Happy Hump Day This Aint Hell! Going to mix things up today and include comments and news from beyond Democratic Underground.
This impeachment chatter is still strong among many on the left. Somehow, many think that once he’s impeached, he’s “gone”. Well, “stopbush” educates them on how the process works. The House does the impeachment proceedings and vote for or against it, it’s up to the Senate to determine if removal is warranted (trial):
Originally posted by stopbush:
As long as we’re tossing around the word “impeachment,” can we at least use the word correctly?
Impeachment in the United States is the process by which the lower house of a legislature brings charges against a civil officer of government for crimes alleged to have been committed, analogous to the bringing of an indictment by a grand jury. At the federal level, this is at the discretion of the House of Representatives.
The House impeaches the president. The Senate does not impeach the president. The Senate tries the articles of impeachment in a Senate trial.
Never mind the stories about how the Clinton folks orchestrated things to come up with a phony information sheet on then candidate Donald Trump. The collusion could very well be on the Clinton side, but don’t tell that to these folks. Nope, they appear to have already tried and convicted president Trump of collusion with the Russians to win the election:
Originally posted by JonLP24:
Trump and Republicans sold us out for dirt on Hillary Clinton or whatever their motivations. Former CIA director said a Trump Putin press conference was nothing short of treason. With everything involved it is in the spirit of treason. The betrayal especially at a key time in US-Russia relations.
Looks like we have somebody here who is going to take a different approach. Not the one that requires wearing a black mask and a black outfit, not one going online to rant, but one where somebody is going to attempt to “guide” the Trump administration from within. It seems like this person is talking about somebody else doing this, the person reporting this wouldn’t even bother trying to do things this way:
Originally posted by kennetha:
to be joining the Trump administration.
One of my colleagues at work is headed to DC to take a post in State though. I wish him well. He’s a good guy. Thinks he can teach the Trumpistas something about foreign policy. I told him he’s setting out on a fool’s errand. Put he’s near retiring and sees a last chance to help turn the Trump shit show into something tolerable.
I’d NEVER do it, even if I was ideologically inclined in that direction.
Did you guys know that This Aint Hell is declining in the rankings? No worries, one of our frequent visitors reports on how we are doing, and points out some of our shortcomings in order to hit on how we could possibly reverse our decline:
Originally posted by Cthulhu
It is astonishing that you all turn on anyone who Trimp does not like or criticizes Trump.
You all even turned against Admiral McRaven.
Cult-like behavior.
I also would not put so much effort in branding this site as a climate change denier site. Hard to recruit new veteran readers since current service members overwhelmingly believe in climate change.
It is also the official position of the Department of Defense and the Pentegon that climate change is real.
Half of the planning going on in national security is directly related to managing the consequences of climate change.
This site has dropped another 15.000 ranks globally in the last month.
Turns out climate denying is not a growth industry.
And, speaking of our local Berkeley graduate, the University of California, Berkeley, reached a settlement with those whose freedom of speech was infringed. From the Washington Examiner:
In the settlement, UC Berkeley agreed to the following terms set by YAF:
* Pay YAF $70,000.
* Rescind the unconstitutional “High-Profile Speaker Policy.”
* Rescind the viewpoint-discriminatory security fee policy.
* Abolish its heckler’s veto – protesters will no longer be able to shut down conservative expression.Under these terms, UC Berkeley will no longer be allowed to place a 3 p.m. curfew on conservative events or relegate conservative speakers to remote or inconvenient lecture halls on campus while giving left-leaning speakers access to preferred parts of campus.
According to the article, one of the things that Berkeley was doing was setting a 3 PM curfew for conservative events. Also, where they would provide desirable facilities to liberal commentators, they would provide facilities that are not always the best choice for conservative commentators. They were also charging higher security fees for conservative speakers than for liberal speakers.
Could the “me too” movement have reached the big boss?
It looks like not even God is immune to the “me too” movement. A Minnesota Professor claims that the Virgin Mary didn’t truly consent to conceiving Jesus. Even though she said, “Yes,” she “did so” on the account that God had incredible powers.
Through his tweets, this professor paints a picture of God, with his power and might, his ability to punish humanity for disobedience, as essentially impregnating a teenager.
From the Daily Mail:
‘The virgin birth story is about an all-knowing, all-powerful deity impregnating a human teen,’ Sprankle wrote on Twitter. ‘There is no definition of consent that would include that scenario. Happy Holidays.’
And, finally, I’ll leave you guys with this video. A Muslim woman criticizing how we do things in the West.
Transcribed from the video, not precise but close:
Because many of those practices, from the west, are rooted in Christianity and the celebrations actually harm us. Now, the West is a multicultural society, it’s not like talking apples and oranges. Over there there is no right and wrong except what the government and people decide is right and what they decide is wrong. Now, if tomorrow they want to make it illegal to walk down the street wearing a hat, they can do that.
Looking forward to your thoughts. Enjoy Humpday, we are halfway to the weekend.
No practice “First” yet?
*grin*
As for the bimbo in the burka, yes our laws are based in part in Christianity, and if you can’t accept that, fine. Haul your ass to some place that recognizes Sharia law.
As for the Bitch on the left of our President in the above picture, she would look some much better with a noose around her neck. Maybe she wants the Donald impeached so that he could have something in common with BJ Willie.
I do wish she go take chuntapatooie and both live happily ever after; .. burning in hell.
The bimbo in the burka is an ignorant moroness. Apparently, those who originally came from the Middle East know nothing at all about other religions.
Christian holidays such as Christmas are based on pagan seasonal celebrations. Before Christmas became Christmas, it was the Yule in northern Europe, and was celebrated during the Winter Solstice.
The Romans observed the Saturnalia, celebrated from December 17 to December 24, which became Christmas after Constantine (over in Constantinople) converted to Christianity and made that the official religion of Rome.
I thought everybody knew that.
In addition, although Hanukkah is not based on a specific calendar date, it is still observed late in the year. This year, it began December 2 and ended December 10, and I forgot to send my silly sister a ‘Happy Hanukkah’ message. My bad.
And the Orthodox church celebrates Christmas AFTER the beginning of January. This time, It’s Jan. 7, 2019.
Any questions?
That veiled bimp should keep her face covered. She probably looks as stupid and ignorant and prejudiced as she sounds. This ‘I’m butthurt about something connected to Christ’ crap is getting REALLY OLD and boring.
Yes, Christian holiday practices are largely based on pre-Christian religious practices. Contrary to popular belief, the Christians didn’t go out and do an all-out “co-opting” and “hijacking” of traditions from the “pagan” religions.
It wasn’t Christianity that snagged things from the pagans. A main pontiff, of a pagan religion, snagged Christianity and infused pagan religion into it instead.
When Constantine converted to Christianity, he essentially took what was an offshoot of Judaism, and brought in Roman religious practices. This act made it a standalone religion, rather than a mere sect of another religion. He wasn’t about to give up a lot of the powers he had, in the religious sector of the society, before his accepting Christianity.
The Emperor was also “Ponfifex Maximus”, a.k.a. Pope/pontiff, for the Roman Religion.
This role was depicted in the movie Gladiator. In the beginning, the Emperor is seen with what looks like a cloak draped over his head as a hood. Not shown in the movie, but evidence by this hooded cloak, the Emperor had just performed his religious duties.
Today’s Roman Catholic Pope does a canonization ceremony, where regular people deemed worthy of being elevated to sainthood, are officially recognized as saints. The Romans were doing this, with their Pontifex Maximus having the power to elevate people to being gods.
There were other Roman religious practices that were infused into Christianity. Prior to introduction of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, Jews, and later Christians, did not have a definite description of God. If you were to read the Old Testament, you will not be able to get a clear-cut description of what God looked like. He went out of his way to remain obscure. This was deliberate.
So, when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, and Emperor Constantine infused many Roman religion concepts into Christianity, he adapted the image of Jupiter as the image of God. Jupiter essentially meant “heavenly father”. His full title was “Jupiter Optimus Maximus”, or “heavenly father, best and greatest”.
It’s no coincidence that the entrances to the Capitol, in Washington D.C., are based on the entrance to Jupiter’s temple.
Likewise, what was normally associated with one of Jupiter’s sons, Apollo, was adapted for Jesus. Apollo was the god of the sun. He was also associated with healing. Consequently, the days of worship associated with the sun (Sunday) and the winter solstice celebrations, became dedicated to Jesus.
Granted, other ancient cultures had similar celebrations and observances. But where Christianity is concerned, much of the “pagan practices” were initially adapted from the Romans, and then incorporated other practices as time went on.
Also, when it comes to the word “pagan”.
Back in ancient times, “pagan” was used to describe people that were associated with the backwaters, boondocks, distant rural areas, and other areas that would not be completely caught up to what was “in vogue”. The later usually occurred in the urban areas, the “cultural epicenters”. When Constantine adapted Christianity, and made it the official religion of the Roman Empire, those who did not adapt Christianity were described as not being “in vogue”. Hence, “pagans”.
Now, with the way Christianity spread, throughout the Roman Empire and beyond, when the Western Roman empire fell, the infrastructure for the Christian church remained up and running. With the “barbarian” Kings already being Christians, it didn’t take long for the church in the “conquered” or “overran” areas to be able to gain rapport and a good working relationship with these kings… Causing them to be able to get the Kings to buy in to the idea of preserving and developing ancient knowledge. Given that these kings didn’t know how to administer large urban areas, and the church was able to do that, the church was able to leverage this ability to help preserve ancient knowledge, and to prevent Roman civilization from disappearing from Western Europe.
Ergo, the embedded importance of Christianity and Christian philosophy to Western civilization.
Here second.
Climate change is real, but it’s been going on since the earth developed an atmosphere. Whether or not humans can influence it is speculation. Maybe if all the world’s nukes were detonated simultaneously? It was warm enough in England long ago that the Romans grew wine grapes there.
and then it got cold enough in the winters that the Thames froze over….it’s hubris to think we have that much influence over our climate.
Humans never run short of people with a god complex.
The man-made global warming crowd advances an argument that is not based on science. In order to believe the argument, you have to have “faith”. Their theory is “man centered”. Yet, some like to point to the “man centered universe” belief that the church had, and make fun of that. Talk about the irony.
Heard on WFTL 850AM, Jenn & Bill talk radio yesterday that a School principal was suspended or fired for banning candy canes on school property because the candy cane was shaped like the letter J which stands for Jesus and the red color is the color of the blood he shed, but I forgot what they said the white stood for. The reason for the candy cane ban was about the separation of Church and State. Can’t get better than this.
They don’t understand the concept of “separation of church and state”. The Church of England had an interest, and influence, in colonial administrative affairs. This was a violation of separation of church and state, a concept that Christian monks actually came up with during the medieval period… Centuries before our founding fathers were born.
The basic idea is that church ran church affairs, and the state ran state affairs.
So, if the school decides to hold school prayers, have a nativity scene on school grounds, or other similar activity, it’s the school’s decision. Thus, it doesn’t violate the separation of church and state concept.
Now, if the school was to highlight a single religion, over others, and force others to abide by that religion, or cater to it at the expense of the other religions, then that would be a violation of the First Amendment.
Evidently a lot of ordinary folks have heard about that silly event. I usually have a supply of those miniature candy canes in a pocket this time of year to give to store clerks, waitresses, whoever as I wish them a “Merry Christmas.” Quite a few of them look at me and grin, asking if I heard that stupid story about the J. I just grin back at them.
I read about that. The principle claimed that the white in the candy cane stands for the resurrection.
Climate change has been going on naturally and continuously since the beginning of earth. Climate goes in natural cycles and continually changes all the time, from warm to cool to cold to icy and eventually back to warm again.
I do believe in climate change, I just don’t believe in AGW climate hysterical globy warmining libtards running around screaming like chickies without a head that the climate sky is falling because of nasty bad deplorables using nasty bad fossil fuel in western countries, and that the UN and elite classes must seize control of the world economy to prevent the deplorables from burning up the earth.
In contrast, we’re very probably heading into a long-term global cooling because of an upcoming prolonged maunder minimum.
So yes, everyone should believe in climate change, just not the AGW hysteria that the SJWs believe they can use to seize the economy of the world…
In the end, AGW is all about seizing power…
^^this, so much this!
