Updates from January, 2012 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Redbaiter 22:59 on January 6, 2012 Permalink  

    Iowa- Allegation Romney Wrongly Credited With 20 Non-existent Votes, Santorum Now Winner? 

    Edwards True's notes on the votes in his precinct

    On voting night, there was an unaccounted for delay in announcing the final count in Iowa. At that stage, Santorum lead by about 4 votes. Eventually, Romney was given the win after the “discovery” of a collection of hitherto unnoticed votes that gave him the lead by 8.

    Edward True

    The county of Appanoose was down on the offical results as providing 22 votes for Romney. However one of the actual counters of the vote in that precinct had jotted down a record of his own countings, and believes the real number was only 2 votes for Romney. Edward True, 28, of Moulton, said

    “When Mitt Romney won Iowa by eight votes and I’ve got a 20-vote discrepancy here, that right there says Rick Santorum won Iowa, not Mitt Romney.”

    A spokeswoman with the Iowa Republican Party said True is not a precinct captain and he’s not a county chairperson so he has no business talking about election results. Notice there’s no challenge to True’s assertions about the actual numbers in that response. (More …)

     
    • KG 23:42 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Of course they would–this is politics and there are millions at stake.

    • Redbaiter 23:53 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Probably the tip of the iceberg.

  • Redbaiter 12:50 on January 6, 2012 Permalink  

    Would Obama’s Re-election Be Better In The Long Run Than A Romney Win? 

    When I look at the candidates who remain on offer in the GOP primaries, I can’t see much hope for freedom. We need a radical for sure, but it cannot be Ron Paul with his blindness on foreign policy and his apparent unawareness of what would happen if Communist China or Russia achieved global political hegemony in the US’s absence.

    It has to be someone who will slash and burn government, rebuild the US military into a real war machine, and encourage a return to traditional Conservative values. None of the current candidates would earn my vote in that none of them seem to appreciate the real problem let alone have any working solutions to the US’s current parlous state.

    As I have often said before, I think the political battle was lost decades ago. Socialists have white-anted the US and perverted the voting system too completely for there ever to be a democratic solution.

    The left have so destroyed our democracy, that if Obama was to offer every voter a “free” pair of Nike’s new Air Jordan basketball shoes, then no matter what damage their other policies might do to liberty, the Democrats would probably win in a landslide. (More …)

     
    • KG 14:29 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Yes. Absolutely!

    • B2 14:37 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      The 1% chance remains.
      Christie has ruled it out absolutely.
      He has problems with the base with his attitude to illegal aliens and the 2nd and he says he endorses Romney.
      Endorsing Romney seems tactical, Romney has no positions or many positions, a blancmange requiring no defence.
      Neither Christie nor Coulter are stupid.
      So take a look at the way he deals with prime cultural Comrades like the Teacher’s Unions…….he took the long handle slasher to them.
      This bloke doesn’t suffer fools or ideological correctnesses.
      His BS meter is a perfect instrument.
      This bloke dealt with the Soprano look alikes for 9 years as DA of New Jersey, he doesn’t look like he’s the type to be run by lobbists.
      Three aggressive stump speeches and the base is eating out of his hand.

      Romney can get but 25% of the registered Republicans so far, it has been ever thus.

      Then I stopped fantasising.

      Unwinding Federal power never happens, what Oby does in the next 4 will be set in stone.

    • KG 15:06 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      What the lady is holding in her hand in the pic above is the way to unwind Federal power. Nothing else will.

    • erikter 16:08 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I wish you’re wrong this time. Give me anyone but the socialist/communist Kenyan impostor!

  • Redbaiter 07:45 on January 6, 2012 Permalink  

    General Debate Jan 6th 

     

    Has Kiwiblog gone downhill or what? On the few occasions I look in there these days the comments are unreadable. Mostly just a never ending round Robin of inane trash from the same small group of loons. Alexa shows a steady decline over 6 months and a 20% drop over the last three months. No wonder I reckon.

