New America (NWO) Are You Guys Ready For Your National Id Cards?

[NuclearWinter]

Okay. I’m sorry but I think that I am having a little bit of difficulty in trying to fully understand what you are trying to communicate to me.

"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."

(Matthew 7:6).

Freedom to experience is a "Holy" thing. Do NOT give that to the unworthy for them to restrict and spit upon. And mark my words my friend, when they are done stripping away all your freedoms, and they have nothing else to take away from you...then the only thing for them left to come after.....is YOU. And those you love!

 

[mattskramer]

"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."

(Matthew 7:6).

Freedom to experience is a "Holy" thing. Do NOT give that to the unworthy for them to restrict and spit upon. And mark my words my friend, when they are done stripping away all your freedoms, and they have nothing else to take away from you...then the only thing for them left to come after.....is YOU. And those you love!

Do you like the Bible? Be careful. In the same book there are these words of caution:

Matthew 5:21

You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

Yet, please also obey Luke 9:3

And He said to them, "Take nothing for your journey, neither a staff, nor a bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not even have two tunics apiece.

I do not believe in every sentence of the Bible. Therefore, I do not use it in debate. Since you used it, to be intellectually honest and consistent, you must agree with every sentence.

Look. We are not even in the taunting room. Yet, you imply that I am a dog or swine. I am not a dog. I am not a swine. I am a human being ready, willing, and able to respectfully listen to those who want to teach me. I may strongly disagree with things but I do not restrict people (though the Bible may do so) and I do not spit at things or people. Please show some more class.

 

[Gunny]

Do you like the Bible? Be careful. In the same book there are these words of caution:

Matthew 5:21

You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

Yet, please also obey Luke 9:3

And He said to them, "Take nothing for your journey, neither a staff, nor a bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not even have two tunics apiece.

I do not believe in every sentence of the Bible. Therefore, I do not use it in debate. Since you used it, to be intellectually honest and consistent, you must agree with every sentence.

Look. We are not even in the taunting room. Yet, you imply that I am a dog or swine. I am not a dog. I am not a swine. I am a human being ready, willing, and able to respectfully listen to those who want to teach me. I may strongly disagree with things but I do not restrict people (though the Bible may do so) and I do not spit at things or people. Please show some more class.

I disagree. To accept a given ideal is not to accept them all.

 

[mattskramer]

I disagree. To accept a given ideal is not to accept them all.

I agree that one can accept the ideal without accepting every sentence. One can say that Jesus said some insightful things. Perhaps I was not clear. Yet, when someone uses the Bible as a tool in a debate then it is only logical to conclude that he must agree with every sentence of the Bible. Stated another way, when someone pulls a specific sentence out of the Bible and throws it “in someone’s face” as a criticism in a discussion. Then it is fair for the other person to challenge him on other sentences from the Bible.

Some people will say that homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says that it is a sin. If such were said, would it be fair for me to challenge him on other things that the Bible says?

Okay. I disagree with the passage that was thrown at me. I think that people should throw their message to everyone. Doesn’t the Bible say something about throwing your seeds everywhere and taking your chances? Some seeds will fall on good soil and some seeds will fall on bad soil. Likewise, some people will head the message and some people will laugh at it.

Hey, buddy, read Luke 8: 4-15


Anyway, do you think that he was out of line with his implication that I was a swine and should not be presented with his understanding?

 

[Gunny]

I agree that one can accept the ideal without accepting every sentence. One can say that Jesus said some insightful things. Perhaps I was not clear. Yet, when someone uses the Bible as a tool in a debate then it is only logical to conclude that he must agree with every sentence of the Bible. Stated another way, when someone pulls a specific sentence out of the Bible and throws it “in someone’s face” as a criticism in a discussion. Then it is fair for the other person to challenge him on other sentences from the Bible.

Anyway, do you think that he was out of line with his implication that I was a swine and should not be presented with his understanding?

So what you are saying is if one portion of the Bible is invalidated, then the Bible is also invalid as a reference? I will have to think on that.

If he is presenting his argument in a public debate forum, then he should be willing to substantiate his argument to all comers. Since I'd hardly call you an instigator or flamer, I'd say he either cannot present an argument, or has dismissed you as incapable of understanding because you disagree, if he refuses to debate his points.

 

[mattskramer]

So what you are saying is if one portion of the Bible is invalidated, then the Bible is also invalid as a reference? I will have to think on that.

I am not necessarily, personally, saying that if a portion of the Bible is invalid then the entire Bible is invalid. I actually value certain passages from the Bible. I am saying that for the sake and purpose of sound logical debate, if someone is going to use the Bible as an authority, then it is only fair that both sides agree with every sentence of the Bible. The authority of an outside source has to be agreed to by all parties. I do not agree with everything that the Bible says, so the Bible is not a valid tool for me for debate purposes, but it might still be considered valid by my opponent. If only one of the parties can show that both do not agree with every statement of the authority of the outside source, then the source becomes invalid for the sake of logical debate.

People apply different strategies in this area. One easy way for me to have us remove the authority is to ask the other side if he agrees with all that the authority says. If he shows hesitation in that regard, I can then suggest that if this Bible passage is questionable in one instance, then is it possible that another passage might be wrong in another instance too.

