Board 8 > Conservative politics topic 2: The sacred TRUTH Trumps all lies

(+) Yeah! (+)

The funniest thing about that is that the student's twitter literally says he was going to LA for vacation at that time, and his own Youtube channel has a self-made video of him and his friend talking about how they were going to be interviewed by that local news channel over whatever that incident was.

But clearly, this actor did all this in August of 2017 to make this shooting more believa-... wait
---

Now I see people sharing his yearbook picture which they claim is NOT FROM THAT HIGH SCHOOL

As someone else on the page is wearing a Stoneman Douglas shirt in their pic <_<
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Well, for one, you tried to tell Moogle that he couldn't believe "Jesus is God" if he wasn't following oneness pentecostalism.

never happened. i wasn't attacking moogle as i don't think he's even a christian (is he?). i just said that the only subset of christians who believe "jesus is god" are the ones who adhere to oneness pentecostalism. obviously this is in comparison with other subsets - i'm not saying there isn't anyone in the world who believes "jesus is god" but doesn't adhere to oneness pentecostalism.

That's an unfair way to argue, because instead of presenting any evidence or context as to why their interpretation is wrong, you're simply using their lack of tangible facts to discredit them for apparently no real reason, when the whole thing is based on belief to begin with.

i don't get this at all. you're right in that i say there's a lack of tangible facts, then you agree with me (saying "the whole thing is based on belief to begin with"), but then you also say it's an unfair way to argue???

it's like if i say i don't like john because he hates black people, and then you say "well obviously, he's in the KKK and everyone in the KKK hates black people. that's an unfair way to attack john." how on earth does this make logical sense? (and no, i'm not saying christians are klansmen.)

it's almost like you think that pointing out how little we can trust the bible as a source is "cheating" or something, and that i should only be allowed to criticize the bible by pointing out flaws in the text itself. i get this line of thinking when we're talking about, say, wikipedia - i always hate it when people go "LOL WIKIPEDIA" when trying to discredit an argument, when the vast majority of information on the site is actually demonstrably correct. but... the bible isn't wikipedia. i think it's perfectly valid for me to put tons of question marks besides pretty much every verse in the bible. i don't see what's "unfair" about it at all.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

it's almost like you think that pointing out how little we can trust the bible as a source is "cheating" or something, and that i should only be allowed to criticize the bible by pointing out flaws in the text itself. i get this line of thinking when we're talking about, say wikipedia - i always hate it when people go "LOL WIKIPEDIA" when trying to discredit an argument, when the vast majority of information on the site is actually demonstrably correct. but... the bible isn't wikipedia. i think it's perfectly valid for me to put tons of question marks besides pretty much every verse in the bible. i don't see what's "unfair" about it at all.

I'm saying why do you feel the desire to always have to attack it to begin with. Typically, people aren't actually arguing with you and going "Yes, you must believe this because X." They're going "Well, I believe X because" or "They believe Y because" and then you feel the need to go on this whole "NO FACTS" tirade which makes it look like you've got this agenda

You feel the need to somehow prove why people can't or shouldn't believe it
---

StealThisSheen posted...

I'm saying why do you feel the desire to always have to attack it to begin with. Typically, people aren't actually arguing with you and going "Yes, you must believe this because X." They're going "Well, I believe X because" or "They believe Y because" and then you feel the need to go on this whole "NO FACTS" tirade which makes it look like you've got this agenda

i feel like i'm right about this, so why wouldn't i attack them?

why do you feel the desire to always have to attack vlado when he posts bullshit? vlado usually isn't arguing with you either.
---

Well, I usually don't attack Vlado anymore, but that's different because Vlado is typically arguing things as fact with the intent to get responses in the first place.

You attack people just trying to explain the mindset of a belief for no reason, and that's why it's unfair

"Why do you believe this?"
"Well, because..."
"NO FACTS HAHAHA"

You basically egg them into it so you can get your little tirade in

Hence why I say you have an agenda
---

you're presenting it as if i'm holding a gun to their head or something. they're free to not respond to me when i attack them.
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

Vlado posted...

Shows how much you've read the Bible. You read someone cherry picking something from the Bible on the internet, and you think you know everything. Typical for liberals.

