Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not really. You will not find such verses as "and those who refuse to believe in Christ (or clergy) - those you should take and torture until they confess their evil nature."
As for wars - they are predicted in the Bible as an inevitable thing. And even the first arrival of Christ does not bring good news ( i.e. the end of wars,) but rather confirms that there will be more wars to come. This, however, does not mean that Christian teaching encourages them.
Yet it's happened, i think the birth of the Holy Inquisition must have been based off something, obviously it wasn't only off the Bible's teachings but also off political needs. What i mean is that the Church must have based his choices out of a voluntarily misinterpreted verse at least so that they could give an explaination to the general populace
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
I probably do know quite a few things about the Bible, and no - I am not trying to "circumvent your questions;" - I simply think that you base your opinion on wrong presumptions about the Bible and Christianity and that's what I am pointing at to begin with. I can even understand WHY you have these wrong presumptions, since you are coming from a Catholic country. Orthodoxy shares a great deal with Catholicism in its approach to religion, where it demands the same surrender to the authority of clergy, that "knows better what God and Bible are all about," and your job is basically to accept and comply.
So the "knowledge" of the Bible that both Catholicism and Orthodoxy teach and practice is very rigid, very "prescriptive" and probably neither Catholics nor Orthodox believers question the Bible ( or rather what they are taught in church.) In fact I even found that "spirit" inside Italian churches was quite similar to the Orthodox ones, ( as different as these religions might be.) And that's why the "staunch Catholics" would have hard time dealing with your questions, since they don't know much beyond what they've been taught by Catholic church. ( Same goes to "staunch Orthodoxy" Russians by the way. They are quite disturbed sometimes when I am pointing them, that their stereotypical beliefs based on the teaching of their clergy might be actually wrong. But then, again, Russians often don't even know the Bible - just the bits and pieces out of it, or some chapters only - whatever is allowed to teach in church may be.)
Just keep in mind that I live in the "protestant" country for many years, where bible studies are quite common, as the whole "questioning" thing. Not that it always bring positive results, but at least I did read the bible from beginning to the very end, with no one telling me how to understand this or that passage, unless I was interested in someone's opinion)))
You are spot on this one
You won't find any Italian cleric disputing any of the interpretations of the verses taught by the Catholic Church. There churches on the Eastern coast of Italy that share both a Catholic section and an Orthodox one due to this area having had the last Byzantine strongholds, outside of Asia Minor and Greece
It was a pleasure to hear to your explainations even if i think that there isn't an only way these books could be interpretated but several ones which paved the way for the birth of all the current Christian denominations.
I disagree with most of the latter half but let's just end it here. We are going off topic. Have you read the Quran as well by the way? I have heard you talking about it as if you had read it several times.
Nonsense. I have acknowledged the small contributions of England and France, and the great contribution of the Soviet Union.
This "small" contribution by the British included (but isn't limited to) cracking the Enigma code, defeating the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain, defeating Rommel at El Alamein, helping to neutralise the Kreigsmarine and U-Boat threat, fielding half the numbers at D-Day and supplying the vast majority of boats and landing craft, and
causing Japan's heaviest defeats of the war to that point at Imphal and Kohima. I could go on...
And by the way, it was Britain and the British Commonwealth, not just England.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
We did it to help you Brits, as I remember.
Then your memory is somewhat flawed if you believe the US entered the war out of an altruistic need to help. It's probably quite contentious to say this, but the US, for the price of the lives of 400,000 men, did quite well out of joining the winning side. And, by the way, that's not to say that US involvement wasn't appreciated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
Then the Russians would have kept going west and taken over Western Europe and even Britain.
If Germany couldn't, how was Russia supposed to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
Fine by me, after reading the anti-American garbage from you Euros and Brits.
Touchy much? Pointing out a truths which you seem to be unaware of doesn't make one anti-American.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
I don't believe for a minute that you have had even a shred of real liking, respect or gratitude for the U.S. You Brits still can't stand the fact that we kicked you out of America over two hundred years ago.
Actually most Brits have quite a rosy picture of the US but believe you'll find most of them don't really think too much about events of over 200 years ago. In any case, if it weren't for the French, Dutch and Spanish, you'd still be speaking English :P
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
And you can't stand the fact that you above all were responsible for allowing Hitler to gain power because of your appeasement of him.
Easy to say with hindsight. But as it happened, things turned out differently anyway with Churchill becoming PM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
You made a mess of things, and then as usual, America came stupidly to the rescue. As your own countryman Oscar Wilde would say, "No good deed goes unpunished."
