- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 23343
Originally posted by FreakyKBHactually you're the first... you big bully you 😵
[b]to the list must be added the fact that your post said nothing that hasn't been said...
Well, I kinda assumed that other people had already pointed out how far trev's head had been inserted into your exit hole, but I really thought I'd put a new twist on the delivery of the sentiment.
Guess not. My bad.[/b]
Originally posted by Blackampthis is more about a kind of speech which, i suggest, is never to be found in the mouths of Jesus and his apostles.
"If I only spoke words found in the Bible, I couldn't function in the world. Such a posture isn't what is intended in the Christian life".
of course you shouldn't be considered to be constrained to literally only speaking words that appear in the bible. this is more about a kind of speech which, i suggest, is never to be found in the mouths of Je ...[text shortened]... of occasions, and said openly (as i mentioned earlier) that he enjoys it.
Oh, I get it. You wish your Christians to be human punching bags for you to pummel, push and punish to the nth degree, just to see if they pass 'your' test of true Christianity. Since you appear to know so much of what the Lord Jesus Christ was all about, on what basis do you reject said lifestyle?
what's your authority for this? is this accepted doctrine of some respectable denomination?
I couldn't tell you: I don't belong to any denomination, let alone a respected one.
but doesn't Christianity require you to 'turn the other cheek', rather than retaliate? i think real Christian standards of behaviour are incredibly difficult to live up to, so difficult in fact that very very few actually manage to. so don't feel bad that you're not one of the very few.
Right idea, wrong application. Here, you weren't attacking anyone's faith; you were questioning the chastity of a 91 year-old woman.
in fact, if you read over GB's posting history, you'll see it is brimming with nasty jabs at people. so please, stop bringing this mythical picture of the poor old duffer soaking it up like a saint, cos it just ain't true. he gets pasted because he is an antisocial prat who has deliberately and knowingly antagonised the forum on a number of occasions, and said openly (as i mentioned earlier) that he enjoys it.
Okay, I'll admit: you got me here. I must confess, that (unlike you) I've not read GB's entire posting history. Dispossessed of the obsession you lovingly harbor for all things GB, I have only been privy to a smattering of his work. What I have read, however, is marked by objectivity and a light touch... unlike what I have seen of your postings, which are marked with hatred and disdain. Just doing the math in my "tiny" brained head, given that I've only had the pleasure of seeing but a few of your posts as compared to the many posts of his, well, let's just say the ratio isn't in your favor.
Originally posted by duecerHere's part of your problem. You assert that our tax structure is justified, in that "the majority of [our] tax dollar goes towards the public good." For one who has obviously spent some time and thought into their world view, I would expect you to examine more closely the reality of the situation.
actually I'm a pro-choice radical progressive socialist. I didn't force my morals on you, I am merely pointing out the tragic flaws inherent in your argument. You were the one who brought up morals.
Do I give my money away? yes and no. I certainly need to support my family, but my wife and I do give a substantial portion of our income, and of our time supp ...[text shortened]... re protection,police, military, highways and roads...bridges, public schools. Money well spent
How do you think we support the myriad programs we have put into motion? Where do we get the cash that allows Congress to live the lavish lifestyles they live? Is the IRS really necessary? How much of your income tax goes toward fire protection? How much toward police? Roadways?
Do the math: it doesn't add up... other than us being screwed on a daily basis, the pot slowly, imperceptibly hotter. We are slaves.
Originally posted by PhlabibitOuch.
My understanding is Martha Coakley tried a smear campaign against Scott Brown without ever showing what she's bringing to the table. At least that's what I hear on my Right Wing Wingnut sports radio station weei.
I'm listening now since the 10am-2pm Eastern guys actually talk sports... but come 2pm another wad of BABY SAVING CRIMINAL KILLING GUN LOVIN ...[text shortened]... dominate the airwaves and I'll be searching youtube for abba and Carlie Simon tunes.
P-
Originally posted by monster truckA.
I haven't had health ins. for nearly 20 years.
I pay cash. No credit cards.😉 Why would someone borrow money for 'wants' and then choose to pay a ridiculous fee?
The reaming that most folks are receiving is the one they've begged for.
Save. Downsize. Save. Live within your means. Save. Invest in yourself, your family and your community. Sa ...[text shortened]... our best. Be your best.
If you put your hand out, make sure you're giving and not taking.
True.
American.
Thank you, good sir.