I’ve been tracking global weather for over 11 years now. the trend that I’ve noticed is downward. Also, I’ve noticed that the polar air masses are getting colder as time progresses.the long-term trend, when solar sunspot activity is included, points to us already being in a mini Ice Age, or in the beginning of one.
Indeed it is and I remember reading that Scientists were saying that the 1992 eruption of Mount Pinatubo alone put more pollutants into the Atmosphere (Sulfates, Nitrates, Ash,…) than the entire Industrial Age all put together. What’s next, a Worldwide Volcano fund? Oh SHIT, I don’t want to give anyone a bright idea…
When the Yellowstone Caldera lets go there won’t be any need for a Volcano Fund…there’ll be a need for something far more than just some money.
The Tambora Volcano eruption, of 1815, resulted in the following year being known as the “Year without summer”. Some of the northern states saw snow every month during the summer.
Through his tweets, this professor paints a picture of God, with his power and might, his ability to punish humanity for disobedience, as essentially impregnating a teenager.
Well the whole, worship me as i dictate or roast in hell for all eternity thing does sort of put a bit of a lie to the pretense of free will…you’re free to worship or burn in hell fire…that’s not much in terms of free will. More like a commandment to a slave, do as I order or I’ll torture you forever.
So the professor might not be all wrong in that this passage: And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. doesn’t seem to be asking, it seems to be telling which would mean there was zero consent. It’s you’re going to birth this child you have no choice. Sort of like worship me or roast in hell fire.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: Well the whole, worship me as i dictate or roast in hell for all eternity thing does sort of put a bit of a lie to the pretense of free will…you’re free to worship or burn in hell fire…that’s not much in terms of free will. More like a commandment to a slave, do as I order or I’ll torture you forever.
I’ve read the bible from cover to cover, nowhere did I get the message that if we didn’t worship God the way he wanted us to worship him, that we’d “burn in hell”. In fact, his first commandment actually acknowledges that there are other gods. “Have no other gods before me” actually sets sets a precedence by which god takes priority over the others in cases of conflict… Essentially setting him up as the head god.
If you go to the New Testament, Jesus provides many parables and lessons where it’s blatantly obvious that the people have free will. He insisted, through his stories, that if someone was going to turn to God, it was going to be through the heart, not forced.
Now, he did mention certain behaviors, and which behaviors would be rewarded and which behaviors would be punished. The listener has a choice, of which they can choose what actions, good or bad, they could carry out.
The Bible mentions multiple ways that said punishment could be meted out. Keep in mind who the audience was at that time. Burning people alive was a form of capital punishment.
Likewise, we have the death penalty today. Does the existence of the death penalty mean that we don’t have free will today?
Also, there’s mentions about being sent to the “world of the dead”. Well, we could “worship God the way he wanted” and still end up in the “world of the dead”.
Something else is being communicated with regards to our free will, and the benefits and consequences of our actions.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: So the professor might not be all wrong in that this passage: And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. doesn’t seem to be asking, it seems to be telling which would mean there was zero consent. It’s you’re going to birth this child you have no choice. Sort of like worship me or roast in hell fire.
In full context:
And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou has found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in they womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reigh over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Again, you have to see this from the standpoint of the audience then, during the Classical Period of ancient history.
If you read about the history of the succession of Roman emperors, or even the succession of Kings during the Medieval Period, or even similar events in kingdoms around the world, you’ll read accounts of mothers plotting, conniving, and even getting hairs to the throne murdered in order to reduce the line between the throne and their sons.
Nero’s mother was an example from the Classical Period.
Mary was already in the House of David. There has been a history of God choosing the leader for his followers, to include choosing the Kings. This angel basically told Mary that the next king was going to come from her womb. But wait! There’s More! Not only was he going to be the next king, he was also going to be the “son of God”.
Again, you’ll have to see this through the eyes of the audience, for that period. Folks, during that time, were more dedicated to their religion than we are today. Emperors and Kings also wielded a lot more power back then compared to the monarchy today.
If you read that passage, you’d clearly see that she wasn’t acting in fear of punishment. Why would she? She’s been told, by one of God’s messengers, that she’s going to be the mother of a king… Someone who was essentially going to be the son of both God and a human mother.
Back in the ancient world, being known as the mother of a half god gave the mother a lot of prestige.
So, the professor is clearly wrong in his assessment. He’s looking at this through his already warped opinion of the real world today, as well as his warped opinion of the Bible.
Leftist professors are generally experts at distorting history, nothing from stopping this professor from doing the same.
^Testify^ Careful there thebesig. You’ll be done found yo self as the replacement for Brother Love’s Traveling Salvation Show.
Pack up the babies and grab your old ladies, everyone go Hallelah!
I wouldn’t make a good representative for that.
I read the Bible from a historical context, and not from a religious one. If you read the Old Testament not from the standpoint of how the ancients interpreted the world, but from our current modern standpoint, especially for those with a background that involves combat arms, combat support, psychological operations, military aviation, etc., a different picture emerges regarding what occurred.
For example, angels are not described as having wings on their back. They’re described as if they were regular people. It was a way for artists, and those who built the reliefs, to depict someone’s ability for flight. It wasn’t intended to portray angels as actually having birdlike wings on their backs.
The Bible does not describe them as having such wings. Instead, it describes these angels as flying to the heavens “on a pillar of fire by night, pillar of cloud by day” on chariots that had “insect like wings”… And that sounded like the roars of a hundred lions.
They even have another scene where the Israelites are in what appears to be a final departure point, in the forests/woods, just outside the intended attack area. Ready for the attack but held in place until further orders.
The leader is asked to spread the word that the others should not fear the noise above the canopy of the trees, as the noise will be coming from “God’s chariots”. If you attacked the town, from the air, and simultaneously attacked an area on the opposite side of the town to where your ground forces are hiding underneath the forest canopy, you give the false impression to the inhabitants, of the attacked town, that the woods offer safety.
Hence, they would rush in panic into the forest and right into a trap. Too panicked to fight in an organized formation, they stand to get slaughtered. They were told that “God would bring the enemy to them.” In military lingo, that was accomplished via “canalization of enemy movement/action/intended movement”.
The Vatican could very well frown on what I actually see is going on in the Old Testament.
Back in the ancient world, being known as the mother of a half god gave the mother a lot of prestige.
Because women had no value beyond their ability to carry children, the ancient world is replete with stories of what happens when their child bearing years end, if they managed to survive child birth at all.
Leftist professors are generally experts at distorting history, nothing from stopping this professor from doing the same.
At the risk of being offensive he wasn’t discussing history, he was discussing a large work of fiction and the made up tales presented in that work of fiction.
Suffice to say we will never share a belief in a higher power for a variety of reasons.
My much longer reply would have been far more offensive than this I suspect and would make no significant difference in your opinion or mine.
Consequently in light of the time of year, my apologies for offending and I’ll stop here.
thebesigI’ve read the bible from cover to cover, nowhere did I get the message that if we didn’t worship God the way he wanted us to worship him, that we’d “burn in hell”.
11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
I realize that the arrival of Jesus changed the requirement of salvation to faith by grace, as I recall it was By faith through grace are ye saved and not of works lest any man should boast.
Your free will lets you choose to not accept jesus but the penalty is to not be written in the book of life…and Revelations is pretty clear what happens when your name isn’t found in the book of life.
Again not much in the way of free will. In this context free will is slavery by a different name because your “free will” is only obtained through the threat of eternal damnation…some free will.
If you actually had free will you could choose to ignore your god and he would simply ignore you as well without the requirement you be cast into the lake of fire. A vindictive petty god punishes you for your lack of faith, a god who champions free will just lets you die and never raises you up to torture you for all eternity at a later date.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: Because women had no value beyond their ability to carry children, the ancient world is replete with stories of what happens when their child bearing years end, if they managed to survive child birth at all.
Not completely true. Back in the ancient world, people lived in extended families, or within close proximity. Whether these were families that were cooperating with each other with regards to fishing, farming, or a basic trade, or these are families were in the middle class to upper class, or were a part of royalty, women played a role beyond just giving birth to children and rearing them.
Women played a lot of role in the politics and the family. When the family was involved with a business, that role extended to that business. So, if they were farming, they had a hand in the operations involved with the farming, as well as selling the results of the produce. Not to mention the additional side jobs that farming families had between growing seasons. Women had an influence on these crafts.
Women played an influential role, and when you extended this to business empires, or kingdoms/royalty, they had an influence in affairs through their spouses.
Let’s take Nero for example. His mother has been accused of causing the assassination of hairs to the Emperor’s throne, paving the way for her son, Nero, to become Emperor. Once he became an Emperor, she attempted to wield influence over affairs through him. Ultimately, he had enough and opted to deal with her as a threat/competition to his power.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: At the risk of being offensive
No, no offense to your disagreements. As I’ve said here and elsewhere, I’ve been debating online for over 15 years. I take sadistic pleasure in taking apart the opposition’s argument apart, and watching how they respond.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: he wasn’t discussing history, he was discussing a large work of fiction and the made up tales presented in that work of fiction.
False. You can’t take literature, and fiction as a part of literature, away from history. In fact, it is a subset of history; literature puts a human face to history. An example is War of the Worlds being a play on the impacts that the Industrial Revolution had on the population, and the Terminator series that plays on the impacts of robotization on industry on human labor.
If you look at our movies, and how they are set up both overtly and subvertly, you would notice a similar pattern to American, English, and other literature.
Now, American literature, and English literature before it, show a historic pattern. But, there is even another literature that precedes English literature. Lots of the underlying themes, and symbolisms, and the conflicts presented in works of literature, can be traced to the Bible and other ancient works… Many from the Bible when dealing with Western Literature.
Now, in order to indoctrinate the young, if you’re going to tear down a country, and make it into an image that you want, one of the things that you would do is to take away its history. Ergo, revise it. When you revise history, you revise all elements, including literature.
This isn’t a single point of attack, from a single professor, to deface the meaning of what is mentioned in the Bible. This is all part of a coordinated attack to revise and edit our history, and who we are, in the minds of the new generation.
This professor, along with his colleagues, want to reshape and remake America. One of the things that prevents them from doing that is a system of laws that is based on Christian philosophy. Our system of government is based on a fixed set of moral standards. The founders recognized that this was traceable to the pages of the Bible. Hence, the prominence of Moses in the Supreme Court building as well as inside the Capitol.
Remove what is accepted as the “constant” with regards to what is morally right and wrong, and you will have the ability to define what is morally right and wrong. The war against Christmas is just a part of the war against Christianity, the war against conservatives, the war against America, etc.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: Suffice to say we will never share a belief in a higher power for a variety of reasons.
Nowhere, in any of my posts here, do I demand that you believe in a higher power. Yet, that is what is driving your responses, isn’t it? I legitimately destroyed your argument, an argument in defense of someone who was revising history. That was the focus of my response. Yet, somehow, this had to become about the belief in a higher power.
You just revealed more of your psychology that was involved in your response. See why I enjoy doing this?
Additionally, you make an assumption about where my belief systems are. My actual beliefs, regarding what occurred in the Old Testament, would get many in the Roman Catholic Church to frown on me. No, I’m not an atheist. I’m more of a deist, and have found myself debating more intensely against those who attempted to push Scripture than against folks like you. Yet, despite my actual beliefs, I see the value of the United States government basing what is right, and what is wrong, on something that cannot be overruled by humans.
When our founding fathers argued that our Second Amendment should not be infringed, they were arguing our right to defend ourselves as being assigned to us from a higher power. One reason, behind stating the Second Amendment the way it is stated, is that it was presumed that humans cannot overturn the laws of God. Our founding fathers understood that the laws of God superseded the laws of man.
Overthrow God, as the source of our natural rights and laws, and you place humans in his place. Humans do not have a standard, set, concept of what is right and wrong. When you set the standard to what humans define it, then you pave the way for our Republic to become a democracy and then to implode from there.
If God was the one that gave us our rights, then we are entitled to due process before we lose those rights. If humans are the ones that give us our rights, that not even the fact that we are naturally born free would protect us from fellow humans deciding to take our lives away from us without due process.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: My much longer reply would have been far more offensive than this I suspect
First, no, it wouldn’t be more offensive. Again, I’m not offended by your responses. I’ve been arguing against those on the left (not claiming that you are on the left) for over 15 years. A good percentage of these debates that I’ve been involved with have been brutal flame wars. How could you identify your reply as “offensive” when you have done nothing that amounts to a flame? But, even if you were to flame me, it would simply give me an insight to your psychology… Like it has done with the opposition over the past 15 years.
