View Full Version : The way Christians terrorize
it can also be said that the purpose of the 2nd amendment being a defense against a tyrannical government is no longer even a possibility. sure when you give civilians muskets to combat against the government, who is also armed with muskets, i can see that working.
letting us have larger magazines isn't doing shit against a federal government with access to drones, tanks, missiles, and air force, etc. the only way the 2nd amendment can serve it's original purpose in today's world is to have a complete deregulation on arms. let civilians own tanks, fighter jets, bombers, and keep missile silos in their yards, and let them hold nuclear arms
So then you know better than the founding fathers. We can use similar reasoning for the 1st Amendment:
Let people yell fire in crowded theaters. Let them write on the walls of the White House. Let them give public speeches in airports.
spurraider21
07-09-2017, 06:58 PM
Why did you move the goalpost to "prominent liberal"?
How many prominent liberals post here?
liberals here dont pose a threat to anybody's gun rights
second amendment enthusiasts/nra arent fighting against the threat of spurstalk disarming them
spurraider21
07-09-2017, 07:01 PM
So then you know better than the founding fathers. We can use similar reasoning for the 1st Amendment:
Let people yell fire in crowded theaters. Let them write on the walls of the White House. Let them give public speeches in airports.what?
liberals here dont pose a threat to anybody's gun rights
second amendment enthusiasts/nra arent fighting against the threat of spurstalk disarming them
So?
No one gives a shit what either of us says, if you want to know the truth. Still.. here we are.
what?
Argument from absurdity, just right back at you.
Those tired arguments all have cookie cutter responses. Try something new.
spurraider21
07-09-2017, 07:06 PM
Argument from absurdity, just right back at you.
Those tired arguments all have cookie cutter responses. Try something new.what does that have to do with "knowing better than the founding fathers"
by acknowledging that the internet has presented challenges to the 4th amendment, that's not me saying i know better than the founding fathers, that's just acknowledging a change in the times. same with the purported use of arms to keep tyranny at bay
what does that have to do with "knowing better than the founding fathers"
They put it in the Bill of Rights specifically because they feared rationale like yours would come along and say it's no longer needed. You seem to think separation of church and state are timeless requirements that must be guarded, but somehow the 2nd Amendment is useless unless the citizens own nuclear weapons. Do I need to own a news company for freedom of the press to be important?
by acknowledging that the internet has presented challenges to the 4th amendment, that's not me saying i know better than the founding fathers, that's just acknowledging a change in the times. same with the purported use of arms to keep tyranny at bay
DC vs Heller pretty much nullifies your "fight tyranny" red herring though.
spurraider21
07-09-2017, 07:31 PM
They put it in the Bill of Rights specifically because they feared rationale like yours would come along and say it's no longer needed. You seem to think separation of church and state are timeless requirements that must be guarded, but somehow the 2nd Amendment is useless unless the citizens own nuclear weapons. Do I need to own a news company for freedom of the press to be important?
DC vs Heller pretty much nullifies your "fight tyranny" red herring though.
i dont think the 2nd amendment is useless. i think the rationale that we need it to fight tyranny is outdated and flawed. i think self defense is sufficient. DC vs Heller agrees.
you're the one who brought up the 2nd amendment as being crucial to a free society, which implies the "defense from tyranny" justification, rather than the self defense argument, which i find much more compelling
you cant complain about red herrings when you've turned the first amendment/establishment clause discussion into a 2nd amendment discussion. this entire tangent is a red herring... courtesy of you
Blake
07-09-2017, 08:00 PM
I was giving you an out.
Most religions don't even use the Holy Bible.
Lol. Pick a prominent American religion and let's discuss.
boutons_deux
07-09-2017, 09:06 PM
A Humiliated Trump Just Backed Off His US-Russia Cyber Unit Hours After He Proposed Ithttp://washingtonjournal.com/2017/07/09/humiliated-trump-just-backed-off-us-russia-cyber-unit-hours-proposed/
I bet Trash could use some relief, some release by grabbing some peeing pussy.
DarrinS
07-09-2017, 09:09 PM
A Humiliated Trump Just Backed Off His US-Russia Cyber Unit Hours After He Proposed Ithttp://washingtonjournal.com/2017/07/09/humiliated-trump-just-backed-off-us-russia-cyber-unit-hours-proposed/
I bet Trash could use some relief, some release by grabbing some peeing pussy.
because ... Christian terrorism?
boutons_deux
07-09-2017, 09:12 PM
...
i dont think the 2nd amendment is useless. i think the rationale that we need it to fight tyranny is outdated and flawed. i think self defense is sufficient. DC vs Heller agrees.
you're the one who brought up the 2nd amendment as being crucial to a free society, which implies the "defense from tyranny" justification, rather than the self defense argument, which i find much more compelling
you cant complain about red herrings when you've turned the first amendment/establishment clause discussion into a 2nd amendment discussion. this entire tangent is a red herring... courtesy of you
:lol I didn't say the 2nd Amendment was critical for a free society. I said you presented the 1st Amendment like it was. Good lord, fucking lawyers.
You use words like "sufficient". DC vs Heller didn't decide sufficiency. They interpreted the 2nd Amendment. It wasn't a case about allowing someone to have a gun.
