Wft?!? a mash banger Brit sawed of a 'merican's head!

[Drich]

Would it have bothered you less if it were an Iraqi Muslim doing it?

Oh, yeah. Much less.

Look at it like a formula. If the beheading is the net result (can't do anything about that) then the only variable becomes the executioner. Granted from the video this guy was not the typical Brit mash banger (not paste-y white) he is someone who with the right paper work could indeed be anywhere (meaning in direct service or access to launch codes or something worse.) in your country or mine.

[Anomalocaris]

Hehe I'm weird, Drich is just...well I wouldn't use weird to describe him.

How about, Drich is usually right about what he says even if he doesn't tip his hat to all the play nice 'good people' rules.

Does drich usually describe how ignorant, stupid and confused he is? If not, he is unlikely to be right very often.

The rules are not nice good people rules. They are rules for people who are intelligent, thoughtful, deception resistant. You are born with a permanent inability to really follow these rules. Thanks to Christianity you lack the ability to even fake a tip of hat to these attributes.

[Drich]

See the above link

I don't have time for 17 pages of reading. Provide a pithy summary in your own words.

I did in the op of that thread.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't have time for 17 pages of reading. Provide a pithy summary in your own words.

I did in the op of that thread.

Unpersuasive. Reconcile the contradictions in the New Testament, start with the one I posted, and let me know why your interpretation matters more than someone else's.

Protip: it doesn't, you're just another cherry-picker with your own alleged justifications.

---

Also, feel free to respond to my points about monarchies, divine right, etc.

[Cyberman]

Drich: are you a typical Yank burg-cheeser? Or a dog-hotter? Can you see how childish you sound with your contrived racial slurs? They add nothing to whatever argument you're trying to make but instead show you up as an ill-educated wanker. If that's what you're going for then fine, but I'm asking you, politely, to please knock it off. This is not an official sanction, merely a request from one member to another.

[Nine]

Look at it like a formula. If the beheading is the net result (can't do anything about that) then the only variable becomes the executioner. Granted from the video this guy was not the typical Brit mash banger (not paste-y white) he is someone who with the right paper work could indeed be anywhere (meaning in direct service or access to launch codes or something worse.) in your country or mine.

That's true of anyone with extreme views of just about anything in any nation with missiles..

[Minimalist]

Drippy, we know you're a shithead. You don't have to keep proving it.

Origins of the War

The Peace of Augsburg (1555), signed by Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, confirmed the result of the 1526 Diet of Speyer, ending the war between German Lutherans and Catholics, and establishing that:[15]

Rulers of the 224 German states could choose the religion (Lutheranism or Catholicism) of their realms according to their consciences, and compel their subjects to follow that faith (the principle of cuius regio, eius religio).
Lutherans living in a prince-bishopric (a state ruled by a Catholic bishop) could continue to practice their faith.
Lutherans could keep the territory they had captured from the Catholic Church since the Peace of Passau in 1552.
Those prince-bishops who had converted to Lutheranism were required to give up their territories (the principle called reservatum ecclesiasticum).

Although the Peace of Augsburg created a temporary end to hostilities, it did not resolve the underlying religious conflict, which was made yet more complex by the spread of Calvinism throughout Germany in the years that followed.[16] This added a third major faith to the region, but its position was not recognized in any way by the Augsburg terms, to which only Catholicism and Lutheranism were parties.[17][18]

By 1617, it was apparent that Matthias, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Bohemia, would die without an heir, with his lands going to his nearest male relative, his cousin Archduke Ferdinand II of Austria, heir-apparent and Crown Prince of Bohemia. With the Oñate treaty, Philip III of Spain agreed to this succession.

