Another Republican embraces his true feelings and the sentiment of his party.
Va. Delegate Frank Hargrove sparked furious denunciations in the General Assembly today after a he stated that black people “should get over” slavery.
Hargrove, of Hanover, made the comment about slavery in an interview published today in The Daily Progress of Charlottesville.
In the same interview about whether the state should apologize to the descendants of slaves, Hargrove wondered aloud whether Jews should “apologize for killing Christ.”
Typical wingnut. I always love Christians talking about how the “Jews” killed Christ. Christ was a Jew and the entire crucifixtion was preordained by God. He planned for it all to happen so Christ could die for our sins. This is simple bible school stuff folks. Amazing how the wingnuts will always try to divide everyone else even at the expense of their own theology.
I’m sure one of our resident Bushlickers will show up soon to say “But Strom Thurmond was a Democrat back in 1948, so it’s all the same!”
How is advising blacks to “get over” slavery a bigoted remark?
Is advising blacks to never forget the fact that their ancestors were slaves [up to, and including, pleas for reparations] a non – bigoted remark?
Agjobs: It may me simple Bible school stuff for some of us, but not for you, apparently.
The fact that Christ’s death on the Cross was predestined does not mean that the Jewish leadership of his day did not conspire to bring it about. Nor does it mean that the Jews at the time were not persuaded (at least, some of them) that crucifying Jesus would be a good idea — Mark 15:11.
Nor does it mean that Jesus did not ask that he be relieved of His burden Mark 14: 35-36
Republicans can’t say “black” or “slavery”, without being accused of bigotry.
Incidentally, there is probably no race or ethnic group on earth that never suffered the pain of slavery. Just thought you wanted to know.
As someone who is one – quarter English, and one – quarter Welsh, I am still awaiting my check from the Roman Empire.
Can someone please explain this to me (a Jew):
You Christians hate us Jews because a Jew killed Christ, who was Jewish.
Do you also hate blacks because a black man (3 actually) killed Malcolm X?
You must really revile Italians because, after all, it was the Romans who nailed Christ to the cross and left him to the vultures. (Not a very nice way to treat a good Jewish boy.)
Go ahead Christians, explain yourselves. I’m waiting…
The problem is, the Roman Empire no longer exists. Otherwise I would encourage you to seek justice. The America which was built by slaves and the murdering of Native Americans still stands. There are entire American/European bloodlines that have benefited from slavery and other injustices towards other races due to a hegemonic mentality. The descendants of the slave owners and plantation owners, though they themselves may be good people, have a high class standing because of the wealth passed down from generation to generation. If not wealth then at least property. What do the descendants of the slaves have?
Futhermore, would Mr. Hargrove ask Jewish people to get over the Shoah too? Somehow, I think politically he’d be afraid to do that, even though he make think it. People should never forget history and the past atrocities that took place. History repeats itself all the time sadly, but history is there in hopes that one day we will learn how to stop it from repeating itself.
Good rebutal to Frank, Richard.
I would add that it’s not universal among Christians to blame Jews for the death of Jesus. Simply put, the idea of blaming people of a certain religion(Judaism in this case) for a collective action is in my opinion extremely sinful. Still, as we see from this Hargrove person, evildoers who happen to be Christian often can cause so much evil and destruction with their words.
It’s one thing to tell people not to use something as a crutch. It’s a whole other to say people ought to “get over” slavery like it was a cold or stubbed toe.
Republicans can talk about race and slavery all they want, but they ought to think before they open their traps. They don’t and that’s why they convince themselves that Democrats use voodoo to get us to vote for them. Of course in this case “voodoo” is common respect and decency.
sundown and richard: I can’t believe I’m even doing this.
No one said Christians hate Jews — not on this thread, and certainly I didn’t.
The Bible identifies the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin as Jewish. Were they or were they not?
The Bible claims that Jews in the crowd that day, given a choice, by law, between Barabbas and Jesus, chose Jesus (to die).
