Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,730|5005|eXtreme to the maX
But catholicism bears no real relation to the original form of christianity does it? Or the actual book?

The jews have at least been consistent with their teachings and raping and murdering for the last four thousand years.
#FreeBritney
uziq
Member
+393|2351
how does catholicism bear no relation to the 'actual book'? who formalised and systematized the bible, you fucking idiot? 'the bible' barely existed before 500 AD; the councils of nicaea and rome basically set-up 'western' christianity.

amazing that you discuss 'consistency for 4,000 years' without realizing that, er, even the biblical canon and teachings of christ haven't been received as a 'consistent' thing for 2,000 years alone. whoosh! over your head.

can you show me where, in actual history, on the historical record, jews have been raping and murdering? i don't mean the ancient old testament history of the tribes of israel and their victories over their foes. those myths normally concern tiny bronze-age groupings of several hundreds or thousands of people.

where's the pope urban, theorizing holy wars and encouraging christians to slaughter and pillage?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Urban_II

where's the jewish pope boniface?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Boniface_VIII

Battles between troops of Boniface and his adversaries and the deliberate destruction and salting of the town of Palestrina, despite the pope's assurances that the surrendering city would be spared.
where's the jewish cortes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hernán_Cortés

where's the jewish cromwell, using the holy wars of the bible to justify exterminating catholics?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSrL9ZD47vlxqVgqstyZXi5YWhUcrpVQlEWoETlXEOKp6lVOLZXHeWnPxCZHm6G9K4o-Q&usqp=CAU

Last edited by uziq (2021-04-07 07:18:09)

uziq
Member
+393|2351
dilbert: nationalist zionism, a project conceived in the 19th century, represents the eternal truth of judaism.

also dilbert: b-b-b-b-but those 13 centuries of catholicism and power hungry, worldly church involvement isn't the 'real' christianity !!!

Last edited by uziq (2021-04-07 22:37:21)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,730|5005|eXtreme to the maX
There was the original zionism under Moses no? Using divine right as a justification for invading a region and slaughtering or expelling the inhabitants.

Then there was the second zionism, using divine right and the precedent of the first Zionism as justification for invading a region and slaughtering or expelling the inhabitants a second time.

Catholics are a weird and nasty bunch who don't follow the teachings of christ at all.
If you're going to use those arguments then we can easily say the worldwide jewry are equally guilty of the crimes committed by the bloodthirsty and brutal zionists whose teachings they share.
#FreeBritney
uziq
Member
+393|2351
Using divine right as a justification for invading a region and slaughtering or expelling the inhabitants.
LMAO well done at just literally quoting the fucking principle of sovereignity that underpinned a millenium of european bloodshed and conquest.

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/en … t_of_Kings

catholics are a weird and nasty bunch - yes, and protestants have never massacred or invaded anywhere, have they, with religious justification?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Drogheda
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwelli … of_Ireland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protectorate
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,730|5005|eXtreme to the maX
Yes and Hitler was a vegetarian, QED.

People do evil things, evil isn't in the actual teachings of christianity though.
#FreeBritney
uziq
Member
+393|2351
arguing with you about history is honestly like entering into dialogue with a brick.

the rulers of europe literally invoked christianity, using the SAME parts of the old testament as you accuse jews of using. they did so FIRST with the support of popes and latterly using their own (protestant) brand of christianity. we had a theocratic puritan authoritarian state in the 17th century that committed ethnic cleansing and religious war in ireland.

hitler being a vegetarian is not germane to the argument. again, europe was a consciously christian civilisation engaged in religious war for centuries. i can quote you any number of medieval kings, emperors, popes or knights who talked about putting others to the sword in the name of king/country/christendom/christ. 

all that and you maintain ‘jews look after their own tribe, christians look after everyone'.

you are honestly just dumb as fuck. your foul, racist, misbegotten notions would be forgivable in an opinionated and callow teenager. you’re a man approaching 50, saying these things in all seriousness and in support of some of the most odious views possible. go and better yourself.

Last edited by uziq (2021-04-08 06:51:35)

uziq
Member
+393|2351
also:

actual teachings of christianity though.
WHAT actual teachings? we have already established that you haven't thought for a fucking hot minute about the bible, the christian canon, and the formation of christian 'thought'. you think 'catholics aren't christians' despite the fact the catholic church did most of the work of codifying just what we consider 'christian teachings'.

the only and most direct forms of jesus's teachings that we have are the gospels. in the gospels, jesus is clearly a trouble-maker and an instigator of rebellion (and violence) just as often as he is a pacifist teaching people to 'turn the other cheek'. he is by turns magnanimous and modest. the jesus of the gospels is a complex figure – a man, which is kind of the whole point.

are you forgetting that jesus beat up the merchants in the temple? quite strange when you consider he wasn't a man of any authority or evident moral superiority to his time. he was basically a crazy preacher, one among many, who decided to go and whip a bunch of traders.

let's look at some other stuff from the gospels:

“But these enemies of mine who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here, and slay them in my presence” (Luke 19:27).

