Scott Mayers

That would be a simplistic answer and actually falls for the same vulnerability. (If "telling a lie loud enough and often enough" applies to the 'ever-present conspiracy in all times against the Jews too' ) Given Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all derive from Judaism, there will be both an absurd stance by some favorable to a historical view of anti-Jewish sentiment as to pro-Jewish sentiment. Its amazing we hear of little notice of the pre-Judea origins other than THROUGH the authorities of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic history as though there is consensus to treat the Egyptians and Greeks (and even ancient Romans) as violent abusers or pre-civilized humans biasing all present groups. The winners define what is 'true'. Thus Christians were considered as everyday victims of Roman persecution, just as Jews were. So every culturally defined group tends to be both victim and perpetrator at different times. The ancient Jews were considered the 'terrorists' at the turn of the 'common era'. But now many treat the Romans as the persecutors. The problem is just as much POSITIVE association with cult groups as to the NEGATIVE. That is why I'm against this "multiculturalist (TM)" stance here in Canada. They are trying to feign ZERO negative associations with culturally-defined groups and impose negative ones on the 'secular' or non-culturally defined groups, such as 'white' and 'male'. And who do they point to as arbiters of the whites and males (et al) as the culprits? : CULTURALLY defined groups of 'whites' and 'males' et al. (<-- means and all similar relatives) SOLUTION: stop the governments from making laws concerning culturally-related concepts, like religion or art. These things are inappropriate to be IMPOSED from on high as though WE all accept specific people's superiority (or inferiority) of behaviors associated with 'art'(ifactual) realities of our ancestors. Our ancestors do not pass on GENES for culture. So supporting this idiocy IS the problem. As long as you define ANY select people as rightful inheritors of artistic concepts and ENHANCE powers of them uniquely to persist, YOU are the problem to which CAUSES haters whether now or in a following generation.

Why does EVERYONE associated with doubt, though, get an assigned presumption of guilt BY the incidental association? It drives me "nuts" when I see particular news 'reporters' opt to describe all people associated with a stance against tearing down Confederate statues in the U.S. as "white supremacists" (for instance, that is). This in fact ACTS as a form of media 'conspiring' against the mere association as it deviates from 'reporting' to become a form of biased advocacy. Reporters are supposedly trained to use NEUTRAL terms to describe stories at distance. If they have opinions, they are 'editorials' but the confusion of the difference of journalists in power are hard to determine when or where they are uniform without alternative co-journalists taking counter challenges. And the fact that most are of in some favor to some strong commercial interests of one sort or another, the 'reporting' itself is often presented in clever ways to appear less biased than they are. For every 'conspiracy theorist' accusation, there is an opposing 'conspiracy' theorized against them. And it only feeds upon itself except for those willing to recognize that unless you can provide rationale for WHY it is impossible for such a conspiracy to exist, antagonist against a conspiracy is just as questionable. It's like how calling one a 'troll' is sufficient to empowering the accused TO 'troll'. If they are going to be labeled as though the label itself is sufficient to assure it is true, this makes those with sincere views feel violated justify BEING more violent in reaction.

I agree this is a good question, btw, taxme. What most don't want to recognize is how their own roles as individuals or favored groups play an equal but opposite role in creating and/or fostering the abuses. It DOESN'T happen in a vacuum. Some will interpret this to mean that you then must be further victimizing the victim but what is or is not 'victim' or 'perpetrator' is only noticed when the overt violence is seen. Yet when you think of it, is it not more heinous SHOULD one harm another with any means that acts WITHOUT accountability? The only reason, for instance, that more men are imprisoned in jails are because men are generally more direct and ABLE to act out with overt evidence of the abuses. Yet women, who make up half the population, cannot possibly be interpreted as defaulted as most 'innocent'. Rather, their general tendency to be unable to harm directly with the way they are also raised distinctly from men make them more likely to ACT OUT their crimes indirectly such that they are harder to notice. Obviously both men and women are at fault but the men tend to look as the demons with extreme distinction compared to women. We need to look at the extremes as opposite but 'equal' (like Newton's third law: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.) So while I may not agree necessarily agree with all you might have to say, you are appropriate to raise this question.

