or forensic tool does it detect fraud as well?

Kuno. I've got too many pages open and it is a head spin. I'm going to slow down here simply because it is excessive involvement. I'm bringing this page forward from another. Fraulein certainly got me thinking about how to pose a question, but I'm leaving that aside for today.

Kuno

Kill and it stays dead.
Again, no one here is denying this. Please do yourself a favor and read up on Pasteur again. He was a great scientist and does not deserve to have his accomplishments mis-represented like that.

Kuno the principle of sterilization, pasteurization is everywhere; every hospital and commmercial food processing plant. If you want to drag this into a monologue about what "he really meant" please do it now. Don't hedge this. Pasteur Vs Abiogenesis is not a false dichotomy. It is the biggest one of them all.

But the philosophy of naturalistic materialism has to treat it as "a priori" dealt with. That is fundamentally how people deal with cognitive dissonance.

State your case. As Winston Churchill put it, if you can't say it on half a page of fools cap go and rewrite it.[a paraphrase]

old comment by Kuno

Pasteur disproved the hypothesis of “spontaneous generation”. It stated that complete organisms like bacteria, worms or even mice would be spontaneously generated from non-living matter. It was a very old hypothesis, going back at least to ancient Greece.

The modern concept of “abiogenesis” is about chemicals back in the Earth’s past combining step after step into the building blocks of life until gradually what we consider life started and evolution could “take over”. It is still not fully understood and subject of many scientific experiments.

The “spontaneous generation” was also called “abiogenesis” which has added to the confusion. This doesn’t change the fact that the word as it is used today has nothing to do with Pasteur’s work.

Do you think anything I wrote above to be false? Then please find a modern scientist using the term “abiogenesis” as in my first paragraph.

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

1) The newspapers in question are all supplied with the quotes. All the articles are editorial articles, not news articles, and all appeared on the day you requested. I'm not sure what it is you were looking for, or what relevance the context has; what you said was
pick up any of today's newspapers and I'll give you ten dollars for each time one of those words appears in on an editorial page. Those were your terms; I accepted them and provided the quotes. It is too late to redefine the offer. I fulfilled my part of the bargain. It is time for you to do yours.

2) 'Revisionist' is a neutral word to the historian and looking at history from another perspective is part of what I do. But black armband historian, how? For whom am I supposed to be grieving?

3) Thank you for the confirmation of what my priestly friend told me. The fact that an annulment in the circumstances you describe has to be granted by the Supreme Pontiff means that it is somewhat of an exception. As, under Canon Law, the Vicar of Christ is answerable only to his god, he may grant whatever boon he likes for whatever reason. That the solution you offer requires a deus ex machina - or should that be servus servorum dei ex machina - underlines that the position I stated was correct. That said, this is a matter of Canon Law and nothing to do with the law of the land unless, of course, you live in the Vatican City.

4) "Jewess," like "Negress," is not a word to be used in polite company these days. Please be good enough not to use it.

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

He plays and dotes on corrupting all that is good and decent.

Were it true, it would make him a worthy successor to the 43rd President.

@P-G

The words "Thou shalt not lie" do not appear in the Bible except in Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination," where the meaning of "lie" is not that of telling falsehoods. If you wish to claim that "Thou shalt not bear false witness" amounts to the same thing, then the condemnation of lying in the Koranic verses has to be accepted. Take note, P-G, that this is where literalism gets you.

I'm glad to see that you have found the quotes; they can also be found on the internet or, even better, on LexisNexis. I suggest that the money be donated to a charity of the choosing of the people on FSTDT. Would that be fair?

Hasan, you are an accomplished correspondent. And I am duly remonstrated against hubris.

As a fundamentalist, one who meditates for hours on certain points of jurisprudence, I disagree. Those words, commandment nine, have no nuance of context blanketing them.

I believe the Koran is entirely demonic. I knew of your quoted passages prior to their citation here.

I have a great affection for the Karaites if that helps you with a narrowing of focus on cultural context.

When I suggested people pick up a newspaper I was sartorial in the care of money. As a literalist perhaps, semi after my mould, I suspect John of Oz, did pick up his daily newspaper and didn't find any of that list of words. And consequently understood the point I was actually making. I'll nevertheless make a donation and let you know as to what. You've done me that service. Perhaps the Temple Faithful Foundation.

Moshe Dayan, in ceding back control of the Temple seems to me to have made one of the biggest mistakes in History. But then, perhaps he had seen something in Divine writ which I have overlooked.