America did no such thing. I would take a little time to read the lengthy thread in the history forums entitled "Why Do Brits Deny US Bailed Them Out in WW2". You'll find several excellent posts, many by Americans, which argue that the US didn't rescue Britain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
I would be fine with Muslims taking over Western Europe and Britain while Putin takes over Eastern Europe.
I really don't care what happens to Europe. Europe apparently hates America, so why should I care? Moreover, Europe has been appeasing Muslims for decades. That's going to bite you in the rear end. But it's not my concern.
And there we have it, your true agenda for all to see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
And Europeans: Feel free not to go to McDonalds, wear blue jeans, watch American movies and listen to American music. No one is forcing you to do any of that.
Why not? I occasionally do all four, although I equally visit other kinds of restaurants, watch a lot of foreign cinema and listen to a huge variety of music which didn't originate in the US. Perhaps you should try it?
This "small" contribution by the British included (but isn't limited to) cracking the Enigma code, defeating the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain, defeating Rommel at El Alamein, helping to neutralise the Kreigsmarine and U-Boat threat, fielding half the numbers at D-Day and supplying the vast majority of boats and landing craft, and
causing Japan's heaviest defeats of the war to that point at Imphal and Kohima. I could go on...
And by the way, it was Britain and the British Commonwealth, not just England.
Exaggerate much?
Britain didn't have the military or industrial capacity to "supply the vast majority of boats and landing craft" for D-Day, much less contribute anything but a token contribution to the defeat of Japan. You must be kidding me!
Indeed, Britain's very survival depended on the U.S. and the Soviet Union. You were starving, out of supplies and on the verge of defeat when America stepped in, first sending convoys of ships to resupply you in your hour of need, many of which were sunk by U-boats.
If you deny that, then you are just ignorant.
Quote:
Then your memory is somewhat flawed if you believe the US entered the war out of an altruistic need to help. It's probably quite contentious to say this, but the US, for the price of the lives of 400,000 men, did quite well out of joining the winning side. And, by the way, that's not to say that US involvement wasn't appreciated.
So what?
Winners SHOULD do well.
As for America being appreciated, I'm not seeing it here.
Quote:
If Germany couldn't, how was Russia supposed to?
The Soviets -- with American help, thanks to our supplying them with our Liberty ships -- defeated Germany.
England had little to do that.
Now, I invite you to put 2 and 2 together.
The Soviets gobbled up Eastern Europe, and there is no way England alone could have stopped them from taking the rest of Europe, including Britain.
By that time, it was only thousands of American troops in Germany plus the atom bomb (which only America had at the time) that could deter them.
Quote:
Touchy much? Pointing out a truths which you seem to be unaware of doesn't make one anti-American.
You haven't pointed out any truths here that I haven't already taken account of.
Quote:
Actually most Brits have quite a rosy picture of the US but believe you'll find most of them don't really think too much about events of over 200 years ago. In any case, if it weren't for the French, Dutch and Spanish, you'd still be speaking English :P
Huh?
We are speaking English now and always have been.
Quote:
Easy to say with hindsight. But as it happened, things turned out differently anyway with Churchill becoming PM.
Doesn't matter.
You and the French -- by your inaction -- were responsible for Hitler taking over the Rhineland, Austria, Czechoslovakia and half of Poland.
You were also responsible for the Soviets taking over the other half of Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.
None of that would have happened if your prime minister Chamberlain together with the French hadn't appeased Hitler.
Quote:
America did no such thing. I would take a little time to read the lengthy thread in the history forums entitled "Why Do Brits Deny US Bailed Them Out in WW2". You'll find several excellent posts, many by Americans, which argue that the US didn't rescue Britain.
Nonsense.
You Brits were literally starving and begging America to send food, money, troops, and supplies, which we did.
Quote:
And there we have it, your true agenda for all to see.
Yes, my true agenda is for America to worry about America, and to hell with the rest of you ingrates.
Quote:
Why not? I occasionally do all four, although I equally visit other kinds of restaurants, watch a lot of foreign cinema and listen to a huge variety of music which didn't originate in the US. Perhaps you should try it?
Duh.
I didn't say don't do it, I said you don't have to do it.
Try keeping your eye on the ball.
Last edited by dechatelet; 02-21-2016 at 04:52 AM..
Britain didn't have the military or industrial capacity to "supply the vast majority of boats and landing craft" for D-Day, much less contribute anything but a token contribution to the defeat of Japan. You must be kidding me!
