Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

Freedom of speech

Recommended Posts

 And as a conservative it seems you do. Our legal system is one of the most revered in the world. Be careful what you wish for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2017 at 3:54 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No, but if you want to decapitate someone on a bus, you will walk away free in Canada.

Yes, this country is going to hell in a handbasket!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/09/2017 at 4:35 PM, blackbird said:

Yes, this country is going to hell in a handbasket!

When was it not? All of society has been going to hell in a handbasket since handbaskets and hell were invented.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Grand Mal said:

When was it not? All of society has been going to hell in a handbasket since handbaskets and hell were invented.

Yes.  I shouldn't have used that phrase. It makes light of a real place.  It wasn't invented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2017 at 7:03 PM, Omni said:

 And as a conservative it seems you do. Our legal system is one of the most revered in the world. Be careful what you wish for.

You must admit our legal system has often convicted people who were later found innocent.  It is not infallible by any stretch.  Much use has been made of the not criminally responsible plee.  It is a difficult thing to oppose when there may be experts who may view people who commit those kinds of crimes as not mentally fit.  A lot of power has been put in the hands of experts.  A non-expert in the field of mental issues up against a ostensible expert such as a psychiatrist has an uphill battle in a court.

Edited by blackbird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Yes.  I shouldn't have used that phrase. It makes light of a real place.  It wasn't invented.

Hell wasn't invented?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Grand Mal said:

Hell wasn't invented?

Correct.  Jesus gave an account of the conversation between a rich man in hell (after he died) and Abraham.  Jesus never said it was a parable, which leaves the conclusion that it was an account of a conversation that took place from a rich man in a place called hell.  Luke Ch16 vs 19 - 31 (King James Version 1611)  The KJV (1611) is God's written revelation to man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Correct.  Jesus gave an account of the conversation between a rich man in hell (after he died) and Abraham.  Jesus never said it was a parable, which leaves the conclusion that it was an account of a conversation that took place from a rich man in a place called hell.  Luke Ch16 vs 19 - 31 (King James Version 1611)  The KJV (1611) is God's written revelation to man.

So Hell was invented, by whoever invented that story.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

So Hell was invented, by whoever invented that story.  

 

26 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

So Hell was invented, by whoever invented that story.  

No it wasn't invented.  Jesus taught it is an actual place.  But he doesn't want anyone to go there.  

We get involved in talking about politics and ideology often on the internet.  Try convincing someone who believes in Marxism-socialism that it's a bad idea.  Communist countries banned religion or tried to abolish it because it doesn't fit in with the ideology of Communism.  The Marxist ideology if I am correct is based on the idea of taking from those that have and giving to those that do not have (by force if necessary).   If you want to oppose Marxism  or some offshoot of it,  the Bible will support you. 

Edited by blackbird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, blackbird said:

 

No it wasn't invented.  Jesus taught it is an actual place.  But he doesn't want anyone to go there.  

 

Somebody said Jesus said that.  Then somebody else wrote it down.  I bet he didn't.  I bet he just stubbed his toe, or something, and the person listening wasn't quite awake.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Somebody said Jesus said that.  Then somebody else wrote it down.  I bet he didn't.  I bet he just stubbed his toe, or something, and the person listening wasn't quite awake.

Here is some much more intriguing info on the origins of hell.

Quote

 

The Gehenna Of Fire

Death and Judgment

 CONCORDANT STUDIES

THE OLD ENGLISH “hell,” denoted that which is covered (hidden or unseen). Consequently, it once served as a suitable translation of the Greek hades, which means “imperceptible” or “unseen.” In modern English, however, due to the corrupting influence of human tradition, “hell” has come to mean “the abode of the dead; the place of punishment after death [in which the dead are alive].” Consequently, since in modern English the notion represented by the term “hell” constitutes, to say the least, interpretation, not translation, it is unconscionable for modern translators to render either the Hebrew sheol or the Greek hades by this expression.

Yet it is worse still, whether in old English or modern English, to render the Greek tartarosas and especially the Greek geenna, also as “hell.” Such “translations” are not translations at all; they are but the product of circular reasoning and hoary tradition. Whatever one’s understanding may be concerning the matters to which these words make reference, as a translation of the Original, the rendering “hell,” in all cases, is wholly unjustifiable. Yet it is this very rendering, the single term, “hell,” for all these distinct words in the Original, which has spawned all the familiar talk concerning “hell” which prevails among “Bible-believing Christians” today.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, dialamah said:

Here is some much more intriguing info on the origins of hell.

 

The accurate translation in English is the King James Versions (1611) because it is the only translation based on the received text or textus receptus for the New Testament.