Ferdinand, having been educated by the Jesuits, was a staunch Catholic who wanted to impose religious uniformity on his lands. This made him highly unpopular in Protestant (primarily Hussite) Bohemia. The population's sentiments notwithstanding, the added insult of the nobility's rejection of Ferdinand, who had been elected Bohemian Crown Prince in 1617, triggered the Thirty Years' War in 1618, when his representatives were thrown out of a window and seriously injured. The so-called Defenestration of Prague provoked open revolt in Bohemia, which had powerful foreign allies. Ferdinand was upset by this calculated insult, but his intolerant policies in his own lands had left him in a weak position. The Habsburg cause in the next few years would seem to suffer unrecoverable reverses. The Protestant cause seemed to wax toward a quick overall victory.

All you happy jesus freaks merrily slaughtering each other would be a wonder to behold. Why don't you start some shit and see if you can do it?

[Drich]

I'm not blurring anything at all, but you do seem awfully ignorant. It's as if you haven't heard of the "divine right" theory that kings of that era used to buttress their rule. Which sort of god, Catholic or Protestant, they gained their authority from mattered much to the folks that they would rule. That necessarily blurred the lines between Church and State, which is exactly what I was saying: the Europeans learnt that letting religion interfere with all aspects of life was a damned dangerous thing. So I must suggest that you, yourself, do a little reading, at least enough to equip yourself for this conversation, because you clearly don't know your ass from third base about this little bit of history.

very good, now finish your thoughts, and drag them to their logical conclusion when you apply your tid bit of history to what is being discussed.

If there is no seperation between church and state and said state (such as the Holy Roman Empire) declares war in the name of God does it mean God is somehow locked in and bound to support them, especially when the declaration of war counter mands the mandates given to us as Christians in the bible?

No. Especially when you look at the theology surrounding the Holy Roman Empire. At that time the pope was considered a living apstole with the power rights and ability to invent and countermand scripture. Which is what had to be done to declare war on prodestant states.

So again, actions taken in the name of God not supported by the bible are not apart of the Biblical Christianity Christ established and supports. This is what our media would deem 'radical christianity."

Also, when you do that reading (if you ever bother getting around to it, I'm sure your Bible holds sway in your "education"), you should perhaps focus on reading comprehension, because you seem to have an issue with it; I never said that that war was fought because of a scriptural command, for instance; yet you're acting as if that's what you read. I'll be happy to give you English lessons, but I do think that you'd be less embarrassed if we did that in private.

that was so arrogant and pompous it gave my irony meter cancer! good job! I will get to have some fun with this next bit.

The reason we are talking about biblical commands is because I introduced this subject like on page three the very first time this angle of attack came up. And I have been talking about it ever since. There has been at least 4 maybe 5 of you guys in an effort to shut me up has brought up this very to my attention.. Note your the only one still talking about it. Why? Because they all understand and have acknowledged through their silence that that Christianity per the scriptures (Christian not OT Jewish)is a nonviolent religion. appearently reading comprehension is where we both fail. Maybe get your lesson ready set your computer in front of a mirror and just pretend your talking to me, but at the same time take notes..

Another thing: you must have the advantage of height in order to be condescending. Not that you'd know that.

That is why my efforts are on being focused on being arrogant, contemptuous, or sarcastic.

---

I'm not blurring anything at all, but you do seem awfully ignorant. It's as if you haven't heard of the "divine right" theory that kings of that era used to buttress their rule. Which sort of god, Catholic or Protestant, they gained their authority from mattered much to the folks that they would rule. That necessarily blurred the lines between Church and State, which is exactly what I was saying: the Europeans learnt that letting religion interfere with all aspects of life was a damned dangerous thing. So I must suggest that you, yourself, do a little reading, at least enough to equip yourself for this conversation, because you clearly don't know your ass from third base about this little bit of history.

very good, now finish your thoughts, and drag them to their logical conclusion when you apply your tid bit of history to what is being discussed.

If there is no seperation between church and state and said state (such as the Holy Roman Empire) declares war in the name of God does it mean God is somehow locked in and bound to support them, especially when the declaration of war counter mands the mandates given to us as Christians in the bible?