If you understood my own questioning of the reason 'why' skepticforum.com placed the topic of "Holocaust Denial" you'd know that I do agree that you should be rightfully skeptical if you are sincerely questioning something. I disagree with the stance of placing that topic distinct as though it presented an opinion UNIQUELY as "skeptical". It should not have its own heading for precisely the nature of history and politics to be something everyone has a right to question. Instead, it would be LESS biased to allow people to present their opinions in the various subject areas such as, "conspiracies" or "history" or "politics", ...NOT its own heading as "Holocaust denial" because it SUGGESTS the opinion that anyone's skepticism is certainly 'denial' when that is not necessarily the case. The topic of the World Wars era of early last century is complex and worthy of skepticism if only to give justice to the appropriate mindset of the rationale of all the parties involved. To me, today's Israeli government and its basic origins as a Zion for Jewish-only power is itself "National Socialist" or "Fascist" to me and many others....even within the skeptic community. But just as the politics of today's "Identity politics" have also a strong division within the skeptic community, questions of what can or cannot be questioned about history is also divided among us. So I agree that it is alright to question this topic. But, my own personal concern is that the 6 million people is futile to argue simply because it only deals with a statistical factor that we cannot be sure to determine without some sort of 'faith' one way or the other. It is irrelevant to me also because it DISTRACTS us away from determining the rationale of Germans, regardless of their faults, precisely for the reason you are asserting about the rights of people to BE skeptical without feeling threatened or be silenced. With regards to the Jews in Germany, they WERE initially asked to voluntarily leave. In fact one distinct difference that sold National socialism rather than Communistic Socialism was because the Nazi party interpreted it impossible to actually find solace between all people WHEN you have specific CULTURES always win by default of their solidarity. As such, they actually believed that they were mimicking the STRENGTH that the Jews, as they believed, held strong based ON their own 'nationalistic' strength. So they believed they were only taking the advantages OF the Jewish community's power to rule in the many areas they had by using it against them by fostering a strong "German Indigenous" identity. That meant doing what it took to foster DISTINCT recognition of the Germans aboriginals from all other groups by strengthening their in-group identities to the degree of a religion, ....like Judaism, but unlike others, such as Christianity for its more universal acceptance. Jews to them proved stronger than any other group. They also disagreed with any others that threatened the means to IDENTIFY their distinct "nationality" by those who segregated themselves or represented a strong penalizing factor to the German people following WWI due to the extreme measures against the population as a whole by the collective nations treating any German arbitrarily as 'at fault', even if particular peoples NOT in control were a part of that penalizing. So they viewed others somewhat rightfully as being 'anti-German' and what fostered their own Nationalism to beat what they felt was the inevitable strengths that were used against them. I'm a skeptic and don't think it is useful to argue whether a holocaust occurred by 6 or 1 Million Jews. It is a useful distraction that even the Jews (Nationalist ones) themselves demand the topic be kept in front when it continues to hide the logical factors that even they too helped contribute to such abuses, ...as is happening today with the West Bank, etc. It is useful to Christian Nationalists too in that they want a means to fulfill future biblical ideals that rest with Jewish control of the temple in Jerusalem. It is useful to all those wanting to distract us from the ACTUAL causes of problems even here in Canada with our own tendencies to strengthen cultural segregation for the sake of CONSERVING the cults/religions and their power in our law-making. The support and rise of our Indigenous Nationalism being purposely enhanced even by non-Natives here will certainly lead to a latter repeat in the future when and if the Aboriginal population in power supersedes the non-aboriginal ones in the future in a similar way to what happened with the Germans. These are the kinds of issues we should be discussing, not some incontestable data precision about how many people one side harmed over the other in the past. We should be trying to determine (WITHOUT prejudice) the rational thinking aspects of the individuals and groups involved that lead to the event, "The Holocaust", given it is not something ANY individual or group wants. Often the strong opposing sides of power tend to control the dialogue rather than the vast majority of all those in between, especially those without ANY 'group' or cult identity, association, or belief about some innate right of ownership to special inheritances based solely on genetic ancestry.