Second, the length of reply would not have fazed me. It would’ve merited an even longer rebuttal. My longest rebuttal, in a debate in the last decade, was over 75+ MS pages long, single spaced. Heck, I’ve saved many of these debates, collectively my rebuttals would be enough for me to publish a book.
So, whatever length your intended reply would’ve been would not have been that long compared to what I am used to replying.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: and would make no significant difference in your opinion or mine.
I don’t enter these debates with the intention of changing the opposition’s mind. Likewise, I’ve had the same position at the end of the debate as I did at the beginning of the debate. I enter these debates with the intention of perpetually dismantling the opposition’s responses.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: Consequently in light of the time of year, my apologies for offending and I’ll stop here.
I’ve seen this reply, phrased differently but meaning the same, over the 15+ years I’ve debated online. No need to apologize as I was not offended by your replies. I don’t know where you got that from, unless you were offended by my replies and are projecting.
Speaking of the time of the year, Christmas, New Year’s Day, and Epiphany, when I responded to somebody this way, coming back to read the replies is like being a kid on Christmas morning knowing that the presents are about to be opened.
Veritas Omnia Vincit on Decmeber 13, 2018, at 9:43 am: Consequently in light of the time of year, my apologies for offending and I’ll stop here.
Also Veritas Omnia Vincit, same day, 2:02 pm… the response that I’m about to dismantle.
If you can’t get straight what you’ll do, what makes you think that you’ll get the rest of your argument “straight”? 🙄
Revelation: 11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
This destroys your entire premise. This one verse alone argues that both heaven and earth fled. It didn’t zero in on “a few” people. It simply stated a whole, a totality. It’s also spoken in past tense, as in an event that happened. No distinction on whether those who fled were good or bad, or did things God’s way or not.
Where a distinction is made, context is provided. More on that later.
Revelation: 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
This is not saying, “God will torture you if you don’t worship him”. This states that people are judged by their actions as compared to what they were supposed to do.
Revelation: 12 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Again, this isn’t saying that you’ll be tortured, by God, if you don’t worship him his way. What this is saying is that people are going to be judged by what they did, not by how they worshiped.
Now, notice how I underlined “Death” and “Hell”? Well, look at what I bolded in the next phase:
Revelation: 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
First, death and hell gave up the dead that they contained. THEN, death and hell were cast into the lake of fire… Less than the dead.
Revelation: 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
The Bible provides an answer to who would be cast into the lake of fire:
From Psalm 68:
God shall arise, his enemies shall be scattered;
and those who hate him shall flee before him!
2 As smoke is driven away, so you shall drive them away;
as wax melts before fire,
so the wicked shall perish before God!
Nothing in there about, “refusing to worship God the way he wanted you to worship him”. The Bible recognizes that none of us are free from sin… Thus, if the definition of “wicked” is sin, then we’re all doomed to being “thrown into the fire”. But, your own quote shows that there were names on the list. If people aren’t without sin, and their names ended up on the list, then something bigger is going on beyond just, “refusing to worship God the way he wanted.”
As for our having free will, here’s one example from the Bible:
I Corinthians 9, 10:
13. There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with he temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
Not exactly punishing you for “refusing to worship God the way he wanted”. But, as you could see with the above statement, free will is a recognized variable.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: I realize that the arrival of Jesus changed the requirement of salvation to faith by grace, as I recall it was By faith through grace are ye saved and not of works lest any man should boast.
Not exactly. For the Christians, Jesus was the ultimate salvation. For the Jews, who went by the prophets that preceded Jesus, there were mechanisms by which God forgave people. Many Jews don’t see Jesus as the messiah, and are still waiting for said messiah. The Old Testament provides examples of where God forgave… Long before Jesus. His forgiveness cleansed, those forgiven, from what would’ve held them from the list of names.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: Your free will lets you choose to not accept jesus but the penalty is to not be written in the book of life…
Our free will isn’t restricted to accepting Jesus or not, but to everything that we do. In Genesis, as well as in the first commandment, God makes it clear that he gave us freedom. With freedom comes free will. If we didn’t have free will, we can’t say that we have freedom.
Which leads me to the question that you failed to answer… Does the fact that we have the death penalty in the United States negates the fact that we have free will in the United States? I’ll extend that to this question… Does the existence of federal, state, and local statute mean that we don’t really have free will in the United States?
Also, narrowing this down to accepting Jesus misses the point that you’re attempting to use with regards to what would get you written into the book of life, and what would keep you from that list. This goes beyond just “accepting Jesus”, and goes more towards accepting and practicing his teachings. A person can’t really say that they accepted Jesus without also practicing what Jesus teaches.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: and Revelations is pretty clear what happens when your name isn’t found in the book of life.
But, not the way you’re reading or understanding, what’s being said. See above.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: Again not much in the way of free will. In this context free will is slavery by a different name because your “free will” is only obtained through the threat of eternal damnation…some free will.
False. In the Old Testament, God lays down not just the 10 Commandments, but statutes that constitute his laws for the Israelites and, by extension, Judaism and Christianity. He prescribes the punishment to be meted out. This, as with the case of federal, state, and local laws in the U.S., is given with the understanding that we have free will.
This leads to the question that I asked you, which you’ve failed to answer. Does the existence of the death penalty mean that we don’t have free will in the United States? Likewise, does the existence of our statutory laws mean that we don’t have free will in the United States?
If you were applying for a security clearance, and you’re officially on record declaring that you’re not loyal to the United States Constitution, and you acted on that by working with groups that advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government, do you think you’d be awarded a security clearance and, if not, does not being awarded a security clearance in this scenario mean that we don’t really have free will in this situation?
Again, God gave us freedom in Genesis, and reminds us that he gave us our freedom in his first commandment. With freedom comes free will. Without freewill, we’re not really free, which would contradict God’s intention in the old testament, and contradict segments of both the Old and the New Testament.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: If you actually had free will you could choose to ignore your god and he would simply ignore you as well without the requirement you be cast into the lake of fire.
A vindictive petty god punishes you for your lack of faith, a god who champions free will just lets you die and never raises you up to torture you for all eternity at a later date.
Wrong. Again, this isn’t about ignoring God, or paying attention to him, or ignoring Jesus or paying attention to him.
This is about our actions during our current incarnation. As indicated above, it’s the “wicked” that would be stricken from the book of life, or not be included. If you want to get an idea of what that is, go to the Old Testament and read not just the 10 Commandments, but the books where God hands down some statutes for people to abide by. Jesus and others go into clarifications and specifics in the New Testament.
Throughout the Bible, we’re given a list of actions that we should abide by, things like not committing murder, theft, harm, etc. Also, throughout the bible, a mechanism is in place to “get that struck from your record” so that you could start with a clean slate. There’s a recognition that no man is perfect in this regard.
The phrase by faith alone are ye saved means your works no longer matter, your actions no longer matter prior to accepting christ as your savior. Some have argued they don’t much matter afterwards either as long as you beg forgiveness and accept your savior before you die you’re golden in the eyes of the Lord.
That means from that point forward Christ is the only way to the father. There’s no other way. People who live a good life but don’t accept their savior are still going to fry. Because they won’t have access to the father anymore. Tough luck the Buddhists, the Hindus, Native Americans and any of those other inferior godly worshippers.
Best quote about believers I’ve heard to date still rings true. No man believes the Bible means what it says, he is convinced it means what he says.
Does the fact that we have the death penalty in the United States negates the fact that we have free will in the United States?
i didn’t answer because it’s not a serious question, it’s not at all relatable to anything of the order of magnitude of an eternal soul. The government has no power over me after I die. Your god theoretically does have power over you for all of eternity. A rather large and clearly different distinction consequently your question is without merit and it’s no analogous in any reasonable fashion.
You’re trying to equate some sort of morality with the notion of freedom and free will they are not required to be in tandem with one another.
I don’t believe in any god(s) and somehow I’ve managed to not rape any children, steal anyone’s property or commit any sort of crime. My free will has nothing to do with any god nor does my morality stem from reading some fiction written by men seeking to control the masses.
If someone needs a book of instructions to avoid being an immoral piece of shit, perhaps it’s good they believe in an omnipotent god and the threat of eternal damnation to keep them on the straight and narrow.
We really are all atheists to a degree, it’s how far we take our non-belief that separates us.
Some choose to only not believe in the “false” gods, others of us choose not to believe in any god(s) at all recognizing the evidence for any god is exactly the same as the evidence for all gods.
Veritas Omnia Vincit’s copy and paste: The phrase by faith alone are ye saved means your works no longer matter, your actions no longer matter prior to accepting christ as your savior.
First, reference? This does not appear to be your own words, but that of another. You need to link to your reference if you’re going to use someone else’s words.
Second, this is consistent with what has been phrased throughout the Bible, in the Old Testament and the new. When God forgave in the Old Testament, the works of the forgiven prior to the moment of the forgiveness no longer mattered. Even today, if someone commits a sin, post Jesus, and they confess to the priest, the actions they take in their past wouldn’t matter.
In the Old Testament, they did not need to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior. The only knew of someone that was going to be sacrificed in the distant future. The Jews are still waiting on that person.
Veritas Omnia Vincit’s copy and paste: Some have argued they don’t much matter afterwards either as long as you beg forgiveness and accept your savior before you die you’re golden in the eyes of the Lord.
This misses the point that consistently shows up in the Bible with regards to getting a clean slate. It’s not enough that you request forgiveness. But, your actions have to carry through after the forgiveness. Otherwise, you’re back in the same boat before you were forgiven.
In Catholicism, the final rights is a sacrament where the dying requests forgiveness. However, that is not necessarily a ticket to heaven. If the person lived in an “under honorable conditions” with regards to the teaching of the Bible, this person went into purgatory in order to redeem himself/herself and be able to ultimately gain entry to heaven with the help of the prayers from loved ones.
Veritas Omnia Vincit’s copy and paste: That means from that point forward Christ is the only way to the father. There’s no other way. People who live a good life but don’t accept their savior are still going to fry. Because they won’t have access to the father anymore. Tough luck the Buddhists, the Hindus, Native Americans and any of those other inferior godly worshippers.
This is a misinterpretation of the following:
“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh into the Father, but by me.” — John 14:6
Jesus also said this:
“Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself; but the Father that dewelleth in me, he doeth the works.” — John 14: 10
And:
“If ye love me, keep my commandments” — John 14:15
The first quote, Jesus is identifying himself with the moral teachings of both the Old Testament, and the New Testament. He is identifying himself as an “avatar” for the moral truth. Also, as an “avatar” for God. The key words are “the way, the truth, and the life.”
Therefore, he was speaking as if he were the embodiment of the moral concepts. In order to get to God, you had to go by these moral concepts. Take a look at the final quote above, did Jesus actually provide those commandments? No, he didn’t. God did.
At this point, whether in this reply or in your previous replies, you have failed to address the argument about free will.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: Best quote about believers I’ve heard to date still rings true.
False. The statement you provided is a false statement. It doesn’t ring true, it only rings “true” in your ears on the account of your bias against believers.
Baloney statement: No man believes the Bible means what it says,
False. There are many sections of the Bible that are clear cut and are taken as they are explained. For example, the commandment to not to kill (murder) is understood to be a commandment not to kill (murder). There are numerous examples throughout the Bible where people could read the statement and believe what it actually means as written.
Baloney statement: he is convinced it means what he says.
Actually, people could read something, not just what’s in the Bible but something in writing, and, come up with a completely different understanding of what the person said. I’ve came across this in my debates over the past 15 years.
I’ve consistently had people who insisted that my statement meant one thing when I clearly communicated something else.
Even you have been guilty of this as I will demonstrate. Judging by your own arguments in this thread, this part of the statement accurately describes what you say.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: i didn’t answer because it’s not a serious question, it’s not at all relatable to anything of the order of magnitude of an eternal soul. The government has no power over me after I die. Your god theoretically does have power over you for all of eternity. A rather large and clearly different distinction consequently your question is without merit and it’s no analogous in any reasonable fashion. [INDUCTIVE FALLACY: STRAWMAN ARGUMENT]
Wrong. You didn’t answer the question because you know full well that your argument, against free will with regards the practice of religion as being scant to nonexistent, will be proven false by the common-sense response to the question.
