Bechamann Signs Christian Sharia

Status
Not open for further replies.
jillio said:
You would find a way to argue around it if it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he died of syphillis.
Click to expand...
Do you have even a teensy weensy bit of proof? Anything?

You don't believe it...fine. I happen to think it is more than possible based on my knowledge of history and slaveowners. Oh, well.
Click to expand...
Does your knowledge of history and slave owners say that all slave owners died of syphilis? Does your knowledge of history prove the Washington had symptoms of syphilis?
 
Reba said:
Do you have even a teensy weensy bit of proof? Anything?


Does your knowledge of history and slave owners say that all slave owners died of syphilis? Does your knowledge of history prove the Washington had symptoms of syphilis?
Click to expand...

She's not saying they all died of syphilis. She is saying that most slave owners indulged in hanky panky with the slaves and I happen to agree with her.
 
Reba said:
Do you have even a teensy weensy bit of proof? Anything?


Does your knowledge of history and slave owners say that all slave owners died of syphilis? Does your knowledge of history prove the Washington had symptoms of syphilis?
Click to expand...

Nope, it says that all slaveowners either kept several mistresses within the slave population, or raped the ones they wanted to at the time. It also says that medical care for the slaves was next to non-exisitent, which means a case if syphiliis in a female slave was no doubt very advanced before symptoms became severe enough to involve a medical professional, if one was called it at all, so that she would have been contagious for quite some time prior to medical intervention. It is also well known that syphillis was wide spread throughout the slave population. Let's see, wide spread syphillis...sexual contact with the population with the highest incidence...not especially surprising that more than one slave owner contracted syphillis, and no doubt had a hand in spreading it as well. Washington was a slave owner. Yep, I see a high degree of probability there. More than enough to make me say, "Entirely possible."
 
Beowulf said:
She's not saying they all died of syphilis. She is saying that most slave owners indulged in hanky panky with the slaves and I happen to agree with her.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And syphillis is well known to have been rampant among the slave populations, due to lack of medical care. No doubt more than one slaveowner had a hand in spreading it.
 
jillio said:
Nope, it says that all slaveowners either kept several mistresses within the slave population, or raped the ones they wanted to at the time. It also says that medical care for the slaves was next to non-exisitent, which means a case if syphiliis in a female slave was no doubt very advanced before symptoms became severe enough to involve a medical professional, if one was called it at all, so that she would have been contagious for quite some time prior to medical intervention. It is also well known that syphillis was wide spread throughout the slave population. Let's see, wide spread syphillis...sexual contact with the population with the highest incidence...not especially surprising that more than one slave owner contracted syphillis, and no doubt had a hand in spreading it as well. Washington was a slave owner. Yep, I see a high degree of probability there. More than enough to make me say, "Entirely possible."
Click to expand...
It's a good thing you weren't on the Anthony jury, or she'd been convicted in a heartbeat. :laugh2:

In other words, after that convoluted dance, you don't have any proof that Washington died of syphilis. Washington displayed no symptoms of the disease prior to or at his death.
 
Extreme/fundamentalist religious, especially Christians and Muslims scares me away, however I'm good with mainline religious, even most of them support some or all of gay rights.

Government shouldn't regulate on porn, except for public broadcasting and public radio that need to be censored. I want all fundamentalists to get out of political system and they have no business to control on our life.
 
Reba said:
It's a good thing you weren't on the Anthony jury, or she'd been convicted in a heartbeat. :laugh2:

In other words, after that convoluted dance, you don't have any proof that Washington died of syphilis. Washington displayed no symptoms of the disease prior to or at his death.
Click to expand...

Again, you are misinterpreting to suit your own purpose. I never said he died of syphillis. I said it was a theory founded in probability, and I would not be surprised if he had.:roll: Historically, it would definately be plausible.
 
jillio said:
Again, you are misinterpreting to suit your own purpose. I never said he died of syphillis. I said it was a theory founded in probability, and I would not be surprised if he had.:roll: Historically, it would definately be plausible.
Click to expand...
Talk about flimsy evidence; oops, I mean NO evidence.

Even to base such an outlandish theory on probability requires some numbers. What are the numbers that you used to make up this theory?
 
Reba said:
Talk about flimsy evidence; oops, I mean NO evidence.

Even to base such an outlandish theory on probability requires some numbers. What are the numbers that you used to make up this theory?
Click to expand...

My goodness, why do you get so upset to learn that our Founding Fathers were a rather satyrical bunch? Everyone knows about the parties they had with "selected ladies." Benjamin Franklin loved orgies and George Washington was quite the ladies man, for starters. I am not disappointed. In fact, it makes me like the guys better! :lol:
 
TheOracle said:
Please don't say 'sharia' like it's a bad word, and don't say 'Christian sharia' as it just puts forth an impression that you have a distaste for Muslims.
Click to expand...