     
    • mort 10:10 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Kiwiblog is a show-piece in how someone can be proven to be a hypocrite.
      Farrah railed against the intrusions and thefts of the Klarkenfurhrer, and rightly so, but now he practically felches Keyster who continues to progress the Helengrad agenda.

    • bla 10:28 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Kiwiblog is disgusting, more so than the run of the mill leftist blogs. With the standard and such, everyone knows where they stand, and at least they don’t pretend to be something they are not. Farrar however masquerades as one of the good guys, when he is clearly just another pc leftist in disguise.
      Does this guy have a crush on Key or what?
      Crapping on about climate change and constantly posting pics from his overseas trips. Give me a break.

    • Jay 10:37 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      DPF is just a mouth piece for the National Party. Another Wellingtonian urban liberal who thinks they know best.
      There is a couple of good posters that still remain, but are usually drowned out by all the crap posted.

    • Chuck Bird 10:40 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      A very interesting article by Melanie Phillips is worth a read.

      Tory plans for tax breaks for married couples

      Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2075920/Marriage-tax-breaks-Nick-Clegg-living-different-planet.html#ixzz1icdtpzU6

    • kowtow 11:06 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      KB probably does so well as it gets so much exposure via RNZ etc It then builds up its own momentum.Some commentators there are very good,
      Farrar is also a National Party insider so will have a certain credibility on the “right”.But he is very much a part of the “beltway”, and as such is part of the problem of big government,something National should be against but isn’t.
      He is also a committed social liberal and is therefore not a conservative.Why that blog is constantly referred to as right wing is a mystery to me .

    • Angus 11:09 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      You get philu (until he was banned), that awful race-pimp Pollywog and the mad Marxist Penny Bright jumping in there to completely derail a thread . . and these dipshits like Big Bruv & dime, take the bait every time . . hook, line, sinker, rod and copy of Angling Times.

      Then, – oh the humanity – Andrei or Lucia post an opinion and all of the yellow-backed hyenas come out (i.e the NZ right wing)

    • Redbaiter 13:11 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Yep, Kiwiblog is today dominated by a collection of left wing drongos.

    • Redbaiter 13:17 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks for that link Chuck, an interesting read.

      Cameron is no Conservative, but if the heat is put upon politicians like him, they will become one.

      Nobody is putting any heat on Key, and his own party is too gutless to confront the cadre of left wing media advisers who so completely control him.

      One of the most important things the National Party has to do is fire Key’s media advisers. They’re all useless left wing cowards, and Key should not be listening to them.

    • mawm 14:16 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      This is a very interesting column by Peter Osbourne in yesterday’s Telegraph:-

      In every area of our public life, the Left is losing the argument

      But a handful of prime ministers have led governments that reshaped the world we all live in. Since 1945, only two – Clement Attlee and Margaret Thatcher – have fallen into this very rare second category.
      It now looks as if Cameron may turn out to be the third. In some ways this is very strange, because Cameron, at heart an old-fashioned Tory pragmatist, is the least revolutionary Prime Minister one can imagine.

    • Chuck Bird 15:07 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I am no prude. There are places on the West Coast where genuine nudists can discretely sunbath.
      It sound’s like many at Ladies Bay are perverts and I would not be surprised if most were not homosexuals. The is a problem at Okura North Auckland where homosexuals strut around displaying themselves to each other as well as anyone having a beach walk. What is Len Brown going to do about these perverts?

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10777012

    • Redbaiter 15:14 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Need any more evidence as to what a nauseating bunch of cowards and thugs the secular progressives are? Check this classless example from one of Clint Heine’s lowlife little groupthink clan-

      Lucia Maria…..One sick bitch.

      Absolutely no concept of honour.