No. Especially when you look at the theology surrounding the Holy Roman Empire. At that time the pope was considered a living apstole with the power rights and ability to invent and countermand scripture. Which is what had to be done to declare war on prodestant states.

So again, actions taken in the name of God not supported by the bible are not apart of the Biblical Christianity Christ established and supports. This is what our media would deem 'radical christianity."

Also, when you do that reading (if you ever bother getting around to it, I'm sure your Bible holds sway in your "education"), you should perhaps focus on reading comprehension, because you seem to have an issue with it; I never said that that war was fought because of a scriptural command, for instance; yet you're acting as if that's what you read. I'll be happy to give you English lessons, but I do think that you'd be less embarrassed if we did that in private.

that was so arrogant and pompous it gave my irony meter cancer! good job! I will get to have some fun with this next bit.

The reason we are talking about biblical commands is because I introduced this subject like on page three the very first time this angle of attack came up. And I have been talking about it ever since. There has been at least 4 maybe 5 of you guys in an effort to shut me up has brought up this very to my attention.. Note your the only one still talking about it. Why? Because they all understand and have acknowledged through their silence that that Christianity per the scriptures (Christian not OT Jewish)is a nonviolent religion. appearently reading comprehension is where we both fail. Maybe get your lesson ready set your computer in front of a mirror and just pretend your talking to me, but at the same time take notes..

Another thing: you must have the advantage of height in order to be condescending. Not that you'd know that.

That is why my efforts are on being focused on being arrogant, contemptuous, or sarcastic.

---

.... Well I'm not confused.

Nominated for the Dwarf-Star-Alloy Grade Irony Award.

Also you owe me a new smartphone. I just choked vodka over it.

Ahhh, doct-orb who I presume?
I may not be confused, but I don't get what you see in the doctor.

---

Drich: are you a typical Yank burg-cheeser? Or a dog-hotter? Can you see how childish you sound with your contrived racial slurs? They add nothing to whatever argument you're trying to make but instead show you up as an ill-educated wanker. If that's what you're going for then fine, but I'm asking you, politely, to please knock it off. This is not an official sanction, merely a request from one member to another.

Alright alright, all you had to do was ask. No need to be offensive. I have been call a b*rg-cheeser since we tried to burn those korans.


If you need to change the title of my thread feel free to do so..

Wow b*rg-cheeser, I had no idea you'd felt the need to go there.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Drippy, we know you're a shithead. You don't have to keep proving it.

Origins of the War

The Peace of Augsburg (1555), signed by Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, confirmed the result of the 1526 Diet of Speyer, ending the war between German Lutherans and Catholics, and establishing that:[15]

Rulers of the 224 German states could choose the religion (Lutheranism or Catholicism) of their realms according to their consciences, and compel their subjects to follow that faith (the principle of cuius regio, eius religio).
Lutherans living in a prince-bishopric (a state ruled by a Catholic bishop) could continue to practice their faith.
Lutherans could keep the territory they had captured from the Catholic Church since the Peace of Passau in 1552.
Those prince-bishops who had converted to Lutheranism were required to give up their territories (the principle called reservatum ecclesiasticum).

Although the Peace of Augsburg created a temporary end to hostilities, it did not resolve the underlying religious conflict, which was made yet more complex by the spread of Calvinism throughout Germany in the years that followed.[16] This added a third major faith to the region, but its position was not recognized in any way by the Augsburg terms, to which only Catholicism and Lutheranism were parties.[17][18]

By 1617, it was apparent that Matthias, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Bohemia, would die without an heir, with his lands going to his nearest male relative, his cousin Archduke Ferdinand II of Austria, heir-apparent and Crown Prince of Bohemia. With the Oñate treaty, Philip III of Spain agreed to this succession.