The Bible also says that soldiers (of Rome?) led Jesus along the Via Dolorosa to the place of His crucifixion. Where they Italians? Who knows?
This is not about ethnicity. That is why very few Christians of any kind “blame” Jews for the death of Christ — Roman Catholics certainly do not.
Finally, German Jews who have survived the Holocaust, can and have claimed and received reparations from the German government.
When the last survivor of the Holocaust dies, that will be not be a reason to “forget” it, but it might be a reason not to campaign for reparations, unless children of survivors can make a legitimate case for reparations.
But IMHO, the topic of this post was not about reparations; it was about whether someone can have an opinion certain races or ethnic groups without being accused of bigotry.
After all, “whites,” “the rich,” “Christians,” “Republicans”, and “conservatives” are chronically accused of all kinds of evil, and no one accuses their accusers of bigotry.
it was about whether someone can have an opinion certain races or ethnic groups without being accused of bigotry.
That depends on what the opinion is. If it’s a bigoted opinion, then why wouldn’t you accuse that someone of being a bigot?
I do love a big, messy Bigot Eruption.
Here’s a simple guide:
Are you implying that all of the philosophical (not biological) decendants of an entire ethnic group, only a handful of whom supposedly took part (but not sole part) in a crime over 80 generations ago, have anything REMOTELY to do, at all, with that two-thousand year old act? Then it probably is bigoted.
Are you implying that the decendents of people, almost all of whose ancestors were victimized via chattel slavery for two hundred years, many of whose families remained in quasi-serfdom via Jim Crow up through living memory, have no right to still feel any of that pain?
Then you’re definitely an insensitive jerk, and maybe your remarks are also bigoted.
If you do both in the same speech, then there’s no maybe about it.
Oh, and PS to fd10801: Please, just stop. Quoting scripture passages over a technical metaphysical quibble while missing the point entirely just embarrasses those of us who take the Spirit of the Gospel as seriously as the letter and number of its text.
And it’s not true that Republicans can’t say “black” or “slavery”, without being accused of bigotry. It’s only bigots who have a hard time hiding their bigotry when they talk about race. Draw whatever conclusions you like.
If it’s a bigoted opinion, then why wouldn’t you accuse that someone of being a bigot?
Standard right-wing obfuscation: just complain about how mean people are to call you “bigoted” and you’ll deflect attention from whether you actually are bigoted.
Like Pol Pot saying, “again with the mass murderer charge? Been there, done that, nothing to see here.”
SV: right on!
Here we go again:
From the bottom (editorially, figuratively and literally)
Wilbur: I wasn’t deflecting anything — I was furthering my own point: That stereotyping is, at best, wrongheaded and meanspirited, regardless of the target.
Wilbur and Quaker: Because we give a name to people that stereotype others based on race or ethnicity, doesn’t mean that one type of stereotyping is somehow preferable to, or worse than, another.
Back to Wilbur: This is not the same as saying, as you are, that because people engaging in stereotyping on the left, it forgives people for stereotyping on the right.
Quaker: You’re just begging the question: “A person is a bigot if they make a bigoted statement.” That was where we started — Is is a ‘bigoted’ statement to say that “there is no point in dwelling on a chapter of U.S. history that all agree was repugnant”?
(Or am I wrong in saying that nowhere does the article quote Del. Hargrove as saying that blacks should “get over” over slavery.)
What do you think of these questions?:
How would we determine who was actually hurt by slavery, and to what extent?
How would one legally demonstrate that he or she was a decendant of an American slave, and not someone who was a freedman, or, for that matter, a black slaveholder?
Are those “bigoted” questions?
SV: Are you implying that [modern day blacks]… have no right to still feel any of that pain?
No. Would I suggest it, or recommend it?
No.
Would I view it as unhealthy?
Yes.
missing the point entirely
That’s your opinion… The point was that the Jews had nothing to do with the crucifixion of Christ, when, in fact, they did; and I was quite clear on the point that, even though only a few Christians might ‘hate’ Jews for it, they were wrong, too.