I brought up the 2nd Amendment because you were acting like the 1st Amendment is sacred, and the founding fathers peerless. That is the norm when talking about the 1st Amendment, but as soon as you move to the next one, then the founding fathers were short sighted, the BoR is antiquated, so forth and so on.
I'm just using the same hypocrite whistle you use daily, Philo. Don't put words in my mouth to help you get to your point.
Lol. Pick a prominent American religion and let's discuss.
So now you move the goalpost from "most religions" to "prominent American religion".
spurraider21
07-09-2017, 09:50 PM
:lol I didn't say the 2nd Amendment was critical for a free society. I said you presented the 1st Amendment like it was. Good lord, fucking lawyers.
You use words like "sufficient". DC vs Heller didn't decide sufficiency. They interpreted the 2nd Amendment. It wasn't a case about allowing someone to have a gun.
I brought up the 2nd Amendment because you were acting like the 1st Amendment is sacred, and the founding fathers peerless. That is the norm when talking about the 1st Amendment, but as soon as you move to the next one, then the founding fathers were short sighted, the BoR is antiquated, so forth and so on.
I'm just using the same hypocrite whistle you use daily, Philo. Don't put words in my mouth to help you get to your point.
DC v Heller specifically decided that citizens have a right to possess firearms separate from any sort of militia service. so yes, they decided sufficiency. they decided that the second amendment protects a citizen's right to bear arms for purposes of self defense. therefore, self defense is a sufficient justification. people don't need to assert "we need a militia to fight tyranny" in order to have protections under the second amendment.
everything in the constitution is "sacred" because that is the one foundational document that all of our laws are derived from. that absolutely includes the first amendment. that's not exclusive to any of the amendments.
my entire point of the second amendment discussion (which again, is just a red herring you've brought up to deflect from our discussion), was that the right to bear arms isn't doing shit to protect us from tyranny. it might have during the 18th and 19th centuries... but in the world of modern weapons, it's simply an outdated concept. that doesn't make the 2nd amendment less valid. it just makes the argument that "we need our guns to stop tyranny" a stupid one. and in DC v Heller, the court agreed that we can justify the second amendment right to bear arms without invoking the militia purpose
DC v Heller specifically decided that citizens have a right to possess firearms separate from any sort of militia service. so yes, they decided sufficiency. they decided that the second amendment protects a citizen's right to bear arms for purposes of self defense. therefore, self defense is a sufficient justification. people don't need to assert "we need a militia to fight tyranny" in order to have protections under the second amendment.
everything in the constitution is "sacred" because that is the one foundational document that all of our laws are derived from. that absolutely includes the first amendment. that's not exclusive to any of the amendments.
my entire point of the second amendment discussion (which again, is just a red herring you've brought up to deflect from our discussion), was that the right to bear arms isn't doing shit to protect us from tyranny. it might have during the 18th and 19th centuries... but in the world of modern weapons, it's simply an outdated concept. that doesn't make the 2nd amendment less valid. it just makes the argument that "we need our guns to stop tyranny" a stupid one. and in DC v Heller, the court agreed that we can justify the second amendment right to bear arms without invoking the militia purpose
You're the only one here who said anything about tyranny, I guess just so you could flog the concept.
Do you think the 1st Amendment is outdated? Does it protect hate speech? If the 1st Amendment is sacred, why doesn't the federal or state governments get involved when liberals riot and burn shit to the ground because someone they oppose is giving a speech? Is their action also protected by the 1st Amendment?
Which amendments are not outdated? Just for the record.
Blake
07-09-2017, 10:19 PM
So now you move the goalpost from "most religions" to "prominent American religion".
You've been moving goalposts and twisting meanings since you showed up here
I'm still waiting for you to recognize how you conflated theists with Americans
spurraider21
07-09-2017, 10:19 PM
You're the only one here who said anything about tyranny, I guess just so you could flog the concept.
Do you think the 1st Amendment is outdated? Does it protect hate speech? If the 1st Amendment is sacred, why doesn't the federal or state governments get involved when liberals riot and burn shit to the ground because someone they oppose is giving a speech? Is their action also protected by the 1st Amendment?
Which amendments are not outdated? Just for the record.
i dont think any of the amendments in the bill of rights are outdated.
i think the concept of bearing arms to protect yourself from a tyrannical government is outdated. that is not the same as saying the 2nd amendment is outdated. people can still own guns without pretending its going to help them defeat the US military
if you want, i can repeat this a few more times so it can get through your thick skull
as for the speech stuff, i have posts on this site where i condemned the morons who try to shut down speech they dont agree with. that included the dipshits an berkley who shut down milo and ann coulter. stifling free speech is stifling free speech. it doesn't make a difference to me if the liberals are shutting down the speech or if conservatives are shutting down the speech.
the difference is, the students rioting isn't a state action. if the university took affirmative steps to cancelling the speeches to suppress viewpoints, that would be a state action and they'd eat lawsuits. students rioting, though, wrong, isn't a state action and isn't a violation of the 1st amendment. you may argue that the school should have a bigger enforcement unit and a stronger police presence to start rounding up the rioters, rather than shutting the event down because the venue has become unsafe.
