Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Who is the Harlot AND Her Daughters?
12/3/2012 | self

Posted on 12/03/2012 2:15:56 AM PST by DouglasKC

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 341-343 next last
To: Yosemitest; BlueDragon; boatbums

Finally, the entire theory of British-Israelism is anti-Semitic. It claims that the Anglo-Saxons have the blessings while the Jews have the curses alone.


261 posted on 12/05/2012 4:46:54 AM PST by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest; BlueDragon; boatbums
so, lets summarize:

  1. The Anglo-Saxons were/are not part of the Semitic race;
  2. The English language is not Semitic, nor does it contain any hints of having a Hebrew heritage;
  3. The Anglo-Saxons and Israelites had completely different customs and religions;
  4. There are no ancient records that indicate Britain has an Israelite history;

262 posted on 12/05/2012 4:55:45 AM PST by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
Sure, it could be, but that should never be assumed without demonstration. You’ve provided no such demonstration,

Oh puh...leese. I am writing on a discussion forum on a discussion website. What I'm referring to is common knowledge, and it is silly to have someone demanding I pen a peer-reviewable paper.

Not only was it common knowledge, but you obviously knew exactly what I was talking about from the outset.

If you want more than that, go to a seminary website and enter into their discussions. (However, I'll bet they assume common knowledge, too, and refer to it in passing.)

263 posted on 12/05/2012 5:31:56 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
fake posts get pulled, fake posters get banned. remember.

.'niyas tsuJ .lanosrep gnihtoN

.denrub teg uoy erofeb won gnola nuR .lleh fo tip eht morf snomed ot gniklat eb t'ndluohs uoY ?uoy eracs I diD !!ooB ? niaga triks s'rotaredoM noigileR eht dniheb morf tuo gnikeep uoY

!!sonorC iH

Don't read Demonese?

Find yourself a record player that will play backwards. Set computer screen on turntable and turn on both. Stand on head to read post.

DO NOT sit on the turntable in front of the computer. You'll just get dizzy from spinning around and throw up on things, and people will think you're possessed. Besides, for some people a 78 adaptor would be necessary, or desired, and they're getting hard to find. May also induce a need for an exorcism, and the chances are high that you would wind up with a pedophile priest in the end.

"The True Origin of "Caflicks"

Amusing myself on FR since 1998............

264 posted on 12/05/2012 5:56:31 AM PST by haffast (Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: haffast
Don't read Demonese?

should I to read your post?

265 posted on 12/05/2012 6:18:40 AM PST by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“What I’m referring to is common knowledge, and it is silly to have someone demanding I pen a peer-reviewable paper.”

I’m not demanding that, just asking that you don’t use a fallacious argument, like appealing to the popularity of a thesis as evidence of its validity. Like I said, if you could demonstrate that the argument was valid through nonfallacious means, then you wouldn’t need to appeal to its popularity, and if you can’t do that, then appealing to its popularity demonstrates nothing.


266 posted on 12/05/2012 6:33:00 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

“I dispute the poster’s point of saying that we won’t go with Him until His return.”

Sure, but I’d want to see some better evidence from Scripture than that verse, since it doesn’t seem to be talking about heaven at all.


267 posted on 12/05/2012 6:35:04 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

“well with due respect, Spacejunkie did cite that he had Biblical knowledge”

Well, Biblical knowledge should be applied evenly for best effect. For example, if you only study the Bible to find out why other what is wrong with one church’s doctrines, but never examine your own doctrines by the same standard, then you have created a blind spot. I think we’re all guilty of stuff like that sometimes, so we need to watch out for it.

The mistranslations are problematic, but on a forum like this, they aren’t any help in supporting false doctrines, since anyone who doesn’t already accept those doctrines would not accept the mistranslations as valid evidence.


268 posted on 12/05/2012 6:45:43 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

We have already established that appealing to a popular, theological position is not a fallacious argument. As I recall, you backward-acceded to that concession.

As you also recall, that is, as I stated, the reason that “Church not appearing after chapter 4 Revelation” is to be considered as one evidence for a pre-touchdown rapture.


269 posted on 12/05/2012 7:04:18 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

Comment #270 Removed by Moderator

To: Admin Moderator

Admin moderator — note that this is not the first post by haffast with doctored photographs aimed to inflame


271 posted on 12/05/2012 7:20:32 AM PST by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“We have already established that appealing to a popular, theological position is not a fallacious argument. As I recall, you backward-acceded to that concession.”

No, I didn’t. I said that your position, that an argument’s popularity was evidence of its validity, could be valid, but not without demonstration. However, the point you are missing is that, such a demonstration, for all intents and purposes, is impossible. So, your argument is fallacious for the same reason that the slippery slope argument is fallacious; not because it is never valid, but because its validity can never be reliably demonstrated.

There are many reasons the argument could be popular that aren’t dependent on its validity. How could one ever demonstrate that those aren’t the reasons? It would require seeing into every individual proponent’s heart and mind to make such a demonstration, so it is not reasonable to expect any such demonstration could ever be done. Thus, such arguments must be discarded as fallacious, even if, hypothetically, they could be valid in some circumstances.