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law – a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:34-38).

what about all that stuff jesus said about swords? at the last supper: 'sell your cloak and buy a sword'?

what about that stuff he said about being a lion? the lion of judah who will return at revelation? that is, the giant global conflagration and war that will happen at the end of times? have you read any of revelations? it's not exactly peaceful stuff.

you have this schoolchild's conception of the bible: 'old testament bad, jewish and violent: new testament the better sequel'. it's nothing like so neat and uncomplicated.

Last edited by uziq (2021-04-08 07:06:01)

DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+758|5583|United States of America
My morning was a bit ruined by seeing an article from a local newspaper about "controversy" at a local high school that took down some BLM/LGBT pride posters/flags from classrooms after complaints from parents. I'm not sure how many were actually ever present; I'm doubtful it was a "a gay, black flag in every room", but apparently there was a similar to-do in the '90s about the the same sort of thing and them putting up symbols of acceptance for their students.

The comments on this local news item were precisely what you'd expect by people who comment on Facebook for their newspaper. A bunch of busybodies whinging about how we need to get the Bible back into school and that gay/black students shouldn't have "special rights". It felt very much to me that they're still fighting the last war. Don't they know Republicans have moved on to persecuting trans people by now?
RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,708|5636|Oxferd Ohire
There are too many flags. Please eliminate 3


Adding brown ruined the lgbt flag

Last edited by RTHKI (2021-04-14 08:39:34)

https://i.imgur.com/tMvdWFG.png
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+450|2618
Oh jeez I had no idea this was made. It's actually comical if you think about it. The brown/black thrusting into the flag.
https://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2018/06/lgbt-pride-flag-redesign-hero-852x480.jpg
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,888|5670|USA

That doesn't look good.

Red, white, and blue is kind of pretty to look at. Imagine how ugly the US flag would be from a color design standpoint if we just mashed together all 50 state flags.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+450|2618
It looks too much like the flags of Puerto Rico and Cuba and I of course have some strong feelings about that >:[
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/cuba/images/flags.gif
But more serious vexillology...while the pink, blue, and white looks pretty, the flag is much more iconic by being a simple rainbow. I mean how are you going to make LGBT accessories with the long pointed black penetration into it?
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81lyuEUAeyL._SL1500_.jpg

Also
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,888|5670|USA

There's like a billion of those flags out there. I'm pretty sure people will keep flying specifics at pride parades.
uziq
Member
+393|2351
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v43/n05 … short-cuts

this little short cuts article is a neat précis of so many of the issues surrounding immigration at the moment. 'tough' right-wing governments who care more about optics in the tabloids than human rights; private companies being contracted to run detention centres; people being placed in a grey area with no legal rights and being held against their will through a semantic loophole.

...the securitisation of the Channel crossing has led since 1999 to the deaths of nearly three hundred people, including 39 children: victims have drowned, been asphyxiated in or crushed by lorries, or electrocuted in the Channel Tunnel. In response to the growing numbers risking the sea crossing (around eight thousand last year), Patel appointed a Clandestine Channel Threat Commander, deployed RAF patrols and naval drones, and considered using netting and barrages to stop the boats, as well as the possibility of offshoring asylum seekers on Ascension Island. (Apart from loony-right vigilantes, public attitudes towards asylum seekers seem to have softened, helped perhaps by the association of small boats with courage and Dunkirk.)
priti patel sounds like the nastiest piece of work in the entire government.

Since the summer, lawyers acting for asylum seekers have repeatedly been accused by Patel and Johnson of ‘defending the indefensible’, of being ‘lefties’ and ‘do-gooders’. After a knife attack on a member of staff at one immigration law firm in September, the Law Society urged Patel to watch her language, but she was unmoved. At the Conservative Party Conference she promised legislation this year to transform the ‘fundamentally broken’ asylum system. It won’t mean treating new arrivals better, but further restricting access to the asylum process and making deportation easier. This, it seems, is the ‘compassionate culture’ she promised after the Windrush review.
meanwhile:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ … iterranean

what a complete and enduring clusterfuck.