What point did I miss?
just embarrasses those of us who take the Spirit of the Gospel as seriously as the letter and number of its text.
Your statement implies that somehow you number yourself among those who “take the Spirit of the Gospel as seriously as the letter and number of its text”, and that does not include me.
A statement like that indicates that it is you who does not even aspire to the kind of humility a Christian should aspire to, and indicates that you are willing to judge me as somehow un – Christian in your eyes, and therefore, empirically un – Christian. I guess you forgot that whole “mote” and “beam” thing, eh? *
As for your embarrassment, you have apparently mistaken me for someone who cares about you.
* Matthew 7:3 [Sorry, I couldn't resist]
It would be entirely appropriate to say we should put the past of slavery behind us and move on if we as a society had reconciled the past – made ourselves aware of its continuing effects, recognized the echoes of it that still ripple through our society, had an open and frank discussion about race in America. Dealt with it.
But we haven’t.
Off topic perhaps, but my favorite bible verse is 2 Chronicles 4:2, which gives the biblical value of Pi as being equal to precisely 3. Biblical literalists should not, in the face of that, be able to pass a 6th grade geometry class and maintain their rigid faith in the inerrency of a centuries old collection of pamphlets to dictate fact.
Just a thought.
As far as whether or not his remarks are “bigoted”, simply put he’s advocating two groups of people, blacks and jews, commit acts of “contrition” through either “getting over” slavery or apologizing for murdering christ (and if youre going to say the Jews conspired to commit that which was predestined, then really they’re planning to enact Gods will arent they, but then this is semantics), both of these acts serve no purpose but to publically humiliate a group of people in the name of giving an arbitrary ego boost to another, in this case white christians (specifically those with a grudge against those with the temerity not to be born the same way they were) which in later iterations of such a meme gives legitimacy to other such bigoted thinking. That is what makes his statement bigoted.
Just a thought.
Also Frank eats dick.
No it doesn’t. Like your butchering of how the bible treats abortion, you misapply this verse as well.
Oops, sorry. It was C.S.Strowbridge who misapplied an Exodus verse and abortion. I apologize for accusing Rex of misapplying more than one biblical verse.
and Rex Mundane pushes his own IQ envelope to exactly 3.
“Also he made the cast [metal] sea, ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height [was] five cubits and its circumference thirty cubits.”
2 Chronicles 4:2 (NASB)
Circumference of a circle = Pi * Diameter
Diameter = 10 cubits brim to brim
Circumference = 30 cubit line compassing round about
C = Pi * D
30 = Pi * 10
3 = Pi
The entirety of that verse cannot be completely true, either one of the numbers is wrong, or it wasnt circular. Nowhere in that passage does the word “approximately” or any similar appear to qualify it. Any person who believes that the bible contains naught but the inerrent truth of the word of god has to believe that Pi, defined as a circle’s circumference divided by its diameter, is equal to precisely 3, which would cause them to fail any geometry class. How exactly do you think I’ve misapplied this verse? I’d be interested to hear your rebuttal. However, presuming one isnt forthcoming…
Rex, that cracks me up every time.
Overlooking the obvious maybe a new career opportunity for you, Rex
30 cubits was an inexact approximation.
{News flash – Biblical scholars have yet to determine what a cubit is. That doesn’t upset your observation about the ratio, but it does indicate that we don’t, at this late date, know everything about the “science” of the Bible.}
When one studies the Bible beyond the 8th Grade level one learns that the Bible is not a textbook or an Encyclopedia.
The Catholic Church has been swatting clowns like you away like flies for about 1700 years.
Now, I’m no expert, but I seem to recall that Hebrew is the only written language in the world where the alpahbet is also a number set (and also contains no vowels), so it could be real easy for transcribers to get that wrong. In other words, Rex’s point is valid, but we may never know the truth.
I thought the length of a cubit was from you elbow to the end of you middle finger. That seems pretty well known.