272 posted on 12/05/2012 7:38:50 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: haffast
Following his 14th birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was conscripted into the Hitler Youth—as membership was required by law for all 14-year-old German boys after December 1939[10]—but was an unenthusiastic member who refused to attend meetings, according to his brother.[11] In 1941, one of Ratzinger's cousins, a 14-year-old boy with Down syndrome, was taken away by the Nazi regime and murdered during the Action T4 campaign of Nazi eugenics.[12] In 1943, while still in seminary, he was drafted into the German anti-aircraft corps as Luftwaffenhelfer (air force child soldier).[11] Ratzinger then trained in the German infantry.[13] As the Allied front drew closer to his post in 1945, he deserted back to his family's home in Traunstein after his unit had ceased to exist, just as American troops established their headquarters in the Ratzinger household.[14] As a German soldier, he was put in a POW camp but was released a few months later at the end of the war in the summer of 1945.[14] He reentered the seminary, along with his brother Georg, in November of that year.

This is the Wikipedia account of the Pope's early years. As stated in that account, every youth was required to be conscripted.

I was eligible for our draft during the Vietnam era, and it didn't once occur to me to question the legitimacy of the government's doing that, even though draft-dodging was a popular thing at the time. I doubt it was any different in the hyper-propagandized Germany of WWII era.

I think your depiction is probably inaccurate, because the person you've highlighted really doesn't appear to be a teen.

273 posted on 12/05/2012 7:44:30 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

And I have said that I’m not writing you a theological position paper, and that citing the fact that a number of scholars agree with the importance of “church absent after chapter 4” is sufficient for an online discussion. You are also, obviously, aware of some theology, so you don’t really need me to do that for you.

So, we’re back again to your backward acceding to the point.


274 posted on 12/05/2012 7:48:23 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Not my picture, nor did I “doctor” it. But can you tell me who those two guys are on the left of the questionable Benedict are? Lutheran or (C)atholic?

Maybe the Pope will come under conviction and make a confession of his real role in WWII in his next historical-critical correction of doctrine and history as successor of a long line of popes?

I wonder if he actually manned an anti-aircraft gun and saw a plane full of Americans shot down? Maybe he just polished the rims? More questions than answers.

Pope’s WWII-era activities stir up controversy on Holy Land visit
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/13/world/fg-pope13

Pope defends WWII’s Pius XII against Jewish critics
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-01-17-benedict_N.htm

Pope visits Auschwitz concentration camp
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12964054/ns/world_news-europe/t/pope-visits-auschwitz-concentration-camp/#.UL97XmcieSo

Pope Visits German Synagogue and Warns of Growing Anti-Semitism
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/20/international/europe/20pope.html?_r=0

Profile: Pope Benedict XVI
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11141340

“Warning - The links on this page are valuable sources of information but there is no guarantee that all of the information provided is the truth. The truth is elusive at best and if you wish to find it you must listen to everyone, read everything, believe nothing unless you can prove it in your own research.”

“This is the age of deception. We are engaged in an information war. Links will take you to many other websites containing varying degrees of personal belief, religious dogma, truth, lies, misinformation, and disinformation. We urge you to practice due diligence in your quest for truth.” (Warnings credited to William Cooper)


275 posted on 12/05/2012 9:43:51 AM PST by haffast (Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“And I have said that I’m not writing you a theological position paper, and that citing the fact that a number of scholars agree with the importance of “church absent after chapter 4” is sufficient for an online discussion.”

Sufficient how? You tried to use that as evidence that the argument held validity, which is fallacious. Fallacious argument doesn’t suddenly become sufficient if the venue changes.

“So, we’re back again to your backward acceding to the point.”

Again, I’m not acceding what you seem to think I’m acceding. I’m acceding that the argument, even if it could be hypothetically valid, would still be a fallacious form of argument, and therefore not reasonable. So, if you want to trumpet my “accession” that the argument can’t be reasonable, well I guess that is your prerogative.


276 posted on 12/05/2012 11:01:02 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

The funny part is, that all the blessings the British Israelists or Christian Identity guys want to usurp, could mostly be obtained by simply becoming a regular old Christian. We’re grafted in and made heirs to the promise through faith, so there isn’t any need to establish some spurious descent to get the inheritance.


277 posted on 12/05/2012 11:09:25 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: xzins; haffast

“I think your depiction is probably inaccurate, because the person you’ve highlighted really doesn’t appear to be a teen.”

I think xzins is right. The eyes and mouth do look very similar, but mainly to middle-aged and older photos of Ratzinger. He looks much different in teenage photos, with a much thinner face and sharper features.


278 posted on 12/05/2012 11:23:43 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
The John Smith part is a logical outcome.

Surely you mean Joseph Smith? I'm really not a part of this conversation otherwise. If not Joseph Smith as in Mormonism, what does a "John" Smith have to do with the B-I set of theorizing?

279 posted on 12/05/2012 11:46:40 AM PST by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Elwood McQuaid ?
That's your source?
You can't be serious.

Don't you know that the ... well, here's my source.
You really need to think about this.
280 posted on 12/05/2012 4:14:20 PM PST by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 341-343 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson