Revolution without guns, just rocks and tweets by pizmobeach

CTS

Can't overthrow a popularly elected govt. with a handful of protesters in Glendale, CA pretending to be in Iran and a collection of zionist propaganda.

And I'm the zionist here.

On Rwanda, you have a point. Specific race-related gun control laws preventing Tutsis from owning guns had been in effect for decades.

Why that's just like Nazi Germany! (<-- not a Godwin if it actually *is* just like Nazi Germany.)

Not convinced about MLK. TPTB had a vested interest in his success. Racism was in the way of universal assimilation. For real conspiracy nuts, check this out. Why did we start calling him MLK after he died? Why are all the streets named MLK?

MLK is the Hebrew spelling of Molech, the word meaning king, and usually used to describe King David in particular. The real origin of the deity Molech is related: MLKM means "their king" or "Malcolm" and was used to refer to other deities such as Ba'al. LMLK means "to Molech" and is a Hebrew word for "Sacrifice." The name "Maliki" prime minister of Iraq, is "of Molech" just as president Talibani is "of Taliban." Etymology is a curious field and turns up all sorts of things.

Martin Luther King (King King?) is not his real name of course. It was changed after his conversion in Nazi Germany (Of course I'm not making this up, but unlike Pirate News I'm not at all convinced this makes a conspiracy. His father also changed his name to Martin Luther. I'm sure dad was very much aware that this made his initials MLK and intended to do so.)

Gandhi had the advantage of half a billion Indians behind him. It's hard for the Brits to do anything about that. Much of their colonial rule was spent hiding in palaces and never stepping food on the streets of the vast majority of the country for fear of being shot. There are only a few places that were like Mumbai, where British rule was really solid. Like colonial Africa, it was bound to come crashing down.

I've posted before that when India seceded, the Empire did not lost India, it lost Britain.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 4, 2011 6:55 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Why that's just like Nazi Germany! (<-- not a Godwin if it actually *is* just like Nazi Germany.)

Oh good grief. You and your Godwin. You even Godwin yourself, then turn around and say it's not.

Give the good Mr. Godwin a rest already?

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 4, 2011 6:57 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
MLK is the Hebrew spelling of Molech, ...I'm sure dad was very much aware that this made his initials MLK and intended to do so.)

Channeling the good John Lee today, are we?

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 4, 2011 7:06 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

MLK is the Hebrew spelling of Molech, the word meaning king, and usually used to describe King David in particular. The real origin of the deity Molech is related: MLKM means "their king" or "Malcolm" and was used to refer to other deities such as Ba'al. LMLK means "to Molech" and is a Hebrew word for "Sacrifice." The name "Maliki" prime minister of Iraq, is "of Molech" just as president Talibani is "of Taliban." Etymology is a curious field and turns up all sorts of things.

Not everything is Hebrews centric, or revolves around ancient Phoenician gods.

Good grief.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 4, 2011 7:20 AM

My mom commented on it first. After he died, he became MLK. Only saying it because it's true. When I found out, I had to check to see if it was his real name, because I thought it too much of a coincidence for someone to have the initials MLK and the last name King. Instantly I concluded it must not be his real name, which was the case. From there on in it was pretty easy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 4, 2011 7:21 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Those rocks they're hurling around are a vital commodity in the Muslim world. After all, if Egypt becomes a fundamentalist Muslim theocracy like Iran, how else ya gonna stone an adulteress to death unless you got a big pile of rocks handy? How else besides hanging or whipping are you going to deal with your local homosexual problem? Rocks are just so darn perfect for educating those women who might object to being gang raped in their shiny new burquas, or for men who like a beer or The Beatles. And when that special time of year comes around for you to bash your own skull to a bloody mess....rocks baby rocks!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 4, 2011 8:16 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
MLK is the Hebrew spelling of Molech, the word meaning king, and usually used to describe King David in particular. The real origin of the deity Molech is related: MLKM means "their king" or "Malcolm" and was used to refer to other deities such as Ba'al. LMLK means "to Molech" and is a Hebrew word for "Sacrifice." The name "Maliki" prime minister of Iraq, is "of Molech" just as president Talibani is "of Taliban." Etymology is a curious field and turns up all sorts of things.

