DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Islamic Sharia Law

Words to live by...

"It is better to live in the corner of a rooftop than in an entire house with a Nagging, Complaining Wife.
She is like a cancer in your bones."

-Yep, Bible.

1-Do you have examples of your first statement?

2-I thought you liked gov involvement in most things over the years.

3-We live in a Democracy and that is good, why do you think I want to live in a Theocracy? Religion is part of our existence
from the beginning of this Country, why do you want it gone? It helped make our Nation what it is.

Hey! I resemble that remark!

Here is an entire section, and I think that it explains it beautifully. Man is not to be a dictator, but a loving partner, and the head of the union in marriage. This was especially important back in the time of Jesus. However, let's nit forget that many of Jesus' biggest financial supporters were women. To think that the Bible, or Jesus, would ever demean women is ridiculous. The Bible sets up a beautiful description of marriage. Think about it. What did Jesus give up for the church? He gave up his very life, he suffered on the cross, and was utterly humiliated by the soldiers as he died. That is what Jesus did for the church, and that is what is expected of a husband for his wife. That he does everything to make sure that she is safe, happy, and loved. I suppose that you can get hung up on the word submit, but marriage is a process of 2 people submitting to one another. Anyway, here is more of the chapter of Ephesians that is in question here.

Ephesians 5:21-33 New International Version (NIV)

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Frankly, when taken as a whole, I don't see anything offensive or even troubling here. Husband and wife should submit themselves to each other. The wife should support her husband, and the husband should care for, love, and protect his wife, even if it were to cost him his own life. (even as Christ died for His church) They should submit to one another, become one flesh, and love one another.

The only problem I see here is that far too many modern marriages seem to have forgotten major parts of this passage. Instead, too many marriages today are constant battles, sniping, hatred, anger, and eventually, divorce. Almost half of all marriages today end in divorce. It it because people follow what the Bible, in this passage in Ephesians, says about marriage .... or because they don't?

I suspect that it is the latter.

That said, I don't think that Christ would have a problem with a marriage where the woman is the more dominant partner, and wife and man agree to that arrangement. The whole point is to have a set structure, and to follow that so that the marriage can be a successful, and lifelong one.

Ytown is wise.

My 26 years of Marriage are blessed by these words. No one is dominant in my marriage because my wife and I have always been as one person.

Asking the federal government to ban or legislate various forms of marriage is asking for more government in people's lives.



Replace 'religion' with 'slavery' and re-read it.

Just because archaic views and practices were a part of our rise as a nation does not make for an advocation of continuing to cling to them in the ever rising sun of enlightenment.

I can understand how following the Bible would lead to less arguments between spouses. I'm not sure if it was you who said the Bible's teachings are based on the time in history when they're written. I have no problem with people, or a couple, who have chosen to follow it's teachings today.

I agree, there are too many people who don't know how to find the right person or how to form a successful marriage with their partner.

And I agree that the best idea is to create a structure or set of acceptable expectations and that should be done when people first get the idea of marriage.

Even then it's not easy!

I think that you have it right. As far as the verse the other poster pointed out, I believe "may be won over without words" means, quite simply, living the life Christ wants us to do, and setting the example for others. You can talk and talk and talk, but sometimes a picture is worth far more than a thousand words.

If we look back at the Old testament laws, many are based upon the times.

In those times, inheritance was all important, and clear lines of inheritance were vital. If you had spouses cheating on one another, then who would know who was to inherit what?

There are other laws, like against eating pork, for example, that I believe had specific reasons behind their being forbidden. Pork can be deadly if not fully cooked. Some seafood has to be handled in a very specific manner in order to be safe. There are other examples besides these.

Someone brought up that Jews were to wash their hands before prayer. Well, pray before eating, and you have basic hand washing. They also had laws where those who fought in wars and shed blood had to wait outside the camp for 7 days. Imagine if someone they killed had some horrific disease that could be spread through blood. These men fought wars up close and personal, and wound up with blood everywhere ..... in their eyes, mouths, in their own wounds, and so on. This was a basic quarantine process. The Jews had very good sanitation laws. No waste could be dumped anywhere near where they lived. White other cities got sick and died as a result of dumping their waste outside their own doors and windows, the Jews did not have that problem. There are many Old Testament laws that make sense from the perspective of the time. Some want to ridicule the Old Testament, but these laws kept the Jewish nation alive, and allowed it to thrive.