Rex and Duros: Since you’re so easily amused
Yeah, right, Duros. Whose elbow and middle finger?
Yao Ming’s or Gary Coleman’s?
(Or am I wrong in saying that nowhere does the article quote Del. Hargrove as saying that blacks should “get over” over slavery.)
You’re right that the article that OW linked in the Washington Post doesn’t include the quote.
Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, though. It did.
30 cubits was an inexact approximation. When one studies the Bible beyond the 8th Grade level one learns that the Bible is not a textbook or an Encyclopedia.
Inexact by roughly 1.4 cubits, which is presumably 2 feet. But thats neither here nor there, since my stated point at the beginning applied to “Biblical Literalists” who believed that the Bible IS a damn textbook you stupid putz. What, honestly is your reflex to believe that whatever I say must inherently be embarassingly wrong so great that you have to pretend I’m saying things I’m not? Is that seriously where your argumentative skill lays? In calling me stupid for saying shit I never said?
Eat dick, Frank.
Incidentally Duros, I have heard the case made that the particular hebrew word used for ‘line’ in describing the circumference is written differently than the word for line used in the diameter, and that the ratio of the one word over the other multiplied by the factor of 3 actually returns a closer to accurate value of 3.141509, but it stretches credulity to say that words should be read as numbers to satisfy mathematical errors when such changes degrade the sentence’s grammar. Just putting it out there.
My point remains that the bible is not 100% factually accurate. Frank agrees and hates me for it so he needs to pretend I’m saying shit I’m not to attack me over it. It, and he, are pathetic to the extreme. So too, in my opinion, is anyone who bases any deduction on the supposed factual inerrency of the bible. If you believe for instance that homosexuality is a sin simply because the bible says so, then you also have to believe that Pi is 3 because the bible says so.
Yeah, Frank, we’ve seen that already. Good times.
credulity to say that words should be read as numbers to satisfy mathematical errors when such changes degrade the sentence’s grammar. Just putting it out there.
In such a case, I doubt that grammar would be foremost on the writer’s mind, but mathematical accuracy might be. Also, if you’re translating from the Hebrew and it is not your first language, it would be hard to tell the difference. Yes?
Rex, you ignorant slut! The number of people who are “Biblical Literalists” who believed that the Bible IS a damn textbook,” is probably less than the number of your fingers and toes, you putz.
If you believe for instance that homosexuality is a sin simply because the bible says so, then you also have to believe that Pi is 3 because the bible says so.
That is probably one of the most stupendously illogical, stupid, and poorly thought out statements that I have ever seen on the blogosphere — in fact, on the Internet.
“All your base are belong to us” is a treasure of profundity besides it.
Why give both diameter and circumference measurements just for this vessel and not the other circular objects?
It wasn’t given for the bronze columns:
“Two hollow bronze columns were cast, each eighteen cubits high and twelve cubits in circumference; their metal was of four fingers’ thickness.”
Or the 10 basins:
“Ten bronze basins were then made, each four cubits in diameter with a capacity of forty measures, one basin for the top of each of the ten stands.”
The vessel flares out at the top based on the description:
“It was a handbreadth thick, and its brim resembled that of a cup, being lily-shaped.”
How do you know that the diameter doesn’t measure across the top after the flare while the circumference measures the distance around under the flare?
Additionally, since the brim of the vessel has thickness (a handbreadth is about 1/6 of a cubit), how do you know that they weren’t measuring the width across from brim to brim on the outside and the circumference on the interior?
Ignoring the flare, a handbreadth on both sides gives an additional distance across of 0.33 cubit.
10 cubit – 0.33 cubit = 9.67 cubit
30 cubit / pi = 9.55 cubit
Now you’re less than 1 handbreadth off in your attempt to get an exact figure for pi, and we haven’t accounted for the flare.
So considering we don’t know if they’re measuring inside or outside diameter, circumference at or below the flare, and we don’t know why this is the only circular object with both diameter and circumference measured (other than it not being a simple cylinder), you’re making A LOT of assumptions to declare this is a mismeasurement of pi.
That’s the Roman measurement. Pre-roman (e.g. Noah’s Ark, etc.) is debated and uncertain.
The number of people who are “Biblical Literalists” who believed that the Bible IS a damn textbook,” is probably less than the number of your fingers and toes,
That explains why the teaching of evolution is so uncontroversial, Rex.
No, the bible mentions a non-cylindrical circular object and you assume the measurements given are the same as those used to determine pi.
Wow, JWG, Great work.
Frank, I’ve met at least 25 people who say they believe the bible to be literal factual truth. And no, just because my dick is a foot doesnt mean I have 15 toes. (Ba-Zing) Also, how is my statement illogical? If youre going to claim that whatever the bible says must be true, then that rule has to apply to “homosexual sin” as much as it does to the value of Pi you fucking dolt. Eat dick, Frank.
JWG, since you have posed a rational and vitriol-free argument, I’ll respond in kind. Firstly, I believe that even if we minimize the margin of error in the measurements, we’re still left with the problem of any margin of error in a book that is purported to be inerrent. Secondly, as far as the Flare argument, this seems more plausable, but while I can agree that a circular bath doesnt necessarily have to be cylindrical, then we are dealing with an object which, de fecto, has infinite circumferences of varying length depending on where precisely youre measuring, so why give any value for it at all? Furthermore, the brim-diameter could indeed account for thickness or not as you say, and still either value could, depending on the brim, be accurate. The only concession to make in this regard is that if I agree that in this verse the bible does not necessarily explicitly state that Pi = 3, then it gives a series of figures that while not inconsistent, are unnecessarily confusing or arbitrary. Why then would a book that is 100% factual contain such information that serves only to confuse?
Let’s at least give Hargrove credit for being honest about his racism and bigotry.
Rex: If can manage a comment that doesn’t include “Eat dick” or a jejune sound bite, then perhaps I can return to civil discourse.
As to how many people you’ve met who believe the Bible to be literal factual truth, perhaps I am still accurate, given that your apparent inbred condition suggests that you could have many more than 20 fingers and toes (ba – dump – bump)
Let’s see if I explain this so that an obviously poor thinker as yourself can understand it.
Your analogy is the same as saying that the Ten Commandments are ‘wrong’ because it is suggested in the Bible that the appearance of newborn lambs can be changed by showing different colors to pregnant ewes.
Still want to stand up for “logical”?
Isn’t it quite possible that you have ingested so many bull penises that you have contracted BSE?
Or, is it actually that you’re the one whose “reflex [is] to believe that whatever I say must inherently be embarassingly wrong … “?
Me being inbred is you returning to civil discourse, is it? And you being civil consists of failing to acknowledge the sizeable population of American citizens who believe in the inerrency of the bible, claiming me a mutant in the process? Classy dick-eating motherfucker, you are…
Oh, and Mad Cow isnt an STD, dipshit.
Your analogy is the same as saying that the Ten Commandments are ‘wrong’ because it is suggested in the Bible that the appearance of newborn lambs can be changed by showing different colors to pregnant ewes. Still want to stand up for “logical”?
Yes, in fact, I do, because No, in fact, it isnt. Its saying that if the fundamental reason you believe in the Ten Commandments is because of the inerrency of the Bible, then you must also believe in lamb-color change for the same reason. Youve reversed the causation in the statement.