On the above digression, check out, http://skepticforum.com/viewforum.php?f=72&sid=428b12d038192f29ccab8ce0239432dc , or for the dedicated area on Holocaust Denial, http://skepticforum.com/viewforum.php?f=39&sid=428b12d038192f29ccab8ce0239432dc . I used to complain about the section at the skeptic forum on Holocaust Denial as being too distinguished to represent something unbiased about the supporters there. Although I have no concern to even doubt the events, my concern there was to WHY the topic had its own distinct folder rather than be a subsection under "conspiracies" or "politics" or, etc. My point was that simply focusing on it the way it does DOES suggest some sort of preferential political bias for keeping the concern alive. To me, the particular number of 6 million is both irrelevant and unsurprising if it was possibly exaggerated. The fight only diverts attention away from better things to be skeptical about the times and events discussed: like how you can make 'sense' of the WAY people were thinking that drove them to behave the ways they did from each different perspective. On Conspiracies, I understand the OP here raising the concern. It IS used to as a means to insult and something I am highly against as it only fuels fire where listening and calm reflection can actually become more productive. I equally loathe the "dunce capping" kind of sections in many forums involved in science because they also inappropriately assign people with lunacy prior to establishing if they have anything interesting to say. Even censorship is a problem. "Conspiracies" DO exist. But the degree to how they could occur is hard to discern. With 911 I anticipated something likely to occur given the politics of the days and HOW the right-wing governments preferentially like to SET a STAGE to entice violent events because they believe in its incidental virtues to the capitalist venture while simultaneously disrupting government power for the social-type systems they loathe. Conspiracies can also be "silent" in a form like what psychology has labeled, the "Bystander Effect". If others notice one fall among a crowded and busy street, it is easy to ignore the victim when you see everyone doing it simultaneously. Businesses often exploit such lessons and while no one has to necessarily 'shake hands', large businesses simply take the 'hint' of the observations of how certain hazards get overlooked. Then they equally 'fall in sync' without a need to formally conspire. This is just like peer pressure. 911 to me was easy to resolve. Just make a necessary requirement that the cockpits stay locked! But it acted like a convenient mechanism to which Bush already WANTED: war with Iraq. So in this vein, while the administrators of government do not have to directly 'conspire', they can certainly stage things so that what they want 'appear' as though demand by public outcries for justice. The 911 event was a 'desirable' factor for the governments as it lead to means of control they wanted but never had the chance to appeal to before. The further flaws of the rhetoric used to justify direct war with Iraq after Afghanistan certainly DID have obvious 'conspiratorial' evidences. ...much of them overt: like the search for WDMs, etc. Another conspiracy today involves the whole "identity politics" movement. There is an intended deception being used that is likely due to the likes of conservative normal politics that the 'alt' left advocates likely believed they MUST advocate without LOGICAL clarity. Instead, the belief that revolution requires complete overthrow using POWER political moves (in kind to "48 Laws of Power") likely made these interest groups realize they need to play mean rather than sincere. It is thus a form of 'conspiracy' when those normally of the intellectual variety openly use ANTI-INTELLECTUAL and highly EMOTIONAL means to attack advocacy for specific minorities based on cultural identifications. Be cautious of agreeing with me though....you might be 'conspiring' with me!

"Complicity" means "to (ap)ply, (em)ploy, or plot with, usually in context to some association with someone or some group presumed liable to some real or social crime or deviation of an expected norm." Its use is to remind one of some "implicit support of some other person, group, or issue by context of doing something apparently unrelated but potentially aiding in the behavior of the assumed deviants. The accusation is often used against another PRIOR to establishing whether some accusation is valid or not. The rhetoric is to hopefully shame you into an association that you WOULD agree is supporting of another IF the person's you associate with WAS or IS actually guilty but not established. Where it IS established, one would be complying if their actions were NOT NECESSARY to some other unrelated need. Example: [false but rhetorical use] You keep someone employed with you even when they've been accused of inappropriate behavior against another. [You may not KNOW whether the accusation is or is not valid and cannot simply act without that certainty. It might cost you also to place the burden on the accused to leave when it will cost you twice: once for covering the accused time on leave AND to the one you require replacing that person with.] Example: [reasonable accusation] You keep someone employed with you even when you KNOW the accused is guilty of some inappropriate behavior when you have other clear options to fire the person and replace them with someone less problematic. [This person might be someone you have an emotional connection to that is distinctly different by association but by keeping that person, it 'complicitly' supports their behavior by not penalizing them and further penalizing the other employees.]

