billyshelby
Well-Known Member
And on the Eighth Day, God made the United States. And it was Good.
9/11/2010 Burn a Koran Day
- Thread starter Archie Moses
- Start date
C l u t c H 385
Banned
Fairly accurate portrayal of many legal arguments in a court room.
C l u t c H 385
Banned
Eff Muslims, that offends everybody. Muhammad is one ugly dude with massive hygiene problems. Like GVC, no one wants to see that.
C l u t c H 385
Banned
Good? Just good? You ****in commie *******.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
(Clears throat): And on the eighth day, God made the United States and also gave the middle finger to all the unwashed dirty pigs who weren't fortunate enough to be born within its boundaries. And it was good, EXCEPT for all the commie mother ****ers and Islamic ******** that HE could give a **** about. So it was written in Ezekiel, but somehow not transcribed when the MESSAGE went to press. HE works in mysterious ways.
Praise be the United States.
*sigh*
I give up.
I specifically, in an earlier post, drew this exact comparison saying that I thought being upset about the Big Love episode was just as silly as stopping South Park from drawing Muhammad.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
I other words, you just don't want to accept that answer. It's kind of like a parent telling his child not to touch the stove and the child asks why. The parent then procedes by telling the child the stove is hot and to not to touch it. The child replies, "That's not a good enough answer for me, sigh."
Being upset over something and stopping someone from doing something are two completely things. You still didn't answer my question. If anything, you avoided it in a snotty nose, know-it-all type of a way.
C l u t c H 385
Banned
Well, duh, he's a lawyer. Good job Kicky.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
You're missing something. The child will ask, "Why is it hot?" and the parent will say, "it just is." The child THEN sighs because the parent refuses to answer the question.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
I already answered the "why" part. If you choose to refuse that, then that's on you.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Saying it's blasphemous is the equivalent of telling the child to not touch it because it's hot. It doesn't answer "why is it hot."
Why is it blasphemous?
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Already explained that, sharpy. If you would like to read the thread, then come back, we can continue. Thanks.
memo is money
Active Member
So, some US citizens blame the Koran or müslim world for 9/11 ??? Then, you're a tool of emperialist world of bankers. I just cannot believe how some people still cannot see or have not been aware of the facts... Do not you watch movies, documentaries (Zeitgeist etc) ? I'm sure some of you are still afraid of Usame Bin Laden one of whose close relatives was with Bush at breakfast on 9/11. Hmmm... seems like a real war between Muslim and Chrsitian world. The US is not governed by Obama and you know that very well. He is just another tool like Bush, father bush, Clinton (ohh, should I say Rockefeller?). So, how can you still believe in the fabricated stories of the government regarding the 9/11 ?
I'm a müslim and was very sorry when that incident happened. However, I did not, do not and will not take the responsibility of what was just another planned, organised, tricky scandal in order to provoke the masses, religions aganist one another. Do you really find the pastor that threatened to burn a Koran sincere? He's just a provocateur for me. There is nothing in the sacred book of Koran mentioning or encouraging terrorist actions or doing what it takes to spread the Islam etc. It just takes to leave the Jay leno show or a football game for a day and spend a couple hours doing a research concerning different religions and 9/11.
I'm a müslim and was very sorry when that incident happened. However, I did not, do not and will not take the responsibility of what was just another planned, organised, tricky scandal in order to provoke the masses, religions aganist one another. Do you really find the pastor that threatened to burn a Koran sincere? He's just a provocateur for me. There is nothing in the sacred book of Koran mentioning or encouraging terrorist actions or doing what it takes to spread the Islam etc. It just takes to leave the Jay leno show or a football game for a day and spend a couple hours doing a research concerning different religions and 9/11.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
So your answer to why it is blasphemous is because God told you so?
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Loose Change and NWO, eh? That college documentary totally tells us how it is! Yeah to conspiracies, the Rockefellers, and the Lizard people.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
lol
Read the whole thread, sharpy. It aint't that hard to read and understand what I there wrotecha, eh? I'd like to think not.
