(August 14, 2016 at 10:25 am)Drich Wrote: What Francis is doing is no different that what has been done in the US. Concerning the subject of slavery and the oppression of black people. From the deletion of the roles prominate black men have played in America's history, The nature and life of slavery, to the reason the civil war was fought, to the civil rights movement to today's feign for 'justice'. But rather than incite racial/religious tension He is trying to diffuse it.

Where is the problem in that?

Wait, so president Obama does it and he's a dangerous idiot, but the pope does it and he's just trying to diffuse tension?

Aren't you the one that's always screaming about what a danger Islam is? How come you're not calling Francis a "douchebag" like you would anyone here if they said the same thing?

Cuz dripshit is a hypocrite!

(August 14, 2016 at 11:54 am)Minimalist Wrote: Cuz dripshit is a hypocrite!

That was the gist of post,yes.

Dripshit doesn't do "gist" well.  He needs to be socked between the eyes!

(August 14, 2016 at 11:44 am)Faith No More Wrote:

(August 14, 2016 at 10:25 am)Drich Wrote: What Francis is doing is no different that what has been done in the US. Concerning the subject of slavery and the oppression of black people. From the deletion of the roles prominate black men have played in America's history, The nature and life of slavery, to the reason the civil war was fought, to the civil rights movement to today's feign for 'justice'. But rather than incite racial/religious tension He is trying to diffuse it.

Where is the problem in that?

Wait, so president Obama does it and he's a dangerous idiot, but the pope does it and he's just trying to diffuse tension?

Aren't you the one that's always screaming about what a danger Islam is?  How come you're not calling Francis a "douchebag" like you would anyone here if they said the same thing?

You (not surprisingly) misunderstand.

I am not blaming obama for deleting black history, nor rewriting American History. I am saying there is a movement in the US to re-frame the suffering of black people at the hands of whites. A perfect example of this is the movie Selma. (about the March MLKjr did in the town of Selma and the police went nuts beating people to death.)

In the movie MLK and President Johnson were at constant odds, when in fact Johnson was an avid supporter of MLKjr and his non-violent approach, and supported this MLK march into Selma and every other protest he organized.

But again, History was changed in the minds of the people through this particular movie. Just like when "roots" portrayed all plantation owners as being what we currently think of plantation owners.. and why most of you are so adminate that all slavery is akin to the chattel slavery depicted in that movie...

Again not saying this was the work of obama. or any other one man. This is what we as a country wants to believe about our past, and we are changing documented history in the hearts and minds of our people through artistic expression like these movies and unchecked violence.

Now as far as Islam is concerned, The pope is trying to diffuse racial religious tension concerning Islam in the hearts and minds of those in whom he leads... Which is consistent with the revelation prophesy concerning the unification of the world under one perverse religion...

So Again, what is wrong with that? Isn't that what you all want?

(August 14, 2016 at 10:25 am)Drich Wrote:

(August 13, 2016 at 3:42 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Francis recently stated that, "authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence...":

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/08/isis-...race-islam

It seems to me that Francis is trying to do with Islam something that has been slowly done with Catholicism over the last 200 years, that is, divorce (no  pun intended) the religion from its historical roots.  Now, if the Jihadists are convinced by people like Francis, should historians be "convinced", also?  If one simply looks at the timeline of World history, it is clear that Islam has been a violent religion since its very earliest days, from its initial crusades after the death of Mohamed until being checked at the Battle of Tours, and after that, the continued and attempted conquest of the West until the Fall of Constantinople in 1453.

Are people like Francis a threat to the Enlightenment with their revisionist histories?  Is Francis' recent statement about the Quran equivalent to Holocaust denial?

What Francis is doing is no different that what has been done in the US. Concerning the subject of slavery and the oppression of black people. From the deletion of the roles prominate black men have played in America's history, The nature and life of slavery, to the reason the civil war was fought, to the civil rights movement to today's feign for 'justice'. But rather than incite racial/religious tension He is trying to diffuse it.

Where is the problem in that?

It's dishonest.  Above all, atheism stands for that which is real as opposed to that which is not.

(August 14, 2016 at 12:25 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(August 14, 2016 at 10:25 am)Drich Wrote: What Francis is doing is no different that what has been done in the US. Concerning the subject of slavery and the oppression of black people. From the deletion of the roles prominate black men have played in America's history, The nature and life of slavery, to the reason the civil war was fought, to the civil rights movement to today's feign for 'justice'. But rather than incite racial/religious tension He is trying to diffuse it.

Where is the problem in that?

It's dishonest.  Above all, atheism stands for that which is real as opposed to that which is not.

no, Atheism stands for nothing. It lack of belief that solely defines atheism, not belief in something.