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOh, I get it. You wish your Christians to be human punching bags for you to pummel, push and punish to the nth degree, just to see if they pass 'your' test of true Christianity.
[b]this is more about a kind of speech which, i suggest, is never to be found in the mouths of Jesus and his apostles.
Oh, I get it. You wish your Christians to be human punching bags for you to pummel, push and punish to the nth degree, just to see if they pass 'your' test of true Christianity. Since you appear to know so much of what the Lord Jesu he many posts of his, well, let's just say the ratio isn't in your favor.[/b]
it's not a question of what i wish; it's a question of whether, as professed Christians, you actually measure up to the lofty ideals you claim to aspire to. i suggest that you do not. in fact Jesus Christ did allow himself to be pummeled, pushed, and punished to the nth degree, culminating in his crucifixion. or did you miss that bit?
Since you appear to know so much of what the Lord Jesus Christ was all about, on what basis do you reject said lifestyle?
on the basis of the extravagant metaphysics. i don't believe Jesus Christ was the son of God, and i don't believe in a God that rewards and punishes in an afterlife. since Jesus pitches his ethics on the basis of the existence of such a God, and since i don't believe hi was anything but a human being, i don't recognise his authority to tell others how to live.
I couldn't tell you: I don't belong to any denomination, let alone a respected one.
so, were you just making that stuff up then, or was it something you think you vaguely remember having heard somewhere?
Right idea, wrong application. Here, you weren't attacking anyone's faith; you were questioning the chastity of a 91 year-old woman.
please point out where exactly in the bible it lays down the rules for when to turn the other cheek, and when to engage in a bit of trash talk. i'm getting the impression that you really don't know much about this Christianity thing.
Okay, I'll admit: you got me here. I must confess, that (unlike you) I've not read GB's entire posting history.
well, do your homework and get back to me. along the way, you will discover that i am far from being the only GB critic in this forum. someone made a list a little while back, with about twenty names on it from memory. as i said, there's a reason he attracts flak.
Originally posted by Blackampin fact Jesus Christ did allow himself to be pummeled, pushed, and punished to the nth degree, culminating in his crucifixion. or did you miss that bit?
Oh, I get it. You wish your Christians to be human punching bags for you to pummel, push and punish to the nth degree, just to see if they pass 'your' test of true Christianity.
it's not a question of what i wish; it's a question of whether, as professed Christians, you actually measure up to the lofty ideals you claim to aspire to. i suggest that y ...[text shortened]... one made a list a little while back, with about twenty names on it from memory.[/b]
You must have missed the part about how he allowed Himself to be put upon in such a manner. And for what cause, exactly? Because He was taking one for the team to avenge His mother's honor, or was there something else afoot, perhaps?
on the basis of the extravagant metaphysics.
I can only intone that your calculations are awry.
i don't recognise his authority to tell others how to live.
Paradoxically, you find yourself in a position to do just that.
so, were you just making that stuff up then, or was it something you think you vaguely remember having heard somewhere?
Just your basic human dynamics.
please point out where exactly in the bible it lays down the rules for when to turn the other cheek, and when to engage in a bit of trash talk. i'm getting the impression that you really don't know much about this Christianity thing.
Nah. You do your own research, I'll do mine.
someone made a list a little while back, with about twenty names on it from memory.
Vox dei, vox populi...
Originally posted by FreakyKBHok, so we've established
[b]in fact Jesus Christ did allow himself to be pummeled, pushed, and punished to the nth degree, culminating in his crucifixion. or did you miss that bit?
You must have missed the part about how he allowed Himself to be put upon in such a manner. And for what cause, exactly? Because He was taking one for the team to avenge His mother' ...[text shortened]... e while back, with about twenty names on it from memory.[/b]
Vox dei, vox populi...[/b]
1. that you don't know jack about the faith you claim to adhere to - it's not all 'hallelujah, brother!' and not making baby Jesus cry, you know; and
2. that you don't live up to the standards of your professed faith.
my work here is done.
😏
Originally posted by BlackampThat about sums it up.
ok, so we've established
1. that you don't know jack about the faith you claim to adhere to - it's not all 'hallelujah, brother!' and not making baby Jesus cry, you know; and
2. that you don't live up to the standards of your professed faith.
my work here is done.
😏
Good work.
Originally posted by BlackampIf it helps you sleep at night, I guess I shouldn't interrupt your slumber.
ok, so we've established
1. that you don't know jack about the faith you claim to adhere to - it's not all 'hallelujah, brother!' and not making baby Jesus cry, you know; and
2. that you don't live up to the standards of your professed faith.
my work here is done.
