Religion and Atheism

[gkv]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Can you even read what I wrote? I was talking about article 5.


I didn't think that it would be that hard to understand, it was a very basic English sentence were the it is referring to the article 5. Or was article 5 used before 9/11?

My knowledge comes from books not from wiki.

Depends on the general, his troops and the place and age they are fighting.

For NATO, my mistake. I didn't read the whole conversation. There was room for misinterpretation.
Getting back to Louis IX, i'd be interested in your sharing your knowledge about his divorce.

[KarotheGreat]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Robert E. Lee

Rich southern that went to West Point, slave owner who would have lost them if he hadn't fought with the Confederacy.

[KarotheGreat]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Ah yes, the Hollywood revisionist histories are the best

Everything that doesn't coincide with your world view is revision, a Western/Zionist conspiracy am I right?

[KarotheGreat]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Yes, Joan must have been crazy, I mean only crazy people with no military training can lead several thousand men to victory. Now I am being sarcastic.

She is crazy because she hears voices in her heads or are you going to claim that hearing voices in your head is something normal?

[KarotheGreat]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Karo jan, where do you get your "facts" from?

i read in another thread that according to a forum member, "The first time NATO was used was after 9/11". And please take notice that this person was very assertive in claiming so.

http://forum.hyeclub.com/showthread.php/19581-Prospects-of-a-Kurdish-state-and-what-it-means-for-Armenia?p=317284&viewfull=1#post317284

it seems this member doesn't even know his facts on contemporary history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_NATO_bombing_of_the_Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia

would you trust him on french medieval times?

what do you think of a general who would engage his troops on the battlefield without prior reconnaissance of the terrain and knowledge of the opponent's strengths?

Can you even read what I wrote? I was talking about article 5.

NATO is committed to the principle that an attack against one or more of its member is an attack against all." Article 5.

The first time it was used was after 9/11

I didn't think that it would be that hard to understand, it was a very basic English sentence were the it is referring to the article 5. Or was article 5 used before 9/11?

My knowledge comes from books not from wiki.

Depends on the general, his troops and the place and age they are fighting.

[gkv]

Re: Religion and Atheism

On an unrelated note, I know Siggie gives you a hard time for talking all fancy but I have to give you +1 on the use of exegesis. First time I have ever seen that word

which figures. in our field (i.e. computer science), most things are quite univocal.

hard time, not exactly. btw, i suspect that in her very own field, she rejects the writings of Jung as "non-scientific"...

[gkv]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Your personal attacks keep amusing me.

What did Louis do that wasn't in his interest as king? Was it his Crusade that was a disaster and cost the life of so many people and attacked an ally of Jerusalem? Or the fact that he divorced his wife because of his inferiority complexes and lost the half of his kingdom?

Karo jan, where do you get your "facts" from?

i read in another thread that according to a forum member, "The first time NATO was used was after 9/11". And please take notice that this person was very assertive in claiming so.

http://forum.hyeclub.com/showthread.php/19581-Prospects-of-a-Kurdish-state-and-what-it-means-for-Armenia?p=317284&viewfull=1#post317284

it seems this member doesn't even know his facts on contemporary history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_NATO_bombing_of_the_Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia

would you trust him on french medieval times?

what do you think of a general who would engage his troops on the battlefield without prior reconnaissance of the terrain and knowledge of the opponent's strengths?

[Armanen]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Your personal attacks keep amusing me.

What did Louis do that wasn't in his interest as king? Was it his Crusade that was a disaster and cost the life of so many people and attacked an ally of Jerusalem? Or the fact that he divorced his wife because of his inferiority complexes and lost the half of his kingdom? The other example a crazy woman that was burned as a witch and heard voices in her head. Perfect examples, really. (if you haven't noticed I'm being sarcastic)

Yes, Joan must have been crazy, I mean only crazy people with no military training can lead several thousand men to victory. Now I am being sarcastic.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Pat robertson for the 'Christian' side, and mohammed omar aka mullah omar on the muslim side.

Just some randoms from the media I can't stand...

Bill O'Reilly... that biatch Ann Coulter.... oh.... can't stand that Feminazi Nancy Grace either.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Religion and Atheism

There are 2 possibilities and there is no way you can get around this:

1. Since we wrote the Bible and we can make mistakes, then the Bible is flawed.
2. We wrote it down perfectly with 0 mistakes in which case it is the same as God having written the Bible.
(note that most Christians really really really love to insist on #2 )

Truthfully, I haven't even read 95% of the Bible but I can say this. A lot of the quotes on the internet which claim to be from the bible are either a) not found in the bible or b) from the old testament (prior to Christ)

Now, one can say that there is human error involved in describing the events during those times in history but a lot of the scripture has similar passages with regards to life written by different authors. By all means this doesn't make all of the accounts accurate but since a lot of people find that scripture relates to things in their own lives, that means that events during a different time in history can still be applied today.

I'm not sure what number 2 really applies. Perhaps the authors were just bad secretaries and weren't very good at dictation or story telling? It's really irrelevant either way since people have found value in the book and have been able to relate it to their daily lives. We may live in a much different time period now but perhaps the more things change, the more some things stay the same.