Active Theocrats: The New Apostolic Reformation and The Seven Mountain Domionists

page: 9
19
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 4 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 





PEOPLE were flying those planes, they weren't "drones"

if you say so, it must be true!!

And this is the 3rd time I've refused to
answer. You can ask me 100 times, or
a billion times, and the only way you
will know the answer is to find out for
yourself.

i gave you the assignment for your benefit, i know what most husbands and fathers would do.




posted on May, 4 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


You're saying that those planes were drones? Are you saying those planes were on 'programmed autopilot'?

What about the passengers? What monster would auto-pilot a plane full of civilians into a building full of civilians?

Who were the men with the box-cutters barely out of flight school?

Please don't talk down to me - I'm being as authentic and honest as I know how to be. Just because I "say it" it doesn't mean it is "right."



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 





That article came out a month after the event! It doesn't count.

i don't get you, you mean USA din't have any proof when they attacked? Why dint they agree for the offer?


I'm asking you WHO WERE THE MEN
with box-cutters that flew those
planes? Are you saying they were
Taliban?

taliban were in afghanistan, your government told you everything you know. I don't believe they were even passenger planes.



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


i gave you the assignment for your benefit, i know what most husbands and fathers would do.

I already knew, quite well, what he would do. For my 'benefit'? Do you really think I am that naive and unaware of how people respond to threat and how they might behave?



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 



I don't believe they were even passenger planes.

Seriously?

And what about the grief-stricken survivors? All invented?

What about the dead who were in those towers and the Pentagon? All fiction?

Like I said, I don't know who was behind it. I only know that it served to create the intolerance. Even this, our civil but tenuous discussion here between you and me, is at risk of blowing up in our faces with anger and misunderstanding.
I don't want that.



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 





You're saying that those planes were drones? Are you saying those planes were on 'programmed autopilot'? What about the passengers? What monster would auto-pilot a plane full of civilians into a building full of civilians?

yes, not exactly autopilot, more like jumbo drones.

There were no passengers,
hijacking of planes and planes hitting the towers are two events, how can you say the same planes hit the towers?



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by logical7
 


i gave you the assignment for your benefit, i know what most husbands and fathers would do.

I already knew, quite well, what he would do. For my 'benefit'? Do you really think I am that naive and unaware of how people respond to threat and how they might behave?


just telling you how the golden rule works in case of rapist.



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


Okay, I see where you're going with this.
There are lots of people who lost loved ones in those planes. Or what, are you saying they are all safe and sound on some island somewhere? Or that the survivors were "paid" to say their loved one was on board and died?

Please.

REALLY?? If that is the case, I will bow out of 'society' altogether, and never look back.



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by logical7
 



I don't believe they were even passenger planes.

Seriously?

And what about the grief-stricken survivors? All invented?

What about the dead who were in those towers and the Pentagon? All fiction?

Like I said, I don't know who was behind it. I only know that it served to create the intolerance. Even this, our civil but tenuous discussion here between you and me, is at risk of blowing up in our faces with anger and misunderstanding.
I don't want that.




i don't want misunderstanding. The dead are not fiction, are you telling me that a government can't kill its own people?



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


Okay, with all due respect and no hard feelings, I think we've exhausted this thread. I'm ready for it to pass away.

If you'd like to discuss the 9/11 event, we can do that elsewhere.

My premise stands: Religion does not create morality. Forced religion is not a good thing.



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by logical7
 


Okay, I see where you're going with this.
There are lots of people who lost loved ones in those planes. Or what, are you saying they are all safe and sound on some island somewhere? Or that the survivors were "paid" to say their loved one was on board and died?

Please.

REALLY?? If that is the case, I will bow out of 'society' altogether, and never look back.

no, they are really dead, the word is silenced. They don't have to be killed in the attack, the hijacked plane could be landed and passengers killed.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 





My premise stands: Religion does not create morality. Forced religion is not a good thing.

yes what you say is correct, more precisely half correct.
Religion does not create morality. God has created morality and has given freedom to be immoral.
Immorality can be prevented/reversed by belief in a religion/God.