    • KG 15:26 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I’m utterly baffled by NZ Conservative’s tolerance of pondscum such as this commenting in that blog. Is it some twisted view of Christianity, where giving a platform to one’s enemies is somehow the equivalent of “turning the other cheek”?
      I’ve never admired pointless martrydom.
      The inability to recognise evil and deal with it is what’s wrong with modern Christianity. And spinelessness in the face of evil is not a virtue.

    • Redbaiter 15:33 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Yeah, just left a comment there to that effect.

      The cowards they attempt to reason with are just mindless ignorant fanatical thugs.

      Why give them oxygen, let alone try to reason with them?

      Baffling.

    • Angus 15:42 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      “where giving a platform to one’s enemies is somehow the equivalent of “turning the other cheek”?”

      That’s why left-wing shitheads like James, Heine, Piesse and the corpulent car salesman from Cambridge drop in there – because they don’t get any bite back.

    • Kris K 16:42 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      “I’m utterly baffled by NZ Conservative’s tolerance of pondscum such as this commenting in that blog. Is it some twisted view of Christianity, where giving a platform to one’s enemies is somehow the equivalent of “turning the other cheek”?
      I’ve never admired pointless martrydom.”
      The inability to recognise evil and deal with it is what’s wrong with modern Christianity. And spinelessness in the face of evil is not a virtue.

      In my opinion I’m not sure whether it comes down to lack of [spiritual] discernment, KG. Also, in the case of most [Catholics] at NZC their authority is not [even primarily] God’s word; the Bible, but rather their numerous popes, so called Catholic theologians, and extra-biblical writings.

      Of course there are also many [non-RC] Christians who would fit into your above category – what I call “Christian doormats” who also lack spiritual discernment.

      Alternatively, in the case of [some] Catholics anyway, it may come down to the equivalent of the RC practice of self-flagellation – at least in the metaphorical sense … ;)

      PS I agree, Heine & co are indeed pond-scum.

    • Kris K 16:53 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      PPS I meant to add this to my first paragraph:
      And therefore it primarily comes down to 1) “The opinions of men versus the opinions of men” as opposed to 2) “The word of God versus the opinions of men”. There’s a big difference.

    • Pascal 19:47 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Here’s an “Oops!” An EU convention invites a speaker who proceeds to hand ‘em their arses.

    • Chuck Bird 21:48 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I have heard more about the lewd behaviour at Ladies Bay on talk back. A local woman rung up and the behaviour is worse than was in the Herald and the police and the council are both bloody useless. Is anyone near Auckland prepared to help with a little direction? I am not talking about initiating violence just taking pictures and maybe licence numbers. The only way there will be violence is if someone tries to steal my camera.

      RB, would you mind posting their mug shots on your blog?

    • KG 22:14 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      If RB doesn’t want to, I will.

    • Redbaiter 22:17 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I will post them Chuck but any allegations that accompany the photos or any story on these events has to be fully authenticated. Don’t forget, the truth is never easy to come by. It is too easy to smear people these days. Be doubly sure.

    • Redbaiter 22:21 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks for the video Pascal. I don’t usually spend much time on videos but the guy drew me in. Very entertaining, and telling the necessary truth to those bureaucratc scum in Brussels. (Of course they’re not only in Brussels)

    • Chuck Bird 22:25 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks RB. From what I have heard on talkback the behaviour is pretty lewd. If some pervert is playing with his dick I think a picture will speak for itself.

      I just need to get a few volunteers as witnesses and backup. I have asked one by email. If he is a starter he will be as good as two or three.

      Good solid shoes will make any pervert think twice if they have no clothes on.

    • Chuck Bird 22:27 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks also KG.

    • Angus 08:27 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Hi Chuck,
      The murmuring I’ve heard is that the beach is now some sort of “beat” for homosexuals to cruise for anonymous sexual encounters. But you can’t complain that it is in anyway inappropriate, homosexuals are super-citizens, beyond all reproach and any questioning of some of their more dubious behaviours is bigoted and “homophobic”, and families with children wanting to use the beach and surrounding areas will probably just have to get used to it.

