kengs333

Oh, give me a break--you're just avoiding the issue, and it clearly is not a personal attack. You're involvment in the affair is suspect and rank hypocracy, and you know that what I say is true about members of Six Nations not appreciating your budding into their affairs.

In terms of numbers it's difficult to say. It seems like there was a rapid increase in numbers, then a decrease after the fall of Jerusalem, then a steady increase again despite widespread persecutions. Early critics of Christianity like to point out the type of people that Christians converted; non-intellectuals, slaves, housewives and convicts--people who basically were non-entities in Roman society; Christianity gave them hope, meaning, and equality. The latter is lost on many now because of what formalized, institutionalized Christianity became and still is. The true intent of Christianity is to make all who accept Christ as their saviour and believe in God equals--and that was a direct threat to the Roman social order in particular. So yes by the time of Nero Christians were already the vicim of choice for Roman bloodsports. One can only wonder how many were martyred--I doubt it was few. There were also a number of different sects, and, if one wants to believe the critics of Christianity, some of these were pretty bizarre. 10th century BC/BCE encompasses 999-900 BC; what would 99-0 BC be if it did not? The zero-eth century?

I'm not sure sin can actually be "persecuted," but that aside, all gay bashings that I can think of were perpetrated by atheistic drunken rednecks or college students. Ironically, gays are "persecuted" by other sinners and anti-Christians. Go figure. All true Christians "hate the sin, not the sinner" although the word hate is a litte too crass. Any Christian will tell you that all sinners have the ability to repent and accept Christ as their personal saviour. Unlike the bleak secular humanist worldview that basically condemns people what they allow themselves to become with no chance at redemption. Hence, someone who makes a mistake while a youth and beds multiple partners, one of which ends up in producing a child, guy turns into an irresponsible deadbeat. She pretty much has to live a life of guilt and regret for being so irresponsible and immoral according to secular worldview and try to overcome this shame by engaging in further such behaviours in a vain attempt to mask the pain and legitimize such a lifestyle. Quite a sad way to live, really.

All the time. It's a situation you just can't understand if you didn't live through it.

Personally, I don't even know where you get off thinking you represent the views of Six Nations; you're an outsider. And from what I've read there are some who clearly resent your interloping. Your manic blogging, rabid and incessant posting on this and several other message boards seems to me to be nothing more than an attempt to dominate and control the issue, push your agenda, push your distorted and falacious interpretation of history on the unsuspecting and ignorant. You are governed by the same motives you no doubt claim to despise in Europeans. You just can't resist budding in, can you; you just have to get involved in an issue that isn't your problem in the first place just to make name for yourself, just to make yourself feel just and righteous, eventhough most of the people you claim should be "lawfully" accorded what is rightfully theres have time and again proven that they have to concern or regard for Canadian law. Your moral bankruptcy is astonishing.

This may not directly answer your question, but I've always found it interesting how there were some really monstrous volcanic explosions in the Mediterranean region in the pre-Christian times but none since (to my knowledge). Turkey continues to get rocked by massive, deadly earthquakes, the rest of Europe does not. The modern industrialized world, technological advancement essentially originates in protestant north central Europe and England.

God-haters, anti-Christians, those of the general persecutorial bent.

No, I'm sorry, I believe that 10th century BC refers to the period 999 to 900 BC, so therefore, 10th century BC and 1000 BC are NOT the "same date". Oh, but we are talking about the dating according to your secular, scientific view of history, are we not? First you're referring archeological records of camel distribution, but when the dates don't jive you suddenly become an evangelical Christian and claim that the Torah was written by Moses and therefore 1000 BC is not prehistoric. It don't matter when writing first occurs; we're talking about historical records in the Torah that refer to camels... and how archeological records show that they are in fact prehistoric in the region. Still, I'd like to see your sources.

Rue, Your kind of jabbering about Christianity has been going on from day one, so don't think you're accomplishing much by doing this except re-inforcing negative stereotypes. Christians have always been persecuted by your kind; Christians have always been the victims, regardless of how history gets twisted to seem otherwise. But that's okay; we all know where you're headed, so it's safe to say that the ability to wantonly malign and persecute without consequence in this mortal world is small consolation for the prize that awaits your kind.

Well, one has to wonder who taught you how to read. You'll notice that I referred to the distribution of camels in the "ancient world". My reference to prehistoric dating is a general reference to science's continually revised dating of all sorts of things, not just camels. Moreover, if you actually care to bone up on the term prehistory, you'll learn that prehistory refers to a period prior to there being written records. So 1000 BC is certainly prehistory in much of the world, and since the time of the authorship of the Torah is a matter of debate, but generally believed to be about the 10th century BC, by your reckoning it should be prehistoric. The events described may date prior to 1000 BC, but the written record does not. So what was that you were saying about art "depeicting" asses?

No, sadly, it's something that's becoming pretty much universal; feminism, consumerism, materialism, individualism, have crept into much of Christian society as well--which I guess makes you really happy, right?--making truly good women a really rare phenomenon, in my opinion. It's not what men "think," it's simply what is best for the proper raising of children and a stable family. Of course it's contingent on women being raised to be proper mothers, since women who stay at home with children can, if misguided, just as readily instill the wrong kind of values and do more harm than good. Father, of course, who are not raised properly will tend to abuse their role, and view it as being a position of authority to the extent where their behaviour is detrimental, as well.

I don't recall you teaching me or anyone else here much of anything. I'm not quite sure what you mean about "hidden history"--I suppose these are the "oral" myths and legends that have supposedly been passed down through the generations? That's very quaint, but I think we've already had a discussion on the unreliability of "oral history" so I'm not sure you're accomplishing much by dredging this up again. I'm quite certain that knowing the truth--I'm quite certain I already do--about the Iroquois would not make me "want to emulate them". In fact, I'm quite proud of my heritage, my ancestor's choice to see the Truth in Protestant Christianity and to endure persecution, displacement and war while being dutiful, sober, hardworking farmers. Doesn't bother me that this disqualifies me from being what you claim I "might want to emulate". You might want to explain to the others here what you mean by: "Although in your case your family history would disqualify you."

Seriously, you really need to grow up. Bad enough the characteristics that you've already admitted to that led to your child being born in less than ideal circumstances, but in making the above comment and just the nature of your other posts, I can only image what kind of dreck you've instilled in him. And it's clear why you've had the problems that you've had.

Excuse me? What's stopping them? How many women would really marry a man who wants to stay at home with the kids while maybe working part time while she goes out and brings home the bacon? You've got to be kidding. I can think of exactly ZERO instances where this has happened amongst my friends, relations, co-workers. ZERO. Why? Because women want men to earn lots of money so they can spend it--which was made quite clear to me in ALL of my relationships.

Yeah, it did actually, which is why it found itself in Rome, Greece, Asia Minor within decades of Christ. Paul persecuted Christians (1 Corinthians 15:9) before his conversion in c. 45 AD; and prior to that he talks about how Jesus "appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time" (1 Corinthians 15:6). According to Tacitus, "Nero falsely accused and executed with the most exquisite punishments those people called Christians"--Nero's reign was 54-68 AD. By the end of the second century there were already several strident attempts to discredit Christianity and persecutions were going on all the time.

So where from exactly do you derive this information about the distribution of camals in the ancient world? I don't know how many times I've heard of the dating of some sort of prehistoric remains be revised; science will only go by what it can find, which is why the term "earliest known record" or something to that effect is usually applied to a date. Divinely inspired means that the text as it was recorded is as it is and has not been altered. Therefore, all of the texts of the New Testament are as they were first written.

Oh, yeah, that's me; I just lap up all the propaganda that the government churns out and I have no real understanding of Canadian history... Sorry, the reason I have a problem with the whole Caledonia issue is because I do have a real understanding of Canadian history, and I know the idealized pap that you people put out about the Iroquois is fabricated and meant to deceive the Canadian people.

...

No, I think the primary manner in which one can derive an understanding of the archeology of a given region is by first and foremost reading and understanding the reports of all of the other relevant archeological digs in the area. There's no two way about it. You have to build a foundation upon which any future information can analyzed and interpeted; there's just no way that an understanding can be derived solely or largely from participating in so-called "'hands-on' way," and to make such an assertion makes me wonder about your supposed MA credentioals. As for the following sentence, which sounds more like the ramblings of a radical-leftist high-school drop-out than it does an graduate student: "See I know where you got your history education from and let me tell you there is so much wrong with recorded history that it will require a high-colonic to before the influences of many of the old shit disturbers posing as historians get erased from academia." [emphasis mine] Are you serious? Anyone who studies history knows about the varying degrees of reliability of historians, but one would think a grad student could articulate this a little better. Yes, some historians are crassly agenda-driven, and all have some sort of bias. And you're any better? You clearly have an agenda, which is all the more reason why I'd like to read your thesis. Since I can't find it on-line, where can I get a copy?

