Ron Paul on Michele Bachmann: ‘She Hates Muslims’

Status
Not open for further replies.
jillio said:
Well, I gotta give you credit for admitting it. Few are that honest.
Click to expand...

I am always honest. However, having a different opinion does not make me, or you, wrong. It just means we don't agree. What gets tiring is having to provide links and research to back up an opinion. How I got where I am with an opinion is not always something I can rewind the tape and review. It just is.
 
saywhatkid said:
Yep. :wave:

And a ban/reprimand.
Click to expand...

If you are unable to answer the question without risking a ban, then okay. I guess you'd better refrain from answering, though the question is perfectly capable of being answered without any sort of religious discussion being involved. It is simply a matter of literature at this point.

Oh well. :dunno:
 
saywhatkid said:
I am always honest. However, having a different opinion does not make me, or you, wrong. It just means we don't agree. What gets tiring is having to provide links and research to back up an opinion. How I got where I am with an opinion is not always something I can rewind the tape and review. It just is.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about an opinion. We're talking about a point of fact. We're talking about a closed reading of the Bible that need not draw on dogma or outside epistemology.
 
Hey, TWA, SWK doesn't feel the need to discuss it. He repeatedly said so. So why bother?
 
kokonut said:
Hey, TWA, SWK doesn't feel the need to discuss it. He repeatedly said so. So why bother?
Click to expand...

HE challenged me first. I rebutted, then he couldn't answer and walked away. Is that how you like to debate too?

Btw SWK, if you are truly worried about a ban or breaking the rules, feel free to PM me your response. Until then, I'll just consider that you have no response and that my conclusion stands.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
HE challenged me first. I rebutted, then he couldn't answer and walked away. Is that how you like to debate too?

Btw SWK, if you are truly worried about a ban or breaking the rules, feel free to PM me your response. Until then, I'll just consider that you have no response and that my conclusion stands.
Click to expand...

I must've missed that one. Where did he challenge you?
 
kokonut said:
Hey, TWA, SWK doesn't feel the need to discuss it. He repeatedly said so. So why bother?
Click to expand...

I do believe saywhatkid has been talking for the last several pages of this thread about his right to have a religious opinion. What's the point of saying that if he's not going to express it?

saywhatkid started this whole endless bickering on this thread when he replied to jillio who said "Stereotypes need to be challenged." with "Yes, like stereotyping Christians."

Then jillio replied with "I didn't see any stereotyping of christians on this thread" to which he then replied with how he doesn't understand everyone rushing to muslims' defense when they attack and stereotype Christians.

For the record, SWK, I don;t rush to defend religions, I just like information to be accurate and factual so when I see that there is serious misinformation, I do try to correct it if possible.

So, SWK has consistently brought up the subject of christianity since then so as far as i am concerned, he opened the can of worms, doesn't matter how many times he says he has a right to his belief and doesn't wish to discuss it, he's still the one who kept bringing it up.
 
ok, so I do wonder, if the show was called "All-American Christian" or "All-American Southerners", would Lowe's have responded the same way?

I think some people prefer to remain blindfolded because may feel easier...
 
kokonut said:
Hey, TWA, SWK doesn't feel the need to discuss it. He repeatedly said so. So why bother?
Click to expand...

Lets do this. You and me encourage TWA and SWK to post away and have a spirited debate. This thread would be locked down in a New York minute.
 
DeafCaroline said:
I do believe saywhatkid has been talking for the last several pages of this thread about his right to have a religious opinion. What's the point of saying that if he's not going to express it?

saywhatkid started this whole endless bickering on this thread when he replied to jillio who said "Stereotypes need to be challenged." with "Yes, like stereotyping Christians."

Then jillio replied with "I didn't see any stereotyping of christians on this thread" to which he then replied with how he doesn't understand everyone rushing to muslims' defense when they attack and stereotype Christians.

For the record, SWK, I don;t rush to defend religions, I just like information to be accurate and factual so when I see that there is serious misinformation, I do try to correct it if possible.

So, SWK has consistently brought up the subject of christianity since then so as far as i am concerned, he opened the can of worms, doesn't matter how many times he says he has a right to his belief and doesn't wish to discuss it, he's still the one who kept bringing it up.
Click to expand...

He or anybody else get to choose the time to express their right to have a religious opinion.

Consistently brought up the subject of Christianity? I don't see that.
 
kokonut said:
I must've missed that one. Where did he challenge you?
Click to expand...

Aside from what DC has already pointed about SWK repeatedly making personal religion a topic of this thread when it did not need to be, this is where the little tryst started. Here's the play-by-play:

rolling7 said:
The Bible says God will punish__________.
The Q'uran says for followers to kill_________.

