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.
Slavic peoples are all the same, so Russia can take over all of Eastern Europe.
"Great logic"...
Edit: So...in your line of reasoning:
if you're the same as England then why not leave America and leave the "Indians" alone and go back to Manchester?? After all by your logic Americans = Europeans as you speak the same language as the islanders from Britain. Better yet: UK should take over America as you should be the same.
At least almost nobody in Eastern Europe speaks Russian, except Belarus and Ukraine - and my country is just 18% Slavic according to DNA studies.
Not to mention the absurd thing you wrote that just because some country is "all the same" to another one, the other country can take it over. So what, if Bulgaria is the same as Russia then we should take over them or the Czech Republic should take over Macedonia and Serbia etc.
What's this debate about? Seems mere goading and provocation.
In deference to the many millions who perished...
WW II was won because Britain, the USA and Stalin's Soviet Union forged an indomitable alliance. The American declaration of war is widely recognized as the turning point and Churchill's greatest joy. WC couldn't rely on Stalin of course because, well, for obvious reasons. American involvement meant HOPE and renewed resolve.
Britain stood alone against the brutal Nazi regime in 1940, fending off the Nazis for many tremulous months, and this fierce resolve factored into the ultimate allied victory in a way that can never be quite quantified. or appreciated enough. Britain's military was a strong key factor with the Brits losing nearly as many troops as the USA if you include the Irish & Scots in that tally.
The Soviets lost something like 20-25 million, half civilian I think and probably would have fallen had America not become involved. probably.
The USA jumped furiously into the fray after the attack on Pearl Harbor and became an overnight powerhouse in the manufacturing of weaponry and supplies. The American involvement cannot be overstated. America changed overnight from a largely agrarian country with a mostly neutral attitude to an outright military powerhouse. This conversion and what the USA accomplished in such short time was an incredible feat.
It's impossible to say what might have happened if...too many variables. But the allies did win, together.
You can't make Sharia law out of the Bible - it's that simple; hence saying that "any religion could be interpreted in such a way to justify ANY kind of violence" is incorrect.
Not for long, since the "official church" ( i.e. major denominations) will condemn such interpretations, and those who "misrepresent" Christianity will become a sect.
Since the verse you've mentioned first time around already contained the reference to Christ, it was obvious that it was from the New Testament. So the explanation I gave on a subject earlier still stands.
Here is the verses Romans 1:24-32.
Or better else - start from 1:20 and go through to 32.
It's the retelling of the previous events from the Old Testament.
Where exactly do you see abuse here?
You can make out the Holy Inquisition out of the judgements which are contained in the Bible, you could justify all kind of crusades, modern wars in Subsaharian Africa and so on.
I must tell you that you have an impressive knowledge of what there is in the Bible, i must admit that these points i often bring out always put even the staunchest Catholic in difficulty but i think you are trying to circumvent my questions with the same old excuse when it comes to the New Testament, especially whenever Christ is mentioned.
As for the last couple quotes, it affirms that women should be subject to men and i think that would be enough to justify any kind of inferiority of women and subsequent abuse. ACtually, the existence of this verse (even if i'm sure there are several interpretations about it) should irk you given that you're a women but you seem to be quite accepting of it
You can make out the Holy Inquisition out of the judgements which are contained in the Bible, you could justify all kind of crusades, modern wars in Subsaharian Africa and so on.
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.
Quote:
I must tell you that you have an impressive knowledge of what there is in the Bible, i must admit that these points i often bring out always put even the staunchest Catholic in difficulty but i think you are trying to circumvent my questions with the same old excuse when it comes to the New Testament, especially whenever Christ is mentioned.
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)))
Quote:
As for the last couple quotes, it affirms that women should be subject to men and i think that would be enough to justify any kind of inferiority of women and subsequent abuse.
Look closer here -
So that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored (Titus 2:4-5)
Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. (Colossians 3:18)
See?It's really not about "women being subject to men," but about the relations between the husband and the wife - the "pecking order" in marriage so to speak. And yes, in Christian marriage the wife should be a subject to her husband, according to a Bible.
However if the woman doesn't go into marriage and remains free, whether she should be submitted under man or not - that's an open question. Bible seems to omit this subject all together.
Now compare it to Koran, that defines very clearly that woman (ANY woman) is "created by God a degree lower than a man" ( any man.) This obviously gives you the whole different set of rules and regulations for ALL women and how the relations between men and women in society are going to be defined - marriage or not.
As for abuse of women that you think subjection under a man in Christian marriage automatically brings, it is not a fact. The husband might be abusive - it's true, but then, again, he might be kind and loving one. It's all about the free choice you know.
Likewise, when the married couple doesn't follow Christian principles and submits under women's dominance - these relations might be far away from being perfect as well, and bring a lot of heart-aches.
Quote:
Actually, the existence of this verse (even if i'm sure there are several interpretations about it) should irk you given that you're a women but you seem to be quite accepting of it.