First, what I said in context:
“Our free will isn’t restricted to accepting Jesus or not, but to everything that we do. In Genesis, as well as in the first commandment, God makes it clear that he gave us freedom. With freedom comes free will. If we didn’t have free will, we can’t say that we have freedom.
“Which leads me to the question that you failed to answer… Does the fact that we have the death penalty in the United States negates the fact that we have free will in the United States? I’ll extend that to this question… Does the existence of federal, state, and local statute mean that we don’t really have free will in the United States?” – thebesig
You attempted to argue that we do not have much free will do to God’s requirements. I disagreed, and pointed out that we did in fact have free will as a reading of the Bible would indicate. Your justification involved the fact that if one thing that happened, something would happen as a result. I countered that with a legitimate question:
Does the fact that we have the death penalty in the United States negates the fact that we have free will in the United States?
Your attempt to bring this to the question about what happens after you die is nothing but inductive fallacy, a strawman argument. You’re attempting to argue that since the government has no influence over you after you die, that we are talking about a different concept. False.
The laws of God as influencing the actions of the incarnate, and spelling out the consequences in the spirit world once that incarnation ends, and the laws of man as influencing the flesh in the current incarnation. In both instances, you have a set of laws that govern and places restrictions on our actions. Hence, the question that I asked you is a valid question. It is equivalent in logic with regards to the argument that you advance.
You refused to answer the question with a simple “yes” or “no” because it destroys your premise that we do not have free will simply because of the restriction placed on us by the laws of God. So, again:
Does the fact that we have the death penalty in the United States negates the fact that we have free will in the United States? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste this question, with the yes/no options, they replied. Then, put an “X” in the box that represents your answer. Spare me any additional comments that you would be tempted to make when answering this question.
I will keep asking you this question until you answer it per the parameters that I set.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: You’re trying to equate some sort of morality with the notion of freedom and free will they are not required to be in tandem with one another.
Wrong. Your interpretation of what I said shows that you did not read what I said with the intention of understanding what I was saying. That is understandable given that your writing indicates the writing of somebody that is getting frustrated, and who is feeling certain negative emotions… You appear as if you sense that you are losing control in this debate and that you are attempting to regain it. These strawman arguments, and misinterpretations of what I am arguing, is your attempt to regain control in an argument that you are perceiving yourself as losing control in.
Again, you attempted to dismiss the notion of free will as a requirement to go by the moral teachings of the Bible. You did so in defense of a professor who clearly is deliberately distorting information, revising history, to suit his agenda. Additionally, you implied that if we didn’t worship God the way he liked, that we were going to roast.
In order to prove your assumptions, regarding free will, wrong, I pointed out how free will still existed, and how it is supported in the Bible. In the Old Testament, God hands down a set of laws. Not only do we have the 10 Commandments, but we also have a set of statutes that he provided. Guess what? We also have the laws of man, statutory laws created by nation states and cultures in the process of forming a civilization.
In both instances, the creation of laws understands the nature of free will, with those living under those laws having free will. The point, that you conveniently/deliberately miss, is that nothing in the requirements, or laws, means that we “do not” have free will.
There is no “trying” about this, nor is there an attempt to equating morality with freedom and free will. Nowhere in my statements do I make that argument.
And, you can thank the fact that you were born and raised in a civilization whose philosophy, and moral codes, ultimately are based on Judeo-Christian philosophy. Western civilization, for centuries, had been heavily influenced by the Christian church. Our founding fathers understood that God’s laws formed the foundation of secular law.
Not only were there laws against theft, and rape, but there are religious practices that are consistent with those teachings, that were the original laws passed.
When God gave the Israelites the 10 Commandments, and his initial statutes, he was giving them the foundations that they would need to establish a civilization. This was to become one of the roots of modern Western civilization with regards to philosophical evolution as well as the evolution of laws.
Consequently, God’s laws prohibiting theft, rape, and that require good moral character, became embedded in Western culture to the point that you don’t have to be religious to have these principles ingrained into you. Even if you are an atheist, you could thank the fact that you’ve been raised embracing a moral code of conduct that traces its roots to the Bible.
You could easily have been raised as an atheist in another culture where pedophilia is “acceptable”. You could’ve been raised in a culture that encourages stealing, murder, or any of the other characteristics that you’d frowned upon today.
From a historical context, most cultures in the ancient times credited their gods for the laws that they lived by, and for the knowledge that they possessed. So, even if you were raised in another culture, chances are these other gods would’ve prohibited stealing, murder, etc.
The argument is it whether you have free will because of God, or despite of them, but on whether you have free will or not based on his laws. You are arguing or implying that we have little to no free will and the account of your perception that we have to “worship God a certain way”.
I am arguing otherwise, and can legitimately pull quotes from the Bible to support the fact that we have free will. Included in this is the fact that we have freedom. Freedom, and free will, go hand in hand.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: We really are all atheists to a degree, it’s how far we take our non-belief that separates us.
No, not everybody is an atheist to some degree. A person either believes in God, or in gods, or a person doesn’t believe in them at all. Atheists fit the latter category.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: Some choose to only not believe in the “false” gods,
If they don’t believe the “false” gods, but they believe in God, then they are not “atheists to some degree”.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: others of us choose not to believe in any god(s) at all
This is what an atheist is.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: recognizing the evidence for any god is exactly the same as the evidence for all gods.
Nobody is arguing as to whether the God in the Christian Bible, regarding any other religion, is the true God as compared to the gods of the other religions.
Throughout history, and even in the modern times, Christians were willing to reconcile the fact that the Christian God is the same as the Muslim God, as the Great Spirit, or as any other head God. When the Spaniards expanded their empire, they didn’t just use the threat of violence. There was also a lot of “merging” action where the head God the natives was identified as also being the same as the Christian God. They did that in the Philippines and in other locations.
Even the concept of God, in the Old Testament, derived from an evolution of multiple religions, where head Gods, from different cultures, “merged”.
When Emperor Constantine accepted Christianity, the idea that Jupiter was one and the same as “Elohim” was used to “merge” Jupiter with Elohim. The image, of God, that Christians have is an echo of Jupiter. The first syllable of “Jupiter” is “Ju”, which is literally a derivative of the word for “God”. “Zeus” means “God”. The same with “Allah”.
You need to read my replies elsewhere on this thread, regarding the Old Testament, to get an idea where I actually stand, instead of making an assumption of what I believe.
Nowhere, in any of my posts here, do I demand that you believe in a higher power. Yet, that is what is driving your responses, isn’t it? I legitimately destroyed your argument, an argument in defense of someone who was revising history. That was the focus of my response. Yet, somehow, this had to become about the belief in a higher power.
We started about a belief in a higher power, so now you’re being facetious. Free will under a loving god was the premise of this entire discussion. It was always about a higher power and his demand or lack thereof to be worshipped in a certain way and whether or not that reflects a true free will or a coercion of sorts. You’ve not destroyed anything I said merely offered your countering views based on your belief system. That’s what makes for good discussions, a couple of beers might make it even more fun.
Nowhere, in any of my posts here, do I demand that you believe in a higher power.
And nowhere do I suggest that you did, my point that we don’t share a belief is to simply reinforce that your view and my view are from entirely different perspectives. Consequently nothing I say or nothing you say changes how either of us view religion or god. Your god has provided you with a great deal of what makes you, you. You write dozens of paragraphs explaining why and how you believe that.
And I write a dozen paragraphs explaining why I believe it’s a simple control mechanism. You actually reinforce that by identifying the underlying “civilization” that results from these beliefs in god. Except what you describe as civilization throughout modern history wasn’t much in the way of freedom for the common peasant or serf, their lives were much misery owned or beholden to those Emperors and Kings and Queens who often ruled capriciously without concern for the thing and people that were their rightful property.
You feel a need to “destroy” my argument, and you claim it reveals my psychology while you do it. A mirror would be helpful most likely because the fact you need to “destroy” my arguments and take a “sadistic” pleasure in it would reveal something about you as well. Your words, not mine.
In the end your argument is that you have free will to worship your god, because your bible tells you that you do and you have a lot of examples in it.
Mine comes down to this, you don’t have free will to do as you please if you want be accepted by your god. Your god coerces your free will because he won’t accept you on your terms, only on his terms.
There’s only one way to your god, you can’t just live in the woods and ignore your god because you can’t get to heaven that way. If your god actually allowed you free will he’d take you into heaven whether you bent your knee or not.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: We started about a belief in a higher power,
This wasn’t an argument that started on whether there was a higher power or not.
I called into question a professor’s misguided interpretation of an angel talking to the Virgin Mary, with regards to whether this was a consensual conception or something forced upon her due to the “power differential” between the two of them.
You jumped in, with no clear understanding of what you were talking about, and essentially supported the professor’s position. Additionally, your response questioned the idea of free will given one of God’s conditions. I rebutted you with both an explanation of the total context of what you were talking about… Which proved your argument wrong. I followed that up by arguing that we had free will.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: so now you’re being facetious. [PROJECTING YOUR TRAITS]
This argument was not an argument about whether there was a higher power or not. Go ahead, nobody is looking, scroll back up and read the first post you made that I replied to. Then, get back with me.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: Free will under a loving god was the premise of this entire discussion.
Not exactly. On the part of the free will, yes, that argument was done independent of the question of whether there is a higher power or not. On the part of whether the higher power was “loving” or something else, no, that is not what this argument is about.
You dismissed the idea of free will because “God wanted us to worship him a certain way”. You’re the one that is being facetious.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: It was always about a higher power and his demand or lack thereof to be worshipped in a certain way and whether or not that reflects a true free will or a coercion of sorts.
Again, not exactly, you are stating two concepts in the first part of your statement, and you touched upon one of the premises of this argument in the latter part of the statement. No, this argument is not about a higher power, as a standalone topic. This argument is about whether or not the requirements from a higher power negates free will.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: You’ve not destroyed anything I said
If I didn’t destroy anything that he said, you would easily answer my yes/no questions for the parameter that I set. I have yet to see you answer important questions that I’ve asked you that are related to this debate.
I destroyed you in this argument, and I continued to destroy you in this response. No amount of pride, on your part, is going to change that fact.
Your first post essentially supported the argument of the professor. I introduced the full context of what that professor was talking about, from the Bible, and provided a different picture from what the professor was talking about and… By extension, what you tried to argue.
Additionally, I noticed that you backpedaled from some of your initial contentions.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: merely offered your countering views
Yes, that is why I am dismantling your argument point by point. It’s obvious that we have countering views. It is also obvious why I mentioned, earlier in our argument, that I have been debating against the opposition for over 15 years. I was making it clear that we were providing countering views.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: based on your belief system.
First, if you are referencing religious/spiritual belief systems, I have not provided sufficient commentary, on this thread or on the others, that would provide anyone with enough information to know what my spiritual belief system is.
Again, read the other posts that I made, on this thread, in response to others. Additionally, read what I said on this thread with the intention of understanding what I said. Even if you do both, you would still not have sufficient information to provide you with what my spiritual/spiritual belief system is, but more than enough information to let you know that your assumptions, about my belief system is, are false.
Second, with regards to my side of the argument as opposed to yours; I’m advancing a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument against what you have been providing. I’m not seeing the same coming from your arguments.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: That’s what makes for good discussions,
Although some people define a “discussion” as including disagreement/debate, I include disagreement under the term “debate”. And yes, the arrangement that you talk about here, with opposing views, makes for one of the reasons why I have been debating against the opposition for over 15 years.
Again, as I indicated in my previous replies, I don’t argue with somebody to change their mind, or to change mine. My idea of an argument is to perpetually dismantle the opposition. The longer this occurs, the more fun it becomes.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: a couple of beers might make it even more fun.
I don’t debate when I am drunk. Certain conditions have to be in place before I argue against the opposition. All these conditions have to be in place to assist in destroying the opposition.
Being drunk counters the effects of these conditions and would be pointless. Additionally, judging by the tone and demeanor of many within the opposition argument, there would be a good chance that many among them would resort to violence in the course of the argument.