I count you a friend but I don't know if you can make friends of In 6 days bible creationist fundamentalism Christians. I'd of course like to tax your insights in other directions. But any involvement at all will render you liable, to something worse than the blood sort, as if one feeding a troll. Don't know if you could bear the prospect of the ignominy of a "troll keeper"

@Kuno"It is still not fully understood...\\ that is the most understated comment in all of science. I humbly suggest, none of it is anything other than guessed at.

One cannot perform a test on history. That's what history is. A done deal.

old comment by Kuno

@Kuno"It is still not fully understood...\\ that is the most understated comment in all of science.

No, this is the essence of science. You will find that kind of comment in every branch of science. That you think otherwise just shows how little you know about it.

Science will never be able to fully understand everything, because if it would, it would simply stop. Every question we find an answer for will just open up several new questions. This is a good thing!

I humbly suggest, none of it is anything other than guessed at.

Your suggestion is wrong. Just because we do not fully understand something does not mean that the parts we do understand are only guesses.

-------

Does your quoting only that part of my last post mean that you accept that Pasteur's work has nothing to do with the modern concept of abiogenesis?

PS: @all: Please note how PG-13 opened a new line of discussion about the Q'ran and Islam as his arguments for the other topics are (once again) debunked. He will now try to shift the conversation to this new topic and hope the others will be forgotten.

Every question we find an answer for will just open up several new questions.

Thus learning is a process of infinite regression.

@Kuno. I'm confident you are a good lawyer Kuno, which is why I'm even more confident in broaching with you the topic of Louis Pasteur's enduring contribution to empirical sciences.

Spontaneous biogenesis means suddenly arising from inorganic material, where "inorganic" was an imprecise concept, of seemingly not alive. This was the belief of most people - and is not sciptural in the slightest. The fact that everyone appears to have believed is no credit to Christian scholarship.

Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that definitively non living materials have gone through some chemical evolution to become a living thing.

It remains entirely hypothetical. Which is why I keep telling people to simply reverse engineer it. Just perform the control variable reproducible experiment that turns your hypothesis into a working theory. your non living things into living things.

The existence of life, in and of itself, says nothing about how it got here. Logic suggests that Louis Pasteur can be extrapolated backwards and forwards in time, and that un-directed thermal energy, will continue to act as it always does in the process of Pasteurization, raise entropy. Entropy being a measure of functional order. The higher entropy, the less the order.

Are you any closer to seeing the problem?

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

@P-G

have no nuance of context blanketing them.

There is not much nuance of context in the phrase "and avoid false words." Your view of the Koran is neither here nor there; the matter at hand is whether or not the Koran enjoins against lying, something that it plainly does.

I was sartorial in the care of money

'Sartorial' commonly refers to dress or tailoring from the Latin 'sartor' or tailor, as in 'Wearing checks with stripes is thought to be poor sartorial taste.' Could you rephrase?

I googled the Temple Faithful Foundation and drew a blank. Can you provide more detail?

Moshe Dayan did not cede the Temple for the very good reason that it doesn't exist; we only have the Temple Mount.

As you may have seen, I agree with Captain Bacardi about trolls. To me, it doesn't matter what your views are, as long as you have something sensible or funny of value to contribute. 'Kill all Muslims' certainly wasn't that.

old comment by Kuno

@PG-13:

Yes, it is only a hypothesis at the moment. And guess what? Right now scientist all over the world are working on “reverse-engineering” the process (or at least a possible process) and they have already made some interesting progresses. So where is your problem?

The existence of life, in and of itself, says nothing about how it got here.

Here we agree.

Logic suggests that Louis Pasteur can be extrapolated backwards and forwards in time, and that un-directed thermal energy, will continue to act as it always does in the process of Pasteurization, raise entropy. Entropy being a measure of functional order. The higher entropy, the less the order.

Please elaborate on that “logic”? What of Louis Pasteur’s findings can be “extrapolated backwards and forwards in time”?

Pasteurization, as in heating an object or a fluid until all the micro-organisms in and on it are dead? How does heating an object until even the microscopic life forms in and on it are dead equal “un-directed thermal energy”? Wouldn’t it rather be “directed thermal energy”? And if it were true, how would photosynthesis work?

--------

And again you are assuming things about my person. I never said that I am a lawyer. Strike three, you’re out! (I think this time I got it right!)

-----

ETA: Correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t the laws of thermodynamics only applying to closed systems? So the fact alone that you are adding “thermal energy” into the process of pasteurization means that they do not apply here? The same way that the existence of the Sun means that they don’t apply to the abiogenesis hypothesis?

