Terrorism

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan: I’m going to create a rule here for you and I. From here on out, any mention of appeasement CANNOT reference Chamberlain and Hitler (because, frankly, its overdone here) and MUST use Ethelred the Unready and his bribe of the Vikings using Danegeld.

Also, any “end times” mention CANNOT use the Mayan Prophecy of 2012 and MUST use St. Malachy’s visions instead.

Of everyone that posts consistently here, I truly believe you are the most qualified to run with this.

Cheers, ya Fenian bastard![/quote]

Okay
1:
I am not entirely convinced that giving away Czech was actually a sacrifice (in an actual strategic way). In more of a Redeker plan sort of way it makes a certain sort of sense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redeker_Plan#Plot_summary).

2: I really like to think of myself as one of the long-lost illegitimate Celtic heirs to Ethelred.
Also, “Unready” is a misreading of “unraed” which is closer to “bad plan” or “poor counsel” than it is to “not ready”.

Also, I like to roll naked in Danish bribe gold.
By “roll naked” I mean “drink” and by “gold” I mean “Monavie mixed with Vodka”.[/quote]

Dan: You do NOT disappoint! Although, that last paragraph is mildly alarming.

Thanks for the clarification on “Unready”, by the way. I had always been told that it was “Unready” and by Irish priests! What’s up with that?

Are you familiar with St. Malachy and his visions, specifically his end of the world prophecy? If not, do some reading on this guy. Its fascinating stuff. The Mother Church’s official position is that the purported writings are 16th century forgeries, but I’m not so sure.

[NotCranky]

Come back and don’t be shy, Surveyor.There’s nothing wrong with losing parts of a debate.

[NotCranky]

Come back and don’t be shy, Surveyor.There’s nothing wrong with losing parts of a debate.

[NotCranky]

Come back and don’t be shy, Surveyor.There’s nothing wrong with losing parts of a debate.

[NotCranky]

Come back and don’t be shy, Surveyor.There’s nothing wrong with losing parts of a debate.

[NotCranky]

Come back and don’t be shy, Surveyor.There’s nothing wrong with losing parts of a debate.

[briansd1]

Here is an interesting study by an academic on the Bible vs. the Koran.

“Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible,” Jenkins says.

Jenkins is a professor at Penn State University and author of two books dealing with the issue: the recently published Jesus Wars, and Dark Passages , which has not been published but is already drawing controversy.

Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is largely a defense against attack.

“By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane,” he says. “Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide.”

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788&ps=cprs

[briansd1]

Here is an interesting study by an academic on the Bible vs. the Koran.

“Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible,” Jenkins says.

Jenkins is a professor at Penn State University and author of two books dealing with the issue: the recently published Jesus Wars, and Dark Passages , which has not been published but is already drawing controversy.

Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is largely a defense against attack.

“By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane,” he says. “Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide.”

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788&ps=cprs

[briansd1]

Here is an interesting study by an academic on the Bible vs. the Koran.

“Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible,” Jenkins says.

Jenkins is a professor at Penn State University and author of two books dealing with the issue: the recently published Jesus Wars, and Dark Passages , which has not been published but is already drawing controversy.

Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is largely a defense against attack.

“By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane,” he says. “Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide.”

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788&ps=cprs

[briansd1]

Here is an interesting study by an academic on the Bible vs. the Koran.

“Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible,” Jenkins says.

Jenkins is a professor at Penn State University and author of two books dealing with the issue: the recently published Jesus Wars, and Dark Passages , which has not been published but is already drawing controversy.

Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is largely a defense against attack.

“By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane,” he says. “Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide.”

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788&ps=cprs

[briansd1]

Here is an interesting study by an academic on the Bible vs. the Koran.

“Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible,” Jenkins says.

Jenkins is a professor at Penn State University and author of two books dealing with the issue: the recently published Jesus Wars, and Dark Passages , which has not been published but is already drawing controversy.

Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is largely a defense against attack.

“By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane,” he says. “Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide.”