While I understand where you are coming from, I think using the word Sharia is to make people realize what they are doing is really no different from Muslim fundamentalists.

I realize that the consequences are different in terms of violence. In our society, there is relatively little beating or violent consequences for bad actions (other than murder). However, the purpose is the same: Make everyone follow what they believe, ESPECIALLY when it infringes the rights of an individual.

By the way, there is more than one way to damage an individual other than violence.

One day... just one day, I really want an extreme Christian to be popular and make Christians realize "wow.. okay, this is too much. The morale is so low now. I liked it better when everyone was doing their own thing as long it doesn't infringe the rights of anyone else."

Maybe Bachmann will be that person.
 
Beowulf said:
My goodness, why do you get so upset to learn that our Founding Fathers were a rather satyrical bunch? Everyone knows about the parties they had with "selected ladies." Benjamin Franklin loved orgies and George Washington was quite the ladies man, for starters. I am not disappointed. In fact, it makes me like the guys better! :lol:
Click to expand...
I'm referring specifically to George Washington and his manner of death. I didn't mention anyone or anything else. I also disagree with people making up things about any historical figures or deceased persons without proof.
 
Daredevel7 said:
...One day... just one day, I really want an extreme Christian to be popular....
Click to expand...
What is an extreme Christian, what constitutes being popular, and to whom?
 
Reba said:
What is an extreme Christian, what constitutes being popular, and to whom?
Click to expand...

To me, an extreme Christian is someone who wants to impose consequences on someone for not following their own religion. This is different from consequences for not following the laws that protect individuals and their rights.

Popular to Christians, which is the majority of US, so popular to the majority (more than 50%) to answer your questions.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Popular to Christians, which is the majority of US, so popular to the majority (more than 50%) to answer your questions.
Click to expand...
What I'm asking is, what do you think makes an extreme Christian "popular" to other Christians? How does an extreme Christian qualify as "popular?"

As a Christian, I'm curious about this concept of a "popular" Christian. We don't usually categorize Christians as either popular or unpopular, so I'm wondering what that means to you. :)
 
Reba said:
What I'm asking is, what do you think makes an extreme Christian "popular" to other Christians? How does an extreme Christian qualify as "popular?"

As a Christian, I'm curious about this concept of a "popular" Christian. We don't usually categorize Christians as either popular or unpopular, so I'm wondering what that means to you. :)
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I am not sure what you are asking of me. Don't you categorize people in general as popular? Don't Christians (like every other human) tend to gravitate and perhaps follow popular/famous people? Famous people can happen to be Christian.

I don't even understand the bolded part. Isn't that the same as me saying "We don't usually categorize deaf people as either popular or unpopular."? As if an individual cannot be labeled as popular or unpopular just because they are part of a certain group?
 
Reba said:
I'm referring specifically to George Washington and his manner of death. I didn't mention anyone or anything else. I also disagree with people making up things about any historical figures or deceased persons without proof.
Click to expand...

"Making up things?" It was an educated guess, since the pox was prevalent at the time and one of the treatment methods was to bleed the patient, something they do not do to pneumonia patients. So, I figured they thought he had something else along with it. George Washington supposedly died as a result of too much bleeding. I dunno, though. Just speculating here.
 
Reba said:
I'm referring specifically to George Washington and his manner of death. I didn't mention anyone or anything else. I also disagree with people making up things about any historical figures or deceased persons without proof.
Click to expand...

You think history books are accurate?
 
Daredevel7 said:
I'm sorry but I am not sure what you are asking of me. Don't you categorize people in general as popular?
Click to expand...
Me? No. I left junior high behind a long time ago. :lol:

Don't Christians (like every other human) tend to gravitate and perhaps follow popular/famous people? Famous people can happen to be Christian.
Click to expand...
It depends on what you mean by "popular." You still haven't defined that. Since you ask, myself and the Christians I know don't really "follow" individual Christians. There are some that we have Christian love for and respect. They aren't famous by the world's standards. The Bible teaches against favoritism or hero worship.

I don't even understand the bolded part. Isn't that the same as me saying "We don't usually categorize deaf people as either popular or unpopular."? As if an individual cannot be labeled as popular or unpopular just because they are part of a certain group?
Click to expand...
I can't speak for what you or other groups of people do. You brought up Christians, so I was curious what you meant. I can't think of any "popular" Christians, so I thought maybe your definition was different from mine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top