38 You have heard that it was said, Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.

is there some extra context outside the verse itself that contradicts this

is the next verse "and then Jesus said 'lol jk slap 'em back real hard'"

*rolls eyes*

http://biblehub.com/matthew/10-34.htm
http://biblehub.com/luke/12-51.htm

And that is why you need to read the entire Bible to even have a chance of getting an understanding.

Edit: Oh, Lasa already covered it. Thanks! :)

Furthermore, Christ whipping the merchants and driving them out shows that the "extreme pacifist" image enemies of Christianity and misguided Christians try to pin on him is clearly false.

Extreme pacifism is nothing but self-destruction because other people will not abide to it, and will trample you.

I interpret "turn the other cheek" simply as "there are other ways to prevail than brute force" and "when you're overwhelmed by strength, fighting back is rarely the best option."
---

Whats the religious history of Bulgaria? How did Christianity get there? Through globalism?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Whats the religious history of Bulgaria? How did Christianity get there? Through globalism?

Rulers adopted Christianity over 1000 years before USA was founded... The general populace adopted it over 900 years before USA was founded.

CNN had originally asked me to write a speech and questions and it ended up being all scripted, Haab, a 17-year-old student at Stoneman Douglas High School, told local news station WPLG-TV. I expected to be able to ask my questions and give my opinion on my questions.

Colton wrote questions about school safety, suggested using veterans as armed school security guards but claims CNN wanted him to ask a scripted question instead, so he decided not to go, the WLPG-TV reporter said.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/22/cnn-town-hall-planted-question-gun-control/

Liberals aren't using this tragedy for their own political purposes... No siree!
---

Vlado posted...

MoogleKupo141 posted...

Vlado posted...

Shows how much you've read the Bible. You read someone cherry picking something from the Bible on the internet, and you think you know everything. Typical for liberals.

38 You have heard that it was said, Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.

is there some extra context outside the verse itself that contradicts this

is the next verse "and then Jesus said 'lol jk slap 'em back real hard'"

*rolls eyes*

http://biblehub.com/matthew/10-34.htm
http://biblehub.com/luke/12-51.htm

And that is why you need to read the entire Bible to even have a chance of getting an understanding.

Edit: Oh, Lasa already covered it. Thanks! :)

Furthermore, Christ whipping the merchants and driving them out shows that the "extreme pacifist" image enemies of Christianity and misguided Christians try to pin on him is clearly false.

Extreme pacifism is nothing but self-destruction because other people will not abide to it, and will trample you.

I interpret cheek" simply as "there are other ways to prevail than brute force" and "when you're overwhelmed by strength, fighting back is rarely the best option."

turn he other cheek is pretty explicitly saying "retaliation is bad", that isn't contradicted by Jesus's sword line. I think your interpretation is wrong and Jesus would be bummed out by your position.
---

Vlado posted...

Rulers adopted Christianity over 1000 years before USA was founded... The general populace adopted it over 900 years before USA was founded.

I presume the intervening 100 years consisted of Bulgarians railing against the vile globalist religion being forced upon them and protesting the deep state for destroying their native religious practices.
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Vlado posted...

Rulers adopted Christianity over 1000 years before USA was founded... The general populace adopted it over 900 years before USA was founded.

I presume the intervening 100 years consisted of Bulgarians railing against the vile globalist religion being forced upon them and protesting the deep state for destroying their native religious practices.

As a self-proclaimed expert on Bulgaria who has never been to bulgaria, I can confirm this.
---

https://twitter.com/Education4Libs?lang=en

If you have a twitter account some things here may be entertaining for some
---

Hey vladdykins what do you think about trump blaming shootings on videogames just like hillary did 15-20 years ago? Was hillary right or is trump wrong?
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

turn he other cheek is pretty explicitly saying "retaliation is bad", that isn't contradicted by Jesus's sword line. I think your interpretation is wrong and Jesus would be bummed out by your position.

Well, you're wrong.

Not_an_Owl posted...

Vlado posted...

Rulers adopted Christianity over 1000 years before USA was founded... The general populace adopted it over 900 years before USA was founded.

I presume the intervening 100 years consisted of Bulgarians railing against the vile globalist religion being forced upon them and protesting the deep state for destroying their native religious practices.