Lol what theists? Message board theists maybe but that's about it.
Most religions say the bible is the literal word of God front to back.
You're pretty ignorant tbh.
So you claim most theists think the Holy Bible is inerrant?
No, I said most religions do.
You said many theists don't
It's all right there above
I was giving you an out.
Most religions don't even use the Holy Bible.
Lol. Pick a prominent American religion and let's discuss.
You've been moving goalposts and twisting meanings since you showed up here
I'm still waiting for you to recognize how you conflated theists with Americans
:lol
i dont think any of the amendments in the bill of rights are outdated.
i think the concept of bearing arms to protect yourself from a tyrannical government is outdated. that is not the same as saying the 2nd amendment is outdated. people can still own guns without pretending its going to help them defeat the US military
if you want, i can repeat this a few more times so it can get through your thick skull
as for the speech stuff, i have posts on this site where i condemned the morons who try to shut down speech they dont agree with. that included the dipshits an berkley who shut down milo and ann coulter. stifling free speech is stifling free speech. it doesn't make a difference to me if the liberals are shutting down the speech or if conservatives are shutting down the speech.
the difference is, the students rioting isn't a state action. if the university took affirmative steps to cancelling the speeches to suppress viewpoints, that would be a state action and they'd eat lawsuits. students rioting, though, wrong, isn't a state action and isn't a violation of the 1st amendment. you may argue that the school should have a bigger enforcement unit and a stronger police presence to start rounding up the rioters, rather than shutting the event down because the venue has become unsafe.
So you're saying then that only states or the federal government can infringe upon your rights?
What makes you think you'd need a fighting chance before you should have a right to defend yourself?
spurraider21
07-10-2017, 10:23 AM
So you're saying then that only states or the federal government can infringe upon your rights?
What makes you think you'd need a fighting chance before you should have a right to defend yourself?
The bill of rights specifically pertains to government action (most constitutional rights, actually, with the exception of the 13th amendment)
i'm not saying people don't have the right to defend themselves. what i'm saying is that the particular justification for arms (to protect from tyranny) is an outdated concept. as we saw in DC vs Heller, we don't have to pretend that forming a militia to fight the government is the reason people need arms. the 2nd amendment has been construed to extend beyond that purpose and applies to personal self defense.
Blake
07-10-2017, 11:03 AM
:lol
Yeah you brought up Americans first :lol
You've distorted this conversation so much with goal post shifting and ad hominems, do you even know what your original claim was that I called bull shit on?
Yeah you brought up Americans first :lol
You've distorted this conversation so much with goal post shifting and ad hominems, do you even know what your original claim was that I called bull shit on?
:lol
Religions don't have beliefs, people do. Therefore the term you're looking for is theist, and specifically Christians.
Goddamn you're retarded.
The bill of rights specifically pertains to government action (most constitutional rights, actually, with the exception of the 13th amendment)
i'm not saying people don't have the right to defend themselves. what i'm saying is that the particular justification for arms (to protect from tyranny) is an outdated concept. as we saw in DC vs Heller, we don't have to pretend that forming a militia to fight the government is the reason people need arms. the 2nd amendment has been construed to extend beyond that purpose and applies to personal self defense.
Again, you're the one who invoked tyranny in this conversation, and there's a huge difference between something that's effective for protection and something you have a right to own for protection. The same handgun wouldn't protect you from a home invasion if there were 30 people invading with fully automatic weapons. So the "outdated" argument isn't a good one. Folks were never able to fight off organized armies just because the villagers were armed. It doesn't make the concept of trying "outdated".
Blake
07-10-2017, 03:37 PM
:lol
Religions don't have beliefs, people do. Therefore the term you're looking for is theist, and specifically Christians.
Goddamn you're retarded.
Neat.
Keep twisting instead of quantifying your claim.
spurraider21
07-10-2017, 03:44 PM
Again, you're the one who invoked tyranny in this conversation, and there's a huge difference between something that's effective for protection and something you have a right to own for protection. The same handgun wouldn't protect you from a home invasion if there were 30 people invading with fully automatic weapons. So the "outdated" argument isn't a good one. Folks were never able to fight off organized armies just because the villagers were armed. It doesn't make the concept of trying "outdated".
i dont even understand what you're arguing anymore. this whole thing is a red herring because we were discussing religious protections under the first amendment and you turned it into "you people want to take guns away, so dont act like you care about the sanctity of the constitution."
i have since said a few times that i want no such thing. while i'm the one who brought up the "protect against tyranny" words, that's only because you inferred it by bringing up the second amendment in relation to being "crucial to a free society." now we're discussing the merits of the tyranny argument... this is a complete non-sequitur
Neat.
Keep twisting instead of quantifying your claim.
Hey dumbass - if we believe that 70% (conservative number) of Americans are Christians, and 28% of all Americans believe in inerrancy, simple fucking math tells us that's 40% of Christians who believe in inerrancy. That's less than half. That's hardly "most".