    • Angus 08:31 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Here’s what you can and can’t say on Kiwiblog: (although I did use the “C” word which as a partial defence is fairly common from around my way)

      Rat (59) Says:
      January 6th, 2012 at 1:38 pm

      The only good christian is the chick who has spent years being brainwashed by her uptight christian parents.

      That christian chick shall be your next anal sex worshipper

      dime (3,835) Says:
      January 6th, 2012 at 1:50 pm

      Never a truer word spoken rat man

      Rat (59) Says:
      January 6th, 2012 at 2:04 pm

      Exactly Dime.

      The Parachute Festival is a den hole for Soddom and Gomorrah

      Angus (522) Says:
      January 6th, 2012 at 4:45 pm

      Looks like you pair of cunts should hook up. Then you can butt fuck each other all you like.

      [DPF: 50 demerits]

    • KG 09:12 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Damn good comment, 50 demerits or not! That he will tolerate that kind of filth says all you need to know about the bald asshole.

    • Chuck Bird 09:18 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Angus, I believe what you say is correct. From what I have heard on talkback there have been indecent acts in public up full sex. I consider some guy playing with himself in public indecent. An indecent act in public is punishable with up to 2 years jail.

      I am trying to make contact with St Heliers Bay locals and see if they would like some help. If the answer is yes I will suggest they ask the council to sort thing out or they will. I am not talking about initiating violence. I am talking about taking pictures and licence numbers. As you know it is the left that usually resort to violence so I think numbers would be sensible. Are you from Auckland and if so would you like to help?

      You can see my comment at the bottom of today’s article.

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10777231

      This is not about nude bathing or sunbathing. It is about allowing a bunch or perverts a deviants to take over a beach.

    • KG 09:23 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Angus, I just sent a copy of that exchange to the editor of the Herald and asked if hosting that kind of filth was acceptable for one of their contributors.
      The reply (if I get one) might be interesting. :-)

    • Redbaiter 09:45 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Its not as if Farrar’s greater bulk of left wing commenters don’t use similar language. They are seldom demerited.

      Farrar is just another liberal and progressive of the kind who take the big stick to Conservatives but is always fashionably “tolerant” of those who share his weak wet political/ social approach.

      Same old left wing control syndrome and hypocrisy- you can say anything you like as long as its in line with progressive thinking.

    • Angus 09:47 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      @ KG – I kind of did it deliberately to see what the response would be thinking the proceeding comments would receive even a gentle admonishment from Farrar. The character “dime” is one of the site’s stooges.

      @ Chuck – agreed. The concept of “consenting adults / behind closed doors” is totally lost on them (even though the preach those words often enough).

    • ZenTiger 11:18 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I’m utterly baffled by NZ Conservative’s tolerance of pondscum such as this commenting in that blog. Is it some twisted view of Christianity, where giving a platform to one’s enemies is somehow the equivalent of “turning the other cheek”? I’ve never admired pointless martrydom.”

      The inability to recognise evil and deal with it is what’s wrong with modern Christianity. And spinelessness in the face of evil is not a virtue.

      KG, your entire theory rests on the idea that we don’t ban certain people from commenting because we are “turning the other cheek”.

      Please understand that this IS NOT THE REASON why we do not ban commenters outright. So if you can accept that that is NOT THE REASON then you will have to allow that there is at least another reason or reasons.

      I also advance the idea that we do not do this because we are spineless. This is a war of ideas, and if we refuse to debate them, then that is being spineless. We also believe that whether or not we banned some-one from our blog, that still would not prevent people like Bug Bruv doing posts like his recent one on his blog. The amount of rudeness in his rant against Lucia in some way speaks for itself.

      Also, we do delete comments. We do not tolerate certain types of behaviour, and comments will be deleted on that basis rather than “turning the other cheek”.