Lets build a Sylogism:
1 – All things in the Bible are True
2 – The Ten Commandments are in the Bible
3 – Therefore, by virtue of being in the bible, the Ten Commandments become true
That is what logic looks like Frank. You can believe that the 10C are true independant of the bible (though since many of them refer to God explicitly thats somewhat counterintuitive) but if the core of the belief in the truth of the ten commandments is predicated on the inerrent truth of the bible, then yes, you fucking dolt, you do, logically, also have to accept that Pi = 3, that sheep can change color like that, that Cotton-Poly blends are, as cloths made of two threads, sinful to wear, that it is acceptable to sell your children into slavery, and that working on a sunday is punishible by death by stoning. Any one of those things can be transplanted into #2 in the sylogism and be as true as its 10C form. The fact that you fail to see this is frankly embarassing, and that you need to take it to the illogical conclusion that I’m arguing the fact that Pi isnt 3 means that I’m endorsing murder, stealing, lying, coveting, etc, is while not unexpected, clearly indicitive of your inability to form a cogent thought nor a rational argument. Your existence here, and the idea that youre at all based in reality and sense, is a charade you tell yourself to let you better sleep at night, just the same way your self-evident failure to apply same helps countless people who enjoy watching you humiliate yourself in these comments threads.
Eat dick, Frank.
The author is describing a big pot. I’m not sure why he needs to provide an engineering quality diagram.
You’re kidding right? Being Catholic, I’m not interested in defending a literal reading of the entire bible, but I don’t think “100% factual” and “confusing” have to be mutually exclusive.
I do know that the Catholic Church teaches that the bible is not a step-by-step textbook but rather a story describing Man’s relationship with God.
If you’re going to claim that whatever the bible says must be true, then that rule has to apply to “homosexual sin”
You’re still attempting equate “true” as “right” or “proper” with true as “correct” or “accurate.” Whether that falls into some arcane category of logical fallacy, I honestly don’t know, but it is undoubtedly incorrect.
Speaking of logic, O phallus devouring one: If you can manage a comment that doesn’t include “Eat dick” or a jejune sound bite, then perhaps I can return to civil discourse.
Perhaps that should have been “when” … “then“?
We have wandered far afield from the topic, as usually occurs when someone ignorant of the Bible plucks a verse from it, and attempts to channel Robert Ingersoll
If you’re going to claim that whatever the bible says must be true, then that rule has to apply to “homosexual sin”
You’re still attempting equate “true” as “right” or “proper” with true as “correct” or “accurate.” Whether that falls into some arcane category of logical fallacy, I honestly don’t know, but it is undoubtedly incorrect.
Speaking of logic, O phallus devouring one: If you can manage a comment that doesn’t include “Eat dick” or a jejune sound bite, then perhaps I can return to civil discourse.
Perhaps that should have been “when” … “then“?
We have wandered far afield from the topic, as usually occurs when someone ignorant of the Bible plucks a verse from it, and attempts to channel Robert Ingersoll
BTW, if anyone is interested in pointing out mathematical/scientific errors in the bible, then you can’t get much better than the first few lines of Genesis declaring that the Earth was formed before the stars, including the Sun.
Why then would a book that is 100% factual contain such information that serves only to confuse?
My guess is because it wasn’t a user’s manual, Kind of like the instructions you get with a bookshelf from Home Depot. Also, I think that a majority of the bible only serves to confuse.
I hope y’all are reading Blogging The Bible at Slate. If you’re not, you should.
Sorry, here’s the link.
I don’t think “100% factual” and “confusing” have to be mutually exclusive.
They dont exactly, but… well look if I said that its true to say I never kidnapped a woman, tied her to a chair, grabbed a knife, stabbed her, and twisted the knife counter-clockwise, then true though that may be, such a statement begs questions, not the least of which is “well did you turn it clockwise then?” Thats what I mean about the bible unnecessarily confusing the issue, why not just say “and they built this really big tub” instead of giving a series of otherwise inconsequential measurements that dont add up until you necessarily factor in other immaterial aspects not made explicit?
I do know that the Catholic Church teaches that the bible is not a step-by-step textbook but rather a story describing Man’s relationship with God.