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788&ps=cprs

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]
I define modern christianity as beginning with the council of nicea. Constantine claimed the reason for his victory was because of the christian god. Then he convened the council to doctrinize it. This, IMO, was an attempt to keep the roman empire together which the western portion was beginning to collapse. I see that making it a state recognized religion as a political move over the population with it’s dogmatic aspects. The people were clinging to the jesus story because of the resistance meme and constantine went for it and made it official. In a sense corrupting the religion with the state for political purposes.

My interpretation of pre-nicea christianity was jewish mysticism with the messiah adopting the pagan mangod(jesus aka Osiris, Attis, Bacchus, Dionysus, and Mithra) because of the mythology attached to it. Kind of a synthesis of several religions going on. But I don’t think there was a historical man jesus.[/quote]

That’s very interesting, Arraya. I learned something new today. 🙂

The First Council of Nicaea is commonly regarded to have been the first Ecumenical council of the Christian Church. Most significantly, it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Creed of Nicaea. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general (ecumenical) councils of Bishops (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]
I define modern christianity as beginning with the council of nicea. Constantine claimed the reason for his victory was because of the christian god. Then he convened the council to doctrinize it. This, IMO, was an attempt to keep the roman empire together which the western portion was beginning to collapse. I see that making it a state recognized religion as a political move over the population with it’s dogmatic aspects. The people were clinging to the jesus story because of the resistance meme and constantine went for it and made it official. In a sense corrupting the religion with the state for political purposes.

My interpretation of pre-nicea christianity was jewish mysticism with the messiah adopting the pagan mangod(jesus aka Osiris, Attis, Bacchus, Dionysus, and Mithra) because of the mythology attached to it. Kind of a synthesis of several religions going on. But I don’t think there was a historical man jesus.[/quote]

That’s very interesting, Arraya. I learned something new today. 🙂

The First Council of Nicaea is commonly regarded to have been the first Ecumenical council of the Christian Church. Most significantly, it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Creed of Nicaea. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general (ecumenical) councils of Bishops (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]
I define modern christianity as beginning with the council of nicea. Constantine claimed the reason for his victory was because of the christian god. Then he convened the council to doctrinize it. This, IMO, was an attempt to keep the roman empire together which the western portion was beginning to collapse. I see that making it a state recognized religion as a political move over the population with it’s dogmatic aspects. The people were clinging to the jesus story because of the resistance meme and constantine went for it and made it official. In a sense corrupting the religion with the state for political purposes.

My interpretation of pre-nicea christianity was jewish mysticism with the messiah adopting the pagan mangod(jesus aka Osiris, Attis, Bacchus, Dionysus, and Mithra) because of the mythology attached to it. Kind of a synthesis of several religions going on. But I don’t think there was a historical man jesus.[/quote]

That’s very interesting, Arraya. I learned something new today. 🙂

The First Council of Nicaea is commonly regarded to have been the first Ecumenical council of the Christian Church. Most significantly, it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Creed of Nicaea. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general (ecumenical) councils of Bishops (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]
I define modern christianity as beginning with the council of nicea. Constantine claimed the reason for his victory was because of the christian god. Then he convened the council to doctrinize it. This, IMO, was an attempt to keep the roman empire together which the western portion was beginning to collapse. I see that making it a state recognized religion as a political move over the population with it’s dogmatic aspects. The people were clinging to the jesus story because of the resistance meme and constantine went for it and made it official. In a sense corrupting the religion with the state for political purposes.

My interpretation of pre-nicea christianity was jewish mysticism with the messiah adopting the pagan mangod(jesus aka Osiris, Attis, Bacchus, Dionysus, and Mithra) because of the mythology attached to it. Kind of a synthesis of several religions going on. But I don’t think there was a historical man jesus.[/quote]

That’s very interesting, Arraya. I learned something new today. 🙂

The First Council of Nicaea is commonly regarded to have been the first Ecumenical council of the Christian Church. Most significantly, it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Creed of Nicaea. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general (ecumenical) councils of Bishops (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

[Author]

Posts