      @Kris K

      In my opinion I’m not sure whether it comes down to lack of [spiritual] discernment, KG. Also, in the case of most [Catholics] at NZC their authority is not [even primarily] God’s word; the Bible, but rather their numerous popes, so called Catholic theologians, and extra-biblical writings.

      When I write or discuss things, I am NOT often citing the Bible as my authority, because there is often no need to. The ideas I discuss can stand on their own, using reason, without needing to add biblical support. One of the things I like about Catholicism is that it is a synthesis of faith and reason – we are encouraged to develop both. Whether or not something can be supported by the bible does not mean it cannot be supported otherwise. Much of your criticism seems to extend to the fact that if Lucia or I dare to offer any argument or opinion on something, it is evil to use other sources to support that idea. You see everything uttered by a Catholic as an affront to your own brand of religion, yet people like KG can do the same, and not be required to cite the bible. Get over yourself.

      “so called Catholic theologians”

      There are many excellent Catholic Theologians. Get over yourself.

      Of course there are also many [non-RC] Christians who would fit into your above category – what I call “Christian doormats” who also lack spiritual discernment.

      Trying to imply we aren’t Christians, or we are Christian doormats…get over yourself.

    • ZenTiger 11:31 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      @Red

      Yeah, just left a comment there to that effect.

      The cowards they attempt to reason with are just mindless ignorant fanatical thugs.

      Why give them oxygen, let alone try to reason with them?

      Baffling.

      Hi Red. One thing I found out early on when I started blogging was there are always more silent readers than commenters. I also found when I would very rarely come across one of these silent readers, that they took great heart in the fact we answered the kinds of rude, inane comments as well as the polite and thoughtful ones, because those comments clearly had the kinds of barbs (factoids, misquotes, argument mischaracterisations) they themselves got hit with if they spoke up at work. One person told me they realised their opinion was not so unique, but they also liked the fact they could get a better idea of what those arguments might be and where the discussion might go.

      Interestingly, our Goggle ranking for our blog is quite good on a lot of topics we have blogged about, and sometimes people re-reading them will get a good perspective on the topic and get much from the fact we debated the idea and answered it to the readers satisfaction.

      The Big Bruv rant is interesting in that he has clearly not tried to read anything about the Catholic position on contraception and the reasons behind it, and has therefore not attempted to argue directly against any of the actual points, but just articulate his horror at the idea. You get that. But some readers will read, and weight up the arguments and maybe learn something that will expand their perspective. We can’t change these people by the point of a gun or even a law (in this regard, I’d be against banning contraception – things like that ultimately fail or turn us into fascists, communists or wahabbists)

    • ZenTiger 11:42 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      PS: All blogs have there own approaches to managing comments and commenters. I respect that idea, because it is their property. No-one has a right to say and do what they like on other people’s blogs – they are there as guests and need to remember that. Crusader Rabbit is (to many leftist people) seen as an extreme blog – I fully understand why you run the comment policies you do.

      Our blog gets fewer readers and fewer commenters, and would get less with stricter commenting policies. A certain size of commenters helps keep the blog alive. I have no wish also to create a blog that would, by it’s more specialised nature, turn into a “Hand Mirror” or a “No right Turn”

    • KG 12:22 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Zen, I’d like to clear one thing up. I was not accusing you or Lucia Maria of spinelessness in that comment, however badly I may have expressed it. I was speaking about modern Christianity in general, the tendency to appease and accommodate that which should never be appeased.
      On comments: People like Big Bruv and his ilk drive people away. It’s happened to very many blogs I’ve followed for years and the end result is to leave the field to the scum, because a lot of people simply can’t be bothered with the endless sniping and ignorance. People who would like to leave a comment end up as passive readers.
      If you regard that as a fair price to pay for keeping the blog alive then obviously that’s your call. But CR manages to get plenty of commenters and sometimes very lively debate without having to throw open the doors to people I wouldn’t spit on if I met them on the street.