Indeed, Britain's very survival depended on the U.S. and the Soviet Union. You were starving, out of supplies and on the verge of defeat when America stepped in, first sending convoys of ships to resupply you in your hour of need, many of which were sunk by U-boats.
If you deny that, then you are just ignorant.
So what?
Winners SHOULD do well.
As for America being appreciated, I'm not seeing it here.
The Soviets -- with American help, thanks to our supplying them with our Liberty ships -- defeated Germany.
England had little to do that.
Now, I invite you to put 2 and 2 together.
The Soviets gobbled up Eastern Europe, and there is no way England alone could have stopped them from taking the rest of Europe, including Britain.
By that time, it was only thousands of American troops in Germany plus the atom bomb (which only America had at the time) that could deter them.
You haven't pointed out any truths here that I haven't already taken account of.
Huh?
We are speaking English now and always have been.
Doesn't matter.
You and the French -- by your inaction -- were responsible for Hitler taking over the Rhineland, Austria, Czechoslovakia and half of Poland.
You were also responsible for the Soviets taking over the other half of Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.
None of that would have happened if your prime minister Chamberlain together with the French hadn't appeased Hitler.
Nonsense.
You Brits were literally starving and begging America to send food, money, troops, and supplies, which we did.
Yes, my true agenda is for America to worry about America, and to hell with the rest of you ingrates.
Duh.
I didn't say don't do it, I said you don't have to do it.
Try keeping your eye on the ball.
Go and read some history books and don't be so ignorant, come back to us when you actually know what you are talking about instead of spouting Hollywood nonsense and claiming that as facts. In the meantime for your own health and safety I suggest you keep in your little insular world.
Yet it's happened, i think the birth of the Holy Inquisition must have been based off something, obviously it wasn't only off the Bible's teachings but also off political needs. What i mean is that the Church must have based his choices out of a voluntarily misinterpreted verse at least so that they could give an explaination to the general populace
You are spot on this one
You won't find any Italian cleric disputing any of the interpretations of the verses taught by the Catholic Church. There churches on the Eastern coast of Italy that share both a Catholic section and an Orthodox one due to this area having had the last Byzantine strongholds, outside of Asia Minor and Greece
It was a pleasure to hear to your explainations even if i think that there isn't an only way these books could be interpretated but several ones which paved the way for the birth of all the current Christian denominations.
I disagree with most of the latter half but let's just end it here. We are going off topic. Have you read the Quran as well by the way? I have heard you talking about it as if you had read it several times.
Why would I want to read the Koran?
This particular religion is downright hostile to women - I've observed enough ( in fact experienced it on "my own skin" so to speak,) and I've read about it enough.
I happen to believe everything this woman says here ( you can check her Surah references yourself,)
and that's all I need to know to NOT to be interested in reading Koran any further.
"I Am a Moslem Woman"
"It is not a democracy when a man can talk about politics without anyone threatening him.
Democracy is when a woman can talk of her lover without anyone killing her.
Dr. Sauad M. Al-Sabah
I am a Moslem woman. I have no face. I have no identity. At age 9, based on lunar year (a lunar year is twelve months of 28 days each or 336 days) or, when I am actually 8 years and 8 months old, I am considered an adult. Being an adult means that I have to adhere with Islamic laws as stated below.
I have to pray five times a day, fast one month out of the year and cover myself from head to toe in yards of black fabric. I am eligible to be married and can be punished for any wrong doing. I can be incarcerated and, if needed, executed for my crimes, even political ones..."
Go and read some history books and don't be so ignorant, come back to us when you actually know what you are talking about instead of spouting Hollywood nonsense and claiming that as facts. In the meantime for your own health and safety I suggest you keep in your little insular world.
Yeah right, I am not going to start getting into a petty argument with a nationalistic like you, suffice to say if you think Brad Pitt won the second world war all on his own you are seriously deluded. People like you are seriously damaging the way other nationals feel towards the USA.
Islam is an obvious threat, but that doesn't mean American influence is a nonissue. After all, it seems to have been the Cultural Marxism that took hold in America in the mid-20th century that's influenced western European attitudes towards immigration.
American culture is degenerate garbage; of course it is a threat to Europe. But that does not diminish the Islamic threat.
Islam is an obvious threat, but that doesn't mean American influence is a nonissue. After all, it seems to have been the Cultural Marxism that took hold in America in the mid-20th century that's influenced western European attitudes towards immigration.
American culture is degenerate garbage; of course it is a threat to Europe. But that does not diminish the Islamic threat.
Most of what people 'think' of as 'American culture' isn't even 'American culture' in the first place but actually 'globalised culture' or 'Western culture'. You can't just blame 'America' for what some people consider the 'garbage' of the modern world, 'America' for some reason seems to bear the brunt of it though.