Unfortunately for them, they were constantly subject to their own stupidity, and went to worship idols at the drop of a hat. Imagine living with your God, and still going off to worship some idol you built. This is another thing that lends credence to the Bible IMHO. Who is going to expose all of those flaws for the world to see? The Jewish people admit that their ancestors were idolaters. They admit that they disobeyed the Lord, despite living with Him on a daily basis. They all but brought on their own troubles, repeatedly. This, again, is not a pretty picture of their activities throughout history.

Anyway, the need to establish a family structure, family lineage, and the need for sanitation and other health concerns were behind many Old Testament laws. Not all of them, obviously, buy many. I do not know the reason behind some others .... and maybe I'll never know, but so many have sensible reasons behind them that I am willing to accept them, for the time, as they were.

All of them were.



I don't think anyone ridicules the Old Testament as a historical text. I think the joke comes in when you have people who cite this archaic nonsense as a or the word of an omnipotent wizard.

I just watched the vid of the Jordanian Pilot being executed. Very disturbing. ISIS is writing the book on terror.

ISIS Ranks Grow as Fast as U.S. Bombs Can Wipe Them Out

The extremist group keeps attracting new adherents—never mind the American-led air war. ‘The numbers are not moving in our favor,’ a senior senator tells The Daily Beast.
The American-led bombing campaign is doing little to stem the tide of foreign fighters joining the war in Iraq and Syria. Four thousand of these fighters have joined the conflict since the allied airstrikes began, U.S. intelligence officials tell The Daily Beast.

That’s nearly as many combatants as coalition forces claimed to have killed, raising fears that if ISIS can continue to withstand a sustained air campaign, it could keep its ranks restocked for years, if not decades, to come.

“The numbers are not moving in our favor,” Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-TN) told The Daily Beast last week, after emerging from a secret briefing at the Capitol with retired Marine Gen. John Allen, presidential envoy in the campaign against ISIS.

Corker added that when the strength of the U.S.-backed Syrian rebels is compared to the fighters supporting ISIS, “we are losing now in numbers.”

The Pentagon has said it has killed 6,000 fighters since coalition strikes began five months ago; the intelligence community estimates 4,000 foreign fighters have entered the fray since September. (A higher estimate, made by The Washington Post, holds that 5,000 foreign fighters have flowed into the two countries since October.)

Either way, the tally doesn’t count the suspected thousands of local Iraqi and Syrian combatants who’ve joined the conflict. So when combined, the figures paint a worrisome picture: that even without counting the number of in-country recruits, the Islamic State is able to substantially replenish its manpower on the battlefield.
“Unless we do stop something to stop the flow of foreign fighters, this conflict has the potential to go on indefinitely,” Rep. Adam Schiff, the top-ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said in an interview with The Daily Beast.

Schiff said he couldn’t discuss specific figures, but he made the point that “the key indicator is how many people continue to join ISIS’s ranks. Because if we can’t stop that, this conflict is going to be neverending.”

Pentagon officials privately acknowledge that despite the number of Islamic State fighters they’ve killed, they have also seen ISIS adjust to the strikes, particularly in places where there are no strong ground troops to fight them. U.S. officials have refused to estimate how many new fighters have come into Iraq and Syria, but there are quiet concerns that the terror group isn’t significantly smaller than when the coalition airstrikes began. It may have even grown.

“Foreign fighters keep coming in, even though we are killing many of them,” Sen. Bob Menendez, the top Democrat on the foreign relations committee, said. “So one of the key issues you’ve got to [address] is stopping foreign fighters.”

The Pentagon has said airstrikes cannot defeat an ideology and that the war cannot be measured in numbers. But in an opaque war like this, many are leaning on such statistics to assess the air campaign.

“Unless we do stop something to stop the flow of foreign fighters, this conflict has the potential to go on indefinitely. The key indicator is how many people continue to join ISIS’s ranks. Because if we can’t stop that, this conflict is going to be neverending.”
Some question the reliability of the Pentagon count. Christopher Harmer, an analyst with the Institute of the Study of War, said drones and other kinds of air power cannot accurately estimate the number of ISIS fighters that have been killed.