What I have done so far, and what I will continue to do, is what makes this fun. The longer this argument takes, the more fun it becomes.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: And nowhere do I suggest that you did, my point that we don’t share a belief is to simply reinforce that your view and my view are from entirely different perspectives.
Given that it is obvious that you and I are on different sides of the argument on this topic, just by looking at our debate/argument here, there is no need to mention that neither of us would share a certain view. So, on those grounds alone, there is no need to mention that statement.
However, there is a purpose behind every statement that you used, intentional, or subconscious, and there is a reason to why you insisted that we will never share the same beliefs. Hence, my statement that I wasn’t trying to impose a certain belief on you.
I actively seek out arguments against people that I know for fact would never agree on anything I say in specific topic. In fact, the last decade when message boards were popular, and current social media wasn’t available yet, I looked for threads on forums with the most liberals (not saying that you’re one).
Then, when I found such a thread, I jumped in and dismantled every single one of their posts. I did so knowing full well that nothing I said or did was going to get them to change their minds. But, even when I’m arguing against a single person, when I rebut that person’s posts, in this case when I rebutted you for the first time, on this thread, I did so with the understanding that nothing I said or did was going to get you to change your position.
Again, I don’t debate people to change their minds. Likewise, I consistently come out on the other side of the debate with the exact same argument I had going into it.
You’re making that statement is defensive in purpose. Every time someone has said that, or something similar, they falsely believed that they would get me to change my position. But, instead, I was destroying theirs. Herein lies the motivation of why you mentioned the above, and why I countered by challenging you to show me where I made attempts to get you to change your position.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: Consequently nothing I say or nothing you say changes how either of us view religion or god.
What I said to you earlier in this argument:
“I don’t enter these debates with the intention of changing the opposition’s mind. Likewise, I’ve had the same position at the end of the debate as I did at the beginning of the debate. I enter these debates with the intention of perpetually dismantling the opposition’s responses.” — thebesig
Inadvertently, you said something that essentially agreed with something I said earlier. Note the last part of that quote. My idea of a debate is not to change the other person’s position, as I engage in debates with people that I know will not change their minds. My idea of a debate is to perpetually take apart the opposition’s response.
Again, when someone says that to me, it’s because of one of two things, or both:
1. They set out at the beginning of the debate falsely thinking that they would get me to change my position.
2. They are doubting their own argument.
An abundant amount of pride, on their part, would drive them to mention the “it looks like neither of us is going to change our minds” statement. This is one of the reasons to why I went ahead and mentioned, earlier in our argument, that I wasn’t doing this to change minds. You’re not the first one to argue that nobody was to change their positions.
In situations where the opposition thinks that I’m trying to change their minds, it’s that they are subconsciously realizing that they have a weak argument.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: Your god has provided you with a great deal of what makes you, you.
Again, you’re demonstrating a lack of understanding of what my true spiritual beliefs are. I haven’t provided sufficient information, on this thread or elsewhere on this website, that would provide somebody an insight of what my spiritual beliefs are. However, if you were to look at my responses to the other posters on this thread, you would be hard-pressed to continue with the assumptions that you are making regarding what I believe in, and what causes what in relation to that.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: You write dozens of paragraphs explaining why and how you believe that.
First, I’m not writing these responses. I’m using Dragon NaturallySpeaking 15 (dictation software) to generate my replies to you.
Second, I was arguing from both a historic and a textbook perspective. Not from the perspective of a spiritual or opinionated belief.
Third, I’m not generating these paragraphs to explain a belief, but to put things in perspective based on my understanding of history and of what is in the Bible.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: And I write a dozen paragraphs explaining why I believe it’s a simple control mechanism.
Yes, I can see that your writing your arguments, in as many words that you need, to explain your position. Again, it’s clear that you and I are on opposite ends of the debate and, as I indicated above, there is no goal on either part to change one’s position.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: You actually reinforce that by identifying the underlying “civilization” that results from these beliefs in god.
No, nowhere in my posts due by argue that a belief in God is what is required to create a civilization. Societies have existed, in a hunter gatherer state, even when the members of that group have a spiritual system that believes in different gods performing different functions.
On the other side of the coin, a look at history shows that other civilizations have formed without knowledge of the Judeo-Christian “laws of God”.
I mentioned that the 10 Commandments, and the statutes that God provided the Israelites in the Old Testament, provided the foundation by which they would be able to develop civilization. One of the things that the system of laws did was contribute to them seeing beyond “the tribe” and looking at the bigger “state of existence”. There were other benefits as well.
So, I qualified that in a “there’s a caveat” way. I supported that argument with another argument as to how our own civilization turned out.
There is an excellent chance that if you were to lay down your own atheistic moral code, that most if not all of them would have histories traceable to the Judeo-Christian philosophy.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: Except what you describe as civilization throughout modern history wasn’t much in the way of freedom for the common peasant or serf, their lives were much misery owned or beholden to those Emperors and Kings and Queens who often ruled capriciously without concern for the thing and people that were their rightful property.
First, this does not dismiss the fact that the people in those societies still had free will. Each of those kingdoms, empires, nation states, etc., had laws that everybody else had to abide by. These laws were not absolute in terms of governing every single action a person did.
People continued to have free will.
Second, unless a person was a slave in those societies, they were not the property of royalty. For example, in the feudal system, there was an arrangement where the landlord (Baron) had a rental agreement with those that worked the land (peasants/surfs/tenants).
The peasants (tenants) worked the landlord’s lands, and made them produce. In exchange, they provided a percentage of their produce to the landlord. Additionally, if the landlord needed a militia, someone from the household of the tenant had to muster. There were other requirements. However, the Baron did not dictate every single thing, that had to be done in life, to the tenants.
The tenants had free will.
But, this was not just an arrangement between the Baron and the tenants. The Barons were in the Kings/Queens Dominion. As such, they too owed valuables to the monarchy. This was in the form of produce, or any other valuable items that the Barons gained.
The abuses that you mention were there, but not in the way that you describe it. All the people were not in misery all the time. In fact, there were revolts. This led to an evolution of our concept of freedom and democracy.
This leads to my third point.
Third, enter the Magna Carta. This would lead to an ongoing chain reaction that would lead to the hammering out of our Constitution.
The fuel that made this possible? A Western philosophy that is rooted in Judeo-Christian philosophy. The main points of contention; personal property, personal freedom, and personal life. The understanding was that God gave us both freedom and life. Through those two, he requires us to be productive. What we gained, through that productivity, became our property.
A.k.a., the fruits of our labor.
Paying taxes to Baron, and to the monarchy, involved something that was generated from what the producers owned. So, when taxes were raised, the producers had to give up more of the fruits of our labor. That increased the chances of protest.
It was in Christian Europe, and in the North American colonies, where the evolution of democracy and freedom reached the point to where one was created that the rest of the world imitated.
That was no accident. The evolution of Judeo-Christian philosophy contributed to this. Another contribution was to the idea of continuous technological improvement.
In none of the instances, that you brought up above, were the people denied of all of their free will. Hence, my using human government, and its laws, as an argument against your “no free will because God wants us to worship him in a certain way”.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: You feel a need to “destroy” my argument,
Wrong. I didn’t say that I felt I needed to destroy your argument, no quotation marks needed as I’ve been destroying your arguments. I told you that I have fun doing this, so I keep dismantling your arguments.
If I “didn’t destroy” your arguments, you’d have no problem answering my question per the parameters that I set. I could see that once again, you failed to answer my question. So, I’m going to ask that question, and another one, in this series of replies.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: and you claim it reveals my psychology while you do it.
No “claim” about it, it’s precisely what I’m doing. I’ve categorized the people that I’ve argued against into psychological profiles, based on their replies and on how they conduct themselves in the debate.
I’ve been doing this for over 15 years.
There’s a purpose behind every word, sentence, paragraph, and everything else I say in an argument. Individually, and collectively, they’re designed to get the opposition to behave a certain way. You’ve done exactly what I’ve expected you to do based on your reactions to my counter rebuttals.
I’ll give you an example. That nonsense about your “I’ll stop right here in light of the season” narrative. Did you stop? Nope, and I pointed it out in my follow-on reply. That was a baloney ploy on your part. When I responded anyway, and you proved yourself wrong by replying, I knew that you didn’t mean that. You’re not the first person that used that ploy.
That action alone gave me an insight into your psychological profile. If you truly meant that you would stop “right here” in light of the season, you would’ve done it. But, you didn’t. Your replies indicate someone with a super surplus of pride as well as someone with strong issues involving control. I’m also seeing some stress and anger issues in your responses.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: A mirror would be helpful most likely because the fact you need to “destroy” my arguments and take a “sadistic” pleasure in it would reveal something about you as well.
Nope, no mirror needed. What I said:
“Speaking of the time of the year, Christmas, New Year’s Day, and Epiphany, when I responded to somebody this way, coming back to read the replies is like being a kid on Christmas morning knowing that the presents are about to be opened.
” — thebesig
And…
“You just revealed more of your psychology that was involved in your response. See why I enjoy doing this? :mrgreen:” – thebesig
Here, let me simply that for you. I do this because it’s fun. Yes, that fun is such that it reaches sadistic levels of fun. All that does is reveal that I take more pleasure from engaging in a debate with someone where neither side intends to change their minds… And using, what the opposition reveals in their responses, against them.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: Your words, not mine.
Wrong. Go back and read my replies, with the intention of understanding what I said. Those aren’t my words, but your misunderstanding of what I am arguing.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: In the end your argument is that you have free will to worship your god, because your bible tells you that you do and you have a lot of examples in it.
False, that’s not what I’m arguing.
First, go back and read my argument on this thread, in its entirety, with the intentions of understanding what I said.
It’s understandable that you haven’t read my posts with the intention of understanding what I said, as you have a lot of emotions raging through you when you see the depth that I go to dismantle your arguments. When someone’s blood is boiling, or even experiencing a simple form of anger, their judgement and mental focus is going to be affected.
I see this with your consistently misunderstanding what my spiritual beliefs are, and with big disconnect that exists between what you say my words meant, and what I’m actually saying.
Your misinterpretation of my argument, and of where I stand, stems from both the emotions that rage through you, and from the need for control that I’m seeing in your replies.
Second, my argument is that we have free will, period. The fact that God provided the 10 commandments, and his statutes, does not dismiss the fact that we have free will. My use of the Bible, against your claims that God’s worship requirement “negates” our free will, was my using the Bible to prove you wrong.
It was also to demonstrate that you simply don’t know what you’re arguing.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: Mine comes down to this, you don’t have free will to do as you please if you want be accepted by your god.
False again.
First, much of what people want to do is covered by what they’re required to do based on the Bible. They do these actions as a part of doing what they please.
Second, on the bit about “doing as one pleased”, this leads me to questions that you haven’t answered yet. If your argument was valid, you’d be able to answer my questions. You’d do so per the parameters that I set, and not make excuses to justify your refusal to answer them.
You’ve still refused to answer them. This strongly shows that you don’t have confidence in this argument. Why? Again:
Which leads me to the question that you failed to answer… Does the fact that we have the death penalty in the United States negates the fact that we have free will in the United States? I’ll extend that to this question… Does the existence of federal, state, and local statute mean that we don’t really have free will in the United States? YES [ ] NO [ ]
And…
If you were applying for a security clearance, and you’re officially on record declaring that you’re not loyal to the United States Constitution, and you acted on that by working with groups that advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government, do you think you’d be awarded a security clearance? YES [ ] NO [ ]
If you put an “X” in the “no” box, the following applies:
Does not being awarded a security clearance in this scenario mean that we don’t really have free will? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste these questions to your reply, along with the yes/no options, then place an “X” in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional information that you’d want to provide with your answer.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: Your god coerces your free will because he won’t accept you on your terms, only on his terms.
And that argument isn’t supported by a reading of the Bible. Again, God provided the 10 commandments, and his statutes, in the Old Testament. These were applicable to the Israelites, and later the Jews and Christians. This is no different from the United States creating laws at the federal, state, and local levels.
In both of these situations, there is no disappearance of free will. In fact, there was one time when God ordered Moses to bring the Israelites to a certain area so that God can destroy them. Moses entered into an argument with God, explaining to him why that would be a bad idea. Then, he essentially told God to cool down/let his anger simmer.
Did God destroy Moses? Nope, he didn’t.