I'd disagree with a Men's Day too. But IF we celebrate one sex for some reason, the proof of discrimination is when some think that one should 'balance' out some perception of abuse by one WHOLE class, by actively promoting EXCLUSIVE attention to another WHOLE class. "Two wrongs don't make a right," is what comes to mind. But it is NOT even appropriately established that discrimination is merely of some 'Patriarchy' as a corresponding 'Matriarchy' is always coexistent with any such interpretations. I used to be 'feminist' but can no longer embrace this title precisely because I've learned that much of this movement isn't to dismiss FAVORABLE stereotypes of the choices women make but to the NEGATIVE ones that is blamed on men uniquely. The causes are more complex. But just ask yourself this: If the class, 'Men', have dominated over the class, 'Women', (1)Are ALL children of each class products of men only? (2) If this domination includes all areas of power, does this not include the acts involved in socializing between the sexes, the selections of those who pass on the genes, and the ones who dictate the act of sex itself? If so, then has either the vast majority of children born be products of 'force' (as in, 'rape'), or that at least SOME are products of women's own contribution in some way? That is, do women not 'own' an equal role in HOW men and women differ genetically and culturally?

I'm not sure how I feel about this day. It lacks its 'complement', a Man's Day, unlike the set, "Mothers/Father's Day". I don't interpret (or no longer interpret) women as being THE 'victim' of some Patriarchy even in other places because a Matriarchy is often an equal contributing factor in sync with its ORIGINAL causes. The loss of the original formulation of such social attitudes when the more modern environments make the old reasons obsolete make it hard to notice how the problems are not so clear cut. We can't dictate 'what' it means to be "fair" upon other worlds until we recognize the problem of "culture" with regards to laws themselves. That is, ANY culturally specified laws create and/or enhance problems. A "woman's" issue with regards to government should NOT speak of any cultural interpretation about the GENDER of femininity but does. This distinction is yet to be understood.

The reality here is that there is a very clever misdirection campaign to hide the real problems based on economic differences into cultural ones. The fact that there will ALWAYS be some culturally defined class of people in the majority or minority in any logical area of political/economic problems in society conveniently acts as clever means to create a smokescreen that hides what is actually going on while everyone is being distracted. The intention by the Liberal's under Trudeau (both Pierre and now Justin) were about CONSERVING their Catholic-based and bilingual heritage. Given this 'class' has sincerely been of the actual majority who created the problems of any past injustices, they needed a means to have their cake and eat it too. "Multiculturalism" is a fraudulent smokescreen that appears as a movement to support 'diversity' when the idea is only to preserve the self-interest of the Ontario/Quebec establishments based on those Catholic/Anglican rooted families AND FRIENDS of other groups who want to utilize the law to guarantee them special theocratic-like power through 'inherent rights (of Kings and Queens)'. But to do so overtly would defeat them. They need to consolidate those select pluralities whom they can at least get along with AND agree to their equal beliefs about segregating themselves from outsiders (they don't want their daughters marrying outside their race or religion) and do it in a way that makes them seem completely the opposite by fostering equal distinction to those culturally defined groups that represent the biggest possible threat to them for their historical roles in discriminating behavior: the North American Natives. By fostering 'diversity', you ISOLATE the groups with the strongest threats by appealing to their own PRIDE as the cure to overcoming economic impoverishment. This entices the largest risk group of the impoverished to collect on the basis of some racial/ethnic divide. This is an easier pay-off than having to deal with 'poverty' of ALL people as some class. Then they tackle any other larger pluralities of similar risks. It is like creating a 'union' of violent street gangs as a syndicate who all recognize they independently will be eventually disempowered should they not agree to conspire to agree to their DOMAINS of power. This forces individual minded peoples to also be forced to sign into one of these uniquely empowered groups regardless of whether they agree to them. If you are Black and live in a localized area OF Black people, the gang with the strongest 'Black Pride' is enticed to make a stand to collect as a union with no allowances for deviation of the cult. Individual minds are easily diminished among them by risk of being left out of the benefits. NOTE that the focus is on "benefits" when the means for these assure that those left out will actually be PENALIZED by the neglect of them. Thus, you set up both the beneficial means to conserve your in-group bias by conspiring to entice other 'friends' OF the establishment to embrace the same kind of segregate thinking. The weak of society ARE the individuals who lack the solidarity of such groups and so get weened out by an apparent majority that is actually a clever ruse carefully planned out by sets of DISCRIMINATORY CULTS who BELIEVE in their 'separate' and protected position in law.

That's okay. I thought I had some interesting things to say earlier on this topic that gets overlooked. People may not respond ....especially WHEN people may agree. We tend to pay attention where we agree less. But then this tends to hide good arguments as they get buried under those who like to keep questioning things. I think this thread is too long anyways. Maybe some could split the discussion into certain SUB-arguments in separate threads so that they can get their significant points dealt with more specifically?