C l u t c H 385
Banned
Bahahahahahahahaha....ha.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
I can see why Kicky was sighing.
So, as I just said, it's blasphemous because God said so according to you.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Yeah, wise guy!!! Ding Ding Ding!!!! Winner winner chicken dinner. It's blasphemous and offensive to ME because I'M the ONE that BELIEVES it and a God that's revealed it. I'm not saying I'm going to try and stop people from doing stuff like reenacting or exposing temple ceremonies, I'm not that naive. It's just offensive to me and disrespectful being the BELIEVER. I'm not asking YOU to be the believer or say you can't do it, but I'll be damned if you'll try to convince me that it's not offensive because it's not the actual ceremony that goes on in LDS temples like kicky suggests.
When you gonna come out of da closet, Sharpy? Whatcho fraid of?
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Now we're getting somewhere.
Here's why "because God said so" is an unacceptable answer. Well, let's not use "unacceptable" because of the absolute connotation. Let's use problematic.
Kicky is looking for the reasoning the church has told its members as a whole to find specific "thing" (by that I mean any particular item, event, etc.) as wholly inclusive and offensive to be shown to non-believers or even portrayed to those not of the faith. There are many "things" in every religion considered sacred that, when replicated either as an item or recreation of an event, is not considered offensive in any way. "God says so" comes across as arbitrary and as a conclusion to answer. What possible reason would there be for God to even consider making such a "thing" offensive. What purpose is there for it?
Now the response I would expect to this would be that you have no intention of questioning "God's will." The problem with that is that religious leaders have been interpreting meaning from perceived religious deities since the beginnings of any particular religion, in Christianity's case, people like Ambrose and Augustine and the apostles and such. Why can't you do that? Why has the church told you that God has seemingly told the founders of the church (or maybe it wasn't always deemed to be offensive within the church; if that's the case, why did it become offensive?) that this event, when recreated and seen by people not fully engrossed in that religion, became offensive. If you only want to reply with the company line, that's fine, but of course that's perceived as quite the underwhelming and unsatisfactory answer.
In short, kicky wants an etic answer to his question, rather than an emic one. It's perhaps too much to ask someone to do such a thing. Asking to do so is like asking a Vanuatu why they have their boys tower jump and being unsatisfied with the answer being, "it makes them men" and not getting any further on subsequent questioning.
Here's why "because God said so" is an unacceptable answer. Well, let's not use "unacceptable" because of the absolute connotation. Let's use problematic.
Kicky is looking for the reasoning the church has told its members as a whole to find specific "thing" (by that I mean any particular item, event, etc.) as wholly inclusive and offensive to be shown to non-believers or even portrayed to those not of the faith. There are many "things" in every religion considered sacred that, when replicated either as an item or recreation of an event, is not considered offensive in any way. "God says so" comes across as arbitrary and as a conclusion to answer. What possible reason would there be for God to even consider making such a "thing" offensive. What purpose is there for it?
Now the response I would expect to this would be that you have no intention of questioning "God's will." The problem with that is that religious leaders have been interpreting meaning from perceived religious deities since the beginnings of any particular religion, in Christianity's case, people like Ambrose and Augustine and the apostles and such. Why can't you do that? Why has the church told you that God has seemingly told the founders of the church (or maybe it wasn't always deemed to be offensive within the church; if that's the case, why did it become offensive?) that this event, when recreated and seen by people not fully engrossed in that religion, became offensive. If you only want to reply with the company line, that's fine, but of course that's perceived as quite the underwhelming and unsatisfactory answer.
In short, kicky wants an etic answer to his question, rather than an emic one. It's perhaps too much to ask someone to do such a thing. Asking to do so is like asking a Vanuatu why they have their boys tower jump and being unsatisfied with the answer being, "it makes them men" and not getting any further on subsequent questioning.