Originally Posted by Non Sequitur

The White supremacist that gave the money has not written any brilliant theology or stood in front of a church council to defend his work and said a inspiring quote. Luther has done both which makes him just a little bit different from the guy in the article.

Also the great advantage about Luther is that he is dead and I can officially apologize for his hateful works (On the Jews and their lies is the actual book, I've read parts of it) and denounce those works, while still staying to the rest of his theology.

so here I stand, I can do no other, God help me

Originally Posted by Brett Golden

Now you'll say you admire some of Martin Luther's words, but not all. Right ??

Originally Posted by Brett Golden

Do you also apologize for some of God's words too ?? Such asfor example, St John 8:44 wherein God, thru his son, told the jews: "Ye are of your father, the devil."

Originally Posted by Brett Golden

How about after Pontius Pilot told the jews "I can find no fault with this man". And the jews cried: "Crucify him, crucify him, and let his blood be upon us and our children."

Originally Posted by Brett Golden

And, 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 says: "...for you suffered like things of your own countrymen as they did from THE JEWS, WHO KILLED BOTH THE LORD JESUS and the prophets, and drove us out and displease God, and oppose all men."

Originally Posted by Brett Golden

Do you apologize for all that, too ??? And do you apologize for me quoting God, for you??

Originally Posted by mkultra

thanks Brett--Ill check it now

I got this message when I clicked on the link:

Originally Posted by Meridious

And the videos where he is screeching, the spittle is flying, and he is acting the complete and utter fool are completely ignored by the Paulettes.

I posted one here not long ago.

He is a complete, unhinged loon.

just ONE of those videos make the campaign ads during the actual election and he loses all 5 of the sane crossover votes he might have, and no one will be left but the Tr00ther and K0nspiracy nutballs.

He is a loon, and a loser of a loon, at that.

Originally Posted by Non Sequitur

True.


Context my boy, context. John was written later then the other Gospels when Christians are being actively persecuted by Jewish leaders so of course that is going to reflect sometimes in his gospel.

BRETT: Ha. You have a sense of humor. Good. And good you concede "Christians being actively persecuted by jewish leaders". We never hear that from the MSM, only the opposite, you've probably noticed.

Also, it's all good to quote single passages out of the Bible without the rest of passage but, one could make the Bible say "There is no God" using that method. The entire passage is talking about how they are accusing Jesus of being from the devil. Jesus is illustrating how wrong that idea really is and how it is the devil who has them convinced of that opinion.

BRETT: There you ago apologized for Jesus. He said to the jews: "Ye are of your father, the devil". Sounds like good, unambiguous English to me. He clearly told them they're children of Satan.


True, but remember it is still Pilot who made the decision to execute him. He gave in to "peer pressure", if you will, which doesn't change a the fact that he is the one who ultimately made the decision. He cannot say "they made me do it." Doesn't mean the Jewish leaders didn't help out in the process but to blame them solely is missing the facts.

BRETT: Well, it's also true that George Bush made the decision to murder 500,000 Iraqi children by enforcing sanctions of foods and medicines, but it was his jew bosses in Israel that ordered him to. If a hired killer tries to slit your throat, who do you blame more, him or the fellow who hired him ?? The instigator, of course.

by the way i have always felt sorry for Pilot

BRETT: My God, yes. Surrounded 24/7/365 by jews musta been pure hell.


Again, context and please finish the passage. The first part of verse 14 is "for you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea...." the verse makes a lot more sense when that part of the sentence is there. Christians did suffer in Judea at the hands of the Jewish leaders and the Jewish leader did have a hand in getting Christ crucified, but no where does the Bible say that means Jews should be persecuted (Paul even says in Romans they might go heaven). The Bible says the opposite: "turn the other cheek" etc... Those passages may sound like open invitations to persecute Jews, but only if you read just those passages and not the rest of the Bible.

BRETT: Dang it N.S., do I gotta quote the whole chapter for ya ?? Anyhow, the bible said, just like I said it said: "Jews killed Christ and the prophets". Plain freakin English. And whether you like it or not, I think they oughta have to pay. And that means persecution. Hell, they persecuted Christ. So there you go. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, and a neck for a neck. I think Hitler was onto something.


ah the real issue. Who said you were quoting God? You are quoting a guy who says he is John and Paul, neither of which happen to be God. The Bible was not written by God and then dropped down in front of Paul complete with maps. It was inspired by God, but written by humans, which means some weird stuff gets in their from time to time (good example: Genesis 32:22-32 where Jacob restless with God and wins).

BRETT: That's the trouble with you bible-toting Christians. Put 10 of you together, and you get 10 different intrepetations, but you're the first one I ever heard admit there's "some weird stuff" in there. So how the hell do you subscribe to a religion when you yourself say some of it is weird. Geez. .

Also remember that it was part of God's plan for Jesus to die. His death also leads to his resurrection and thus the hope for salvation for all.

BRETT: I disagree. I believe if Jesus had not been nailed to a cross by the jews, Jesus would have solved the world's jewish problem. Remember what he said: "Think not that I come on earth to bring peace. I come not to bring peace, but a sword". See? The jews killed him before he had the chance.

But to answer you question, no I don't apologize for scripture, there is no need too.

Originally Posted by Fozmonster

If he takes the money it means he identifies himself with that cause.

Originally Posted by Fozmonster

If he takes the money it means he identifies himself with that cause. If a nazi gave me $5 to buy a McDonalds I wouldn't take it. It's dirty money. Equally all other candidates should be looked at in the same light.

EG I support a woman's choice when it comes to abortion, why would I take pro-life money to support my campaign? Of course I wouldn't - it goes to integrity. Why would they support my campaign UNLESS I SUPPORTED THEIR VIEWS?

Originally Posted by Fozmonster

If he takes the money it means he identifies himself with that cause. If a nazi gave me $5 to buy a McDonalds I wouldn't take it. It's dirty money. Equally all other candidates should be looked at in the same light.

EG I support a woman's choice when it comes to abortion, why would I take pro-life money to support my campaign? Of course I wouldn't - it goes to integrity. Why would they support my campaign UNLESS I SUPPORTED THEIR VIEWS?

Originally Posted by Slon

So if I work with someone who voted for Bush, that means I must support Bush? Do I need to screen my eBay sellers/buyers for possibly Bush supporters?

Originally Posted by Fozmonster

No, it doesn't

Originally Posted by Brett Golden

Well now Senator, that's an interesting political strategy for winning elections, ie., "don't take money from any citizen unless you agree with that citizen's cause".

Hmmmmm. . . . mighty interesting, indeed.

Would you mind, in case there might be skeptics among us, citing one successful example of that unique strategy ??

Originally Posted by Slon

What if I work at a restaurant and someone tips me? Should I only accept it if the guy follows my exact ideology?