Partly correct.... but that specific opening was not specifically asserting three any more than two (or even, possibly one). The 'gods' is like also accepting the community of various groups of original civilization. These were the theories of VARIES peoples. It includes the secular meaning 'Origin' or 'Origins' unspecified or yet known. El- == THEE (significant one, or 'the' when unsignificant) oham or ohim, or -h- signfifies the plural. Elohim does not speak of how many but to simply many. Compare below the origins and change to Abram to Abraham: Abram == Abba (father) + -ra ['energy word' for "to see", "to do", OR "to speak". .. from "Ra" that was the sound of a lion (a roar) with its apparent power in kind to the SUN] + -am. "Father who leads, (or speaks), or commands" ...to become once the Assyrian influence to the last major Kingdom of Egypt. [Egypt, ....not Palestine, was "the promised land"]: Abraham == "Father to all" or "Father sees (over) all" where (Ham) become also a word for the people of Egypt in power. The 'trinity' COMES from MANY roots that did derive religious, secular and scientific reasoning. Logically, it one interpretation is as I spoke earlier. [A, not-A, and A & not-A]; Also, as math logic and questions of origins of secular OR religious interpretations: Zero, One, and Infinity. The question was/is do we come from nothing, a something unique (one), or an infinity of something? "God" (not this particular word) in various origins was actually like an unknown variable that many in time just POSITED a literal character. This is like how UFO, meaning "UNIDENTIFIED Flying Object" was a military term to alert them of some unknown object to identify. We can see that this became reinterpreted as a POSITIVE reality, namely some type of alien spacecraft. Genesis can be read very secular too. You can reread most of the bible as a kind of lost or hidden reference to secular reality, natural science, evolution of tribes to cities, early government, and moral ideas.....all from various sources of significant HUMAN wisdom of those days. [This isn't just for the Torah, Talmud, or New Testaments, etc, but to ALL written works that became or evolved into one religion or another. Personification were means to help people remember as children stories, parables, songs, etc. They HAD to be memorable and so required a lot of cross referencing of ideas with a lot of clever literary styles. We lost much of this understanding now though. I believe that most tribes everywhere never had multiple gods as we interpret this from far in the future. It was the tribes of different languages, lifestyles, and cultures that brought the first cities into life as Temples that were centers of economy mainly at its origin. [See my Temples and Sacrifice theory] As such, when after generations some people lost an understanding of the original function of these places (like Jesus) who attempted to overthrow these places to make it a 'sacred' place for only ONE tribe's history. Most were MONO-theists who collectively unified in settlements through the temples which had representatives from each original tribe (Priests). These were needed for LEGAL means to determine who owned what properties, centers for communal business, AND common celebrations (unbiased to any tribe). The Pharoah was the elect leader or speaker of the party agreed to 'POLICE' and defend the common ground of all tribes. This is similar to our government parties representing tribes and the elect party to defend at the time required to defend for all to some term. (Note "Pha" may be a deriviative of "Ba" or "Abba", the "ra" and "oah" combined to become "Abraham" in the Judaeo-Christian evolved religions.) Another trinity, is to solids, liquids and gases. Most originally separated this in two: Fluids ('waters' and 'gas') + Solids. Aten and Adam are 'solids'. The sun's circle is the PERFECT solid; Adam is earthly solids. The "waters above" (was actually 'fluids' in meaning for air or sky) and "waters below" was the fluids of the deep. "Heaven" is "even" and relates also to "Eve". These all meant that which follows. When we died, they interpreted properly that there was power in the air that gave life, burning rose to the sky, and so the skies were the "heavens" beyond the clouds (space and the stars). This is where they interpreted the ultimate 'air' or "Spirit" to exist. And so when God rested, "The spirit of God hovered" was intended to mean the MAGIC in the invisible air that gave life. Secular: "The Unknown Source provided invisible powers of the unseen but felt 'fluid'"

I tried to look up a lawyer I saw here in Saskatoon who basically said the same things. [Brayford]. I couldn't find it without extensively watching each story since CTV does not enable us to do so without requiring us to watch all commercials embedded. However, I found this with both him and another lawyer which sums it up: http://www.ckom.com/2018/02/12/239320/