Britain didn't have the military or industrial capacity to "supply the vast majority of boats and landing craft" for D-Day, much less contribute anything but a token contribution to the defeat of Japan. You must be kidding me!
Indeed, Britain's very survival depended on the U.S. and the Soviet Union. You were starving, out of supplies and on the verge of defeat when America stepped in, first sending convoys of ships to resupply you in your hour of need, many of which were sunk by U-boats.
If you deny that, then you are just ignorant.
First of all, it's well documented that Britain and its Commonwealth supplied the vast majority of shipping and landing craft on D-Day, around 80% compared to 16% for the US. Think about it, it wouldn't make sense for the US to transport the required amount across the atlantic when it had access to the Royal Navy - the largest in the world at the beginning of the war.
Obviously, the US saw most of the action in the Pacific theatre but Britain was also present to protect its own interests and at Kohima and Imphal, Japan lost over 50,000 men - its largest defeat at that time in Japan's history. I'd wager anyone fighting on either side would consider it a "token contribution".
And at sea, while the British Pacific Fleet, had a lesser role to play, mostly for political reasons (the US didn't want Britain claiming victory), it was hardly insignificant.
In 1939 a study was carried out to determine whether Britain would starve in the event of a German blockade preventing the import of food to the island. The conclusion was that Britain, while perhaps having to cut down on meat, eggs and milk, would have been fine existing on a diet of wheat, potatoes and vegetables, all of which was readily available. In any case, the experiment went a bit too far - rations were more plentiful than expected, and along with imports from the US, Canada and elsewhere, Britain never came close to starving.
As for America being appreciated, I'm not seeing it here.
So, you at least acknowledge the possibility that the US didn't enter the war to help Britain? ("We did it to help you Brits, as I remember.")
As for America not being appreciated you'll find most Brits DO acknowledge the US contribution in the war, but take umbrage at the whole "saving our asses" nonsense because it simply isn't true, and when this is pointed out - sometimes by Americans far more enlightened than yourself - some of you throw a hissy fit about it.
4-0
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
The Soviets -- with American help, thanks to our supplying them with our Liberty ships -- defeated Germany.
England had little to do that.
I'll repeat myself just for your benefit. Comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong point here.
"This "small" contribution by the British included (but isn't limited to) cracking the Enigma code, defeating the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain, defeating Rommel at El Alamein, helping to neutralise the Kreigsmarine and U-Boat threat, fielding half the numbers at D-Day and supplying the vast majority of boats and landing craft, and
causing Japan's heaviest defeats of the war to that point at Imphal and Kohima. I could go on..."
If you'd like to contest any of that be my guest, the onus is on you to disprove any of it. But you won't be able to.
5-0
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
The Soviets gobbled up Eastern Europe, and there is no way England alone could have stopped them from taking the rest of Europe, including Britain.
Well, no, ENGLAND all by it self might have struggled, but then a lone US would have too. But you're starting to veer into "what if?" territory here which is something we could do all day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
Huh?
We are speaking English now and always have been.
Que?
Lighten up, it was clearly a joke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
Doesn't matter.
You and the French -- by your inaction -- were responsible for Hitler taking over the Rhineland, Austria, Czechoslovakia and half of Poland.
You were also responsible for the Soviets taking over the other half of Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.
None of that would have happened if your prime minister Chamberlain together with the French hadn't appeased Hitler.
Well it kind of DOES matter to a nation which had fought a bloody war with the same enemy just a few decades earlier. Entering another is something that wouldn't have been taken lightly, but as it turned out became necessary. Again, very easy to dismiss Chamberlain in hindsight, but put yourself in the same position.
And no - Hitler was responsible for invading those countries, as was Stalin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
Nonsense.
You Brits were literally starving and begging America to send food, money, troops, and supplies, which we did.
Well, not literally starving, as pointed out above. Churchill over-egged the desperation to the US to compel them to join us. It must be stressed however, that these supplies were paid for in cash until Lend-Lease came to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
Yes, my true agenda is for America to worry about America, and to hell with the rest of you ingrates.
Yeah, because that's how to win arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
Duh.
I didn't say don't do it, I said you don't have to do it.
Try keeping your eye on the ball.
You'll find most Europeans, including myself, are quite fond of American culture, music, movies, food etc, although that doesn't mean we are so exclusively.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You will not find such verses as "and those who refuse to believe in Christ (or clergy) - those you should take and torture until they confess their evil nature." 