It's an interesting theory, though I have to confess to my doubts.

I do feel that there is an interest to create a one world culture in order to bring about a one world government, meaning other cultures have to assimilate or die.

The questionable part of the theory is whether Martin Luther or his father, both supposedly Chrstian preachers, would be interested in channeling an idea of Molech. The only way I can think of where this might possibly make sense is if it is meant only as a reference to King David, and if they were unaware of the other meanings.

PN likes to talk about Molech and owls and the Bohemian Grove, I don't know anything about that. But if even if none of those are representative of some conspiracy group, what connection do the Kings have to this group?

Junior went to Boston University, but the only student group I can see that might be suspicious is the International Relations (modeled after the UN), which formed well after junior's death. That's not to say there couldn't have been anything underground at the time of junior's attendance, but I'm curious what you've seen and researched.

As a side note, I'm most familiar with the Irish translation of "Malcolm" which is "follower of St. Columbus." By your entymology, in Firefly we'd be looking at Malcolm Reynolds, another "King King." I can only assume that the King David reference here is simply a reference to David and Goliath, and not the other stuff David got up to when he became King.

Technically David and his entire line were a pretty nasty and corrupt bunch.

==========================
Sorry, off topic. As to the thread subject title, I think when a true people's revolution happens, they use whatever they can get their hands on for weapons.

An armed revolution suggests groups that have been planning for a while. Not to say they can't be part of a people's revolution, but that they usually existed before, and might have ad a hand leading up to the events.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 4, 2011 2:36 PM

Byte

1) The hebrew world "molech" not the 16th century demon or the ancient deity. Yes, the word as understood to be a reference to King David, not to anything else. I don't imagine he was reading Pirate News or watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer, so I don't see why he would expect otherwise*

2) Molech is not an owl. It's actually a word meaning "king" but ancient hebrew used placeholders a lot, which means that people would say "YHWH" to mean god, that didn't meant that God's name was "Jehovah" That's just a corruption.

PN says that the cult at Bohemian Grove calls their own Molech. Maybe they do. They could call it Fred for all I care. But at any rate, it's pretty safe to assume no such cult was present in the 1930s, in Germany where MLK and MLK Jr. were living. It's ironic that the race relation revolutionary of our parents generation came here from Nazi Germany, but I don't see anything more than irony in it.

3) It's been bounced around that he may have been NWO, and may have turned against them, leading to him getting shot. This is popular black conspiracy, that the NWO had FBI hitmen follow him for some time, and as soon as he got revolutionary, they took him out. If you read his last speech, it sounds very much like something Malcolm X might have written.

Ack! Malcolm. Conspiracy nuts go wild!
(A variation on Molech)

4) Malcolm Reynolds is their king king. good one. You're probably right about David and Goliath, though Joss knows Molech, see "I robot you jane." Even the real story of David and Goliath is fairly gruesome. Also, David, as he is portrayed in the bible, is heavily fictionalized in the sense that King Arthur is, and for the same reason: The are both synthetic characters, synthesizing multiple historical figures into one storyline to create an illusion of unity. There was never a unified Israel or a unified Britain in ancient times, but it's an illusion that later cultures wanted to project.

I'm sure MLK Sr. was being clever, becoming King King and Martin Luther at the same time. That wasn't where I thought there was conspiracy. It was after his death, the media quickly stopped calling him Martin Luther King, or "King" for short, and called him MLK, which is something they had not commonly done in life, or so my parents say. Neither had heard that abbreviation until he died, before then, they had only heard him shortened to "King." I'm sure that any media reference to MLK is to the hebrew word and not the Phoenician god, nor the medieval demon. It's like the appearance of the dept of "Homeland" security. Not an american term, until now. It's an Israeli one. If they had said "Motherland Security" we would have sensed a Russian spy, and if they had called it "Fatherland security" everyone would have scream Nazis!