“There’s just no way for the U.S. can do this accurately… When it comes time to killing people, the only way to really confirm it, you need boots on the ground or eyeballs on the target,” Harmer said. “As long as ISIS shows the ability to continue to recruit foreign fighters, and regenerate lost manpower, then it’s an irrelevant metric. I don’t know how long ISIS can sustain battlefield damage… but so far they haven’t collapsed.”

Harmer also pointed out that the United States has no ability of tracking how many internal recruits ISIS is able to attract.

“Good, we’re killing ISIS fighters,” he said. “Just don’t dislocate our shoulders patting ourselves on the back. What matters is: Have we broken their will or ability to fight? … So far they haven’t collapsed.”

Some argue if the Islamic State is gaining new fighters at a similar rate to which it is losing fighters, it’s a possible worst-case scenario: Airstrikes turn local opinion against the American-led coalition, while simultaneously failing to reduce the net strength of ISIS.
“If ISIS fighters are merely being killed at which they’re being replaced by foreign fighters, then you have a situation where ISIS has not lost numerical strength and has also gained public sympathy,” said Evan Barrett, a political adviser to the Coalition for a Democratic Syria, a Syrian-American opposition umbrella group.
If the foreign-fighter flow problem is to be fixed, said Rep. Schiff, two things need to happen: Turkey needs to take a leading role in stopping the flow—many foreign fighters travel through its porous border. And the United States needs to empower those in the Muslim world who are speaking out against radicalism.

“We need to put additional pressure on Turkey to get serious about controlling its border… and redouble our efforts to prevent people from becoming radicalized at home,” Schiff told The Daily Beast. “The bottom line is notwithstanding the demonstrated brutality of ISIS, and maybe because of it, foreign fighters continue to flow to the region. We have not been nearly successful enough in stemming that flow.”

WRITTEN BY
Tim Mak
http://www.thedailybeast.com/

40, can't you do anything right? It seems every post you make, a corrective action request seems to follow.

Hey Fish, go to the "Fan Feedback Forum" and see all the girls lining up to giggle. What a place.

In the 6+ years I've been on either the old board or this one I have never run into a guy that holds himself over everyone else like PDR does.

It could be that I've known 40 for all these years from the old board to this one that he doesn't come off other than a little over the top or 'likes to stir the pot' to me, but not like this guy does.

He considers himself superior yet a simple guy like me can get him howling over the smallest of things. He thinks I am so stupid as to walk into his barbs while the whole time I await his responses for they are either the meanest or the most angry things I have every laughed at. A real beaut!

As for what you think about me I can only reply that over here I have found some of the best stew I have ever stirred.

Point out which aspects or assertions in the following sentence are not demonstrably accurate:

"He doesn't appear capable of expressing himself in complete, coherent sentences without relying on the crutch of copying and pasting articles without citation, the meaning of which he doesn't fully seem to understand . And the fact that he ridicules and mocks others while demonstrating a complete inability to think critically or express himself beyond the abilities of a D high school student are what make him an easily sought target for mockery"

What part about that description seems particularly unfair to you?

It's to the point you aren't refuting his points. or anybody's.

you're attacking him personally, which i mean, whatever, but you are refuting points he makes.

youre just attacking. maybe if you did both?

Point out which of the following styles don't describe you: Snarky, petty, juvenile, adamant about being right, condescending, demeaning, belittling, attacking, insecure.

One more before I retire for the evening! Too much!

Adamant about being right and insecure.

The rest are pretty spot on.

I'm not attacking him personally.

I know nothing about him personally.

Everything I know about him is impersonal, but all of it does amount to a man who appears woefully incapable of discussing issues with logic or reason at even a tenth grade level, but still insists on acting as if he is speaking a truth others can't understand.

If a political candidate stood up at a podium and said something along the lines of "Republicans is be smart. Democrats does be stupid. Isn't what say I funny?' and his opponent asked him to clarify what he meant by that, and the candidate just repeated the same phrase, and added 'You don't know, you alligator mouth with parakeet butt'.

I'm sorry...making fun of that isn't a personal attack.