Christianity was a movement to borrow the exclusive religion of the Jews to all people. The original group of followers though were ONLY intending to find a means to remain Jews in a community hostile to them (Roman Empire). They appealed to the poor because of the message it conveyed and also helped those Jews remain amongst the Romans. They then adapted to drawing in Romans (Saul, a Jewish name, becomes Paul, a Roman one.) Paul is actually where your religion came about officially. The original "Jesus Christ" was the title everyone then KNEW literally meant those who claim they are as equal to the king, Jews equal to the Romans, and all men equal in the 'favor' of the original Jewish-ONLY God. The stories of the the apostles were various versions of Bar Kokhba, the Jewish leader who tried and successfully overthrew the Roman control of Jerusalem for a short term before the Romans (and/or other secular jews?) reconquered them. The conflict about the Temple was whether it was a universal 'convention hall' for all people or a HOLY place only for the Jews. By 'coding' Simon Bar Kokhba with the title, "Jesus Christ", the Jews in Rome after the fall of the Temple were able to communicate this without mentioning his name, ...probably like one in the U.S. who might praise Bin Laden but use a code title reference, "the true leader" instead.

No, I am VERY relevant to discuss this issue with you, even without 'believing' in some transcendent meaning to the bible. YOUR 'belief' about whether God and Jesus are one versus a belief about them as distinct and separate is something I can help you OR the other 'side' rationalize in a way you can at least UNDERSTAND one another. If you simply think this is about 'belief' in being Christian, you are also falsely thinking that the title of "Christian" is itself ONE religion. While they all share the MINIMAL definition of "those who follow the teachings of the New Testament", there is a vast array of DIFFERENT religions that sprouted off from the original ideas....which also themselves came from other religions. The origin of the Protestant religious interpretation YOU have is actually itself a perversion of even the first Protestants that have evolved most significantly in the United States and now here in Canada. The original protesters (of the non-catholic /non-Anglican) form is due to the fact that the Pope was selling 'Indulgences' which were like official 'get-out-of-jail-free' cards with the Pope's signature. They had lost a LOT of money due to many factors and the Vatican was already losing its power as a voluntary Empire. This is why they started to also become cruel with Inquisitions. The Enlightenment age of the time was due to the printing press and the REDISCOVERY of the Greek philosophical 'canons' (collection of books). The Pope thought of selling these Indulgences to enable people to literally "Buy a Stairway to Heaven". People were thus allowed to 'indulge' in doing evil (because the Church was no longer able to 'sell' itself) and opted to redraw the sinners into the church by an incentive. Remember, the Inquisition was the initial means to try to FORCEFULLY bring the population BACK to the fold rather than to become atheist or join some other belief. Also, given printing again, the ORDINARY person could now READ the bible for themselves. Prior to this it was written ONLY in Latin (to maintain top-down control of the Priesthood). Now people were translating the original into all their own languages and the cost of printing through the press made it easier for the average person to become a credible 'interpreter' of the Bible without needing the Priesthood's acting as the authorities. The original combination within the Church of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, was an ACCIDENTAL latter interpretation by many by the beginning of the Enlightenment. This 'modern' era begun to be more logical and questioned what was originally meant about these things. Your form of Christianity DROPPED the "holy ghost" interpretation as valid but kept the Father/Son version. But the Evangelical/Fundamentalist denominations opted to take this STRICTLY as meaning they were literally one and the same. First off, this should NOT matter. Why does it matter whether Jesus and God were one and the same? This is just like the extreme Muslims interpreting Mohammad's image as illegal to be presented. The original meaning was only about being sure not to DEIFY Mohammad. Yet ironically half of the Muslims turned the ban of imaging to mean it was 'blasphemous'. Oddly, your fight here to demand one LITERALLY believe that God == Jesus ONLY makes sense if you NOT pray to Jesus given he is back to his status as God in Heaven. But because many begun to dismiss Jesus as a mere human, versus of some magical offspring of Mary, your ancestor believers feared that one would then resort to simple Judaism of the Old Testament because it holds more of God being God, not some human. So those people argued that Christianity even by the reformers was as irrational. If you protest against the Church, why not question the whole religion. So your belief evolved out of a desperate attempt to make Jesus a LITERAL 'god' as those Muslims who did the same for Mohammad. [Muslim beliefs ALSO contributed to the concern and threat against Christianity.] Your belief is only an attempt to SAVE those like myself from existing. That is, you FEAR that your own children will become the Nihilistic Atheist and you have no other means to prevent this except for DESPERATE THREATENING others to literally believe IN Jesus as something you cannot speak against or should go to hell. In fact, if it weren't for the laws, you and your 'loved' ones would put me and all others to death, just as the terrorists of other religions. Because you can't now, the best you hope to do is to BEG one believe in Jesus as a magical being like the OT God who will penalize us in an afterlife. Using the Bible to defend your view is futile for those other believers in Christianity because they too do NOT interpret the Bible as perfect nor literal. The 'inspiration' interpretation is meaningful. YOU believe that 'inspiration' means that God LITERALLY and magically put the words there, not the humans writing it. HMMM,.....sounds familiar? Mohammad told others that he was a vessel who could only UNIQUELY hear God. And many transferred this to Mohammad now, just as you have of Jesus. Jesus does NOT logically mean anything, as I said earlier, because IF he 'died' for our sins, he is ONLY sacrificing something IF he were a human. If he was God all along, then he never WAS a man and did NOT sacrifice anything, ....just pretended to. You also derived your view from the interpretation of Mary's virginity. Ironically, lost in translation is the fact that a "Mary" is also a title, not a name. It meant a "Mare",.....one who is ready to bear children and be bound legally in the process called, "Mary-ing", the CONTRACT to God (public promise witnessed by all) to be with one man in having children. I am guessing that you won't even read this or pretend that you haven't. But this IS all relevant to 'protest' your irrational interpretation of even the original Christians. The majority of the original followers of the Jesus-movement was NOT literalist. The were secular poor who took the story of a brave man accused of being an insane man who dared to challenge the Kings of the day by saying "I am the King" == "Je sus Christos".