Around 1880 two heretical Church of England (possibly priests) decided to make a new version based on two corrupt New Testament manuscripts.  They did not like the King James Bible (1611).  They appear to have been influenced by Rome and diabolical powers.  At least one of them was involved with the occult.   One manuscript is called the Codex Sinaiticus manuscript and was found in a waste paper basket in a monastery.  The other corrupt manuscript was called Codex Vaticanus and was pulled out of the Vatican library.  These two manuscripts were older than the manuscripts upon which the KJV (1611) was based and they developed a theory claiming they were more accurate even though they differed with the Received Text in thousands of places in the New Testament.  Age does not prove accuracy.  These two manuscripts were probably discarded in the early centuries because they were corrupt.  And the accurate manuscripts upon which the received text is based were probably worn out from use.  That would explain why the accurate manuscripts are not as old as the few that were pulled out around 1880.  Yet these modernist heretics grabbed onto them and based their new translation on them.  

In a separate but related issue, modern version have in fact taken the word hell almost completely out of the Old Testament.  Modern bible translators have altered the Bible in thousands of places, in some ways, to make it is more in line with new age thinking.  It is all part of the corruption of literally all modern versions of the Bible. 

I would add that hell has been taught in the Bible for the past 2000 years. It is only in modern versions and modernist churches that have taken hell out of the Bible and want to present a more gentle approach.  It's all part of the great falling away or apostasy prophesied would occur in the last days.  The failure to teach something does not change the fact of it's existence.

I am a follower of the KJV (1611) and completely reject the corrupt modern versions.  If you want to know more about this I suggest you get the book "New Age Bible Versions" by Gail Riplinger.  Available through Amazon or from their actual website  avpublications dot com

Edited by blackbird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dialamah said:

Here is some much more intriguing info on the origins of hell.

 

Here is a short article which will shed some light on it.

Quote 

“Hell” or “Hades” in Matthew 11:23 et al.?

"And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day." (Matthew 11:23, KJV)

Critics claim that the KJV is wrong for translating two Greek words “αδης (Hadēs)” and “γεεννα (Gehenna)” both as “hell.” These critics claim that Hades is merely a place of the dead, and not a place of torment and fire. However, we must get our understanding of biblical words from the Bible rather than from Pagan lore. The biblical definition of “Hades” indicates that it is a place of fire and torment. Luke 16:23-24 portrays the rich man being “tormented” in the “flame” of Hades. Thus, “hell” is an appropriate translation of “Hades.”

Since “Gehenna” is Hebrew and “Hades” is Greek, it would make sense for the Greek-influenced Hebrews of the New Testament to use the two words interchangeably in referring to hell. Paul, despite referring to Hades numerous times, never uses the word “Gehenna” in all his letters which were addressed to Greek-speaking Gentiles. The only place outside of the Gospels where “Gehenna” is referred to is in James’ epistle (3:6) which was addressed to Jews. We must understand that the Greek of the New Testament is not a uniform dialect. Jesus used a Semitic dialect to Jews in Judea whereas Paul used the standard Greek dialect in his letters to the churches throughout the Roman Empire. "Hades" was the word for hell when the audience may not have understood "Gehenna". Apparently with the Hellenistic influence the word "Hades" was gaining currency even in Judea. But "Hades" was the only word for hell for the Gentiles. Why in the world would a Gentile in Rome understand the Hebrew word "Gehenna"? Common sense must be applied in ascertaining why the Bible uses both "Hades" and "Gehenna". There seems to be no difference between the biblical Gehenna and the biblical Hades. “Gehenna” is the Hebrew word for hell and “Hades” is the Greek word for hell. The KJV, being a translation, translates both words for hell as “hell.”
 

Unquote

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/hell-or-hades-in-matthew-1123-et-al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would an interpretation occuring 1600 years after the supposed events be more accurate than any other interpretation?  Especially when that interpretation came at a time when the Church was starting its long downhill slide?  I daresay there was good reason to present an interpretation that would scare people into not straying from Church authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, dialamah said:

Why would an interpretation occuring 1600 years after the supposed events be more accurate than any other interpretation?  Especially when that interpretation came at a time when the Church was starting its long downhill slide?  I daresay there was good reason to present an interpretation that would scare people into not straying from Church authority.

It had nothing to do with exercising church authority.  It had everything to do with the Reformation and a return to biblical or apostolic christianity.  Rome opposed the Reformation and fought it every step of the way.  I think there was the thirty years war and the Inquisition for four hundred years.  The founding of the Jesuits and creation of the Counter-reformation in the 1500s, and the Council of Trent to oppose the Reformation were some of the tools used to oppose the Reformation   There is a fascinating video on youtube about much of this.  I think it is called the History of the Bible but not 100% sure.  It's about a 2 or 3 hr video.