In another example, Jacob wrestled with God. During the course of the wrestling match, God abused his power to give Jacob a handicap. Jacob continued to wrestle against him. Then, when the sun started to show evidence that it was approaching the horizon, God tried to remind Jacob that the time limit was being reached. Jacob refused to let go until God gave him what he came there to get.
Did God destroy Jacob? Nope, he didn’t.
In another example, Abraham had a discussion with God regarding how many righteous people would be needed to be found in order to spare them. When God agreed on a number, Abraham debated with him to lower that number… Until Abraham got him to agree on a single person or family.
Now, with God going there intending to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah regardless of how many righteous people still existed in those places, in the end he was willing to send angels in to retrieve a righteous family before moving ahead with this plan.
He didn’t destroy Abraham despite the letter disagreeing with him. It wasn’t “his way or the highway”.
These are three examples where God accepted someone else’s terms. All three of them were accepted.
You, not having read the Bible (I say that based on the argument that you are making), are advancing an argument regarding something that you have little to no understanding.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: There’s only one way to your god, you can’t just live in the woods and ignore your god because you can’t get to heaven that way. If your god actually allowed you free will he’d take you into heaven whether you bent your knee or not.
Again, this reflects a misunderstanding of one of the quotes that you provided in your previous replies. Jesus was using himself as an avatar to represent the way to God. “The way, the path” is the moral teachings of the old and the New Testament.
If Jesus was “the way”, he would have included himself in the prayer that he prescribed for people to pray. In Matthew chapter 6, 9-13, you would be able to read the prayer that Jesus prescribed. Nowhere, in that prayer, does he require us to say, “This I ask through the name of Jesus.”
Nope.
He goes straight from the last sentence of the prayer to the word “Amen”. He intended us to pray directly to God.
So, when he identified himself as “the way, the path” he was doing it symbolically using himself as an avatar. That path happens to be the moral teachings of the old and new Testaments.
I said this before, in my last reply to my last batch, and I will say it again here:
“You need to read my replies elsewhere on this thread, regarding the Old Testament, to get an idea where I actually stand, instead of making an assumption of what I believe.” – thebesig
Based on your last reply, you’ve failed to do that, in addition to your failing to answer my questions per the parameters that are set. That speaks volumes about the confidence you have in your own argument. You’re not the first one to refuse to answer my questions per the parameters that I set either.
Which leads me to the question that you failed to answer… Does the fact that we have the death penalty in the United States negates the fact that we have free will in the United States? I’ll extend that to this question… Does the existence of federal, state, and local statute mean that we don’t really have free will in the United States? YES [ x] NO [ ]
And…
If you were applying for a security clearance, and you’re officially on record declaring that you’re not loyal to the United States Constitution, and you acted on that by working with groups that advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government, do you think you’d be awarded a security clearance? YES [ ] NO [ x]
If you put an “X” in the “no” box, the following applies:
Does not being awarded a security clearance in this scenario mean that we don’t really have free will? YES [ ] NO [ x]
All these questions, and their correct answers, prove wrong the initial argument you advanced on this thread.
Your first answer substantiates my argument, not yours as you argued. It establishes my analogy as being equivalent to the initial argument that you advanced.
Your first, second, and third answers indicates that we don’t have free will in the United States on the account of the laws and requirements that we have in this country… Something that you’d have to argue if you wanted to defend your initial argument on this thread. But, we both know that we do indeed have free will in the United States. By logical extension, we have free will under the laws of God, just as we have free will under our laws.
CHECKMATE
Which leads me to the question that you failed to answer… Does the fact that we have the death penalty in the United States negates the fact that we have free will in the United States? I’ll extend that to this question… Does the existence of federal, state, and local statute mean that we don’t really have free will in the United States? YES [ x] NO [ ]
And…
If you were applying for a security clearance, and you’re officially on record declaring that you’re not loyal to the United States Constitution, and you acted on that by working with groups that advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government, do you think you’d be awarded a security clearance? YES [ ] NO [ x]
If you put an “X” in the “no” box, the following applies:
Does not being awarded a security clearance in this scenario mean that we don’t really have free will? YES [ ] NO [ x]
You don’t get spared additional commentary, well you do if you don’t read it…
I have no free will regarding taxes, if I don’t pay I get taken away by men with guns and locked in a cage. That’s not free will with respect to taxes. Free will to pay or not pay taxes would assume those taxes are voluntary, I figured you’d understand that is why it’s an erroneous comparison. You’re suggesting compulsory obedience at the threat of violence is the same as free will with that example and you insult me with your responses which I’ve tried to avoid doing to you. If I have then we are equal and I am sorry as it wasn’t my intent.
Your next two components are again not related to your god example. I’m not asking the government for a security clearance anymore than I’m asking your god for access to heaven. In that regard I am in fact free to not seek a security clearance without any penalty from the government which is directly contradictory to your access to heaven. The government is never going to lock me up and punish me for not asking for a clearance, in fact the government won’t even care if I don’t ask for a clearance. That’s a perfect example of free will I am not asking the government for anything and the government isn’t punishing me for not asking for it.
If you had free will with respect to the kingdom of heaven you could get in regardless of whether you applied for your god’s favor or not.
Your last two examples of applying for a security clearance don’t support your argument for free will at all, but your first example is a perfect example of what I’ve said from the beginning, compulsory free will isn’t free will at all.
I will “spare you” any further commentary because apparently it’s become annoying or you wouldn’t have asked me to “spare you” because I don’t understand what I’m arguing.
Good day to you, and good weekend.
If you had free will with respect to the kingdom of heaven you could get in regardless of whether you applied for your god’s favor or not.
I meant this to say you would not get in, but nor would you be punished, regardless of god’s favor. Clearly if you want in God can set his rules for that access, but if you don’t want in and prefer to remain dead in the ground as opposed to being case in the lake of fire that would require god to not care, any more than the government cared if you asked for security clearances.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: You don’t get spared additional commentary,
You see, this is an example of what I meant when I mentioned that you have control issues. What I actually said, which you conveniently excluded:
“Copy and paste these questions to your reply, along with the yes/no options, then place an “X” in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional information that you’d want to provide with your answer.” – thebesig
I direct your attention not just to the quote, but also to what I bolded in that quote. If you read what I posted, with the intention of understanding what I said, you will understand that the specific statement, “spare me any additional information that you’d want to provide with your answer” is my knowing, in advance, your attempt to build a strawman.
Others before you did the same thing.
I wasn’t demanding that you stop arguing. I made that statement, specifically the way I made it knowing full well that the “control issues” that I see in your replies would pull through in the response.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: well you do if you don’t read it…
Not happening. I read the rebuttals to my reply in order to provide counter rebuttals. A look, at this thread shows this pattern repeating itself. So it’s a given that I will read your replies, just as it is a given that I will provide a rebuttal. The later is almost as guaranteed as death and taxes.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: I have no free will regarding taxes, if I don’t pay I get taken away by men with guns and locked in a cage. That’s not free will with respect to taxes.
As you have consistently done in this thread, you once again backpedaled from one of your earlier stances. In the first post that you made, that I countered, you said this:
“Well the whole, worship me as i dictate or roast in hell for all eternity thing does sort of put a bit of a lie to the pretense of free will” — “Veritas Omnia Vincit
This was a clear-cut argument against the idea of having free will with regards to a “belief system”. You addressed not having free will with regards to taxes, but failed to address the fact that you have free will elsewhere.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: Free will to pay or not pay taxes would assume those taxes are voluntary, I figured you’d understand that is why it’s an erroneous comparison.
Your statement, that this is an “erroneous” comparison, quotation marks used strongly, is colossally false. It’s a dead accurate comparison, and is very relevant to our argument.
You have yet, in this thread, to prove my argument “wrong”. Likewise, you did nothing to effectively argue against the comparison I made with regards to federal, state, and local laws with regards to free will, when compared to God’s laws with regards to free will.
You dismissed the notion of free will with regards to God and his expectations, yet refuse a similar comparison with regards to free will with regards to governments expectations.
Again, I base my arguments on the facts, and am advancing a fact-based, logical reasoned argument against your argument. The last part of your statement, regarding why I “don’t understand” your opinion regarding the comparison, reflects your misunderstanding of what is a valid and what is not a valid comparison in this argument. It also reflects your misunderstanding of what is actually being advanced in the Bible.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: You’re suggesting compulsory obedience at the threat of violence is the same as free will with that example
Wrong. I clearly stated a concept with regards to God’s laws, and the laws of man. The argument, with regards to free will and God’s laws, is comparable to the argument with regards to free will and the laws of men.
We either have free will, or we don’t. It’s that simple. By insisting that we don’t have free will with regard to paying taxes, you are refusing to look at the actual, valid, argument proving your position wrong.
Again, you continue to read my argument without understanding what I am arguing. As I pointed out before, this is understandable given the range of emotions that you go through when you see a detailed rebuttal to your argument.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: and you insult me with your responses which I’ve tried to avoid doing to you.
Nope, I’m not insulting you with my responses. I’m basing them on the argument that you make, and on the approach you take. You accuse me of arguing certain things, or of believing of other things. Yet, you are not willing to recognize that as an “insult to me”. You argue as if that is a definite thing, despite the fact that you would not be arguing your assumptions about my belief if you were to simply read what I post with the intentions of understanding what I am arguing and saying.
I’m looking at what I posted, and that your responses, and am seeing a disconnect between what I argued, and what you are assuming I am arguing in your responses. My pointing that out is not an insult to you.
But, the fact that you would accuse me of insulting you, with my responses, shows that the psychological profile that I have of you is accurate.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: If I have then we are equal and I am sorry as it wasn’t my intent.
First, no need to apologize as what I said earlier:
“Wrong. Your interpretation of what I said shows that you did not read what I said with the intention of understanding what I was saying. That is understandable given that your writing indicates the writing of somebody that is getting frustrated, and who is feeling certain negative emotions… You appear as if you sense that you are losing control in this debate and that you are attempting to regain it. These strawman arguments, and misinterpretations of what I am arguing, is your attempt to regain control in an argument that you are perceiving yourself as losing control in.” — thebesig
And…
“It’s understandable that you haven’t read my posts with the intention of understanding what I said, as you have a lot of emotions raging through you when you see the depth that I go to dismantle your arguments. When someone’s blood is boiling, or even experiencing a simple form of anger, their judgement and mental focus is going to be affected.” — thebesig
Second, the intent of every single part of my reply has nothing to do with insulting anybody. I’m simply telling it like it is, as if I were describing a red fire hydrant as being a red fire hydrant.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: Your next two components are again not related to your god example.
False, they’re very related to my God example.
Again, you pick one item from what you assumed the Bible meant and argued against the idea of free will. Every single example I’ve used, in my questions to you, are logically comparable to that argument. In both examples, with regards to God, and with regards to human government, there are sets of laws and requirements. The question is, do the existence of these laws, or requirements, negate the fact that we have free will?
In your first response, you indicated such by arguing against the idea of free will if “you don’t worship God’s way”. I countered that by providing a more mundane example, in the form of federal, state, and local statute.
Bottom line, the existence of such requirements, whether in Judeo-Christian practice, or within the dominion of the laws of man, does not negate free will.
If you insist on a single requirement, and saying, “No, I just lose free will in that one aspect”, then you’ve essentially negated your original argument. If you insist that is the case, as in, the single issue of taxes, or a security clearance, and that you don’t have free will in that one instance, but you do have it elsewhere, then you essentially placed yourself in position of being “checkmated”.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: I’m not asking the government for a security clearance anymore than I’m asking your god for access to heaven.
First, this explanation is irrelevant. You initially argued against the idea of free will if we don’t worship God’s way. And, as a self-proclaimed atheist, you’re not asking for acceptance into heaven anymore than you are asking for a security clearance.
Your statement does not dismiss the fact that the one requirement that you mentioned essentially negates free will. It doesn’t. None of your arguments prove otherwise.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: In that regard I am in fact free to not seek a security clearance without any penalty from the government which is directly contradictory to your access to heaven.