I call the the "muahahah" element of TPTB. Each subcomponent thereof just can't resist sticking their damn signature on everything they do. It's like MOAB. If you didn't represent allies of Judah, you would never call a weapon MOAB. (Edom and Moab were the states which agreed to help Judah unify (conquer) Israel, or fail to.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 4, 2011 3:23 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
2) Molech is not an owl. It's actually a word meaning "king" but ancient hebrew used placeholders a lot, which means that people would say "YHWH" to mean god, that didn't meant that God's name was "Jehovah" That's just a corruption.

Yeah, I've heard you argue about that before. Continuity nod.

Quote:
3) It's been bounced around that he may have been NWO, and may have turned against them, leading to him getting shot. This is popular black conspiracy, that the NWO had FBI hitmen follow him for some time, and as soon as he got revolutionary, they took him out. If you read his last speech, it sounds very much like something Malcolm X might have written.

I guess that would depend on what he was revolutionary about, because I would have considered him pretty revolutionary in general, before he started to get serious business.

It sounds to me like if MLK is anything, it's an attempt by the media to beatify Martin Luther King for a subset of the population. Creating near-religious but political and secular figures seems like it might be a good way to control and manipulate.

Very curious about the Germany years. It's somewhat unbelievable to me that someone could be recruited to a group when they're being discriminated against, even though I'm aware the nazis were only a small part of the theoretical group in question. Unless they were under threat.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 4, 2011 4:28 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
That revolution is rather pathetic...Arabs can't do anything right....Most of the time they blow themselves up trying to blow up others...hilarious.

Get it right willya, it's ANARCHISTS who blow themselves up every time they try to blow up someone else - Arabic folk generally blow themselves up WHILE blowing others up.

Slight difference, but certainly a noteable one to the target, neh ?

As to why that is, well, you take something which the construction of requires tremendous discipline, slavish adherence to a certain set of rules, and obsessive attention to detail in order to build safely, and then put it in the hands of Anarchists...

Hilarity WILL ensue - something I am not at all shy about reminding them of every time someone brings the notion up.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 4, 2011 5:15 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Those rocks they're hurling around are a vital commodity in the Muslim world. After all, if Egypt becomes a fundamentalist Muslim theocracy like Iran, how else ya gonna stone an adulteress to death unless you got a big pile of rocks handy? How else besides hanging or whipping are you going to deal with your local homosexual problem? Rocks are just so darn perfect for educating those women who might object to being gang raped in their shiny new burquas, or for men who like a beer or The Beatles. And when that special time of year comes around for you to bash your own skull to a bloody mess....rocks baby rocks!

Pretty vital in the christian world, too, if one reads one's bible.

Seems all religions are just about as equally backwards, primitive, barbaric, and stupid!

I do find it rather hilariously ironic that the only ones here who seem to be AGAINST Egyptians gaining their "freedom" to choose their own government, are the same folks here who argued that we HAD TO "spread democracy" in the Mid-East when we were invading Iraq.

So you're FOR freedom, but not for others, right? Is that it?

"Freedom" means sometimes people don't vote the way you want them to.

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 4, 2011 5:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
That revolution is rather pathetic...Arabs can't do anything right....Most of the time they blow themselves up trying to blow up others...hilarious.

Get it right willya, it's ANARCHISTS who blow themselves up every time they try to blow up someone else - Arabic folk generally blow themselves up WHILE blowing others up.

Slight difference, but certainly a noteable one to the target, neh ?

As to why that is, well, you take something which the construction of requires tremendous discipline, slavish adherence to a certain set of rules, and obsessive attention to detail in order to build safely, and then put it in the hands of Anarchists...

Hilarity WILL ensue - something I am not at all shy about reminding them of every time someone brings the notion up.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

Hey, REAL anarchists don't need no stinkin' bomb-making manual! They don't follow instructions! Rules?! I don't need your stinking rules!

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 4, 2011 5:43 PM

@ Jong What are you talking about? There are no homosexuals in Iran. That comes from infidel westerners.

@ kwicko, stoning is in the bible and Jesus prevented a stoning, so logically Christians striving to be 'christ-like' would not be into stoning. You do have a point concerning several religions having barbaric sects/sides/histories.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 4, 2011 6:03 PM

Yeah, they much preferred burning at the stake. GET IT RIGHT!!!