@ Kuno, just call the system closed at whatever boundaries you want. So long as it is bounded it is a closed system, with everything heading to heat death within.

For usable energy to be present, entropy was, historically lower. It can't work any other way.

That is another quandary: Where did usable energy come from? The universe looks structured on more than one level.

again, got to run - too much to do, so little time.

See; honest physicists know that there is no acceptable theory. Big Bang is dead "in the water" except for the Discovery Channel and mainstream media - who have to have white coated bespectacled humourless men making grand statements about serious science. They'd never dare do an interviews expressing doubt about every single cosmological model.

For Epistemological brick walls though go via Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and Fitch's paradox. Which, among other things, is why Paul Davies concedes metaphysics is serious stuff.

It will do your head in if you try to get over this in a single bound.

[not the best article for hyperspace - dropped it]
Rense has better objections more accessible
http://rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

Jesus , was and is right.

old comment by Kuno

@ Kuno, just call the system closed at whatever boundaries you want. So long as it is bounded it is a closed system, with everything heading to heat death within.

Yes, but the laws of thermodynamics do not prevent different areas of a closed systems to have different levels of entropy. So the fact that the universe as a whole is heading towards heat death (according to the recent standard model of the universe) does not mean that everything is already dead. Otherwise life would be impossible.

And I have seen quite a few documentaries in the “main stream media” that discussed other models than the Big Bang. And the evidence that points toward it.

white coated bespectacled humorless men making grand statements about serious science

Seriously, have you never seen Brian Cox? Or Neil DeGrasse Tyson? They are just exactly the opposite of your stereotype, and they seem to be the go-to-guys for television documentaries about the cosmos. (Along with that white-haired Japanese-American whose name I can’t remember, I sometimes hate my abysmal memory for names I think he is from UCLA.) And in Germany we have Harald Lesch, who has alongside with his specialty physics tackled topics as philosophy and theology. Hell, Carl Sagan’s Cosmos was not like you say, and it is about 30 years old.

But we again digressed (completely accidently, I am sure). We didn’t discuss cosmology.

So back to Pasteur:

He proved that the organisms that were apparently “generated spontaneously” were actually already there, just not visible with the naked eye. And he proved that you could prevent that “spontaneous generation” if you applied enough heat to kill off these micro-organisms.

Nothing of that has anything to do with the modern concept/hypothesis of abiogenesis. Do you agree? And if not why?

old comment by Anon-e-moose

Ah, so you want your cars to be made in South Korea, Malaysia, even China eh amerigal(IQ)1? Instead of, say... 'Made in the USA'? Okay then. So Obama's saving thousands of American motor industry jobs in Detroit via his bailout of such was all for naught. Guess you'd better tell all those people in that fair state to down tools, leave the assembly lines etc and go home to wait for them to be evicted from such,; they & their kids traipsing the streets, cold & hungry, just because of you & your butthurt that he won his 2nd term, as opposed to your Golden Boy of the Religious Reich, amirite?!

...oh yes, that's right. Said 'Golden Boy Mitt 'Magic Pants' Romney. Who of course didn't make that 'taken out of context' crack about the '47%'; nor that he 'liked firing people', nor even he wanted to outsource to China.

If American people being able to pay the mortgage every month, feed & clothe their kids, nay, pay for their college funds - so they can be educated, and thus get their slice of the American Dream in the future - is 'corruption' of all that is good and decent, then they don't want to be 'pure'.

...and enjoy China building an aircraft superior to your F-22.

@P-G

"I'm confident you are a good lawyer Kuno"

...but not exactly confident are you in saying to Judge John E. Jones III's face that he's a liar, re. his decision in Kitzmiller vs. Dover, I see.:[/URL]

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=94305&Page=2

Evade all you want, but by the very fact you haven't proves you concede on not only that point (Calling him a liar, and the resulting legal repercussions for accusing a member of the bench of Perjury), but also on the whole Evolution vs. Creationism debate represented by Kitzmiller vs. Dover: the last nail knocked in the coffin of Creationism.

...and still not seeing that cage wheeled out by you, and ask your so-called omnipotent 'God' just 'poof' a new species (a la 'Creation') into such, and for him to appear in physical form so as to perform such a task.

Proved we Atheists right, much P-G...?! By your refusal to do the above, you have.