You have not given a satisfactory answer to why immoral non-religious/atheist people should change? what motivator?

Forced anything is not good, i am not in favour of forced religion but you are assuming that a religious state will force its religion.
Its the same as secular state can force non-religion. Look at the burkha/niqab ban in France.

EDIT: I am starting a thread about the question, why should immoral people change?
edit on 5-5-2013 by logical7 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


Awesome. I'll see you there.

I will meanwhile be keeping an eye on these nutjobs in the OP.
Right Wing Watch is one source of information about these people and their activities. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in learning more about this group. As I said in the beginning of the OP - they are dangerous, and THEY ARE NOT MESSING AROUND.
Right Wing Watch says this about themselves:

A project of People For the American Way dedicated to monitoring and exposing the activities of the right-wing movement.

People For the American Way's Right Wing Watch is dedicated to monitoring and reporting on the activities of right-wing political organizations, in order to expose the agenda of the extreme Right. Our researchers monitor dozens of broadcasts, emails and websites, and use their expertise on right-wing movements to analyze and distill that information for the general public.

We hope that by shedding light on the activities of right-wing organizations, we can expose the risks that their extreme and intolerant agendas present to our country. We do not endorse the views of groups that we report on.

This site may also include postings by our affiliate People For the American Way Foundation and will be so designated.



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


however, overwhelmingly, it has been proven that religious dogma often motivates the force of that religion on others. there are very few exceptions to this in history.

of course the modern, widely accepted version of american christianity is passive, but the fact that the psychology itself still lends to it going to the extreme very easily is cause for concern...

force of violence of any ideology is immoral, and is possible given the right conditions. and i would also assert that in spite of the fact that there is no religion present in the extreme cases of communist ideology where they force their way of life on another, they still are a religion, though not disguised with a deity or a theology, but they are a religion of authority...

so the same religion of authority can be openly forced on others, or thinly disguised as a spiritual belief system, but they are one in the same...the identifying factor is that they both lend themselves to tyranny and force the populace in question into their way of thought...

this is wrong, no matter how you look at it, and this can be easily recognized by those that are religious as well as by those that do not follow a religion or are atheists...wrong is wrong, and i think most people know what is right and what is wrong regardless of their spiritual belief system...just be on the receiving end of persecution for once, and you will understand that morality or the lack of it, does not have to accompany a belief system...it can be recognized with or without it...

in cases where people are persecuted because of race, or because they are different...none of those things are because of religion, and in many cases those who are religious are the persecutors, where is the morality there? the same people who spout off about "situational morality" are guilty of the same...and only normally extend their morality or good will to those that share the same beliefs as them...
edit on 12-5-2013 by studythem1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I was going to start a thread about this. I did a search and found your post.

Awesome. These people need the disinfectant of the sunlight.

I am so hoping that the discussion will continue.



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 


THANKS for helping spread the word.

These people are monsters, oppressive control-freaks, and very dangerous.

Glad you have 'discovered' them, and yes, we need to speak out against it.

Star! Go, you!!!



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   
You know, in another thread... I'd asked what was so "extremist" or dangerous about evangelical Christians. No one seemed to want to explain it to me. It took a different thread in relation to Sen. Cruz and your link in it, and I found this thread.

WOW! Now I know! I'm so glad I found this thread as I missed this back in April.

Bumpty Bump Bump

CdT



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by CirqueDeTruth
 


At your service, Ms CdT!

Sadly, the NARwatch site is down. It was FULL of information. RightWingWatch is still up, though, with lots of info on individuals, orgs, etc.

Interestingly, there have been other "exposee" sites that have ALSO been taken down; according to the lecturer I heard, it's because they are so intent on staying "under the radar."



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   
ALERT!!

NARwatch DOES have a public facebook page!! Just discovered it this morning, checking to see if the other site was back or not.

www.facebook.com...



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 





new topics
top topics
 
19
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join