Some other non violent or largely gunless overthrows or change in regimes

The Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution

Fall of East Germany and the destruction of the Wall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_revolution_%28German%29

ENd of aparteid in South Africa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negotiations_to_end_apartheid_in_South_Af
rica

Solidarity brings about elections in Poland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_%28Polish_trade_union%29

Introduction of Glasnost (openness) in the Soviet Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasnost

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 12:38 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Those rocks they're hurling around are a vital commodity in the Muslim world. After all, if Egypt becomes a fundamentalist Muslim theocracy like Iran, how else ya gonna stone an adulteress to death unless you got a big pile of rocks handy? How else besides hanging or whipping are you going to deal with your local homosexual problem? Rocks are just so darn perfect for educating those women who might object to being gang raped in their shiny new burquas, or for men who like a beer or The Beatles. And when that special time of year comes around for you to bash your own skull to a bloody mess....rocks baby rocks!

Pretty vital in the christian world, too, if one reads one's bible.

Seems all religions are just about as equally backwards, primitive, barbaric, and stupid!

I do find it rather hilariously ironic that the only ones here who seem to be AGAINST Egyptians gaining their "freedom" to choose their own government, are the same folks here who argued that we HAD TO "spread democracy" in the Mid-East when we were invading Iraq.

So you're FOR freedom, but not for others, right? Is that it?

"Freedom" means sometimes people don't vote the way you want them to.

This Space For Rent!

You and Ahmadinejad say the same things. He and his worldwide terrorist pals know what they're doing in Egypt. Like Obama, they never let a good crisis go to waste, especially one that they helped create. I do find Sharia Islamic Law quite hilarious in its' shocking modern-day barbarity, a fine-tuned code of brutality and subjegation of women, while the men surf porn on their laptops. There's no rational way to justify and defend Sharia, but nice try.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 2:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:

You and Ahmadinejad say the same things. He and his worldwide terrorist pals know what they're doing in Egypt. Like Obama, they never let a good crisis go to waste, especially one that they helped create. I do find Sharia Islamic Law quite hilarious in its' shocking modern-day barbarity, a fine-tuned code of brutality and subjegation of women, while the men surf porn on their laptops. There's no rational way to justify and defend Sharia, but nice try.

Yeah, you and KKKaney say the same things, too.

You keep bringing up Sharia as if it's relevant to... well, anything. You claim all these horrific things are a part of Sharia, but you completely ignore and downplay all the same barbaric treatments that are written into YOUR favorite book of horrors. There's no rational way to justify and defend Christianity or Jadaism, either, but you keep trying.

Tell me, what IS the biblical punishment for wearing cotton and silk at the same time? For working on the Sabbath? For touching the skin of a pig? For shaving the face? Cutting the hair?

What are the punishments YOUR religion describes for those mundane, everyday things?

Tell us all again how civilized you are...

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 2:23 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Tell me, what IS the biblical punishment for wearing cotton and silk at the same time? For working on the Sabbath? For touching the skin of a pig? For shaving the face? Cutting the hair?

What are the punishments YOUR religion describes for those mundane, everyday things?

You have really gone off the deep end. Is that psychotic rant some sort of demented libtard fatwa against little 'ole me? Who's Sabbath, yours? Give me a sec to search Google for "touching a pig" will ya? I'm not an expert like you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 2:38 AM

Jong

What you're missing here is that the claims you made about Iran (stoning adultresses, hanging gays) are not *pure* propaganda, they did happen, but they are not actions taken by officials of the iranian govt, but more religious nutjob homocides.

The parallel is that Christian nutjobs in the US actually *do* occasionally nail their children to crosses on the basement wall and will punish people for anything that the bible tells them to.

Lots of them? No. Random lunatics. But when you look at the statements *we* make about muslims, they could just as easily make the same statements about christians.

"Christians mothers kill their daughters for having premarital sex" is a true statement if you boil it down to "this has happened more than once."