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

@P-G

Oh Lord, this group of crazies:

Liberating the Temple Mount from Arab (Islamic) occupation. The Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa mosque were placed on this Jewish or Biblical holy site as a specific sign of Islamic conquest and domination. The Temple Mount can never be consecrated to the Name of G-d without removing these pagan shrines. It has been suggested that they be removed, transferred to and rebuilt at Mecca.

[...]

Rebuilding the Third Temple in accordance with the words of all the Hebrew prophets.

I've come across these characters before, but I'd forgotten what they called themselves. If you are a believer, it is not for humankind to decide when the Temple is to be restored. If you are not a believer, and it's also true for believers too, then trying to restore the Temple is the royal road to Middle East conflagration on an unprecedented scale.

While they request donations, they don't claim to be a charity even on their latest financial statement. The Levitt interview comes from 1997 and their last newsletter was in 2007, which makes one wonder how active they are. If you want to give to a Jewish charity, might I suggest that actually does some good, such as the United Jewish Appeal in the US, World Jewish Relief in the UK or Jewish Care in Australia. If you want to give to an Israeli one, how about Hadassah or Magen David Adom? You know, ones that help the sick, the lonely, the elderly, the poor, Jewish or not.

Rebuilding the Third Temple in accordance with the words of all the Hebrew prophets.

Crazy? If you are a believer it is not for you to say they are not hearing from G_d. Think about it! It's on their heart to rebuild. Was it on David's heart to begin to build in the very first instance.
If they dream dreams, see visions, is it

a. a devil
b. God
c.. their own bad doctrine.

pragmatic specificity is how long to cut the piece of wood, where to store the stones, how to design a harp or trumpet, etc. etc. etc.

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

@P-G

Crazy? If you are a believer it is not for you to say they are not hearing from G_d.

So then, the Christian believer is fine with anyone who thinks that they can issue divine revelation and inerrant text, provided they believe that they are hearing it from God? I was under the impression that most Christians believed that this was done and dusted and the next occasion would be at the Second Coming. After all, isn't this one of the major differences between Christians and Mormons?

Secondly, these people profess to be Orthodox Jews. In that case, what is legitimate is pretty plain: the Written and Oral Torah, in which it is stated that it is forbidden to waste time trying to hasten the rebuilding of the Temple. You can't profess to be kosher if, by doing so, you cause others to stumble.

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

(continued)

There is nothing wrong in studying the previous Temple, but trying to bring about its rebuilding is trayf. What happens to the Dome of the Rock - indeed, describing Muslim holy places as "pagan" is, in itself, a violation of halacha - is not their, or anyone else's business. Indeed, if you are an Orthodox Jew, the Oral Torah says that study takes precedence even over the rebuilding of the Temple were Moshiach to appear. If they want to try to bring about the Messiah, they ought to pay attention to the words of the Jewish Catalog, for example:

"4. 'Mashiah will come when one generation is either wholly innocent or wholly guilty' (Talmud, Sanhedrin 98a)
"THEREFORE; Analyze the tax system of the United States, and publish a detailed answer to these two questions: (a) Are United States taxes used largely for purposes prohibited by Torah (e.g. oppressing the poor, destroying trees, etc.)? (b) Are any Jews in the United States successfully avoiding payment of all taxes? If the answer to (a) is 'Yes' and to (b) is 'No,' proclaim that the entire generation is guilty in fact, regardless of their personal opinions. Ask all shuls to include the proclamation in their Shabbat prayers with strong kavvanah: 'HaShem, we are at last all guilty: send him!'"

Furthermore, they are not a charity. I am happy for the money to go to a charity, not to a bunch of people who don't publish transparent accounts.

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

@P-G

Don't confuse the issue. You know very well what I mean by an Orthodox Jew - you will note that in comment #1540714 I wrote "Orthodox," not "orthodox" - and it's not Karaite, Dönme, Samaritan or anything else. You also know very well that those who think of Jesus as Messiah are considered followers of Christianity, not Judaism. No-one, P-G, likes being taken for a fool.

R. Kaduri's note does not seem particularly unorthodox; there is a world of difference between expecting the messiah and claiming Moshiach to have arrived already, as parts of Lubavitch do. It is, if anything, an encouragement to his followers to believe and follow the mitzvos. What may well be unorthodox is what others now invest in what he said.

"First do no harm" - and there is the problem with the Temple Faithful Foundation. Not only does their theology do harm to Judaism, but they do harm to Jewish-Muslim relations and, potentially, to the lives of Jews and non-Jews. Lifnei iver lo siten michshol - you shall not put a stumbling block before the blind. It is, quite literally, a scandal.