And if you are worried about dishonesty, why do you not address the dishonest that is moving to change American History in the examples I provided??

(August 14, 2016 at 2:13 pm)Drich Wrote:

(August 14, 2016 at 12:25 pm)Jehanne Wrote: It's dishonest.  Above all, atheism stands for that which is real as opposed to that which is not.

no, Atheism stands for nothing. It lack of belief that solely defines atheism, not belief in something.

And if you are worried about dishonesty, why do you not address the dishonest that is moving to change American History in the examples I provided??

I am not interested in derailing this thread, but yes, American history is replete with examples of falsehoods, especially, from the lips of politicians, both past and present.  Fortunately, scholars of American history, both here and abroad, know better.  You can visit learner.org to learn more.

To say that atheism stands for "nothing" is certainly not a view shared by atheists.  Listen to Sean Carroll sometime, especially, his debates (US Intelligence Squared) and other presentations on death, and the fact that there is no afterlife.  Carroll admits that he would like there to be an afterlife, but as he says (paraphrase), "naturalism tells us the way things are and not the way we want things to be..."  If I wanted comfort and fantasy, I would be religious, perhaps a southern Baptist with its "once saved, always saved" theological novelty, which descended out of John Calvin's ideas of double presentation.  In addition, I would find a church which values traditional, modest clothing for women, which I (as a male; don't let screen names fool you) find to be attractive.

But, I value truth more than mental comforts and sexual lusts; hence, I am an atheist.

(August 14, 2016 at 3:19 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(August 14, 2016 at 2:13 pm)Drich Wrote: no, Atheism stands for nothing. It lack of belief that solely defines atheism, not belief in something.

And if you are worried about dishonesty, why do you not address the dishonest that is moving to change American History in the examples I provided??

I am not interested in derailing this thread, but yes, American history is replete with examples of falsehoods, especially, from the lips of politicians, both past and present.  Fortunately, scholars of American history, both here and abroad, know better.  You can visit learner.org to learn more.

To say that atheism stands for "nothing" is certainly not a view shared by atheists.  Listen to Sean Carroll sometime, especially, his debates (US Intelligence Squared) and other presentations on death, and the fact that there is no afterlife.  Carroll admits that he would like there to be an afterlife, but as he says (paraphrase), "naturalism tells us the way things are and not the way we want things to be..."  If I wanted comfort and fantasy, I would be religious, perhaps a southern Baptist with its "once saved, always saved" theological novelty, which descended out of John Calvin's ideas of double presentation.  In addition, I would find a church which values traditional, modest clothing for women, which I (as a male; don't let screen names fool you) find to be attractive.

But, I value truth more than mental comforts and sexual lusts; hence, I am an atheist.

(bold mine)

I'm sorry, but it is a view I share. I lack a belief in god(s), and I resent the idea that, because I share that one trait with others, I "stand for" something.

(August 14, 2016 at 12:22 pm)Drich Wrote: You (not surprisingly) misunderstand.

I am not blaming obama for deleting black history, nor rewriting American History. I am saying there is a movement in the US to re-frame the suffering of black people at the hands of whites. A perfect example of this is the movie Selma. (about the March MLKjr did in the town of Selma and the police went nuts beating people to death.)

In the movie MLK and President Johnson were at constant odds, when in fact Johnson was an avid supporter of MLKjr and his non-violent approach, and supported this MLK march into Selma and every other protest he organized.

But again, History was changed in the minds of the people through this particular movie. Just like when "roots" portrayed all plantation owners as being what we currently think of plantation owners.. and why most of you are so adminate that all slavery is akin to the chattel slavery depicted in that movie...

Again not saying this was the work of obama. or any other one man. This is what we as a country wants to believe about our past, and we are changing documented history in the hearts and minds of our people through artistic expression like these movies and unchecked violence.

Now as far as Islam is concerned, The pope is trying to diffuse racial religious tension concerning Islam in the hearts and minds of those in whom he leads... Which is consistent with the revelation prophesy concerning the unification of the world under one perverse religion...

So Again, what is wrong with that? Isn't that what you all want?

Apparently, it's you that does not understand.  I was referring to when Obama makes comments on Islam he gets called by people like you "weak" and "dangerous," but the pope does it and he's diffusing racial tension.  Why does Obama not get credit for diffusing tension?

So, the reason you're not insulting the pope is because he's helping to usher in the end of the world?  Is that your righteous morality you're always bragging about?

I don't have any problem with what the pope said.  I don't enough of the Koran to say whether he's wrong or right. What I have a problem with is when self-righteous name-callers such as yourself can't even be consistent in their stupidity.