So, even if Mike had gone a bit godwin here, he has a point. If some Imam tortures and kills some people, that's not the policy of the elected govt. It's more analogous to when a christian preacher in California eats his children.

And don't think they don't use those in the muslim world as propaganda pieces, because they do. But before you start chucking stones at them for either, you might want to set your own house in order. I think Jesus said something about that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 2:39 AM

Quote:
You have really gone off the deep end. Is that psychotic rant some sort of demented libtard fatwa against little 'ole me? Who's Sabbath, yours? Give me a sec to search Google for "touching a pig" will ya? I'm not an expert like you.

Huh. The way you were going on about "Judeo-Christian values" before your edit, one could be led to believe you actually know a thing or two about those values. Obviously I'm mistaken - you know NOTHING of Judeo-Christian values, and even less about the bible.

I'm sure that was a "fatwa" against little ol' you to just about as much a degree as your "psychotic rants" are a fatwa aimed squarely at me. As for being an expert in "touching a pig", your daughter says you're the best at it. ;)

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 3:42 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

fwiw, what happens when attacks are personal is it ends up making the target defend the defenseless. How about we all agree that all religions spin off some nutters? Religion is mostly a construct for social survival from the past, like way ancient past, and without changes it will keep us in the past.
There are some good things we should keep, like "do under others," but in general they all need major upgrades. How about we do that instead of pointing fingers?
Every modern christian should read books like "Sahara Unveiled: A Journey Across the Desert," or any book that relates some of the fables that modern Middle Eastern citizens still tell, "remember the tale of Omar and the 2 donkeys and the star of Muktar?" (I'm paraphrasing badly). They have the same fantastical ring and phrasing of most bible stories, Moses parting the Red Sea, on and on. Ironic that the stories of the bible, the bible stories that many American Christians hold as a central part of their Faith, come from the Middle East and are told in the same way as those of muslims story tellers. We're more alike that we think, again.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 3:57 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Yeah, they much preferred burning at the stake. GET IT RIGHT!!!

Some other non violent or largely gunless overthrows or change in regimes

The Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution

Fall of East Germany and the destruction of the Wall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_revolution_%28German%29

ENd of aparteid in South Africa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negotiations_to_end_apartheid_in_South_Af
rica

Solidarity brings about elections in Poland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_%28Polish_trade_union%29

Introduction of Glasnost (openness) in the Soviet Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasnost

Magons - I'm surprised you fell for this one. Wikipedia is a known tool of TPTB, and as such they made all of these up. Why? To disarm the populace of course, to give them the false sense that change can be brought about by collective will and determination and without weapons. "Wikipedia" is Greek of course, "wiki" or "weak" and "pedia" roughly translates to the state of being of the people. So "wikipedia" is broadly, "to keep the people weak."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People#In_philosophy_and_theory

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 11:01 AM

I thought wikipedia was dutch for weak feet.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 1:35 PM

So we can call it biblical if we take Leviticus out of context and completely disregard the rest of the bible (especially the new testament)?

I had a block of wood holding my headlight in place for a little while, but no longer. Does that mean my entire car is wooden?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 2:18 PM

The Bible is a mixed bag of teachings and contains many contradictions as well as much wisdom. Much like the Qu'ran, which is actually much less contradictory.

All religions contain repellant aspects and have practised cruelty in the name of 'God'. That's why some of us get prickly when all Muslims are tarred with the 'suicide bomber' brush.

Additionally, there is a certain degree of hyprocracy from those who condemn stonings but support capital punishment. The USA has one of the highest rates of execution in the world, surpassed by countries such as China, Iran, iraq and Saudi Arabia I believe. 'Let he who is without sin...etc'

Stonings seem to have been a very popular form of execution in the middle east, north africa for a long time. Maybe because they have lots of stones. But I think it is more about having everyone involved. If you think about the significance of having a community carry out an execution rather than someone paid to do it, behind closed doors.