😏
That being said, you would benefit from a better understanding of the world and its contents than simply assuming the knowledge you gleaned from Wiki is the final word. Your one-dimensional perspective of Christianity is woefully off-target.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH14% of the total money spent by the US gov is on military, 17% on health, 16% on health, 15% on pensions (people earned those) the remainder is spent on roads and highways, entitlements, agriculture, infastructure, homeland security, FDA, oversight and accounting, and others. There is very little that doesn't go to the public good. There is very little that you yourself do not benefit from directly or indirectly. Take health (medicaire etc...) If your parents become very ill and can't afford care, social security pays a huge portion of that, allowing them to keep their home, which they will one day (in theory) will to you. Even though you did not recieve care, you reaped the financial benefit of that care.
Here's part of your problem. You assert that our tax structure is justified, in that "the majority of [our] tax dollar goes towards the public good." For one who has obviously spent some time and thought into their world view, I would expect you to examine more closely the reality of the situation.
How do you think we support the myriad programs we ha ...[text shortened]... han us being screwed on a daily basis, the pot slowly, imperceptibly hotter. We are slaves.
Where do we get the cash that allows Congress to live the lavish lifestyles they live? Is the IRS really necessary? are you in the habit of counting other peoples money? Most people who run for congress already have money, very few congressmen are middleclass, but they do exist. You can research for yourself the stories about congressman renting DC homes with 7 or 8 other congressmen because they can't afford to live on their own.
Your problem, and forgive me for being direct, is that you are woefully ignorant on what government does and how our country operates. I don't mean this as an insult, but the truth is that most Americans have no idea how things work. They scream about lowering taxes and less government intrusion, yet fail to understand the fundementals of economics and its relation to taxation.
My advice: stop listening to Rush Limpballs and that kook Pat Robertson, and go down to the public library and check out a book on macroeconomics, then one on microeconomics.
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyPelosi sums it up best.
Interested in any 20/20 rear view mirror perspectives on this historic election.
She ignores the implications of the vote in Mass and declares that actually, there are now 59 Dems instead of the 58 they had last year. True but stunning!
Notice the smile disappear and complete change in body language at 1:15 as she comes to the realization that with this latest power shift, her glorious March To Reform has been exposed and refuted by the voters of Mass, and that more Dem defeats are in store for those who try to cram centralized gov down our throats. In the end she stumbles out repeating and clinging to the vague phrase 'we will go forward'. Apparently she didn't get the message on Tues.
That's not what the people want.The Dem party is in chaos from the White House down. Thank GOD the President decided to use the Earthquake Machine to provide a distraction in Haiti.
Now, to be fair and balanced😉, here is the take from the other side of the aisle.&NR=1
No worries though. With the bankruptcy of CalifornIA and other states looming on the horizon we're just getting warmed up.
Heads are gonna roll!
Originally posted by duecerWhile there are certainly elements of economics that are fascinating, I think the area that needs to be researched is history, and that the student should be you.
14% of the total money spent by the US gov is on military, 17% on health, 16% on health, 15% on pensions (people [b]earned those) the remainder is spent on roads and highways, entitlements, agriculture, infastructure, homeland security, FDA, oversight and accounting, and others. There is very little that doesn't go to the public good. There is very little ...[text shortened]... wn to the public library and check out a book on macroeconomics, then one on microeconomics.[/b]
The very formation of this country's government was in response to the encroaching enslavement of the many by the decree of the few. Although the taxation occurring then is nothing compared to what we face today, the fight for independence was undertaken by those who recognized that the violation of freedom was an affront to nature of man, who was created in God's image.
Artificial drag on my earning power keeps me working for the government more than four months out of every year. I am ashamed at my cowardice for not acting as our forefathers did and I admittedly justify my inertia to maintain the safety of my household. Clearly, we deserve the slavery we bring upon our own heads.
It should go without saying, but I listen to neither Limbaugh or Robertson. Neither of them offer anything beyond entertainment for their like-minded following of dolts.
Originally posted by BlackampAre you telling us you live up to your faith Paster Duecer?
ok, so we've established
1. that you don't know jack about the faith you claim to adhere to - it's not all 'hallelujah, brother!' and not making baby Jesus cry, you know; and
2. that you don't live up to the standards of your professed faith.
my work here is done.
😏
I think it is a fair question, being your questioning his living up to his faith.