Now you were saying?
i dont even understand what you're arguing anymore. this whole thing is a red herring because we were discussing religious protections under the first amendment and you turned it into "you people want to take guns away, so dont act like you care about the sanctity of the constitution."
i have since said a few times that i want no such thing. while i'm the one who brought up the "protect against tyranny" words, that's only because you inferred it by bringing up the second amendment in relation to being "crucial to a free society." now we're discussing the merits of the tyranny argument... this is a complete non-sequitur
You made the comment about fear of losing separation, as if the 1st Amendment is sacred. Then you called the 2nd Amendment outdated. I just used the hypocrite horn you use in every other post. "HOOOOOONK"
spurraider21
07-10-2017, 03:48 PM
You made the comment about fear of losing separation, as if the 1st Amendment is sacred. Then you called the 2nd Amendment outdated. I just used the hypocrite horn you use in every other post. "HOOOOOONK"
for the 8th time, i never called the 2nd amendment outdated
spurraider21
07-10-2017, 03:49 PM
You're the only one here who said anything about tyranny, I guess just so you could flog the concept.
Do you think the 1st Amendment is outdated? Does it protect hate speech? If the 1st Amendment is sacred, why doesn't the federal or state governments get involved when liberals riot and burn shit to the ground because someone they oppose is giving a speech? Is their action also protected by the 1st Amendment?
Which amendments are not outdated? Just for the record.
i dont think any of the amendments in the bill of rights are outdated.
i think the concept of bearing arms to protect yourself from a tyrannical government is outdated. that is not the same as saying the 2nd amendment is outdated. people can still own guns without pretending its going to help them defeat the US military
if you want, i can repeat this a few more times so it can get through your thick skull
as for the speech stuff, i have posts on this site where i condemned the morons who try to shut down speech they dont agree with. that included the dipshits an berkley who shut down milo and ann coulter. stifling free speech is stifling free speech. it doesn't make a difference to me if the liberals are shutting down the speech or if conservatives are shutting down the speech.
the difference is, the students rioting isn't a state action. if the university took affirmative steps to cancelling the speeches to suppress viewpoints, that would be a state action and they'd eat lawsuits. students rioting, though, wrong, isn't a state action and isn't a violation of the 1st amendment. you may argue that the school should have a bigger enforcement unit and a stronger police presence to start rounding up the rioters, rather than shutting the event down because the venue has become unsafe.
You made the comment about fear of losing separation, as if the 1st Amendment is sacred. Then you called the 2nd Amendment outdated. I just used the hypocrite horn you use in every other post. "HOOOOOONK"
:lmao
:cry honk :cry
it can also be said that the purpose of the 2nd amendment being a defense against a tyrannical government is no longer even a possibility. sure when you give civilians muskets to combat against the government, who is also armed with muskets, i can see that working.
letting us have larger magazines isn't doing shit against a federal government with access to drones, tanks, missiles, and air force, etc. the only way the 2nd amendment can serve it's original purpose in today's world is to have a complete deregulation on arms. let civilians own tanks, fighter jets, bombers, and keep missile silos in their yards, and let them hold nuclear arms
:lmao
:cry honk :cry
:lol Philo
:cry but I didn't say it was out of date, just said it cannot be used for its original purpose...
I showed you that DC vs Heller debunked that "original purpose" fallacy. You keep pushing it forward though.
spurraider21
07-10-2017, 04:00 PM
:lol Philo
:cry but I didn't say it was out of date, just said it cannot be used for its original purpose...
I showed you that DC vs Heller debunked that "original purpose" fallacy. You keep pushing it forward though.
i went on to say agree with DC vs Heller that self defense is sufficient... we dont need to pretend our guns are going to beat down the US military to validate the 2nd amendment
the 2nd amendment for the purpose of pushing back against a tyrannical government, is absolutely outdated. but the 2nd amendment isn't limited to that.
saying one purpose is outdated is different than saying the entire amendment is outdated, which is why i made that clear in a bunch of posts
spurraider21
07-10-2017, 04:04 PM
i dont think the 2nd amendment is useless. i think the rationale that we need it to fight tyranny is outdated and flawed. i think self defense is sufficient. DC vs Heller agrees.
you're the one who brought up the 2nd amendment as being crucial to a free society, which implies the "defense from tyranny" justification, rather than the self defense argument, which i find much more compelling
you cant complain about red herrings when you've turned the first amendment/establishment clause discussion into a 2nd amendment discussion. this entire tangent is a red herring... courtesy of you
DC v Heller specifically decided that citizens have a right to possess firearms separate from any sort of militia service. so yes, they decided sufficiency. they decided that the second amendment protects a citizen's right to bear arms for purposes of self defense. therefore, self defense is a sufficient justification. people don't need to assert "we need a militia to fight tyranny" in order to have protections under the second amendment.
everything in the constitution is "sacred" because that is the one foundational document that all of our laws are derived from. that absolutely includes the first amendment. that's not exclusive to any of the amendments.
my entire point of the second amendment discussion (which again, is just a red herring you've brought up to deflect from our discussion), was that the right to bear arms isn't doing shit to protect us from tyranny. it might have during the 18th and 19th centuries... but in the world of modern weapons, it's simply an outdated concept. that doesn't make the 2nd amendment less valid. it just makes the argument that "we need our guns to stop tyranny" a stupid one. and in DC v Heller, the court agreed that we can justify the second amendment right to bear arms without invoking the militia purpose
i dont think any of the amendments in the bill of rights are outdated.