    • ZenTiger 12:47 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      @KG – thanks. I realised you didn’t mean it that way and so didn’t take it that way. Partly why I also added my own clarification on your comment policy, :)

    • Kris K 13:30 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      “Much of your criticism seems to extend to the fact that if Lucia or I dare to offer any argument or opinion on something, it is evil to use other sources to support that idea.

      Zen, not at all. But when you [or Lucia] push ideas which are founded on RC dogma [eg contraception], and the implication that somehow this RC dogma represents “the will of God”, then I will call you on it and stipulate in no uncertain terms that IT DOES NOT represent “the will of God” according to the word of God; the Bible [which is MY authority on such issues].

      [Zen:] You see everything uttered by a Catholic as an affront to your own brand of religion, yet people like KG can do the same, and not be required to cite the bible. Get over yourself.”

      Only when they [Catholics] put views out there which I know to be founded upon RC dogma and WHICH ARE an affront to biblical Christianity.
      If someone else [and I’m NOT using KG as an example here], who is not a Christian or a Catholic, puts out a view which IS NOT founded upon RC dogma then I will address that on its own merits – and if they use another authority to jsutify their views I will challenge that authority.

      And from your later comment where you said:

      “… the Catholic position on contraception and the reasons behind it”

      You yourself make implicit distinction between the “Catholic position” and that of other Christians. I rest my case …

    • ZenTiger 14:08 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      You yourself make implicit distinction between the “Catholic position” and that of other Christians. I rest my case …

      I made that distinction because many Christians don’t share the same view as the Catholic position. I don’t presume to imply that they would. Historically though, nearly all did share the same view until the 1930’s.

    • Kris K 14:50 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Zen,
      While many Protestant churches may have shared the RC position on contraception, this in no way implies this position is biblically sound, but rather that many churches that came out of the reformation still have some RC baggage they haven’t disposed of yet.

      As I have stated on several occassions now, there is ABSOLUTELY NO biblical mandate which outlaws, or even frowns upon, contraception where it is applied PRIOR TO conception.

      I’ll take the biblical view over that of man-made ‘rules’ everytime.

      PS I think many Protestant church are wrong on numerous issues as well, and I have challenged Pastors, elders, etc over the years where I believe such views/practices don’t line up with scripture. Sola Scriptura every time!

    • backcasts@yahoo.com 10:19 on January 8, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Always been intrigued, maybe KK can help.

      How does can a religion retain any integrity at all unless it adheres to the letter to whatever final revelation of its deity’s instructions it uses?
      Be it the King James Bible or the Koran……..

      The point being, given my limited knowledge but long observation, none do.

    • Kris K 12:18 on January 8, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Backcasts,
      You have highlighted something I have been banging on about for years now – whether that be on blogs, amongst family, friends and work colleagues, or in the wider Christian community.
      And I think this is the main bone of contention when debating with Catholics, for example – the issue of authority.

      While I believe the Bible is clear that it is the ONLY authority upon which a genuine Christian can stand, others [which by definition must be regarded as dangerous cults] rely on EXTRA-BIBLICAL writings and pronouncements from their self-proclaimed leaders – whether that be a Jim Jones, Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell, or a numerous line of RC popes. All of these, while saying they follow the Bible, relegate the Bible to second, third, or quite often even their last authority. Their extra-biblical material forms the backbone of their belief system; and where it contradicts the Bible the Bible is simply ignored or reasoned away by their “later revelation” material, or in the case of the RC ‘church’ the latest pronouncement from its current pope [The current pope can over-ride both the Bible or even earlier pronouncements by previous popes – and yet RCs see no hypocrisy in this?!].

      Of course many Protestant churches are not immune to this, either, but they generally still adhere to the centrality of the gospel message, and that salvation is through faith in Christ alone. But not all; and those that don’t are heading into the area of becoming a cult, IMO [many Pentecostal ‘churches’, for example]. I could say more on this but that, perhaps, is another discussion.