If he were to come out and say 'Hey, guys, I'm not that well educated, I can't express myself that well, I don't really understand what's going on in the world of finance or politics, but I'd like to learn. Myself, I come from a Repubican bent, how about you?' then yes, it would be absolutely wrong of me to mock him.

But he tries to condescend to others in a manner that sincerely makes me question whether or not he can read.

Again, I'll say that sincerely...if I authored a headline in the New York Times that said 'I Don't Think 40 Can Read', he wouldn't be able to sue me for slander, as I could present a beyond convincing case that it was a reasonable opinion...probably with just the mere citation if the 'Liberal v. Conservative' thread.

You seriously don't see yourself as having an innate and driving need to be right? Really?

Just a suggestion. Man. Mirror. I have seen it in my own mirror, and I know very well what it looks like.

Not really.

If someone presents an argument that trumps or equals the logic and reason I force myself to consider, I consider them.

To be fair, I do tend to attack lowest common denominator arguments, which lends to belittling and being condescending, but if someone makes a valid point, I certainly consider and address it far more often than I dismiss it.

I'd rather learn than be right.

This is me being honest.

I cannot recall you ever doing so, and telling another person that you might have been wrong. Not about anything of any substance. You may have, but I don't remember having seen it.

Incapable.

pd is a legend in his own mind. His air of superiority lends itself well to the "I used to work for with this superstar", and "I used to write for that show".....

Ego - it'll kill you.

Actually, I should change that....the ego won't kill you, the negativity and condescension will. It creeps up on some people very slowly......they start to think they're all that, and they demean and belittle others to give themselves satisfaction. Before they know it, they're all alone.

I've never come across someone on a message board as egotistical and demeaning as pd. Vers comes close, but at least sometimes vers says "Oh, my bad....." pd.....never. I feel sad for the guy.

In the future, you might want to consider limiting your anger towards me to one post at a time.

When you have back-to-back (or back-to-back-to-back) posts of poorly thought out, clearly scribbled in the moment criticisms of me, it kind of takes the sting out of your accusations that I'm the insecure one, and can in fact paint the opposite picture.

My advice would be to take a deep breath, consider your statement, and then type. Or edit the first post.

It makes it seem less like a knee-jerk rant rocketed by the fuel of anger.

So, in other words, your ego took a bruising and you have nothing else? Got it. Typical pd....resort to what he thinks are intellectual attacks, yet completely ignores the obvious. Man, you've made my night fun!

Expressing a wildly incorrect opinion in the form of a question and then answering it himself.

Don't ever change, Arch.

I'm curious...in what way do you feel my 'ego took a bruising'? Feel free to be as detailed as you wish.

Just give it up. I'm laughing at you, as are some others. Just give it up and work on your thesis. Your "considered thesis".

What makes you think I would be bothered the disdain of a man who has so little self-control that he once threatened to fight me over an argument regarding Asian cuisine?

As for the others...plenty that like me, plenty that don't.

Hilarious!!!!! OMG..I'm laughing out loud!! THAT'S your comeback? Man, life must suck for you. Excel was the last person to make me laugh.........You just joined the list.

Seriously - THAT is your comeback? Hilarious!!

I mean, really..........you're calling out vers for something he said a year ago or so (and he was wrong in what he said), you're calling out Ytown for what he said a year ago or so, and you're trying to call me out for something I said 3 years ago? 4 years ago?

Grow up man.

I read this like three or four times in my head.

There's a lot of great stuff going on. Five exclamation points. A ten dot ellipses. An OMG. A dash of all caps. Four references to how funny it was, and a 'man, life must suck for you'. It begins and ends with the same word. And a 'grow up, man' cherry on the top.

But I kept trying to figure out exactly what it sounded like in my head, and then it hit me:



Just go shoot a shotgun, Tim. Take a drink. Do something else. Just step away from the keyboard.

Phil, can you just do all this in PMs? Reading your crusades against everyone in every single thread is tiring. Let them be.

I respect the validity of what you're saying.

In my defense, it's the offseason, and Everything Else is like a zoo right now.

I will take note, though.

By the way, at one point, I honestly considered whether you specifically were behind a brilliant parody that was 40...it lasted like 10 posts, but I did ponder.