And you try to deflect with more Red Herrings.

You're playing the distraction game. I'm using very significant and powerful logic here. That I have a rational emotive MOTIVE here is due to the deception that the vast majority are being suckered into. Yes, I AM also emotively troubled by the mass shootings that add rational 'force' here. Should you not be? P.S. The movie reference ALSO shows how the 'left' has resorted to the same tactics simply because they cannot compete with the manipulation without manipulating themselves. I don't approve of it and is also why I am frustrated on this. ALL people in ALL political persuasions should be paying attention. This issue is only going to get worse if we can't logically see this.

I'm NOT even CARING whether we are discussing Canada or the U.S.. This is just a distraction. The argument is about gun rights ANYWHERE. It just happens to be that the U.S. is the one with the problems relating to gun violence based on the interpretation/misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment. And the incident of the recent shooting based on such laws WHEREVER they are in the world would occur because of this 'controversy'. Most recognize the circular scam for what it is. And that too happens to be an 'American' abuse of its system from within: Creating Profitable INDUSTRY by whatever means , ....even by fostering a false need to own guns. The 'right-wing' parties (anywhere in the world) like to capitalize on others by exploiting them in this type of deception. The American 'love for guns' is NOT real but CREATED by the right-wingers EXPLOITING the capacity to create a false need and turning the original intent of very laws made to defeat abuses against the society. I saw a car parking area in Chicago once that was owned by a Tow-truck company who set it up in a high-demand area, then placed no parking signs there. The business was purposely created to exploit the high demand of downtown, deceive others into parking there given it looks so empty and harmless to do so, then tow the car away to a compound where they can extort the owner to require paying the fee to get it out. IS this appropriate? Is the American way a system specifically designed to fuck people? I don't believe this was the case. But the gun lobby controversy IS this kind of behavior. They want to create a WAR-demand mechanism to justify REDIRECTING government funds to it by indirectly taunting others into acting out terrorist acts (a type of 'entrapment' set-up), then justify GOING to war, implementing war measures in government to sponsor industries to that effort, create the weapon industry and outlets to conveniently profit from this, and all at the same time INDEBTING that very government to the average taxpayers burden to them and their powerful friends in the same 'capitalist' spirit. This reduces the power of the same government to the very social services that they also want to disrupt and destroy. WIN WIN WIN for the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the masses they are exploiting. We have WAY more to fear from the CLEVER cons and manipulators who capitalize on strife that act as puppeteers to the violence occurring. These are more of the terrorists than those poor idiots who act as pawns doing their bidding as they are lead to act out direct violence.

Reminds me of a great movie: Pretty Persuasion. [Its' about a pretty girl who sets up a teacher for sexual assault so that she can PROVE her acting credibility, gain notoriety for her incredulity and get that part she was turned for before.]