Last edited by uziq (2021-04-16 22:20:15)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,730|5005|eXtreme to the maX
So whats your solution? Allow free immigration from all corners of the world?
#FreeBritney
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,888|5670|USA

Why does the choice have to be unrestricted immigration vs. not putting people into questionable detention centers, dilbert? That's a strange argument.

On the US side of things I would like there to be reasonable rules and waits for immigration, and for the people who break the rules to not all be separated and dumped into communal dungeons with newspaper bedding.

"Might as well just let EVERYONE in then!"

Pff.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,730|5005|eXtreme to the maX
If there's no deterrent to illegal migration it will become a flood, look at your southern border.
#FreeBritney
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,888|5670|USA

Illegal immigration is still a problem in spite of ice and detention centers treating people like livestock, or in some aspects worse. Behaving more egregiously evil is probably not going to be helpful. You think they're not doing enough? Machine gunning everyone at the border is not a very forward-thinking strategy.

So what's your solution?
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,888|5670|USA

It's like having a conversation with some of my obnoxiously conservative contacts. Why is stuff like throwing 12 year olds into cages with no amenities so inseparable from deporting wanted murderers and thugs to their country of origin? I suggest we maybe find an alternative to the former and then it's all like OvErrRuN By KiLlErS, tHeRe HaS tO bE CoNsEqUeNcEs.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,730|5005|eXtreme to the maX
Of course people should be treated humanely, I've never said otherwise.

The only option is to stop them at the border and send them back.

America moving its cheap manufacturing from Mexico to China has been a disaster, a useful buffer has turned into a warzone.
#FreeBritney
uziq
Member
+393|2351

Dilbert_X wrote:

So whats your solution? Allow free immigration from all corners of the world?
people crossing the med in dinghies, fleeing war-torn nations, are hardly ‘unlimited immigration’. did you even read the biographical sketches of some of the detainees in that article? people whose entire families had been murdered, people who had been tortured ... get a grip dilbert.

dilbert: the iraq war was the greatest debacle of evil blair and a huge disgrace.
dilbert: the west and the jews intentionally cauldronized the region. it’s their evil plan all along.
also dilbert: iraqi refugees? pah, what is this, UNLIMITED IMMIGRATION?!?

Last edited by uziq (2021-04-17 19:31:10)

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,888|5670|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

Of course people should be treated humanely, I've never said otherwise.

The only option is to stop them at the border and send them back.

America moving its cheap manufacturing from Mexico to China has been a disaster, a useful buffer has turned into a warzone.
I don't know if you've read much about the history of Mexico as a country, but it wasn't the most idyllic.

I do want things to become better in Mexico, Central America, etc. for the people living there. Meanwhile, I'll welcome with open arms people who want to relocate to my country to live peaceably here. Some of my ancestors didn't exactly leave a jolly life in Europe behind. It wouldn't be very becoming for me to act all insular.

The Trump insurrection smeared poop without even the excuse of being a bunch of cooped up, overstressed children. Maybe mentally, though.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,730|5005|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

So whats your solution? Allow free immigration from all corners of the world?
people crossing the med in dinghies, fleeing war-torn nations, are hardly ‘unlimited immigration’. did you even read the biographical sketches of some of the detainees in that article? people whose entire families had been murdered, people who had been tortured ... get a grip dilbert.

dilbert: the iraq war was the greatest debacle of evil blair and a huge disgrace.
dilbert: the west and the jews intentionally cauldronized the region. it’s their evil plan all along.
also dilbert: iraqi refugees? pah, what is this, UNLIMITED IMMIGRATION?!?
Seems like its a fairly mixed bag of people just seeking a better life

https://www.statista.com/statistics/293 … tionality/

Did we start a war with Iran? Albania? Pakistan? India?

These places are fuck-holes obviously, but mostly because of the people in them, what proportion of their populations would you like to take?
#FreeBritney
uziq
Member
+393|2351
applying for asylum is incredibly difficult. you make it seem like they just come here, get given a free house, and are away. it is INCREDIBLY difficult to be granted asylum - the home office are only making it increasingly so. furthermore, LOOK at the numbers. 4 thousand? 3.5 thousand? are you fucking kidding me? 'unlimited immigration' fears from 3000 iranians a year? a rich nation can afford to grant safe haven to these people. especially when they're from destabilised regions like libya or iraq, for which we bear direct responsibility.

the funny thing is the european states now want libya to manage the med crossings. libya, a war-torn country that has descended into chaos because we thought it would be a good idea to airstrike gaddafi and hand the country over to the militants.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2021 Jeff Minard