You’re comparing apples to oranges here, as you are comparing what you understand is the process of seeking a security clearance, to your colossal lack of understanding of what is being said with regards to “access to heaven”. See the above explanations as to what is meant by “being the path, being the way”.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: The government is never going to lock me up and punish me for not asking for a clearance, in fact the government won’t even care if I don’t ask for a clearance. That’s a perfect example of free will I am not asking the government for anything and the government isn’t punishing me for not asking for it. [INDUCTIVE FALLACY: STRAWMAN]
The scenario as I provided it:
“If you were applying for a security clearance, and you’re officially on record declaring that you’re not loyal to the United States Constitution, and you acted on that by working with groups that advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government, do you think you’d be awarded a security clearance?” – thebesig
You are deliberately disregarding the complete scenario that I provided, in an attempt to come up with an argument. I direct your attention to what I have bolded and underlined, followed by the rest of the scenario. The key phrase is bolded, and the keywords are underlined.
It is a conditional statement, it is conditional statement where you were applying for a security clearance. In the same scenario, were described as doing other activities that are contrary to the actions that you need to do to gain the government’s trust. In this scenario, would you have gained a security clearance?
The answer would more than likely be, “No”. This scenario compares to the “worship God his way or else get roasted” argument that you made. Do things the governments way, in this case demonstrate loyalty, and you will get a clearance in the scenario. They are comparable.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: If you had free will with respect to the kingdom of heaven you could get in regardless of whether you applied for your god’s favor or not.
You see, this reflects a lack of understanding of what is written in the Bible. There is no “application for God’s favor”. You simply lived a moral path, as pointed out in the Old and New Testaments, in order to get in. Applying for God’s favor suggests putting in an application, or going through some ritual with a temple, cathedral, or church.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: Your last two examples of applying for a security clearance don’t support your argument for free will at all,
False. All the examples that I’ve used throughout this thread strongly support the argument that I made with regards to free will. I advanced a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument pointing that out.
Your opinion, based on the obvious control-based emotions driven replies, does not negate that. Your extra surplus of pride, that I am seeing in your responses, is blinding you to that fact.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: but your first example is a perfect example of what I’ve said from the beginning, compulsory free will isn’t free will at all.
False, the first example destroys your argument with regards to what you argued in the beginning, with regards to “worshiping God his way or else be roasted” going against free will.
Understand that there is a purpose to every word, sentence, paragraph, etc., that I use in an argument. One of the collective purposes of every example that I provided is to support the argument that I advanced. And, by extension, destroy the argument that you advanced.
I don’t just post after I generate my initial draft. I go back through and review the drafts of my replies to ensure that my objectives are met. Every single review showed me that every single thing that I said, advanced a strong argument in support of my argument, and against your argument.
You weren’t arguing that compulsory free will isn’t free will. You were arguing against the idea of free will under God’s laws. I effectively countered that. Your attempt to argue that my first example “supported” the argument is nothing but you pulling at straws.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: I will “spare you” any further commentary because apparently it’s become annoying or you wouldn’t have asked me to “spare you” because I don’t understand what I’m arguing. [PROJECTING YOUR TRAIT]
First, your replies and responses are not annoying. If you read my replies, especially with regards to why I do this, and the enjoyment I get out of it, you would understand that you are not being annoying.
Second, this is an example of what I mean when I say that you are seething with emotions with regards to reading my replies. It’s also an example of what I mean when I argue that you are speaking from an overabundance of pride.
Third, again, what I said with regards to my questions:
“Spare me any additional comments that you would be tempted to make when answering this question.” – thebesig
Key phrase is bolded, keywords are underlined. What part of this statement did you not understand? That statement is self-explanatory, and does not need to be made any plainer. All that was required was for you to put an “X” in the box that represented the reply. No additional responses to these questions.
I was obviously providing you the parameters of answering my yes/no questions. I noticed that in your first reply, you left that statement out. This is an indication of control issues.
This is deliberate, as every single one of those examples are relevant to the argument. The correct answers to those questions prove your argument wrong. Despite your attempts to backpedal and revise your argument, I’m going by what you initially said/argued.
That statement, about sparing me from any additional comments related to that question beyond a simple yes/no, was not intended for this entire argument. However, the fact that you would interpret it as such indicates an excessive amount of pride… You are finding an excuse for an out in a way that you perceive would save you face.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: Good day to you, and good weekend.
Good day to you too, and have a good weekend.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: I meant this to say you would not get in, but nor would you be punished, regardless of god’s favor. Clearly if you want in God can set his rules for that access,
And those rules are laid out throughout the Old Testament and the New Testament. The “path and the way” that Jesus talked about is laid out in both Testaments. When Jesus identified himself as being that “path and way”, he was identifying himself as an avatar for that concept, not the chokepoint himself. When he said “through me”, he was actually speaking on behalf of the path laid out in both Testaments.
It is through the path that you would get in.
Just like how immigrants have a path to get into this country legally. We had someone argue that immigrants didn’t have free will on the account that we didn’t allow them to come into the country illegally. This argument is similar to the argument that you are advancing.
You are narrowly looking at this based on the concept that you argue, that is not supported by an understanding of what is written in the Bible.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: but if you don’t want in and prefer to remain dead in the ground
When the Bible talks about “eternal life”, they are talking about life as a soul. They weren’t talking about our current incarnation. Once our current incarnation ends, our “flesh and bones” is, for the most part, interned into the ground or into a vault, or cremated. That flesh and blood will forever return as “dust”. However, our true life, our spirit existence, as spirits we are not constrained to the ground or to the area that the incarnation ended.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: as opposed to being case in the lake of fire that would require god to not care,
There is recognition, in the Bible, that nobody is without sin. By this explanation, everybody that has ever gone through and incarnation would end up being cast into the lake of fire/sulfur. However, there is also a mechanism by which a soul could avoid this. That is through the path that I explained above, as laid out in the Old and New Testaments.
The Bible also provides hints as to what would qualify somebody for being thrown into the lake of fire/sulfur, and what would qualify somebody to avoid that. This is evident by the Roman Catholic Church’s concept of purgatory. This is an area where souls are allowed to be purified, and thus be spared from the lake of fire/sulfur.
This concept flies in the face of the argument with regards to “worship God’s way or roast”, as well as to its impact on our free will. The church recognizes that we have free will, hence the Catholic Churches’s purgatory.
Veritas Omnia Vincit: any more than the government cared if you asked for security clearances.
Again, the entire scenario:
“If you were applying for a security clearance, and you’re officially on record declaring that you’re not loyal to the United States Constitution, and you acted on that by working with groups that advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government, do you think you’d be awarded a security clearance?” – thebesig
This is a conditional statement, if you are applying for a security clearance, and certain conditions were in place, would you have a chance of getting that clearance? This is a what-if scenario that captures the concept that you advanced in the post that I initially rebutted.
I’m not saying that you will request that clearance. I am advancing a “what if” and following that up with a scenario. Any attempt to make it something other than what the entire statement is communicating is an attempt to create a strawman argument.
And this time last year, this was the song Dan Bernath was calling every station in the Tidewater, VA area to get them to play:
https://youtu.be/sy9_JjLnmZI
This weekend I saw a Bob Ross Pez Dispenser. Of course, it was made in his artist’s likeness and not his USAF MSgt likeness. This made me think, how long will it be before wanna-be’s claim that not only do they have 4 stars on their highly coveted NDSM’s; they have their own Pez Dispenser?
RIP, to you Andy and the other 255 souls on Arrow Air Flight1285.
Never Forget.
Amen, Claw.
Here is the list of all those who perished on 12 December 1985:
https://www.nytimes.com/1985/12/14/world/victims-of-the-airline-crash-in-newfoundland.html
The Soldiers were members of the 101st, Fort Campbell, who were returning home from doing a 6 month tour with the MFO in the Sinai.
Never Forget. Rest In Peace, Warriors.
Rest In Peace. Salute.
https://www.findagrave.com/virtual-cemetery/64271?page=1#sr-34236082
Thanks for the reminder Claw, and thanks to AnotherPat for the links. We had some Georgia Troops on that flight, 2 of which were young’uns and very local.
Hand Salute
The USBATT HQ in South Camp, Sinai with the pictures of all the past commanders. The only one smiling in their picture is the one who died in the crash. I was told that if any of the new CO’s smile in their picture it is retaken.
The BC had put all the married Soldiers on that flight so that they would be the first ones home. They haven’t done that since. The families had already started gathering in a hanger in order to welcome home their loved ones. The Division Chaplin had to give them the bad news.
At the 101st museum there is a medallion on display that was blessed by the Pope for the service members. Near the museum there is also 255 trees planted in memory of the fallen from that flight.
This was told to us prior to my deployment to Sinai with the 101st 12 years after the crash.
Charles Town, West Virginia sits in the uppermost Shenandoah Valley, about five miles south of Harpers Ferry. Both are historically significant and both were in Virginia (West Virginia didn’t exist until 1863, an act that some still regard as wrongly accomplished. But that’s another story.). Among other events tying the two places was John Brown’s raid, a debacle of the first order. Brown thought that if he obtained the weapons in the arsenal at Harpers Ferry, he could arm the slaves and abolitionists who would most certainly and eagerly respond. He didn’t and they didn’t. Instead, his party’s first victim was, of all people, a free Black man, a railroad worker. Also killed was the mayor of Harpers Ferry. The locals reacted by grabbing their rifles and pistols and engaging Brown and his raiders. That bought the time needed for a military response, led by Robert E. Lee. The survivors, including the wounded Brown and a handful of others, were captured, tried, and hanged in Charles Town after a trial there.
Brown was dispatched to eternity on December 2, 1859 and the others two weeks later.
The court house at which the raiders were tried still stands and is in good repair. It is an imposing place in a still-quaint town. Until last Friday morning, there was a very small plaque affixed to a courthouse wall. It read, “In Honor and Memory of the Confederate Soldiers of Jefferson County Who Served in the War Between the States.” (Both Harpers Ferry and Charles Town are in Jefferson county, named for Thomas Jefferson.) The plaque was unceremoniously removed after the county commissioners voted 3-2 to have it taken down. Said one of the three, a Patricia Noland, “We didn’t want anyone to feel bad when they walk into the courthouse.” Oh.
1959. I Robot? 1859
A visit to http://www.scv.org will link you to the hundreds of Confederate monuments, statues, and plaques that have been removed, vandalized, or destroyed over the last several years. It will also link you to various other Veteran Markers and Memorials that are under attack. Most notable of these is the WWI Peace Memorial placed by the American Legion. It has got to go because it is in the shape of a cross and on a piece of property that the city maintains.
Surprisingly enough, a majority of these monuments have not been attacked so much by ANTIFA, BLM,ect, but by the very same elected officials that are supposed to represent the “will of the people.” More than 70% of the people in the country have said these monuments need to stay AND be protected.
Seventy million Americans are descendants of Confederate Soldiers. Many of these have and are still serving proudly as Americans in our Armed Forces. Myself, a brother, our father, 8 uncles, 2 grandfathers, 8 cousins, 5 nephews, and 3 nieces are counted in this assortment since the SP/AM War of 1898. This is just immediate family. Would take awhile to count laterals, 2nd plus cousins and gr grands.
I got a kick out of that county commissioner’s comment. She doesn’t want anyone to feel bad walking into the courthouse. Let’s say you are a visitor who believes that Brown and his group were heroes. You walk into the courthouse and you see where he lay during his trial. (He was wounded and carried in on a stretcher.) You know the outcome. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. But for that plaque, you would not feel bad, I suppose. PC idiocy.
Eggggsxactly. Plus Colonel Robert E. Lee and 2LT J.E.B. Stuart were leading US Marines under the jurisdiction of Federal Law, by order of a Democrat President. And you are correct, to many people, John Brown could be/was the hero of the day. He did what he thought was right, knowing that the plot would fail, and knowing what would be his fate upon capture.
He did get a nice marching song wrote about him, so there is that.
I descended from a federalized Illinois militia man (Union). My great-great-grandfather served in the union, is units first task was defending Ulysses Grant’s headquarters. His grandfather was a federalized North Carolina militia man, federalized in 1812, and again in 1814. And, his grandfather served during the American Revolution. Now, when my great (4x) grandfather left North Carolina, and ended up in Illinois, which side my family would be on during the Civil War ended up changing.
My great grandfather served during the Spanish American war. Doing a family trace, does turn up a lot of interesting stories and tidbits.
Yeah buddy on the tidbits, and they twist and turn every which way when you really get to digging.