No, it just took a while for the rulers to decide to Christen the ordinary folk, too.

NowItsAngeTime posted...

https://twitter.com/Education4Libs?lang=en

If you have a twitter account some things here may be entertaining for some

Whats the difference between a feminist and a porcupine? Porcupines have valid points.

Gold! Thanks! :D

Meanwhile, Trump trash talks video games and movies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwX_IlIxv1s
---

Are you against his line of thinking?
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Hey vladdykins what do you think about trump blaming shootings on videogames just like hillary did 15-20 years ago? Was hillary right or is trump wrong?

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Are you against his line of thinking?

He's wrong in general. Of course, there are exceptions, there are obviously certain games and movies which are not suitable for children. But they aren't that many. The biggest problem with games and movies is that they are usually TRASH, that they waste your time and do not intellectually advance you (sometimes, they even bombard you with anti-human propaganda). Hard to fight something like that with regulations, though... Exploiting human weakness will always exist.

His idea about separate age-rating systems (not just designations) for violence, sex, etc. is worth thinking about.

Meanwhile, it's a good period for flowcharts:

---

Well, you're wrong.

no, you are.
---

Vlado posted...

No, it just took a while for the rulers to decide to Christen the ordinary folk, too.

What's the difference between Christianizing your medieval kingdom and feeding your 21st century populace globalist propaganda?
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

Well, you're wrong.

no, you are.

You're wrong because:
1. You haven't read the whole Bible, or even just the whole New Testament.
2. Your interpretation is based on taking a quote out of context.
3. You skipped commenting on Christ whipping the merchants because that further shows you're wrong.
---

Vlado posted...

The biggest problem with games and movies is that they are TRASH, that they waste your time and do not intellectually advance you

You have a blog in your signature where you write about video games.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Vlado posted...

The biggest problem with games and movies is that they are TRASH, that they waste your time and do not intellectually advance you

You have a blog in your signature where you write about video games.

I've missed a word there, fixed. They are usually trash.
---

Vlado posted...

MoogleKupo141 posted...

Well, you're wrong.

no, you are.

You're wrong because:
1. You haven't read the whole Bible, or even just the whole New Testament.
2. Your interpretation is based on taking a quote out of context.
3. You skipped commenting on Christ whipping the merchants because that further shows you're wrong.

1. Irrelevant, I don't need to read everything to understand individual parts

2. No one has provided me any context that actually contradicts my interpretation

3. That doesn't prove me wrong. Jesus's actions there serve a purpose other than retaliation. He's cleansing a holy place.
My whole point is that Jesus would not support your claim that meddling back is morally right when someone meddles with you because that's just petty revenge. That's the "eye for an eye" thought process he's specifically calling out there.
---

also as far, as I can tell from a little searching, your interpretation does not seem to be widely accepted. I'm in agreement with most people who have actually read the whole bible.
---

Vlado posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

Vlado posted...

The biggest problem with games and movies is that they are TRASH, that they waste your time and do not intellectually advance you

You have a blog in your signature where you write about video games.

I've missed a word there, fixed. They are usually trash.

While spending your free time on a message board dedicated to video game character contests.
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

3. That doesn't prove me wrong. Jesus's actions there serve a purpose other than retaliation. He's cleansing a holy place.

so your interpretation is that jesus said "whipping the shit out of a bunch of poor salespeople in a temple who haven't done anything to you is totally fine, but for god's sake, never defend yourself from someone who is attacking you"?

sorry dude, but this interpretation isn't making much sense.
---

also also it looks like Jesus "whipped" the merchants in the way you whip a horse or whatever to get it to move, not as some sort of violent punishment like a slavemaster. It was just to get them out of the temple, not to actually hurt them.
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

also as far, as I can tell from a little searching, your interpretation does not seem to be widely accepted. I'm in agreement with most people who have actually read the whole bible.

you're aware of how many people on earth have read the whole bible, right? pretty sure you can't adequately gauge what all of them think by doing "a little searching" >_>
---

when was the last time anybody described a porcupine's spines as being "valid"
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

MoogleKupo141 posted...