And that is in fairness a notion I can better get behind. Bible as Moral Parable is certainly much easier to swallow than Bible as Scientific and Historical Text. If I was unclear than let me apologize, I did not mean to imply that you, in the same way fervent fundamentalist christians do, believe that every single letter of every single word of the bible must be absolutely correct and right and proper and that everything it says must be specifically true in every respect, (something which is at least challenged by the Pi problem). If I caused offense inadvertantly then I do apologize for that. However I feel the pressing point that applies beyond the scope of the fundamentalists is that if your belief in anything, be it God, the afterlife, sin, virtue, what have you, if that belief is rooted on the core idea that the Bible is 100% inerrant, then your belief is flawed. Not, as Frank seems to want to portray my comment, that it is contrary to the truth. Not that its anyone’s business, least of all his, I’ve managed to rationally conclude that there is probably a God in some form or other, independent (almost exclusive in fact) of the Bible and other organized religions’ descriptions of Him. The fact that I believe the Bible not to be inherently factual doesnt contradict my belief in God, the two exist independant of each other.
Also, Frank? You’re really embarassing yourself right now. Ive never used ‘true’ to mean ‘proper’ in the sense you describe, I’m talking explicitly of facts, and whether or not they are correct. You have made that particular conflation. Again, you accuse me of doing things I havent in order to better attack me.
If you can manage a comment that doesn’t include “Eat dick” or a jejune sound bite, then perhaps I can return to civil discourse.
Just because I can manage to doesnt mean I will at any time. I’m tempted to go without in this particular post, but then if I did you might not have as much need to pretend that I’m a homosexual and to think that saying as much is an insult. How could I, in good conscience, do such a thing, depriving the world of your polished wit and brilliant wisdom, simply because I would want to prove that I’m not an impecile to a person not inclined to believe the evidence of their eyes? I cannot, and so it is for the betterment of society at large that I do humbly, ever so humbly sir request that you, Frank, eat dick.
I actually ate steamed bull penis at a Japanese restaurant in Greenwich Village last year. It seemed like a funny thing when our party ordered it, but it was considerably less funny when it came wobbling out on the platter. I can’t recommend it, in case you’re interested, Frank.
Also, I can attest that there are plenty of Tennesseans who believe the Bible was divinely written and that it contains no error. I’m kind of suprised you think those folks aren’t out there, Frank. From the Southern Baptist website:
“The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God’s revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter.”
http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/basicbeliefs.asp
In fact, growing up I knew kids in Nashville who were taught that if you said the word “devil” that the Devil himself would hear it and would take encouragement from it. On that basis at a summer camp one kid’s mom complained because we sang some song that mentioned the devil, so we had to stop singing it. I shit you not. It was this song, in case you’re interested.
http://www.onlylyrics.com/song.php?id=29632
Rex: In other words, you are as foolish as you are ignorant. Excuse me if I confused you with an adult. That will never happen again.
Oh, and I would never think you were an impecile — I don’t know what that is.
Frank, again you have trolled a thread consistently not providing argument of substance, either refuting my logic or facts, and instead have elected to call me a childish, foolish, ignorant queer, at the same time you insist that I’m responsible for degrading discourse and you are not. Eat dick, Frank.
Conversely, and in the interest of fairness, Eat franks, Dick.
I’m going home to dinner.
This concludes our broadcast day.
“All your base are belong to us” is a treasure of profundity besides it.
You have no idea where that quote even comes from, do you?
As a representative on the Jews here (since I’m the only Jew here), let me be the one to issue an apology to Frank in regard to the crucifixion of Christ.
Frank, I’m sorry you’re an anti-semetic douchebag.
Zython: You have no idea where that quote even comes from, do you?
Have you been eating your brains for lunch?
How could I use a phrase without knowing where it came from?
It’s been on the Internet for years.
I have no intention of passing a Zython quiz by proving to you that I know where it comes from.
As to being anti – semitic (if you’re going to falsely accuse me of something, could you look it up?), I am just repulsed by you…
I am not in the least bit anti – semitic, shmekele.
As to being anti – semitic (if you’re going to falsely accuse me of something, could you look it up?), I am just repulsed by you…
I am not in the least bit anti – semitic,
If you’re not anti-semitic (ok, I mispelled it, big whoop), then why are you defending the anti-semitic notion that Jews should apologize for the death of Christ? You don’t hear me asking you to apologize for the Spanish Inquisition, now do you?
zython: You are pathetic…
Someone else said that the Jews had NOTHING to do with the death of Christ. I merely pointed out that they did.
But I never — repeat, NEVER — said anything about Jews apologizing for His death.
Check it again.
Correct. Frank wasnt saying the Jews should apologize for killing christ, he was just repeatedly defending the argument that the Jews are responsible for his murder, granting legitimacy to an anti-semitic position which he claims not to possess himself. Since he’s said his reason for this isnt to cast blame, we can only assume he’s doing it just to let them know that they are to blame, and to unapologetically wallow in their shame. Good for you Frank. Eat Dick.
Although I am curious how a logical statement demonstrated through the tool of the sylogism pales in comparison to the “treasure of profundity” of a single line from the introduction of a poorly localized sega genesis game. But then I’m an ignorant childish queer, right Frank?
He never mentioned “queer”.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he had. though.
Rex Mundane | Jan 17, 2007 6:00:22 PM
“Frank, again you have trolled a thread consistently not providing argument of substance, either refuting my logic or facts, and instead have elected to call me a childish, foolish, ignorant queer, at the same time you insist that I’m responsible for degrading discourse and you are not. Eat dick, Frank.”
>>****>
But then I’m an ignorant childish queer, right Frank?
No, you’re an ignorant, childish supercilious gasbag.
I never called you a queer.
Ask nimrod.
Not helping your case there, Frank.
Let me tell you all something:
When one juvenile delinquent can tell you that you said things you didn’t say, and then berate you for it {he was just repeatedly defending the argument that the Jews are responsible for his murder, granting legitimacy to an anti-semitic position which he claims not to possess himself. Since he’s said his reason for this isn’t to cast blame, we can only assume * he’s doing it just to let them know that they are to blame, and to unapologetically wallow in their shame }, and another dimwit can come along and praise him for his misleading statement { Well put, Rex! } and another lamebrain can come along and say, “You know that name he called you? Well, he didn’t call you that… But it wouldn’t surprise me if he did [!]“, then you know that you’re not involved in a debate, or a forum, or a message board, but a parade of fools.
* Assume away, but I didn’t say what you said I said, I didn’t say what I did say for the reason you think, and I didn’t raise the issue, and I didn’t assert anything “repeatedly”, so you’re batting 0 for 4
Lesse, the Jews have their memorials to the Holocaust.
The Romans crucified Christ
at the feast of Passover when the Jews shouted for
Pilate to give them Bar Abbas and to crucify Christ.
The Sanhedrin violated their own laws in trying him.
Yes, the Romans crucified him but the Jews OF THAT DAY condemned him, and then said that his blood would be up them and their generations.
Just saying.
Oh, and I support Israel. In terms of forgetting slavery, why would blacks want to do that? It isn’t the sunniest chapter in US History, but remembering does remind us all, like the Holocaust to never let such things happen again.
Of course, this is over simplifying it, but as I see it, many groups here were marginalized and some were denied government protection
which they were entitled to under the first amendment.
Now, you were saying?
L F C :: I sincerely regret your confusion.
You will, however, fit in here very nicely.
Now, you were saying?
I was saying that this passage from the Bible has been used for over a thousand years as an excuse to discriminate and kill the Jewish people, and that by defending the notion that the Jews of today are even remotely responsible for the death of Christ, you should not act so shocked when people point out that you’re an anti-semetic douchebag.
Just sayin’.
I’m not shocked when you call me a douchebag — that’s true.
But your’e a witless, humorless enfant terrible
I resent being called anti – semitic when I am not, as evidenced by the following statements:
Finally, neither of those passages was used to justify the persecution of Jews: It’s here (properly interpreted)
Just sayin’, schmeckele
The Army and the Military in general has become fertile Earth for Conservatives the like of Mr. Hargrove. The whole situation would be laughable if not for the fact they possess the power to drive us all over a cliff.