This is a little bit of a highbrow philosophical discussion but I hope that you understand my perspective. Check out the logical fallacy called “appeal to authority” for more information.

 

[Gunny]

I am not necessarily, personally, saying that if a portion of the Bible is invalid then the entire Bible is invalid. I actually value certain passages from the Bible. I am saying that for the sake and purpose of sound logical debate, if someone is going to use the Bible as an authority, then it is only fair that both sides agree with every sentence of the Bible. The authority of an outside source has to be agreed to by all parties. I do not agree with everything that the Bible says, so the Bible is not a valid tool for me for debate purposes, but it might still be considered valid by my opponent. If only one of the parties can show that both do not agree with every statement of the authority of the outside source, then the source becomes invalid for the sake of logical debate.

People apply different strategies in this area. One easy way for me to have us remove the authority is to ask the other side if he agrees with all that the authority says. If he shows hesitation in that regard, I can then suggest that if this Bible passage is questionable in one instance, then is it possible that another passage might be wrong in another instance too.

This is a little bit of a highbrow philosophical discussion but I hope that you understand my perspective. Check out the logical fallacy called “appeal to authority” for more information.

I understand the appeal to authority. Why do you think I have not once used the Bible as substantiation for any of my arguments?

 

[mattskramer]

I understand the appeal to authority. Why do you think I have not once used the Bible as substantiation for any of my arguments?

Touche

 

[actsnoblemartin]

ae y'all talking about the death penalty?

Touche

 

[mattskramer]

ae y'all talking about the death penalty?

The word “touché” is an expression used for acknowledging a telling remark or rejoinder. It is used to acknowledge a successful criticism or an effective point in argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touche

If one person presents an argument and another delivers a clever or apt response, the first person may respond with "touché" as a way of acknowledging a good response.

The expression probably comes from the first blood duels, relatively common in the eighteenth century: during the duel touching the opponent with the tip of the sword was sufficient to win; when this would happen the loser would acknowledge the defeat yelling "touched" hence ending the fight.

 

[Larkinn]

Well said, both of you.

 

[NuclearWinter]

Look. We are not even in the taunting room. Yet, you imply that I am a dog or swine. I am not a dog. I am not a swine.

Skramer. I was not using that quote to describe you. I specificly stated a few posts back that it was about power mongers and corrupted politicians working for the same entities.

Not assuming you already knew that. But now you do.

 

[NuclearWinter]

All those things and more. You guys should read the master plan and hear it described in their own words.

R.N. Gardner, "Hard road to world order." Foreign Affairs April 1974

 

[NuclearWinter]

If we do not autonomously cleanse our psyches, and strive to live morally...and if we continue to violate the natural order because of our inner emotional and psychological toxicity, we will allow the ego to manifest surrogate channels to exorcize its repressions and other negative debris.

In short, if we give up the right-rulership of the Self, we inevitably breed "Orwellian" political and religious tyrants to take over the job, and turn us into Simmel's "Smiling Depressives", or worse.

 

[NuclearWinter]

When we are not integrated, strong and healthy psychologically we invariably turn to external representatives to restore a semblance of needed stability: Parents, Politicians, Teachers, Evangelists, Heroes, Authority Figures, Establishment Reps, (Police, Army, Medics), Causes, Ideals...ect.

All manner of horrors have arisen as a result...

 

[dilloduck]

When we are not integrated, strong and healthy psychologically we invariably turn to external representatives to restore a semblance of needed stability: Parents, Politicians, Teachers, Evangelists, Heroes, Authority Figures, Establishment Reps, (Police, Army, Medics), Causes, Ideals...ect.

All manner of horrors have arisen as a result...

I forget ----what is it you are encouraging us all to do about it?

 

[NuclearWinter]

I forget ----what is it you are encouraging us all to do about it?

Oh I'm not telling you what to do. I'm suggesting what the people of the World need to do individually, first and foremost, and then collectively, as a whole, in order to be able to overcome the challenges we will all soon be facing.

That is, again, to get integrated, strong and healthy psychologically.

 

[dilloduck]

Oh I'm not telling you what to do. I'm suggesting what the people of the World need to do individually, first and foremost, and then collectively, as a whole, in order to be able to overcome the challenges we will all soon be facing.

That is, again, to get integrated, strong and healthy psychologically.

LOL you mean we all need to get our shit together? That's profound.

 

[NuclearWinter]

When states and people are unhealthy and not sovereign, they give their power away to demagogues and champions who possess the ability to lead them anywhere.

The slave has an ambivalent relationship with the master. He may despise the master but he may also envy him and need his attention and affection.

The slave has an inferiority complex and does not think or act for himself. He prefers that others do his thinking for him. in return for this, he offers service, work, and above all - obedience.

 

[dilloduck]

When states and people are unhealthy and not sovereign, they give their power away to demagogues and champions who possess the ability to lead them anywhere.

The slave has an ambivalent relationship with the master. He may despise the master but he may also envy him and need his attention and affection.

The slave has an inferiority complex and does not think or act for himself. He prefers that others do his thinking for him. in return for this, he offers service, work, and above all - obedience.

and again-----your point is?