      Regarding those who follow the Koran, I must admit a grudging respect. Don’t get me wrong, I think Islam is straight from the pit, and Salman Rushdie was right on the money when he entitled his book on Islam “The Satanic Verses”.
      Having said that, though, Islam presents a united front and in reality there is only ONE Islam. As lying [Kitman & Taqqiya] is permitted in Islam, especially if it will further the cause of Allah, we see this whole notion, for example, that Islam is a “religion of peace” promoted in the West by various Islamic leaders. The troubling thing, of course, is that many in the West actually believe this lie.

      One needs go no further than the founder of Islam, Mohammed himself, to see that he was a murdering, lying, adulterous, paedophilic control-freak [and quite likely demon-possessed if you read about him] who was sought on establishing a global religion through terror and the sword; one where there are zero dissenting voices, not to mention zero Jews [the genuine children of God through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob].

      That Islam continues to use terror, deception, and the sword in its attempts to establish a global caliphate, then, is no surprise. Muslims are only being true to their origin authority; the Koran and Hadiths, and follow the example as personified in their founder, Mohammed.

      So, on that basis, Islam adheres to its founding documents and founder, while many Christian churches do not – and none less so than those which fall into the category of [Christian] cult.

      A bit long, but I thought it important to cover all the bases.

    • B2 12:32 on January 8, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I had a simpler example in mind.

      The Ten Commandments appear to be bedrock theology? One of them states unequivocally, no work on the sabbath. Sunday shift workers are therefore infringing, therefore must be what ? Excommunicated?

      Open shut case, zero credibility for any bible based religion that allows its adherents to remain members and transgress bottom line theology.
      Que?

    • Kris K 13:04 on January 8, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      B2, strictly speaking the keeping of the sabbath is a Jewish observance/command, and the sabbath is Saturday. While Christians generally meet on a Sunday this is more for convenience – it could in fact be any day. The New Testament only encourages Christians to meet regularly, but never stipulates any goven day.

      But even if we are to take your point in the Jewish context, Christ Himself addresses this very issue of [Jews] working on the sabbath:

      Mat 12:1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
      Mat 12:2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
      Mat 12:3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
      Mat 12:4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
      Mat 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

      And even if [which it doesn’t] the equivalent were to apply to Christians on Sundays – pastors/ministers work on Sunday.

    • B2 13:25 on January 8, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Ok.

      So no other individual Ten Commandment can have any more efficacy than its ability to be superseded by other considerations……. fair enough.
      I didn’t know they had been effectively diced.
      The Sabbath, (whenever it is is irrelevant), work Commandment was declared null and void by Jesus himself.

      Guessing…. to get to the only non negotiable core theology, I have to go to New Testament and maybe use the words of Jesus as the only ‘must do’s’?

      Is one Gospel ok or do I need two as cross check?

    • Kris K 16:16 on January 8, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      B2, on the off chance you’re actually taking this seriously I’ll try and explain.

      Firstly, Jews aren’t Christians and Christians aren’t Jews. Sounds obvious, although perhaps not to some. The ten commandments were given to the Jews – they were to observe them and keep them and this was an expression of their faith in God. It was also an object lesson in that no matter how hard they tried they COULD NEVER actually achieve this – ie they couldn’t keep all the laws all the time and would fail. This was to highlight that man cannot earn his own salvation through works; a point that is made clear in the New Testament where it is ONLY through faith in Christ’s completed works on the cross, and Him being the Son of God, that one is saved [from the consequences of their sins].

      Christ reiterated the ten commandments in the NT – all except one [you guessed it]: sabbath day worship. And even though the other nine were repeated the observance of these were more to show that one was actually in Christ [ie saved] rather than a means by which one is saved.