Prior to the 1500s, there were no translations of the Bible in the English language.  Prior to the Reformation, the church was controlled by Roman Catholic Church throughout Europe since it started after 312 A.D.  It became the Holy Roman Empire and kings and emperors were under the authority and control of Rome. (with the exception of a few smaller independent baptist sects in Europe who were eventually killed by the RCC) 

The RCC had it's own version, the Latin Vulgate, which it had been using down through the ages within the Catholic Church.  A large part of the teachings of the Roman Catholic church were rejected during the Reformation.  Followers of the reformed churches and other churches which split from Rome wished to have a bible in their own languages and not one which might be tailored to support the doctrines of Rome.  Rome did not believe individual people should have a Bible or be able to read it in their own languages.  For over as thousand years, people were told by their priests what to believe.  Then in the 1500s Martin Luther and some others discovered that the teachings and practices of Rome contradicted what the Bible said.  About that time Rome's representatives were going around Europe selling indulgences to collect money to build the Saint Peter's basilica in Rome.  Indulgences were meant to cover a person's sins and there were different prices for different kinds of sins.

Then when the Reformation took place in the 1500s, those who followed the Reformation and left the Roman Church required a Bible which they could understand.  The Reformation brought a rejection of the Roman Catholic system of the church as the final authority and interpreter of truth and their system of all grace and salvation comes only through the mass, baptism, and other sacraments, plus a long time in a fictitious purgatory.  The Reformation returned to the apostolic teaching of the necessity of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ by faith alone, the Bible teaching that all truth came to ordinary men and women through the Scriptures by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, not priests or popes.  Therefore it was necessary for ordinary believers to have access to Bible written in their own language so they could read and study it for themselves. 

That meant new Bibles had to be translated from the most trustworthy extant Greek and Hebrew manuscripts into the English language and other languages in Europe such as German (Martin Luther's) in the 1500s.  Several English bibles were produced in England in the 1500s with tremendous opposition from Rome.   Some people were burned at the stake for opposing Rome and working on producing Bibles in English.  Rome had always used priests to teach people what the Bible meant and always used only the Latin Vulgate which nobody could understand except the priest who had learned Latin. 

The New Testament had originally been written in Greek and so copies of the originals were kept in the eastern orthodox part of the world.  When the Muslims overran the byzantine empire, some eastern orthodox people fled to western Europe bringing the early Greek manuscripts with them.  These were some of the manuscripts which were used to produce the English versions in the 1500s and the 1611 King James Version. 

This web page gives a history of the King James Version and events leading up to it.

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html

Edited by blackbird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an excellent example of the fanaticism of the Left in its determination to shut down speech it disagrees with. It was amusing to see how smoothly Ben Shapiro handled the demonstrators at his speech, and how he made them look like infants. He's a pretty smart guy. In one of the other scenes a guy points out that discussion is what we do to settle our disagreements short of violence, and if you shut down discussion all that leaves is violence.

 

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

There are few better ways to shut down speech than mowing over people with a car, though.  

I wouldn't say it was that good, unless it actually worked. 

And if it did, you'd have to get them all.  Tough to do, unless it's a Hummer with big blades sticking out the wheel hubs, or something. And lasers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dialamah said:

Why would an interpretation occuring 1600 years after the supposed events be more accurate than any other interpretation?  Especially when that interpretation came at a time when the Church was starting its long downhill slide?  I daresay there was good reason to present an interpretation that would scare people into not straying from Church authority.

Hell has been taught all through church history.  It is not an interpretation that occurred 1600 years after the time of Christ.  Once one starts giving credence to other writings and fables, he could sink into a pool of quicksand.  The Bible is the only authority on spiritual and eternal matters.  Hell was always taught, but rejected by some modernist bible translators in modern versions and preachers in modernist churches.   Jesus describes hell as a place of suffering in Luke ch16

Revelation describes what happens to the devil and those whose names were not found in the book of life.

"And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."  Revelation ch20 vs 10

"And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."  Revelation 20:15

Other writing such as books and myths that claim hell does not exist are not the word of God and do not carry any weight or authority.  Rather than trying convince one's self that it doesn't exist, it is better to accept the Bible as God's Word and the gospel.  Much better to be born again by faith in Jesus Christ, trusting in his sacrifice for our sins.  Salvation is not by works (Ephesians 2:8).  Salvation is only through God's grace and mercy that we receive forgiveness of sin.  Jesus is the only saviour.  We must call upon him and trust in him.

Edited by blackbird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Once one starts giving credence to other writings and fables, he could sink into a pool of quicksand.

Seems ironic in a thread on free speech.

I'm assuming you mean the ground actually turns into real quicksand otherwise this would be a really funny time and place in the discussion to start getting rhetorical about credibility and the word of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

There are few better ways to shut down speech than mowing over people with a car, though.  

You're become as dreary as Hot Enough. Every post you make waves that like a banner under which you're now marching. Joined ANTIFA yet? Got your mask,  helmet and club?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I do it in response to tying every bit of stupidity you can to 'the left'.

But I don't. I only tie leftist stupidity to the left. And that's what this is. Did I blame 'the left' on the last topic I started, about the three major issues which the politicians are ignoring? Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Argus said:

But I don't. I only tie leftist stupidity to the left. And that's what this is. Did I blame 'the left' on the last topic I started, about the three major issues which the politicians are ignoring? Nope.

You can't tie those to 'the left' though.  I said every bit of stupidity that you can...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...