Oh, this I'd like to see proof of--huge support base, you say? Perhaps in the Communist and Anarchist "communities," but I think it's safe to say that the average Canadian resident outside of Caledonia looks upon the Six Nations with digust. Sorry, I'm neither narrow-minded or bitter; need I explain again that I'm more well read than you, that I read books on a wide variety of topics. My issue is specifically in which the Six Nations conducts itslef; I don't care for anyone who wants to tear Canada apart, and have every right to feel that way. The only real hatred, bitterness and bigotry that I've seen has come from members of Six Nations and their supporters. That's the simple fact of the matter.

Oh, I know what archeological digs are meant to accomplish; I was curious why you would imply that standing around at an archeoloigcal site has more significance than an academic education. You couldn't just fess up in the first place that you have an MA, or did you need time to think something up or ask someone what you should say to sound convincing? So let's have the title of your thesis if that's not it; I'd certainly like to have a look at it.

If you think she's being callous now, you should see what she wrote about the old man and his wife on someone's blog. I'll see if I can find the link. She basically claims that they had it coming because they provoked the situation, the old man's injuries were not that bad and that he had had prior medical problems, and the whole incident overblown--things to that effect. Some of the stuff that I've read about her on the reclamation message board seems to suggest that some people don't like her and a few others getting involved in their issues, because she has an "agenda". She even has her own blogs "grannyrantson" and "sixnationssupporter". Goes by "granny" on the reclamation message board (over 4000 posts), usually just posts as "g" when she posts comments on other people's blogs. And I think has a message board and goes by the username of "sara" as well. Reading what she posts gets somewhat disturbing at times, which really makes one wonder...

I don't think that 30+ years is all that long ago; I can clearly remember things that were said to me thirty years ago, and I was only a kid then; the people who wrote these gospels would have been adults and witness to something/someone quite extraordinary--Jesus, the son of God, performing miracles, teaching, being persecuted, dying on the cross, and being resurrected. These are things that one would not easily forget. The fact that the Bible is divinely inspired is significant. It may seem absurd to you, but the fact of the matter is that it is devinely inspired and its truthfulness beyond dispute.

You really seem to put much stock in the fact that your son can wash dishes and clean toilets. Personally, I prefer to place greater importance on skills like being able to read and write, in particular forgein languages, developing a taste for literature and academics, and striving to be a good, moral, Christian person. But I guess it's not really pc to have high expectations of one's chidlren anymore. We're just supposed to toss them into secular society and hope that they manage to learn how to survive on their own, and if they manage to get passable grades and learn some sort of middling occupation, we can then rejoice at the fact that our children didn't become loser and failures. Really, we only have your assessment to go on, so none of us really know what you son is really like. But if I may be frank for a moment, in the past you have discussed you lifestyle and social attitudes, and to me it really makes me wonder how he will turn out. As he is only a teen, things can change considerably when he "grows up". I saw it happen to some of my friends in high school when they removed themselves from the control of their parents, and they went sliding down hill quite quickly. So things could change rapidly. Why were you a single mother in the first place? I mean, why were you really a single mother? And what will your reaction be if one day he starts bedding all these women and just happens to slip one past the goalie with someone who it turns out he only was interested in because she was easy? What comes around, goes around, I guess. Thte statistics speak for themselves, though. You can provide empirical ecidence all you want, but the studies that are conducted scientifically and are accurate consistantly show that the traditional nuclear family is the most stable and produces the most well-adjusted children.

He is. How many women divorce men because his career gets in the way of spending time of with the family? Men simply have it worse than women. On the one hand, he has to go out there and get a great job, career so he can snag himself a woman, yet in order to maintain that career he has to go along with whatever the job requirements are, such as long hours, travel, long commutes, etc. If he wants time out for the family, then he puts his career and income at risk; but if he doesn't spend time with the family, then he puts his income and family at risk. People sympathize much more with women who want to spend more time with the children and lose some income, or have to change careers; and nobody questions the sanity of a woman's decision to "choose" to remain at home with the kids. As with most women, you only see things from your (the woman's) perspective, and take for granted the sacrifices that men make to keep their women placated. If only we could return to a time where women are raised to have a more understanding and respectful attitude towards their men--there would be a definite improvement in our society.