It did, it did irk me ones, when I was young. In fact it made me hit the ceiling when I saw these verses in black and white in the Bible))) ( Before I only heard about them.) I closed the book and never looked at it for the next 15-20 years I think))) By the time I did however, I was already older and wiser, I've witnessed a great deal of things, being through a lot of hardship, and what's more important - learned a lot about my own strength. At that point I was already confident enough that I'd understand what that book was all about much better. And I did. As much as I understood why this "pecking order" in marriage was prescribed in Christianity. I've recognized enough of power and danger in women, that they might dictate their husbands and lead them astray from the path/deeds that needed to be accomplished according to the higher power/purpose. Even in such simple matter as money - say money need to be collected in church for poor, or say new school. And say a particular man who has the kind of money he'd like to allocate for this project is confronted by his wife who says "over my dead body, give me this money for my own purpose and you'll be happy you did. Or else."
See? God puts on his heart to donate, ( since he wants to help some particular poor family through this deed,) but here comes man's wife and finita la comedia)))
Just an example.
So no, it doesn't irk me any longer. I totally get it.
if you're the same as England then why not leave America and leave the "Indians" alone and go back to Manchester?? After all by your logic Americans = Europeans as you speak the same language as the islanders from Britain. Better yet: UK should take over America as you should be the same.
Let them try. I don't care.
Quote:
At least almost nobody in Eastern Europe speaks Russian, except Belarus and Ukraine - and my country is just 18% Slavic according to DNA studies.
Really? So what else are you? Italian?
Quote:
Not to mention the absurd thing you wrote that just because some country is "all the same" to another one, the other country can take it over. So what, if Bulgaria is the same as Russia then we should take over them or the Czech Republic should take over Macedonia and Serbia etc.
You've already shown that you don't care about Russia taking over part of Ukraine; that it's okay because most Ukrainians speak Russian.
I'm just extending your logic to Slavic peoples. But if you're not happy with "Slavic", then how about "Eastern European peoples."
Why do you even argue with me?
Bulgaria -- YOUR country -- was allied with the Nazis in WW II.
But you complained that Americans bombed Bulgaria and didn't defend it against the Soviets (who were also fighting the Nazis.)
Here's what you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by euro123
Maybe you're right....when the Americans and the British bombed Bulgaria in WW2 they protected us from the birds as the ruins were great shield against birds **** . You also protected us on September 5th 1944 when the Soviet Union declared us war and entered bulgaria four days later....
Where do you get your history knowledge from? Watching John Wayne films eh? Why don't you try reading history books for once, your complete disregard for ANY of the other allies during the war is shocking
Nonsense. I have acknowledged the small contributions of England and France, and the great contribution of the Soviet Union.
Quote:
the truth is the Russians did the most damage to the Nazis yet you don't find them on forums demanding that other Europeans pay homage.
Why would they?
Instead, they simply took over Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania and kept those countries as vassal states for 44 years. LOL
Quote:
America wouldn't have even entered the war if the Japanese hadn't 'bombed' Hawaii.
So what?
Hitler was not bombing New York City.
There was no compelling reason for the U.S. to fight Hitler that I can see. We did it to help you Brits, as I remember.
Quote:
here is something for you to 'chew on' the Russians would have eventually defeated Hitler on their own
I've already acknowledged that and even said that I wish that had happened. Then the Russians would have kept going west and taken over Western Europe and even Britain.
Fine by me, after reading the anti-American garbage from you Euros and Brits. Especially the guy from Bulgaria who complained that America didn't protect Bulgaria from the Soviets when Bulgaria was allied with the Nazis and we were fighting the Nazis on the side of the Soviets. And you talk about MY supposed lack of knowledge of history!
Quote:
...Personally I used to feel allied to the USA but people like you are completely turning the way I feel about the whole episode, the lack of respect from (some) US citizens like yourself is sickening, you claim that Europeans should somehow be thanking the US yet all the time you yourself show nothing but disrespect for everybody and anybody else, talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
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.
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. The Soviets desperately lobbied both England and France to join them in taking action against Hitler with the help of the Czechs. When they were turned down and Chamberlain sold out Czechoslovakia to Hitler, the Soviets knew that they had to buy time to build up their defenses. Thus the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the carving up of Poland. All of this can only be described as disgraceful. 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."
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 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.
Last edited by dechatelet; 02-20-2016 at 12:34 AM..
The question first off is how do you define "American culture" and "European Culture"? Both areas are so large and diverse that to boil it down to a singular idea seems ill fitting.
Then what exactly did "American culture" destroy in Europe?
If you read my post again you will see I am talking about several cultures and ways by each country. Unfortunately people were not interested to tell their personal experiences at all. Which would make it even clearer. It would make the thread interesting in the aspect that I meant it to be.
Why it is kept an "issue" that muslim culture would destroy European culture but American culture add nobody care?
American culture add destroys European cultures as well and has done it faster, better and in all silence and nobofy cry after their own culture (except me of course) ..
And now when muslims are coming, many seemed to wake up and ask what about our own (american-washed) culture?
Is there some new comer ways that you like and hate and some what you miss of your own what is gone and what is still left and you appreciate and would not let go?
Lets take examples before EU , all the coutries had their own laws and systems, the EU came and started to ruin them still leaving minority of things for the each country to decide.
- farming food and GMO , please get to know how it swim from USA as forced into eu citizens plates against their will, which before EU was no hell...
Also this ridiculous seed and food fight, USA wants to capture all the seed and foodmarkets, please stay away from my plate and garden USA.. I decide what I eat inside my body and not you.
And.. Stop shouting clouds down, you don't own clouds It mixes the whole system...
ETC.
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." 