Ferdinand, having been educated by the Jesuits, was a staunch Catholic who wanted to impose religious uniformity on his lands. This made him highly unpopular in Protestant (primarily Hussite) Bohemia. The population's sentiments notwithstanding, the added insult of the nobility's rejection of Ferdinand, who had been elected Bohemian Crown Prince in 1617, triggered the Thirty Years' War in 1618, when his representatives were thrown out of a window and seriously injured. The so-called Defenestration of Prague provoked open revolt in Bohemia, which had powerful foreign allies. Ferdinand was upset by this calculated insult, but his intolerant policies in his own lands had left him in a weak position. The Habsburg cause in the next few years would seem to suffer unrecoverable reverses. The Protestant cause seemed to wax toward a quick overall victory.

All you happy jesus freaks merrily slaughtering each other would be a wonder to behold. Why don't you start some shit and see if you can do it?

Thank you for your detailed work. It saddens me to think that he still won't pay attention, because it will upset the mythos he has in his head.

[Drich]

Look at it like a formula. If the beheading is the net result (can't do anything about that) then the only variable becomes the executioner. Granted from the video this guy was not the typical Brit mash banger (not paste-y white) he is someone who with the right paper work could indeed be anywhere (meaning in direct service or access to launch codes or something worse.) in your country or mine.

That's true of anyone with extreme views of just about anything in any nation with missiles..

That's just it. They don't have any. But with a guy who can blend in to soceity, they have access to something as trivial as the fry station at mcDonalds, to the power grid, to command codes.

That is why it is so unsettling that a (fill in a suitable PC racial slurr for stimbo's people) cut dudes head off and not one of baghdadi's people.

---

Drippy, we know you're a shithead. You don't have to keep proving it.

Origins of the War

The Peace of Augsburg (1555), signed by Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, confirmed the result of the 1526 Diet of Speyer, ending the war between German Lutherans and Catholics, and establishing that:[15]

Rulers of the 224 German states could choose the religion (Lutheranism or Catholicism) of their realms according to their consciences, and compel their subjects to follow that faith (the principle of cuius regio, eius religio).
Lutherans living in a prince-bishopric (a state ruled by a Catholic bishop) could continue to practice their faith.
Lutherans could keep the territory they had captured from the Catholic Church since the Peace of Passau in 1552.
Those prince-bishops who had converted to Lutheranism were required to give up their territories (the principle called reservatum ecclesiasticum).

Although the Peace of Augsburg created a temporary end to hostilities, it did not resolve the underlying religious conflict, which was made yet more complex by the spread of Calvinism throughout Germany in the years that followed.[16] This added a third major faith to the region, but its position was not recognized in any way by the Augsburg terms, to which only Catholicism and Lutheranism were parties.[17][18]

By 1617, it was apparent that Matthias, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Bohemia, would die without an heir, with his lands going to his nearest male relative, his cousin Archduke Ferdinand II of Austria, heir-apparent and Crown Prince of Bohemia. With the Oñate treaty, Philip III of Spain agreed to this succession.

Ferdinand, having been educated by the Jesuits, was a staunch Catholic who wanted to impose religious uniformity on his lands. This made him highly unpopular in Protestant (primarily Hussite) Bohemia. The population's sentiments notwithstanding, the added insult of the nobility's rejection of Ferdinand, who had been elected Bohemian Crown Prince in 1617, triggered the Thirty Years' War in 1618, when his representatives were thrown out of a window and seriously injured. The so-called Defenestration of Prague provoked open revolt in Bohemia, which had powerful foreign allies. Ferdinand was upset by this calculated insult, but his intolerant policies in his own lands had left him in a weak position. The Habsburg cause in the next few years would seem to suffer unrecoverable reverses. The Protestant cause seemed to wax toward a quick overall victory.

All you happy jesus freaks merrily slaughtering each other would be a wonder to behold. Why don't you start some shit and see if you can do it?

You do know I only answer one of six of your posts to me right? And if on that sixth one your message has already been addressed then I just start the clock over again.

Looks like I'm going to have the start the clock over again.