      In fact it is harder for NT Christians than OT Jews: Christians are not to even entertain these things in their heart – to look on a woman with lust is the same as committing adultery/fornication; to wish someone dead is the same as murder. Whereas for the Jews it was the actual real thing they were to keep themselves from.

      But remember, keeping these things are after the fact; Christians are first saved through faith in Christ, keeping these things [even the thought of them] is more the fruit that someone is actually saved in the first place.

      In a nutshell – you need to establish exactly WHO the intended audience is [ie Pre-Jewish Gentile, Jew, or Christian]. Once you have done that the Bible becomes quite simple to understand and correctly apply.

      To highlight this point:
      Christians are not instructed, nor required, to sacrifice animals for their sins as were OT Jews – this has been superseded once the perfect sacrifice for sin, in the form of Christ’s death on the cross, was completed.

      I trust this addresses any confusion on your part.

      [PS I could have quoted numerous scriptural references to back all this up but for the sake of brevity [and my time] I haven’t]

    • B2 16:55 on January 8, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Deadly serious…..and you’re missing the point.
      For whatever reason you give I accept all the Ten Commandments aren’t set in stone (so to speak) as the word of god, for Christian Bible believers.
      Let’s put that aside.

      I want to know what words of the Bible ARE immutable for Christians (because as you discuss the Ten Commandments clearly aren’t), do I have to go to the actual words Jesus spoke, as presented and confirmed by the Apostles?

    • Kris K 17:47 on January 8, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      B2, as I said above, you need to establish the intended audience.

      Obviously there are some biblical truths that are for all the faithful and non-faithful alike; eg God loves us [and sent His son to die for all sin, even those in the OT]. Some things are just for the Jews; eg animal sacrifice for sin. And some things are just for Christians [or those seeking forgiveness of sin and salvation] eg faith and belief on Christ alone.

      Now to your point:
      What is just for specifically Christians?
      Pretty much all the NT [with a few provisos], but especially the writings of Paul. One must remember that until Pentecost, and certainly prior to the crucifixion, we are essentially still in the OT and under the old Jewish covenant. Although in reality we are in a period of transition from the Old to the New Covenant in the Gospels and Acts. So some things were for the Jews at the time and some for the soon to be born church.

      Also, some of the NT is in fact for those who will be left on the earth following the Rapture of the church and during the time of Daniel’s 70th week; the seven years under the reign of Antichrist and prior to Armageddon; eg some of Revelation, etc. And some other portions are for during the thousand year Millennial reign of Christ.

      A good Bible-based church with good teaching, as well as the Holy Spirit working in the life of the believer, helps to bring clarity to what’s what in this regard.

      Luckily one doesn’t need to know all the subtleties to understand the gospel and how to receive salvation.

      Does that help?

    • WAKE UP 17:55 on January 8, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Look it’s simple: Farrar has gone overground and has no credibilty. Ignore him.

    • B2 18:28 on January 8, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks KK
      So up until the crucifixion we have the suss combined with the accurate.
      ie. unreliable evidence and instruction because it was directed at an OT or Jewish audience.

      I’m unfamiliar with truth as a relative concept, so that’s hard to understand.

      Alas, I have to discount any fast and loose Apostle philosophising that happened later in Acts that wasn’t directly presenting the words, as they remembered them, of Jesus.
      Acts, it seems, is double heresay.

      Unfortunately, and as always for me, the acceptable religious instruction and structure and evidence of divinity is inside a scant number of quotation marks quoting the deity on earth.

      Too thin, but thanks for confirming that.

    • Pascal 19:26 on January 8, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Matthew 7:6 KK

    • Kris K 19:39 on January 8, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks, Pascal – and this one too:

      1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

      Can’t say I didn’t give it a good shot.

    • B2 19:42 on January 8, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Reality challenged Matthew baby doesn’t do neuro-surgery, engineer skyscrapers or fly 747s …..does he? :-)

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel