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

(+) Yeah! (+)

TheRock1525 posted...

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?

http://francisquotes.com/
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

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?

---

You'll have to rephrase your question so that it starts making sense.
---

I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God, there is God and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my teacher and my pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my Being.

Such HERESY
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God, there is God and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my teacher and my pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my Being.

Such HERESY

Jesus is my teacher and my pastor, but God, the Father

Cut out the heretical part for you. He implies that the Father and Christ are separate entities, when in fact there are not three Gods, but one.

Also, good to see you scrolled quite a bit to reach something that you thought might not be heresy. Of course, you thought wrong... But we should not expect much understanding of Christianity from atheists.
---

Vlado posted...

You'll have to rephrase your question so that it starts making sense.

he's asking why spreading Christianity isn't just the medieval version of globalism. Foreigners showed up and fundamentally changed Bulgaria's beautiful ancient culture.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

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 said I was wrong because I haven't read the full bible.
the "majority" I'm referencing are the majority of Christian scholars who have dedicated far more time to this than myself or Vlado ever will and have definitely read the whole bible.
If they agree with me, then not reading the whole bible must not be the reason Vlado and I are coming to different interpretations.
---

Vlado posted...

Also, good to see you scrolled quite a bit to reach something that you thought might not be heresy.

It was in the second box
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

Vlado posted...

You'll have to rephrase your question so that it starts making sense.

he's asking why spreading Christianity isn't just the medieval version of globalism. Foreigners showed up and fundamentally changed Bulgaria's beautiful ancient culture.

Wrong. The Bulgarian ruler who Christened the people, Boris, was every bit as Bulgarian as his people.

Instead of guessing, why not read a bit?

Jakyl25 posted...

Vlado posted...

Also, good to see you scrolled quite a bit to reach something that you thought might not be heresy.

It was in the second box

Good to see you agree with the rest of what I said. :)
---

Wrong. The Bulgarian ruler who Christened the people, Boris, was every bit as Bulgarian as his people.

Even worse! A native Bulgarian betrayed you by poisoning your culture from the inside with foreign influence!

That's pretty much what right wing conspiracy theorists accused Obama of doing with Islam.
---

Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 554. Could a person who denies only one article of our faith be a Catholic?
A. A person who denies even one article of our faith could not be a Catholic; for truth is one and we must accept it whole and entire or not at all.

Pretty sure every catholic is a heretic because I guarantee there's at least one thing in the bible we "deny."
---

Does anyone still practice the religion of pre-Christian Bulgaria?
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

Wrong. The Bulgarian ruler who Christened the people, Boris, was every bit as Bulgarian as his people.

Even worse! A native Bulgarian betrayed you by poisoning your culture from the inside with foreign influence!

That's pretty much what right wing conspiracy theorists accused Obama of doing with Islam.

But what about
thinly veiled racism
---

Vlado posted...

Wrong. The Bulgarian ruler who Christened the people, Boris, was every bit as Bulgarian as his people.

Who Christianized Boris?
---

Vlado posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God, there is God and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my teacher and my pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my Being.

Such HERESY

Jesus is my teacher and my pastor, but God, the Father

Cut out the heretical part for you. He implies that the Father and Christ are separate entities, when in fact there are not three Gods, but one.

I realize the trinity is a difficult concept for most people to wrap their heads around, but he literally said Jesus Christ is God's incarnation in the previous sentence that you removed...
---

Yes, I know it's hard to grasp the pope of all people couldn't understand the concept of the Holy Trinity.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 554. Could a person who denies only one article of our faith be a Catholic?
A. A person who denies even one article of our faith could not be a Catholic; for truth is one and we must accept it whole and entire or not at all.

Pretty sure every catholic is a heretic because I guarantee there's at least one thing in the bible we "deny."

That's your problem. Pretty chilling that someone like you - an obvious atheist judging by what you constantly post in these topics - would call themselves a Christian.

Not_an_Owl posted...

Vlado posted...

Wrong. The Bulgarian ruler who Christened the people, Boris, was every bit as Bulgarian as his people.

Who Christianized Boris?

He chose to do it himself because he foresaw that Christianity would make Bulgaria stronger.
---

I find it more offensive that someone like YOU would claim to be a Christian given how flagrantly you deny Christs teachings.
---

Vlado, you should educate everyone itt about how jesus was definitely more nationalist than globalist in nature.
---

Vlado posted...

Yes, I know it's hard to grasp the pope of all people couldn't understand the concept of the Holy Trinity.

It's not the Pope having trouble
---

Vlado cant do that. Hes a fake Christian. Doesnt actually know or believe Christs teachings, but pretends to so he can claim moral superiority.
---

Vlado posted...

That's your problem. Pretty chilling that someone like you - an obvious atheist judging by what you constantly post in these topics - would call themselves a Christian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
---

Decided to glance through here out of curiosity.

Hahaha.
---

It's time to end internet censorship.
https://www.amren.com/help-fight-internet-censorship/
---

lol good luck with that
---

All in due time. :)
---

http://www.businessinsider.com/parkland-shooting-survivors-family-shops-doctored-cnn-emails-to-media-2018-2

Kid who said he wasn't allowed to ask his question on CNN uses edited emails as "proof."
---

Vlado posted...

He chose to do it himself because he foresaw that Christianity would make Bulgaria stronger.