That being said, it's a cruel and revolting way to die, but I'm betting electrocution isn't fun either.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 4:27 PM

Quote:
Additionally, there is a certain degree of hyprocracy from those who condemn stonings but support capital punishment. The USA has one of the highest rates of execution in the world, surpassed by countries such as China, Iran, iraq and Saudi Arabia I believe. 'Let he who is without sin...etc'

Funny thing about that, The US has the 3rd highest population of all countries in the world. I wonder if that could explain the larger number of executions?...

Not arguing over hypocrisy, though, I 'spect there's a certain amount of hypocrisy inherent in the human condition.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 4:37 PM

I guess the fact that you are there with those countries has still having executions should give pause for thought.

And as for hypocracy...maybe part of the human condition, along with greed, cruelty, violence, but surely not something to which one aspires??

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 5:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
So we can call it biblical if we take Leviticus out of context and completely disregard the rest of the bible (especially the new testament)?

I had a block of wood holding my headlight in place for a little while, but no longer. Does that mean my entire car is wooden?

Makes as much sense as claiming that Sharia is taking over the America and the world.

Look, if you're going to claim that the bible is the "word of god", you have to admit a few uncomfortable truths.

1) God is a prick. A world-class, first-rate douchebag of a worthless piece of shit, who gets his rocks off on killing kids and dropping roofs on his congregants.

2) His "owner's manual for the soul" (aka the Bible) is full of nonsense and contradictions. So not only is he a prick, he's a liar to boot. "Take this as my word. Do not question it. Oh, except for that part; I was really fucking high when I dictated that."

We're supposed to obey the Bible, except when we don't want to. Is that it? Disregard that, this supersedes the other, ignore another bit...

What did I 'take out of context', anyway? What part of what I said earlier *ISN'T* in the book?

And if the New Testament replaces the Old, then why do so-called "Christians" keep blabbering about how evil "the gay" is, when the New Testament seemingly has not a single word to say about it? Can you show me in Jesus's exact words where he said anything about such things being a sin?

Or am I now taking what ISN'T in there out of context, too?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 5:35 PM

I've brought this up before, I'll give you a useful link if you're truly interested.

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

And here is a brief excerpt

Quote:
Leviticus 18:6 reads: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination." A similar verse occurs two chapters later, in Leviticus 20:13: "A man who sleeps with another man is an abomination and should be executed." On the surface, these words could leave you feeling rather uneasy, especially if you are gay. But just below the surface is the deeper truth about God -- and it has nothing to do with sex.

Leviticus is a holiness code written 3,000 years ago. This code includes many of the outdated sexual laws we mentioned earlier, and a lot more. It also includes prohibitions against round haircuts, tattoos, working on the Sabbath, wearing garments of mixed fabrics, eating pork or shellfish, getting your fortune told, and even playing with the skin of a pig. (There goes football!)

So what's a holiness code? It's a list of behaviors that people of faith find offensive in a certain place and time. In this case, the code was written for priests only, and its primary intent was to set the priests of Israel over and against priests of other cultures.

I've claimed the bible is the word of God as transcribed by man to the best of his ability. It's important to consider the atmosphere at the time it was written and where the translations come from for a better understanding. Now, the so called 'Christians' you and I both can't stand don't care to do this. They'd rather take Leviticus out of context.

Here's another good quote from the site.

Quote:
For example, many Christians don't know that:

* Jesus says nothing about same-sex behavior.
* The Jewish prophets are silent about homosexuality.
* Only six or seven of the Bible's one million verses refer to same-sex behavior in any way -- and none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation as it's understood today.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying Sharia is taking over the America, that's a bunch of BS. I just prefer to defend something (in this case, the Christian faith) on it's merits and by correcting misconceptions of it rather than throwing filth at another idea and claiming it and anything like it must be 'worse.'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 7:34 PM

Quote:
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying Sharia is taking over the America, that's a bunch of BS. I just prefer to defend something (in this case, the Christian faith) on it's merits and by correcting misconceptions of it rather than throwing filth at another idea and claiming it and anything like it must be 'worse.'

Likewise, don't misunderstand ME. Those who seem to believe that we're being overrun by Sharia because there are a few crackpot Muslim assholes who believe in it don't like to admit that there are more than a few crackpot Christian assholes who'd like to put us all under the thumb of fundamentalist Christianity.