Hasan, the politics of competing interests in the Middle East might one day need to acknowledge that G_d has placed it on someone's heart to rebuild the Temple.

I don't have a prejudice to their intentions.

G_d inspired all of the Tanakh is my simple statement of faith. Whereas, I'll cherry pick a Talmud.

Why pragmatic specificity matters.

As Francis Schaeffer puts it, "How then should we now live".

Jesus, Y'Shua, Yehoshuah ben Yoseph, is Rabbi Kaduri's past and present Mashiach is another statement of faith.

Son of Joseph shall return as Son of David, is another article of faith.

You know I don't think you are a fool Hasan. I think you are constrained by both traditions and academic conventions that are self limiting.
See also Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

Hasan, the politics of competing interests in the Middle East might one day need to acknowledge that G_d has placed it on someone's heart to rebuild the Temple.

It is still forbidden for a Jew to contemplate this.

I don't have a prejudice to their intentions.

They could hardly make their intentions clearer. They are no more faithful to Judaism than if they were going to set up a pork butchery on Mount Zion.

G_d inspired all of the Tanakh is my simple statement of faith. Whereas, I'll cherry pick a Talmud

Lifnei iver lo siten michshol comes from Parashat Kedoshim or, to you, Leviticus 19:14.

Jesus, Y'Shua, Yehoshuah ben Yoseph, is Rabbi Kaduri's past and present Mashiach is another statement of faith.

There's no evidence that that is true. The note says Yehoshuah, not Yehoshuah ben Yoseph. It means "HaShem is salvation." As I said, it is encouragement to his followers. I am very suspicious of people that impute meaning to text which isn't there. Especially when they, in other cases, protest that others, but not they themselves, do this in the case of Christianity.

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

(continued)

I think you are constrained by both traditions and academic conventions that are self limiting.

Well, that is rich. You knew very well what I meant by "Orthodox Jew" yet you chose to go on a diversion about what orthodoxy might be, a discussion you have shown no intention of pursuing when it comes to Christianity.

It remains that the Temple Faithful Foundation is not a charity and its aims harm both Judaism and Jews. What we are left with from this story is as follows:

1. You said you would pay for quotes containing the words you requested from editorials on a particular day.
2. I supplied those quotes giving their origin and told you that they were also available on LexisNexis and the internet.
3. You agreed to pay a sum to me, albeit rather smaller.
4. I suggested that the sum be donated to a charity of the choice of the people on FSTDT.
5. You have since said you would donate the money to an organization which not only is not a charity but aims to do harm, obfuscating all the while.

Your behavior has been less than honorable.

There are now professionals at 'taking offense'/ stumbling over things. And as all within the victim industry will claim they were just blindly walking along minding their own business, when a "you" ruined their lives.

If you don't wish to offend anyone don't get out of bed.

Being Jewish is an offense. Being gentile is an offense. Being Christian is an offense.

Being male one is a potential rapist. Being White one is a racist. It is such a good business being offended, so much money to be made by so many, I feel almost as if it would be wrong to ignore them. Throw them a bone, or at least place it on the ground with clearly marked hazard tape and audible warnings. Here I am being straight conservative and traditional and people are continually screaming victim-hood; apparently my opinions on traditional anything are deeply offensive.

How much less or more did they take offense at Y'hShuah ben Yoseph for honouring G_d with His calls to repent and believe in Him whom G_d had promised and sent, according to the prophets.

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

@P-G

Being offensive is also a way of life for some. Perhaps that's why you seem so attracted to this group of crazies.

Being male one is a potential rapist. Being White one is a racist.

Projecting cartoonish beliefs onto others doesn't help your argument. I've only met one person who had these beliefs, and she ended up in psychiatric care after an inglorious career of litigation.

This is also no excuse for promoting a group whose beliefs are anything but traditional.

apparently my opinions on traditional anything are deeply offensive.

Who got offended at your beliefs? Certainly not me. What I'm offended by is your deliberate obfuscation, your moral poverty and deceit. I had been led to believe that people with your beliefs behaved better than that. Indeed, that they were implicitly trustworthy. I see now that I was wrong.

How much less or more did they take offense at Y'hShuah ben Yoseph for honouring G_d with His calls to repent and believe in Him whom G_d had promised and sent, according to the prophets.

As I said, I see nothing offensive about your beliefs, but Christians may take offense at your comparing yourself to Christ.

amerigal1 #fundie americanthinker.com

63 comments

Confused?