But you victimize those who OPT OUT of gun ownership by goading terrorists (who are often gun-right advocates like you) to act out. You are 'winning' by being deceptive and thus MAKES YOU the very terrorist. It is like a capitalistic mean girl who notices that she can create a business in her school by simply whispering bad rumors to someone that another one has against them, step back and watch the chaos, and then set up a business that avenges the bullies.

Thank you. You've reduced your argument to the point that I'm getting at. You thus have nothing more to argue and, although I like your company, I suggest Twitter. SEE https://twitter.com/hashtag/gunrights?lang=en All your politics on this is like your mentor's tactics on Sadam Hussein's WMDs, ...post your belief that "Guns are here to stay" and REPEAT REPEAT REPEAT until others just give up, buy a gun, shoot up a school, and prove to your victims why they too need more guns to prevent those like yourself who have them from shooting you.!! OHH, and invest in the gun store so it at least makes this chaos all profitable!

You're trying to distract the attention away from the argument. I NEED you to tell me if you hold that (a) Logical arguments on this point matter, or (b) Emotional ones ALSO do not matter; AND thus, we'll separate as a conclusion, (c) that only FORCE matters. If you agree that we cannot change anyone's opinion on this to any forum using REASONING, then logic is out. IF you also think that you have no need to appeal to me or others that we should accept your stance EMOTIONALLY, there is nothing left to even 'rhetoric' to argue. This leaves FORCE as the only means to justify FORCE. I want you to confirm WHICH of the three views you hold or why I should continue trying. If I can't convince you (nor you of me) to anything except by force, then while you can argue guns should remain an unchallenged reality to anyone, all you do is argue circularly: ...that gun rights should be retained because those fortunate to have guns are those owners who shall use their guns to maintain those very rights to have them. Logically equivalent: I should have the right to guns because I say so.

No, I don't follow you. If you followed the reasoning I explained with the example of the kid being weak in the past who USED weapons to get to adulthood, this is a comparison of you asserting (or backing down from your stricter stance before) that in the PAST America had validity to use POWER then. Yet you imply that today is not the case. This is only accidental though because NOW by having the POWER of holding arsenals as a grown up [as America today], the FACT that you don't NEED them should suffice in getting rid of that stockpile UNLESS you are using it to BE the NEW bully. Just because you can feel brave enough not to require overtly being mean, you still are when you use your confidence by retaining those guns and simply expecting others who don't to STEP aside or risk being STEPPED on. If you were NOT the bully you were originally justified in defeating in the past, I challenge you to get rid of your guns for your confidence that you are a nice person. But you won't. WHY? .....Because you can USE your confidence with those weapons on your belt to 'bully' without a word spoken. The Bill Maher example of the car movies replaced with guns means that you act like your POWER is from something you do by the ease of pulling a trigger. That is cowardly. Just because you can push a pedal in a BIG CAR and go Vroom vroom!, you think you ARE dominant in that trivial act. But I dare you to put down your guns or get out of your car and try demonstrating you STILL have power without them. Its insincere because it hides that you are the same as those meek and weak individuals who do school shootings but just lack the present NEED to harm others. But when you DO have a need, you WILL behave in sync with the very terrorists you claim to require guns to defeat.

So you are now reasserting that 'power' is NOT something essential to the present gun ownership? A child can argue that bullying in the past was what worked to get him through to adulthood. That he had to use some weapon to protect himself back as a kid, he was justified. BUT NOW, as a grown up, he needs not worry because he's defeated his enemies. He's also a big guy now and holds an arsenal of weapons. So his past POWER justifies his present fortune to BE 'powerful' while still NEEDING his stash of those weapons?

bush_cheney2004, You've (a) argued that Logic is irrelevant and (b) that even an Emotive appeals do not matter, only power. Rationally, this proves you lack the POWER to further your argument on this.... .....unless you've got a gun concealed in your anonymous presence here?

But I'm proving that the PEOPLE who kill ARE DUE to your type of thinking. So I'm using your own position to show you are being hypocritical. If people kill people and not guns, then YOU are one of those people because your selfish justification for holding guns requires others to REQUIRE having guns too, INCLUDING the 'mentally ill' (they too could [and DO sometimes] justly assert they are NOT 'mentally ill' but products of an intolerant leftist intent to disempower them and USE the charge of mental illness as its FALSE excuse.) Maybe you are 'mentally ill' in thinking guns are okay? But I notice you are also "anonymous" here which makes you more dangerous for 'concealing' your gun.