3. That doesn't prove me wrong. Jesus's actions there serve a purpose other than retaliation. He's cleansing a holy place.

so your interpretation is that jesus said "whipping the shit out of a bunch of poor salespeople in a temple who haven't done anything to you is totally fine, but for god's sake, never defend yourself from someone who is attacking you"?

sorry dude, but this interpretation isn't making much sense.

The commonly accepted interpretation is not that he is "whipping the shit out of them".

And they have theoretically done something against God, which is reasonably different than doing something against me, a simple human.
And not just done something, but are actively doing it such that Jesus's action is stopping them. If these guys left the temple on their own, then Jesus showed up at their house a week later and assaulted them you'd have a point.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

MoogleKupo141 posted...

also as far, as I can tell from a little searching, your interpretation does not seem to be widely accepted. I'm in agreement with most people who have actually read the whole bible.

you're aware of how many people on earth have read the whole bible, right? pretty sure you can't adequately gauge what all of them think by doing "a little searching" >_>

I gauged the consensus of the smart ones who get put on the internet, which I assume is representative of the overall population because I assume most individual Christians go along with the interpretation provided by their priests or whatever.
---

This is the first time I've ever heard someone describe driving the moneychangers from the temple as "whipping the shit out of them".
---

i mean, it's another instance of it not being clear at all in the bible. it just says that jesus drives them out using a whip. seems to me like it's entirely possible that a moneychanger refuses to leave and then leaves after jesus whips him, though it doesn't explicitly say so.
---

Lasa: "*Most extreme interpretation possible*"
Others: "I think you're in the minority on that."
Lasa: "How do you know? Do you know how many people there are?"

lol
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Lasa: "*Most extreme interpretation possible*"
Others: "I think you're in the minority on that."
Lasa: "How do you know? Do you know how many people there are?"

lol

wow, impressive how many things you get wrong in such a short post.

1) for the millionth time, i'm not giving "my interpretation" of anything in the bible. i'm just offering possible interpretations.
2) moogle didn't say "you're in the minority on that," he said "most people who have read the bible agree with my interpretation" (which he was able to conclude after doing just "a little searching"). given that there are a gazillion people who have read the bible and about as many interpretations, i sincerely doubt that he's actually done enough research to come to this conclusion.
---

uhh a gazillion people haven't read he bible, that isn't even a real number
---

Typically when you're arguing something that isn't really up to dozens of possible interpretations, and they say "Most agree with me," they're also saying you're in the minority

Pretty nitpicky
---

My interpretation is that Jesus is actually a Belmont.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Typically when you're arguing something that isn't really up to dozens of possible interpretations, and they say "Most agree with me," they're also saying you're in the minority

Pretty nitpicky

1) rereading the topic, moogle DID say the "you're in the minority thing"... but he said it in response to vlado, not me. again, nice misrepresentation.
2) i argued moogle's "most people agree with me" point when i said the "how do you know?" thing, but you made it look as if i argued his "vlado's interpretation is in the minority" point to make me look dumb.
---

Don't worry, you don't need my help on that. I'll let you do you
---

fuck off.
---

It doesn't matter what the majority is. Obviously, seeing as the current pope is a heretic even to Catholicism (which in itself is heresy to Orthodox Christianity), people can be led astray by other people. Doesn't change the Word of God
---

I don't know what that pope stuff is about but you're still definitely wrong
---

didn't think to point this out but yeah, why the hell does it matter how the majority interprets the bible in the first place? that's the most obvious "bandwagon" logical fallacy ever. back in the day "the majority" thought galileo was wrong, too. explain why your interpretation is correct without appealing to the majority.
---

Vlado posted...

It doesn't matter what the majority is. Obviously, seeing as the current pope is a heretic even to Catholicism (which in itself is heresy to Orthodox Christianity), people can be led astray by other people. Doesn't change the Word of God

What's heretical about him?
---

He disagrees with vlado
---

I always envisioned that money changer scene as Jesus getting mad and flipping a lot of tables. Like every goddamn table in that temple was flipped.
---

ClyTheCool posted...

I always envisioned that money changer scene as Jesus getting mad and flipping a lot of tables. Like every goddamn table in that temple was flipped.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNIL1owRAI
---