For a variety of diplomatic reasons, Boris became interested in converting to Christianity. In order to both extend his control over the Slavic world and gain an ally against one of the most powerful foes of the Bulgars, the Byzantine Empire, Boris sought to establish an alliance with Louis the German against Ratislav of Moravia.[30] Through this alliance, Louis promised to supply Boris with missionaries, which would have effectively brought the Bulgars under the Roman Church.[31] However, late in 863, the Byzantine Empire under Emperor Michael III declared war on Boris and the Bulgars during a period of famine and natural disasters. Taken by surprise, Boris was forced to make peace with the Byzantines, promising to convert to Christianity according to the eastern rites, in exchange for peace and territorial concessions in Thrace (he regained the region of Zagora recently recovered by the Byzantines).[32] At the beginning of 864, Boris was secretly baptized at Pliska by an embassy of Byzantine clergymen, together with his family and select members of the Bulgarian nobility.[33] With Emperor Michael III as his godfather, Boris also adopted the Christian name Michael.[28]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_I_of_Bulgaria

Sounds more to me like he was forced into conversion by those vile globalist Franks and Byzantines.
---

---

Now show us the stats on how many were raised by straight people vs. gay people
---

Vlado posted...

So you blaming the gays for this?
---

Kenri posted...

Now show us the stats on how many were raised by straight people vs. gay people

That's already in the tweet.
---

No, its not
---

Also I SURE HOPE theres a source
---

Vlado posted...

Kenri posted...

Now show us the stats on how many were raised by straight people vs. gay people

That's already in the tweet.

Me, a person who believes in biological determinism: if your parents get divorced it means they're gay
---

Vlado posted...

Thanks for shitting on adopted people. Much appreciated.
---

I wasnt raised by my biological father either. Parents divorced when I was 5.

Im a THREAT
---

And the best thing is that since divorce is such a huge part of American culture, Vlado cant encroach on it
---

I am not surprised.

Meanwhile, the dem memo is pretty weak damage control that fails to refute the main problems outlined in the original memo:
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/ig/ig00/20180205/106838/hmtg-115-ig00-20180205-sd002.pdf

Trump is expectedly having a field day with it on twitter.
---

We have Kelly on the record saying that that's too many pages for him to read, and we have multiple historical instances of you reading propagandist spark notes instead of the actual documents presented. So tell me, why should we think that either you or he has actually read it?
---

Believe what you want. :) And why is my opinion so important in the first place? Read it yourself.
---

Vlado posted...

Athend why is my opinion so important in the first place?

*points and jeers at you*
---

Vlado posted...

Believe what you want. :) And why is my opinion so important in the first place? Read it yourself.

I mean, anyone who read it actually saw how it refuted pretty much everything Nunes said.

Also, why aren't you pushing for more transparency instead of a heavily redacted memo? If it's so damaging to Dems, why didn't Trump allow it to come out uncensored? Aren't you against censorship?
---

What exactly did it refute? Let's hear it. And I'll tell you why it didn't actually refute it.

TheRock1525 posted...

Also, why aren't you pushing for more transparency instead of a heavily redacted memo? If it's so damaging to Dems, why didn't Trump allow it to come out uncensored? Aren't you against censorship?

I'd love to see the unredacted memo. The more information, the better.
---

Vlado posted...

What exactly did it refute? Let's hear it. And I'll tell you why it didn't actually refute it.

For starters the Rep memo claimed that the Steele dossier was (A) presented as essentially the only evidence in favor of surveillance and (B) was presented without comment as to it's potential bias.

And the Dem memo handily refuted both of those claims with an excerpt which showed that (A) there was other evidence presented to support surveillance and (B) it very specifically included comment that said who had funded Steele's research and what kind of bias that would likely entail.

So there's those two right off the top of my head.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

And the Dem memo handily refuted both of those claims with an excerpt which showed that (A) there was other evidence presented to support surveillance and

The Grassley memo states that "the bulk of the application consists of allegations against Page that were disclosed to the FBI by Mr. Steele and are also outlined in the Steele dossier." The initial memo also said more or less the same thing. It never claimed it was the ONLY source. It did claim it was the MAJOR source supporting the FISA warrant request, which it was.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

(B) it very specifically included comment that said who had funded Steele's research and what kind of bias that would likely entail.

Wrong. As stated in the initial memo, NONE of the FISA requests "disclose or reference the role of DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele's efforts." Instead, the FISA application relies on a convoluted statement buried in a footnote. This is clearly an attempt to avoid informing the Court, in a straightforward manner, that the DNC and Clinton campaign paid for the dossier. Moreover, the footnote "speculates" on the "likely" motivation of "US Person" (the Fusion GPS guy) while claiming that "Source #1" (Steele) was unaware of the motivation behind the research.

Which both the initial and Grassley's memos expose as false - Steele was motivated by a desperate desire to stop Trump from becoming President.
---

Play Cuphead
---

Another top kek from DNC:

The document, provided by the law offices of the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs in the case, Jared and Elizabeth Beck, and appears to argue that if the Democratic Party did cheat Sanders in the 2016 Presidential primary race, then that action was protected under the first amendment. Twitter users were quick to respond to the brief, expressing outrage and disgust at the claims made by representatives of the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-25/lawyers-dnc-argue-primary-rigging-protected-first-amendment
---

Have to shift focus since an unedited memo came out, huh? I guess youd know all about that, Mister the MSM made up this whole Russia scandal to distract from Clinton having Seth Rich assassinated, even though the timeline doesnt fit that narrative, and the original Seth Rich source came out and called it a lie.

Also, why so focused on Steele just wanted Trump to lose!, Vlado? All evidence points to the dossier being true, regardless of origin or reason for its existence, and I seem to recall during the election, you were all aboard the content is what matters, not where it came from train when it came to the DNCs hacked emails.
---

I suggest you calm down and try to formulate a coherent statement.

When I ask the prime minister of Singapore do they have a drug problem [the prime minister replies,] 'No. Death penalty'."

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-26/trump-us-should-execute-major-drug-dealers
---