OOPS! Sorry not allow to discuss religion on AD.
Click to expand...

Our resident ignoramus makes a comparison between two religious books. Both elements in the comparison are not quotes or passages taken directly from either work, but rather his only blighted, ridiculous interpretations. Obviously, this sort of ignorance cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. Since he was clearly trying to make one book look more insipid than the other, I brought up a fact:
TheWriteAlex said:
The Bible also says it's okay to kill people who do not believe in its God. Old Testament, of course.
Click to expand...

I did not offer direct evidence from the Bible at this point because I thought it was self evident. Anyone who has read the Old Testament must be aware of the many passages where the Bible condones or directly tells its followers to kill God's enemies.

Now here is something peculiar. SWK says he will refrain from discussing the Bible:
saywhatkid said:
The Bible is technically not a religion, either. It is a book; it has different meaning to different people. However, I certainly will refrain from discussing it.
Click to expand...


At this point, SWK felt the need to step in and personally defend his beliefs and his holy book, though no attack was being made on them, and even though he had said he would refrain from discussing it.
saywhatkid said:
An eye for an eye, I believe. Unless it is Charles Manson; then we keep him in warm clothes and 3 hots a day.
Click to expand...
It was very odd for him to slip in the Manson reference. Not really sure what he was doing with that, but anyway, this was obviously a challenge to my claim that the Bible essentially says the same thing as the Koran when it comes to killing people.

So, seeing as SWK is obviously still relatively new to his holy book, I brought up a direct reference:
TheWriteAlex said:
That's a completely different context and not what I am referring to. Read the story of Esther. It was about one eye for 75,000 eyes.
Click to expand...

I reference here the Book of Esther, which sanctioned the killing of 75,000 non-Jews because of Haman's conspiracy to exterminate the Jews of Persia. It should be noted that the only non-Jews part of this conspiracy were Haman and his wife and immediate advisers. Seems a little lopsided, no? This is but one of many such examples in the Old Testament.

At this point, SWK refused to debate further, even though he had opened the argument up for debate.

I have not received a PM from him with a response.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
Aside from what DC has already pointed about SWK repeatedly making personal religion a topic of this thread when it did not need to be, this is where the little tryst started. Here's the play-by-play:



Our resident ignoramus makes a comparison between two religious books. Both elements in the comparison are not quotes or passages taken directly from either work, but rather his only blighted, ridiculous interpretations. Obviously, this sort of ignorance cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. Since he was clearly trying to make one book look more insipid than the other, I brought up a fact:


I did not offer direct evidence from the Bible at this point because I thought it was self evident. Anyone who has read the Old Testament must be aware of the many passages where the Bible condones or directly tells its followers to kill God's enemies.

Now here is something peculiar. SWK says he will refrain from discussing the Bible:



At this point, SWK felt the need to step in and personally defend his beliefs and his holy book, though no attack was being made on them, and even though he had said he would refrain from discussing it.

It was very odd for him to slip in the Manson reference. Not really sure what he was doing with that, but anyway, this was obviously a challenge to my claim that the Bible essentially says the same thing as the Koran when it comes to killing people.

So, seeing as SWK is obviously still relatively new to his holy book, I brought up a direct reference:


I reference here the Book of Esther, which sanctioned the killing of 75,000 non-Jews because of Haman's conspiracy to exterminate the Jews of Persia. It should be noted that the only non-Jews part of this conspiracy were Haman and his wife and immediate advisers. Seems a little lopsided, no? This is but one of many such examples in the Old Testament.

At this point, SWK refused to debate further, even though he had opened the argument up for debate.

I have not received a PM from him with a response.
Click to expand...

You certainly know your Bible.. And if I'm not mistaken the book of Esther is in the Catholic Bible but not in the Protestant one. Dunno if SWK is Protestant or Catholic..
 
deafskeptic said:
You certainly know your Bible.. And if I'm not mistaken the book of Esther is in the Catholic Bible but not in the Protestant one. Dunno if SWK is Protestant or Catholic..
Click to expand...

It is part of the Hebrew Bible and thus a part of every Christian Bible, Protestant or Catholic.
 
Last edited:
For the record, I don''t OWE anyone a reply. I can make my statements and walk away. Nowhere is there a timeclock to punch, nor do I consider people I interact with on the Internet to be a person I MUST answer to.

If that cheapens any or all of my AD comments, great. I really don't care. I have seen the same tribe corner others on their faith, then cry to mods that the rules have been broken. I would consider discussing this with friends, but I have none here. It is what it is.

Go ahead, gather and high five, feel good about your perceived triumph. Blind faith is not something I care to defend. Buh-bye. :wave:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top