i think the concept of bearing arms to protect yourself from a tyrannical government is outdated. that is not the same as saying the 2nd amendment is outdated. people can still own guns without pretending its going to help them defeat the US military
if you want, i can repeat this a few more times so it can get through your thick skull
as for the speech stuff, i have posts on this site where i condemned the morons who try to shut down speech they dont agree with. that included the dipshits an berkley who shut down milo and ann coulter. stifling free speech is stifling free speech. it doesn't make a difference to me if the liberals are shutting down the speech or if conservatives are shutting down the speech.
the difference is, the students rioting isn't a state action. if the university took affirmative steps to cancelling the speeches to suppress viewpoints, that would be a state action and they'd eat lawsuits. students rioting, though, wrong, isn't a state action and isn't a violation of the 1st amendment. you may argue that the school should have a bigger enforcement unit and a stronger police presence to start rounding up the rioters, rather than shutting the event down because the venue has become unsafe.
The bill of rights specifically pertains to government action (most constitutional rights, actually, with the exception of the 13th amendment)
i'm not saying people don't have the right to defend themselves. what i'm saying is that the particular justification for arms (to protect from tyranny) is an outdated concept. as we saw in DC vs Heller, we don't have to pretend that forming a militia to fight the government is the reason people need arms. the 2nd amendment has been construed to extend beyond that purpose and applies to personal self defense.
spurraider21
07-10-2017, 04:04 PM
somehow DMC will translate all that into me saying the 2nd amendment is outdated
:corn:
i went on to say agree with DC vs Heller that self defense is sufficient... we dont need to pretend our guns are going to beat down the US military to validate the 2nd amendment
the 2nd amendment for the purpose of pushing back against a tyrannical government, is absolutely outdated. but the 2nd amendment isn't limited to that.
saying one purpose is outdated is different than saying the entire amendment is outdated, which is why i made that clear in a bunch of posts
What's the difference? If I use a Betamax for a doorstop does that mean the Betamax is not outdated?
Where in the 2nd Amendment does it state a purpose?
Blake
07-10-2017, 04:26 PM
Hey dumbass - if we believe that 70% (conservative number) of Americans are Christians, and 28% of all Americans believe in inerrancy, simple fucking math tells us that's 40% of Christians who believe in inerrancy. That's less than half. That's hardly "most".
Now you were saying?
I'm saying you said "theists", dumbass. Go back and look or not, I'm done going in circles.
Sure, there are many theists that dont believe in literal translation. There are "many" theists that do.
It's crystal clear what I'm referring to. If you're gonna keep blabbering about American Christians, I'm gonna just chalk you up to being a retard and stop wasting time reading your text walls.
spurraider21
07-10-2017, 04:26 PM
i dont even understand what you're arguing anymore. this whole thing is a red herring because we were discussing religious protections under the first amendment and you turned it into "you people want to take guns away, so dont act like you care about the sanctity of the constitution."
i have since said a few times that i want no such thing. while i'm the one who brought up the "protect against tyranny" words, that's only because you inferred it by bringing up the second amendment in relation to being "crucial to a free society." now we're discussing the merits of the tyranny argument... this is a complete non-sequitur
Blake
07-10-2017, 04:27 PM
Eh, I'll drop this about American Christians for you any way
Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin
Charles Darwin in a file image. More Americans believe in a literal hell and the devil than Darwin's theory of evolution, according to a new Harris poll released on Thursday.
REUTERS/FILE
****
By*Ed Stoddard*|*DALLAS
(Reuters Life!) - More Americans believe in a literal hell and the devil than Darwin's theory of evolution, according to a new Harris poll released on Thursday.
It is the latest survey to highlight America's deep level of religiosity, a cultural trait that sets it apart from much of the developed world.
It also helps explain many of its political battles which Europeans find bewildering, such as efforts to have "Intelligent Design" theory -- which holds life is too complex to have evolved by chance -- taught in schools alongside evolution.
The poll of 2,455 U.S. adults from Nov 7 to 13 found that 82 percent of those surveyed believed in God, a figure unchanged since the question was asked in 2005.
It further found that 79 percent believed in miracles, 75 percent in heaven, while 72 percent believed that Jesus is God or the Son of God. Belief in hell and the devil was expressed by 62 percent.
Darwin's theory of evolution met a far more skeptical audience which might surprise some outsiders as the United States is renowned for its excellence in scientific research.
Only 42 percent of those surveyed said they believed in Darwin's theory which largely informs how biology and related sciences are approached. While often referred to as evolution it is in fact the 19th century British intellectual's theory of "natural selection."
There are unsurprising differences among religious groups.
This is a problem, tbh.
People don't have a dog in the evolution race, however they do want to live forever and so belief in an afterlife is rewarding psychologically in the current life, but belief in a theory is only comforting for those who have actually done the research and are compelled to believe through overwhelming scientific evidence. + the term "theory" gets tossed around like "opinion" in errday life.