My Scots/Irish boys been fighting with/for somebody since they stowed away back about late 1730/40 some odd. Numerous militia men, Rev War,1812, and on up thru history. One of the brothers of the original 4 left out of NC, possibly with your people, and ended up in Indiana. Had others that got on thru the South and midwest, and one grandpappy 4x that didn’t make it out of that Church in San Antonio back in March of ’36.
For us during the WBTS, it was more of a cousin/cousin vs a brother/brother fight. The most tragic period of this country’s history, caused by politicians.
I personally look at the divisions going on now being caused by the same political mindset as we had then. Keep the people stirred up over imagined things, and they’ll be too preoccupied to see what is happening.
Not that anyone would think that our government leadership would lie, would it?
5th/77th FA:
Enjoyed reading your stories as well as the link on the SCV. Thank you for sharing.
😊
you da man Bro! RTR
AP. Will you tell him?
?????
I trace one of my ancestral lines to a series of English nobleman living in southeast England. One of them, my great (22nd) grandfather deployed as one of King Edward 1st (Longshanks) barons, who brought an army to support the Kings objective, to Scotland. King Edward knighted my ancestor at Caerlaverock Castle, Scotland.
Back in the colonial period, it went without saying that men of a certain age range were automatically enrolled in the local militia. So folks tracing their ancestral lines into the colonial period would have a good shot at seeing their ancestors names in rosters of militias activated to fight in one war or another.
My great (4x) grandfather moved out of North Carolina and into Indiana shortly after the War of 1812. I wouldn’t be surprised if our ancestors crossed paths, or even if they traveled as part of the same group. Apparently, many of them received land grants as part of their compensation package for their service.
One of my ancestors, my great (10x) grandfather was one of the founders of Hartford, CT and Farmington, CT. His name is on the founders monument in Hartford Connecticut.
Isn’t that typical for Progs, they didn’t want anyone to feelz bad, cuz it is always all about what some people feelz.
And, unfortunately, the attempts to remove things related to the Civil War (Confederates), paves the way to removing things related to the Patriots (Revolutionary War), and other contributions, because of some characteristic or another offending the regressives. There are even those advocating the removal of the monument at Mount Rushmore.
The fat, ugly chick in the black garb says, “This is Christmas” as if it were a question. I got a kick out of that. I was waiting for an oy vey but that was too much to ask for.
We have many folk coming over here, for better opportunities, but who still insist that Sharia should be the Constitution, and that our Constitution is “invalid”. 🙄
Just in, another turd that won’t stay flushed. I’m sure you all remember this hero.
https://kvoa.com/news/local-news/2018/12/11/veterans-on-patrol-leader-arrested-for-disorderly-conduct-residential-picketing/
Maybe Bubba, Julio, Thor, and Mr. Tiny can give this whore the attention he seems to crave.
please never mention hump day with a photo of HidaBeast above it.
Even if it appears like she’s “humping” America’s leg? 😀
Probation and community service:
Man ordered to pay back $170,000 in disability money to 2 US agencies
By: The Associated Press 3 hours ago
Michael Basile was sentenced to five years of probation and 150 hours of community service for embezzling more than $170,000 from two federal agencies.
OMAHA, Neb. — A man convicted in Omaha of embezzling government funds has been ordered to make restitution to two federal agencies.
Federal prosecutors say 62-year-old Michael Basile was sentenced Thursday in U.S. District Court in Omaha to five years of probation and 150 hours of community service. He also was told to pay the Department of Veterans Affairs more than $62,000 and the Railroad Retirement Board more than $108,000.
Prosecutor accused of embezzling $7K from South Carolina Air National Guard
Prosecutor accused of embezzling $7K from South Carolina Air National Guard
Court records say a South Carolina prosecutor and Air National Guard member is accused of embezzling more than $7,000 in Guard funds.
By: The Associated Press
The prosecutors say Basile did contract work from June 2014 through September 2017 and had his payments made to a family member in order to conceal the income from the VA and the retirement board. He was receiving disability payments from both agencies at the time and was required to report any income.
Maybe this asshole thief will screw up, have his probation revoked, and have an opportunity to dine at the BJT Deli, home of the world famous cockmeat sammich.
Michael Basile, thief and liar, have a free google hit. Merry Christmas Bitch!
Frankly, I did not “turn” on Admiral “Craven”. I have not respected him since I first met him in 2002.
His cred as a special forces guy is but one aspect of his character…he has always been a “company man” in the service of his patrons.
That also goes for many of the other perfumed princes I have known…they are all servants of their patrons. If you are unaware of how GO/FOs are made, the word you need to learn is patronage.
I have not seen this sadness posted so I’ll put it here. These are the five who are MIA and presumed deceased from the in-flight refueling recently. Rest in Peace, Warriors.
Corps Identifies 5 Marines Who Died In KC-130 Crash Off Japan
By PAUL SZOLDRA on December 12, 2018 T&P ON FACEBOOK
The Marine Corps has identified the five Marines who died in a KC-130J Hercules crash off the coast of Japan on Dec. 6.
The fallen Marines were assigned to Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadron 152 (VMGR-152) and onboard a KC-130 refueling aircraft when a mishap occurred with a Marine F/A-18 Hornet.
“They were exceptional aviators, Marines, and friends whom will be eternally missed,” Lt. Col. Mitchell T. Maury, commanding officer of VMGR-152, said in a statement. “Our thoughts and prayers remain with their families and loved ones at this extremely difficult time.”
They were:
Lt. Col. Kevin R. Herrmann, 38, of New Bern, North Carolina. Hermann had served 16 years in the Corps and was posthumously promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel. He leaves behind a wife and three daughters.
Maj. James M. Brophy, 36, of Staatsburg, New York. Brophy had been in the Corps for 12 years, and leaves behind a wife, son, and a daughter.
Staff Sgt. Maximo A. Flores, 27, of Surprise, Arizona. Flores had been a Marine for nine years. He is survived by his wife.
Cpl. Daniel E. Baker, 21, of Tremont, Illinois. Baker served for two years, and leaves behind his mother and father.
Cpl. William C. Ross, 21, of Hendersonville, Tennessee. Ross served for two years, and leaves behind his mother and father.
The Corps previously identified the deceased Hornet pilot as Capt. Jahmar Resilard; his copilot survived the incident.
The crash remains under investigation. A previous news release said both planes were flying a training exercise about 200 miles off the Japanese coast when the accident happened.
Thank you for sharing, HMC Ret.
Rest In Peace. Salute.
Thanks Chief. Puts the face of the Warrior out there. There but for the Grace of God goes any of us at one point in time or another.
His Peace be unto the Families.
Salute
Lives of service, one and all. Of the enlisted men, all enlisted when they were 18 or 19. The officers both spent their entire post-college adult lives in the Corps.
Godspeed, Marines.
Vermont.
You can’t make this stuff up😉:
“Massive Middle Finger Stirs Controvery In Westford”
https://www.wcax.com/content/news/Massive-middle-finger-stirs-controversy-in-Westford-501821241.html
“Steps from Route 128 in Westford a towering sculpture stands. We can’t show you it but people in town can tell you what they see when they drive by.”
“It’s a big middle finger. Really high above the tree line,” said Deanna Wilcox of Fairfax.”
“It’s a big hand with a fist with one finger lifted up in an expression that we all know what it means,” said Mark Sustic of Fletcher.”
“And while we all know what the expression means, most people we spoke with wanted to know why it was put there.”
“You can’t believe somebody went through all that work. It’s very big. Everybody got the message. But a lot of work went into it,” said Carol Jordan of Fairfax…”
“It’s public art and we really can’t do anything about it.” Wonder if the property owner is going to put up another one; for the horse the town council rode in on?
👍👍😃👏👏
I wonder if Trump is going to take that under eminent domain and put it on the White House lawn facing the capitol. 😀
Mason: That was a good one!
Thank You! 😆
Or facing east, towards the European elitists. 😀
California.
You can’t make this stuff up😉:
“Officers Find Would-Be Burglar Trapped Inside Grease Vent Of Chinese Food Restaraunt In San Lorenzo”
https://abc7news.com/possible-burglar-found-trapped-inside-grease-vent-in-alameda-county/4886048/
“A would-be burglar is lucky to be alive after getting stuck in a restaurant grease vent for two days…”
“First off we can confirm this man was not Santa Claus and did not have legal authority to be here,” said Alameda County Sheriff’s spokesman Sgt. Ray Kelly, who said he’s not sure yet what charges the 29-year-old suspect will face.”
He was just trying to get into the place to get some tacos for the choir group. They were having late choir practice and are saving their money for new robes.
AND he was likely looking for toys to give to Orphans!
Virginia.
You can’t make this stuff up😉:
“Woman Pleads Guilty To Stealing $1.4M From US Government”
https://www.wavy.com/news/military/woman-pleads-guilty-to-stealing-14m-from-us-government/1655560134
” A Woman has pleaded guilty to stealing nearly $1.5 million from the U.S. Government while working as a secretary at Joint Base Langley-Eustis.”
“Federal prosecutors charged 52-year-old Michelle Holt, of Mathews County, with the crime earlier this month, alleging that she altered her time card for her benefit from January 2002 until June 2018.”
“Prosecutors say she started off slow, but over 16 years she added more than 42,000 hours of overtime that she never worked.”
“Holt had the co-worker’s password and not only altered the overtime, but also holiday pay and sick leave.”
“In the past couple years she was making double her regular salary in overtime.”
“Prosecutors said she took $1.46 million from the Department of Defense over that 16-year period.”
Appears as if she spent a lot of the stolen money at the all you can eat buffet.
She’ll find that carpet munching on Big Bertha to be less filling.
Good luck collecting from her on the payback.
I certainly hope the USAF went through the hoops to terminate her for cause vice allowing her to resign her job. If they let her resign, with just short of 26 years of civilian service she may well be eligible for a deferred civil-service retirement.
On the plus side, the pension for a deferred retirement wouldn’t start until she’s 62 – and I’m pretty sure Uncle Sam would be able to garnish that pension to recoup the money she stole. If so, it’s kinda doubtful she’ll see much if any of it for a loooooong time. (smile)
The same is true with Social Security – but there are limits. Only up to 15% of the payment can be garnished, and then only if the balance payable afterewards would be at least $750. Otherwise, they can only garnish the amount over $750.
Hondo: It is going to be interesting how she will be punished.
Having never been a DoD GS or DoD Contractor, not familiar with how pensions work. If she was fired because of this, does she lose her retirement pay (if she was a GS)?
Did not know the Federal could garnish her pension, if any, as well as Social Security. You are right about the possibility she may never see any $$$…and she will most likely pass away before the entire amount she stole has been reimbursed (with interest?).
And if she is still living 50 years from now, still paying back the Government, then there may be a possibility the Government may be providing her welfare since she may lack $$$ to take care of herself?
As API said, you play stupid games and win stupid prizes..😉
Thank You, Hondo and 5th/77th FA for the feedback.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes!
Bbwwaahahahaha…😉
“Trump Cancels White House Christmas Party For The Press”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-cancels-white-house-christmas-party-for-the-press
14,000 + comments and still going up on the Fox link. A quick perusal showed most in favor of the cancelation.
I wouldn’t throw them SOBs a party neither. If I did throw a party I would emphasize who DID NOT get invited.
Wonder how much a party like that cost the taxpayer?
BJ Willie probably charged a gate fee/bedroom rental fee when he was there. Seems like there was that kinda talk about the Lincoln bedroom “rentals” during that time frame.
rtr & pour a Sugar on it Honey
Given the way the mainstream mess media has treated him, I don’t blame President Trump one bit, let him cancel that and save us taxpayers some money!
AMEN to 5th/77th FA and API.
You both nailed it.
😉
rtr🐘
Thankyuhverymuch!
I’d rather see him spend that money on a surprise party for deployed troops! Could buy a lot of pizzas, ice cream, and beef jerky with what they spend on all that pomp and circumstance.
And from the wings: This here isn’t a court room, so nobody is obligated to read a long winded comment from anyone. Yes, I realize that nobody is obligated to read any of my comments either…
(Now the theme from “Rawhide” is running through my head with the words “Scrollin’, scrollin’, scrollin'”substituted for the original. “Head ’em up, Move ’em out!”)