That's not "throwing filth" at the idea; it's "throwing truth" at it.

And I don't claim it "must be 'worse'" by any means. That's where y'all like to (willfully, I wonder?) misunderstand me. I'm claiming they're exactly the same! Many so-called "Christians" around these parts like to pretend they're better than the Sharia folks, usually by pointing out that they would kill me in a second, given a chance, for the "crime" of believing that others are free to believe what they want as long as they aren't causing others direct physical harm.

I see fundamentalist whacko Christians as exactly as dangerous as fundamentalist whacko Muslims. Well, actually that's not true. I see the Christians as MORE dangerous, at least to me, personally. After all, the fundamentalist Christians are actually HERE already, passing laws, making rules, telling me and others how to live and how to be. You can't name me one single city in this nation that is under Sharia law, but there are hundreds, if not thousands, that are under fundamentalist Christian law.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 6, 2011 12:16 AM

KANEMAN

See, here you go again Kwickie...missing the whole point of a post...

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination."

His whole point was that you gay types are an abomination. Clearly, you see that. Right?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 6, 2011 8:59 AM

Quote:
Likewise, don't misunderstand ME. Those who seem to believe that we're being overrun by Sharia because there are a few crackpot Muslim assholes who believe in it don't like to admit that there are more than a few crackpot Christian assholes who'd like to put us all under the thumb of fundamentalist Christianity.

Fair enough, looks like we're in agreement here.

Quote:
That's not "throwing filth" at the idea; it's "throwing truth" at it.

If this applies to the above quote I agree, but if you are implying "The Bible is against the Gay" that is an unfortunate and popular misconception, one the link I posted could help dispel. IMO it's more 'filth' when used by folks claiming to be Christian's because they should know better.

I don't want to perpetuate this argument too much because I suspect in essence we agree on most things anyway. Your assertion that

Quote:
1) God is a prick. A world-class, first-rate douchebag of a worthless piece of shit, who gets his rocks off on killing kids and dropping roofs on his congregants.

2) His "owner's manual for the soul" (aka the Bible) is full of nonsense and contradictions. So not only is he a prick, he's a liar to boot. "Take this as my word. Do not question it. Oh, except for that part; I was really fucking high when I dictated that."

is your opinion and you've every right to it. My opinion is that further exploration of these 'contradictions' will often reveal deeper truths. I believe those 'contradictions' were meant to be explored and make us think, rather than to be ignored or used as socio-politico ammunition when it's convenient.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 6, 2011 1:35 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
It's important to consider the atmosphere at the time it was written and where the translations come from for a better understanding.

THT - this is for me exactly why I marvel at the Bible as a book, but only as a book. The world in which the Bible was written remains in many ways largely unchanged. If you want to know what it was like back then look at the Middle East of today. The prophets and holy people in the Bible seem very much the same *to me* as the Imans, Clerics and Ayatollahs of today: they got their aura of holiness by bloodline.
Like this guy:

"He is often referred to as Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr. The title Sayyid (approx. Mr, Sir,) is generally used among the Shi‘a to denote persons descending directly from the Prophet Muhammad, through his daughter Fatimah's marriage with Ali, which is thought to be the bloodline from which Islamic leadership must come. Thus a great deal of respect is paid by the Shi'as to the Sayyids throughout Shi'a society. The al-Sadr family has a clear and distinct lineage that can be traced directly to Muhammad.[3] The lineage is traced through Imam Jafar al-Sadiq and his son Imam Musa al-Kadhim, the sixth and seventh Shi‘a Imams respectively.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqtada_Al-Sadr

I think how you finish your statement is significant: "It's important to consider the atmosphere at the time it was written and where the translations come from for a better understanding. Now, the so called 'Christians' you and I both can't stand don't care to do this."

I think they refuse to see the entire Bible in context, like they don't want to see the roots of their religion because it starts in the "hated" Middle East. This is why I think of modern American Christians as largely uninformed and misinformed - well meaning to some degree, but I don't give much credence to people who are so determined to ignore the roots of what they say they believe in.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 6, 2011 4:38 PM