Blake
07-10-2017, 04:48 PM
People don't have a dog in the evolution race
No idea what you mean here.
People have dogs in what's taught in the science class room race.
Plenty of Christian Americans demand their intelligent design dog be put in the race. Plenty of politicians are helping to get that dog in the race.
That's true for most people regardless their position, even on things other than religion. Just look at the 2nd Amendment and how the liberals here want it done away with, but shit their pants when the 1st Amendment is threatened. The same founding fathers created the 2nd Amendment as well. If their reasoning is so crucial to a free secular society, then you cannot just surgically remove the parts of it you disagree with. If you do, you're right back where they started, and why they started.
i dont even understand what you're arguing anymore. this whole thing is a red herring because we were discussing religious protections under the first amendment and you turned it into "you people want to take guns away, so dont act like you care about the sanctity of the constitution."
i have since said a few times that i want no such thing. while i'm the one who brought up the "protect against tyranny" words, that's only because you inferred it by bringing up the second amendment in relation to being "crucial to a free society." now we're discussing the merits of the tyranny argument... this is a complete non-sequitur
:lol again... no I did not.
I said IF the founder's reasoning is so crucial to a free society (meaning their entire body of BoR reasoning), then you cannot just cherry pick which of their reasonings you find to be sacred by calling the 2nd Amendment outdated. Besides, the prior USC case (before Heller) was in the 30's and said that's the reason (militia). So are we so much less able now to defend ourselves against the tyranny of the government than we were in the 30's?
Chris
07-10-2017, 04:50 PM
HtcJ8XwpS_U
No idea what you mean here.
People have dogs in what's taught in the science class room race.
Plenty of Christian Americans demand their intelligent design dog be put in the race. Plenty of politicians are helping to get that dog in the race.
But that's a different question. You asked if they personally believed it, not whether or not they wanted their kids taught evolution. Try to stop moving goalposts long enough to see you lost already.
Plenty /= most.
Plenty is a word people use when they don't know the amount, or the ratio or percentages. They just say "plenty" as a confirmation biased answer.
spurraider21
07-10-2017, 05:20 PM
:lol again... no I did not.
I said IF the founder's reasoning is so crucial to a free society (meaning their entire body of BoR reasoning), then you cannot just cherry pick which of their reasonings you find to be sacred by calling the 2nd Amendment outdated. Besides, the prior USC case (before Heller) was in the 30's and said that's the reason (militia). So are we so much less able now to defend ourselves against the tyranny of the government than we were in the 30's?
If i was mistakenly assumed your intent, you could have just pointed that out about 20 posts ago instead of engaging in this conversation about constitutional intent, which is just a (now very extended) red herring from our original discussion of the establishment clause.
As established, I don't cherry pick. I don't think the 2nd amendment shouldn't be followed, as YOU tried to imply earlier. I've said this about a dozen times now.
Blake
07-10-2017, 05:21 PM
But that's a different question. You asked if they personally believed it, not whether or not they wanted their kids taught evolution. Try to stop moving goalposts long enough to see you lost already.
Plenty /= most.
Plenty is a word people use when they don't know the amount, or the ratio or percentages. They just say "plenty" as a confirmation biased answer.
Fuck man. Do you see a question mark in my post?
You posted a new claim, new tangent.
You're the one kicking through a new goal post. Not me.
I'm still waiting for you to quantify the amount of theists that don't believe in a literal translation. You said "many". Again, wtf does "many" mean to you?
I don't know what more to tell you. You're an idiot.
spurraider21
07-10-2017, 05:22 PM
https://i.makeagif.com/media/2-09-2016/UIkPKg.gif
Blake
07-10-2017, 05:24 PM
If i was mistakenly assumed your intent, you could have just pointed that out about 20 posts ago
Lol
Chris
07-10-2017, 05:26 PM
jinn
[jin]
Spell Syllables
Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun, plural jinns (especially collectively) jinn. Islamic Mythology.
1.
any of a class of spirits, lower than the angels, capable of appearing in human and animal forms and influencing humankind for either good or evil.
Not my cup of tea 21.
Blake
07-10-2017, 05:53 PM
I guess my phone is too old, can't see Chris' YouTube embeds.
I'm probably not missing anything.
Blake
07-10-2017, 05:54 PM
jinn
[jin]
Spell Syllables
Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun, plural jinns (especially collectively) jinn. Islamic Mythology.
1.
any of a class of spirits, lower than the angels, capable of appearing in human and animal forms and influencing humankind for either good or evil.
Not my cup of tea 21.
Lolwut
monosylab1k
07-10-2017, 05:56 PM
Ask yourself why 2,000 children go missing in the United States per day. Ask yourself why as far back as our history goes (Sumerians) that they all worshiped a snake god. Sacrificing people and children for material gain or favor of the Gods has been prevalent for centuries...Is it really so silly to think that isn't happening now?
"But the dragon was not strong enough, and no longer was any place found in heaven for him and his angels. And the great dragon was hurled down — the ancient serpent called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him." Revelation 12:9
I'm glad you brought up Constantine. He was responsible for merging Christianity with Paganism to appease the overall masses. His version of Saturnalia is actually what we celebrate as Christmas today. Christmas broken down is Christ Mass, so when we say Merry Christmas we're actually saying Merry Death of Christ. The Bible warns us of celebrating holidays ("You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that my efforts for you may have been in vain" Galatians 4:11). Nowhere in the Bible does it say we are to celebrate the life or death of Jesus Christ. A lot of Christians are being deceived. In fact, most of the holidays (Holy Days) we celebrate now coincide with Pagan solstices.
http://i63.tinypic.com/30szvx1.jpg
I highly recommend youtubing Stephen Dollins.
The guy posting shit like this is calling other people "jeebotard" :lmao
Chris
07-10-2017, 06:00 PM
Lolwut
He posted some gif with that I Dream of Jeannie (Djinni) Try to keep up Blake.
Chris
07-10-2017, 06:00 PM
The guy posting shit like this is calling other people "jeebotard" :lmao
Got your gander didn't I :lol Much triggerage :lol
Blake
07-10-2017, 06:02 PM
He posted some gif with that I Dream of Jeannie (Djinni) Try to keep up Blake.
Rofl "I dream of Djinni"
Fuck man. Do you see a question mark in my post?
You posted a new claim, new tangent.
You're the one kicking through a new goal post. Not me.
I'm still waiting for you to quantify the amount of theists that don't believe in a literal translation. You said "many". Again, wtf does "many" mean to you?
I don't know what more to tell you. You're an idiot.
"new Harris poll"
You just keep puking up shit and have no idea what it is. When I try to explain what you're showing, you scratch your head and look like deer in headlights.
The poll didn't ask how people want their children taught.
I told you already idiot, less than 40% of Christians. The rest don't even believe in the divinity of Jesus, much less the entire Bible.
monosylab1k
07-10-2017, 06:29 PM
Got your gander didn't I :lol Much triggerage :lol
Is that the proper attitude to display, Chris?
"Talk no more so very proudly, let not arrogance come from your mouth"
-1 Samuel 2:3
If i was mistakenly assumed your intent, you could have just pointed that out about 20 posts ago instead of engaging in this conversation about constitutional intent, which is just a (now very extended) red herring from our original discussion of the establishment clause.
As established, I don't cherry pick. I don't think the 2nd amendment shouldn't be followed, as YOU tried to imply earlier. I've said this about a dozen times now.
:lol I didn't say the 2nd Amendment was critical for a free society. I said you presented the 1st Amendment like it was. Good lord, fucking lawyers.
You use words like "sufficient". DC vs Heller didn't decide sufficiency. They interpreted the 2nd Amendment. It wasn't a case about allowing someone to have a gun.
I brought up the 2nd Amendment because you were acting like the 1st Amendment is sacred, and the founding fathers peerless. That is the norm when talking about the 1st Amendment, but as soon as you move to the next one, then the founding fathers were short sighted, the BoR is antiquated, so forth and so on.
I'm just using the same hypocrite whistle you use daily, Philo. Don't put words in my mouth to help you get to your point.
:lol
Chris
07-10-2017, 06:37 PM
Is that the proper attitude to display, Chris?
Talk no more so very proudly, let not arrogance come from your mouth
-1 Samuel 2:3
Genesis 21:6
“God has given me cause to laugh, and all who hear of it will laugh with me."
spurraider21
07-10-2017, 06:44 PM
Genesis 21:6
“God has given me cause to laugh, and all who hear of it will laugh with me."
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
Chris
07-10-2017, 06:56 PM
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
Things were fucked up back in the Old Testament days my friend. I like Deuteronomy though...
Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. Deuteronomy 6:5
Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft Deuteronomy 18:10
A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. Deuteronomy 22:5
spurraider21
07-10-2017, 09:16 PM
man, good thing we had the bible to tell us that sacrificing children by burning them alive was bad.
Blake
07-10-2017, 09:32 PM
"new Harris poll"
You just keep puking up shit and have no idea what it is. When I try to explain what you're showing, you scratch your head and look like deer in headlights.
The poll didn't ask how people want their children taught.
I told you already idiot, less than 40% of Christians. The rest don't even believe in the divinity of Jesus, much less the entire Bible.
Quick search through that post, didn't see any quantifying of what "many theists" means.
But hey, post another wall of text about me and my posting history. That'll show me.
Blake
07-10-2017, 09:33 PM
Things were fucked up back in the Old Testament days my friend. I like Deuteronomy though...
Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. Deuteronomy 6:5
Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft Deuteronomy 18:10
A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. Deuteronomy 22:5
Example of how God kept changing his mind on humans
man, good thing we had the bible to tell us that sacrificing children by burning them alive was bad.
But ruined a lot of my weekends.
Quick search through that post, didn't see any quantifying of what "many theists" means.
But hey, post another wall of text about me and my posting history. That'll show me.
Consider "many" to be the same as the "plenty" you used.
They're your fucking threads, idiot.. :lol
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
You have to admit though, that's harsher than being in a prison. At least you can get out of prison.
spurraider21
07-10-2017, 09:56 PM
You have to admit though, that's harsher than being in a prison. At least you can get out of prison.
:lol
Blake
07-11-2017, 09:00 AM
Consider "many" to be the same as the "plenty" you used.
They're your fucking threads, idiot.. :lol
Thanks because my thesaurus was broken.
Do you need help defining "quantify"? my dictionary is still working
Thanks because my thesaurus was broken.
Do you need help defining "quantify"? my dictionary is still working
When you quantify "plenty" I will oblige. 40% seems like a quantity. So figure out how many people live in the US, then figure out how many are Christians, then apply the 40% to get the quantity.
You really don't have anything here, just bloviating about shit you don't like, to a group of people who are well aware of it already.
Blake
07-11-2017, 12:18 PM
When you quantify "plenty" I will oblige. 40% seems like a quantity. So figure out how many people live in the US, then figure out how many are Christians, then apply the 40% to get the quantity.
You really don't have anything here, just bloviating about shit you don't like, to a group of people who are well aware of it already.
The original claim of "many" was yours, not mine. It's on you to quantify because "many" and "plenty" are obscure throwaway words that can work on either side of the coin.
I figured you were talking out of your ass when you said it.
20 plus red herring, goal post moving, ad hominem posts later, I think it's safe to say it's locked in as bull shit
The original claim of "many" was yours, not mine. It's on you to quantify because "many" and "plenty" are obscure throwaway words that can work on either side of the coin.
I figured you were talking out of your ass when you said it.
20 plus red herring, goal post moving, ad hominem posts later, I think it's safe to say it's locked in as bull shit
You're like the hetero version of chumpdumper.
Blake
07-11-2017, 01:56 PM
You're like the hetero version of chumpdumper.
Another ad hominem. Neat.
Run away dmc.
Lol phony intellectuals
Another ad hominem. Neat.
Run away dmc.
Lol phony intellectuals
:lol can't even run your mouth without needing to edit yourself.
Blake
07-11-2017, 04:47 PM
that's what you've been reduced to lol at? An edit?
Lol.
spurraider21
07-20-2017, 02:06 PM
Blake (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=3460), the Catholic Church has been perverting Christianity for 2000 years. Please don't lump all Christians together under that banner. Thread title should be: "The way Catholics terrorize". I don't lump all Muslims together as Shi'ite; you would be wise to do the same.
do you lump all catholics together?
Chris
07-20-2017, 02:35 PM
do you lump all catholics together?
It's a perversion of Christianity. I have met Catholics that are good people, but it doesn't change the fact they are being deceived.
spurraider21
07-20-2017, 02:43 PM
It's a perversion of Christianity. I have met Catholics that are good people, but it doesn't change the fact they are being deceived.
that's a different subject, though. if we want to talk about the truth or falsity of religious beliefs i'm sure there are plenty of old threads we can revive :lol
by your estimation, what % of the catholics you know are "good people" and how many of them are evil ie child abusers, killers, etc
Chris
07-20-2017, 02:45 PM
that's a different subject, though. if we want to talk about the truth or falsity of religious beliefs i'm sure there are plenty of old threads we can revive :lol
by your estimation, what % of the catholics you know are "good people" and how many of them are evil ie child abusers, killers, etc
Sure let me pull a graph out of my ass.
clambake
07-20-2017, 02:47 PM
Sure let me pull a graph out of my ass.
where else would it be?
spurraider21
07-20-2017, 02:49 PM
Sure let me pull a graph out of my ass.
would be par for the course with you. i did just ask for an estimation, though. that shouldn't be too hard to come up with
Chris
07-20-2017, 02:56 PM
would be par for the course with you. i did just ask for an estimation, though. that shouldn't be too hard to come up with
99% good 1% pedo 100% deception saavy?
spurraider21
07-20-2017, 03:00 PM
99% good 1% pedo 100% deception saavy?
perfect :tu
Blake
07-20-2017, 03:04 PM
I have met Catholics that are good people, but it doesn't change the fact they are being deceived.
Oh you mean like protestants
Blake
12-28-2019, 11:08 PM
I'm glad you brought up Constantine. He was responsible for merging Christianity with Paganism to appease the overall masses. His version of Saturnalia is actually what we celebrate as Christmas today. Christmas broken down is Christ Mass, so when we say Merry Christmas we're actually saying Merry Death of Christ. The Bible warns us of celebrating holidays ("You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that my efforts for you may have been in vain" Galatians 4:11). Nowhere in the Bible does it say we are to celebrate the life or death of Jesus Christ. A lot of Christians are being deceived. In fact, most of the holidays (Holy Days) we celebrate now coincide with Pagan solstices.
http://i63.tinypic.com/30szvx1.jpg
I highly recommend youtubing Stephen Dollins.
Was looking at some of my older threads for other thread and came across this gem.
Chris doesn't believe in celebrating Christmas
Blake
12-28-2019, 11:14 PM
Child abuse always leads to SRA (Satanic Ritual Abuse) In short they like to tramautize a child early on with sex and animal mutilation which leads to dissociation or MPD. Higher up in the food chain you have to sacrifice children...they get high on their blood especially if the child is in terror which creates adrenaline. It has been going on for thousands of years. Check out this recent interview with a banker elite
e9mMdUGcRRw
:lol
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.