Search This Blog

Tuesday, December 07, 2010

Pearl Harbor Day

 

 

DECEMBER 7, 1941, because we need to remember


• This Is A Front Page Headline Post - Locked On Top - Newer Posts Are Below •


There are 110 photos in this collection. Many you may have seen, but there might be some you haven’t. The photos are really HUGE at the link.


Here are just a few, and they’ve been reduced for space.

This picture, taken by a Japanese photographer, shows how American ships are clustered together before the surprise Japanese aerial attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on Sunday morning, Dec. 7, 1941. Minutes later the full impact of the assault was felt and Pearl Harbor became a flaming target. (AP Photo)
image
image
image
image
image
image
THE OTHER 106 PHOTOS ARE HERE

December 7th, 1941, a date which will live in infamy...



Click to enlarge.










posted by Hawkeye® -- Tuesday, December 07, 2010

BlackFive says...

Air Raid Pearl Harbor. This Is Not A Drill

Posted By Laughing_Wolf • [December 07, 2010]
_iceUrlFlag=1

December 7, 1941.  A date that will live in infamy, and matched by only one other. It was, of course, more than just Pearl that was hit.
_iceUrlFlag=1-1

Today, take a moment and remember that day.  Remember those who died then, and who died in the long bloody war ahead.  Remember those who served, and if you know one, honor them and thank them this day for they are fast leaving this world.
LW

~

Most of you who bravely set forth to do battle have gone home.  Three close family members, one Army Air Corps and two Navy, were fighters in WWII for the USA.   Gone now.   Rumors swirled for years that the US knew that a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor was coming and who knows if it is true?   The fuel oil still slowly bubbles up from the hulk of the Arizona to this day.  My wife and I stood and looked down at the hulk and the small oil slick and the furtive movements of random fish and tried to imagine the entire harbor ablaze.

Near the airfield across the island from the ships, on the beach, I saw that the recent storms had worn away the land that was supporting a tree of indeterminate age.  Twenty years?  Forty?  No idea.   But amongst the roots I saw a strange thing and I dug it out.   It was a machine gun shell, rotting from age, stuffed with sand that had become cement, something in the vicinity of 50-60 caliber.   I stuck it in my pocket and wondered if it came from that day.   I took it out of my "stuff" drawer and lost it but my wife found it a couple of days ago.   Whenever it was fired, it stands for Pearl Harbor to me and I will not let it get lost again.

credit
Today is an appropriate day to thank all veterans and also give President Bush credit for going into Iraq when he did.  God only knows what the world would be like today if Saddam Hussein had not been stopped, because the WMD's were absolutely there and he had already used some of them...

Christmas is NOT about giving people stuff...

69 comments:

radar said...

People forget that the US and Allies (but mainly the USA) helped Japan and Germany and other countries crushed by the war to rebuild their countries and their economies. All free European nations were helped by the Marshall Plan while the Soviet Socialist Iron Curtain countries basically rotted under communist rule.

We sent specialists to Japan to learn to become a manufacturing power and the Kaizen programs actually helped the Japanese auto companies get the jump on Detroit, who began using continuous improvement and actual quality process control many years behind the Japanese. US specialists like William Deming taught the Japanese to use the techniques and philosophy that led to Kaizen.

The US automakers didn't quite get the idea until the 1990's. Way to go, Detroit!

The USA used to not only be based on Christian principles, we often practiced them. Those principles allowed people to worship as they wished, and did not prohibit them from doing so. Those principles did not legalize baby murdering, they caused us to go across an ocean and stop the baby murderers. Those principles allowed Hindus to be Hindu and Atheists to be Atheists but now we have the ACLU suing us for putting up a nativity scene? Wake up, America! Your grandfathers would not have allowed this to happen! November of 2012 is not so far away...

Anonymous said...

"The USA used to not only be based on Christian principles, we often practiced them."

It's a good thing these principles were also abandoned when human morality and plain pragmatism dictated otherwise:

Deuteronomy 21 and 20:

10When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,

11And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;

12Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

13And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife


10When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.

11And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.

12And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:

13And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

14But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

Anonymous said...

Christmas is NOT about giving people stuff...

Indeed. Christmas is to celebrate the birth of Jesus, Son of the Lord. Let us put an end to the commercialization of the feast. Instead of giving presents, donate to charity in someone's name - it will mean more to them.

Pagan accoutrements (tree, holly, mistletoe, narratives of elves etc.) should also be avoided.

highboy said...

"It's a good thing these principles were also abandoned when human morality and plain pragmatism dictated otherwise:"

They weren't abandoned, so your sarcastic dig against Biblical principles wasn't even factually accurate, nor are those principles in the verses you quoted unique to the Bible. Its also interesting you say "human morality" and "plain pragmatism" as if there is some official tome on those subjects. Human morality is one of the most subjective concepts known to man, be they Christian, agnostic, atheist, or any other faith/non-faith system.

Anonymous said...

"They weren't abandoned,"

So you think they were followed in this case? If so, how?

"so your sarcastic dig against Biblical principles wasn't even factually accurate,"

Seeing as they weren't followed, it was factually accurate. Plain as the nose on your face.

"nor are those principles in the verses you quoted unique to the Bible."

Which means... what exactly? Because they also show up in other religious texts, that ergo they're not part of Christian principles?

"Its also interesting you say "human morality" and "plain pragmatism" as if there is some official tome on those subjects."

Say what? How would that imply that there's a tome on the subjects?

"Human morality is one of the most subjective concepts known to man, be they Christian, agnostic, atheist, or any other faith/non-faith system."

It certainly is subjective, though on the whole it does evolve over time. And that's a good thing. The victors at the end of WWII were being both moral and pragmatic (having seen that not helping the vanquished would merely risk causing a repeat of what led up to WWII). Fortunately they chucked out the antiquated Christian rulebook on how to treat the vanquished.

highboy said...

"So you think they were followed in this case? If so, how?"

You didn't state that the principles were abandoned in a specific case.

"Fortunately they chucked out the antiquated Christian rulebook on how to treat the vanquished."

The Christian rule book on how to treat the vanquished is in the Gospels, not Deuteronomy, so once again, you're factually incorrect in your stupid sarcastic digs. And before you go into a childish "contradictions in the Bible" tirade, its not a contradiction. Its a matter of Old Testament laws and bi laws being fulfilled in Christ, forming a new covenant. (hence the labels "Old" and "New" covenants.)

Anonymous said...

"You didn't state that the principles were abandoned in a specific case."

Radar talks about the handling of the vanquished after WWII, Marshall Plan etc. I follow with quotes from the Bible about how to deal with the vanquished.

... try to keep up with the conversation, slick.

"The Christian rule book on how to treat the vanquished is in the Gospels,"

Link please.

"not Deuteronomy"

No, it's pretty clearly in Deuteronomy, see quotes above, so you're factually incorrect there buddy.

highboy said...

"No, it's pretty clearly in Deuteronomy, see quotes above, so you're factually incorrect there buddy."

Wrong slick. None of your quotes says a Christian is suppose to treat the "vanquished" that way. Get it slick? Christ wasn't even born until a couple hundred years later get it slick? So a Christian, meaning a follower of Christ, follows Christ's teachings, which clearly state the Law you are referring to in Deuteronomy was fulfilled in Him. Get it slick? As for a link, its called the Bible. You obviously can read it.

Anonymous said...

Mental note: hb REALLY doesn't like being called "slick". What? Not to fond of the ol' "taste of your own medicine" there, hb?

- Canucklehead.

Oh and, your anger is showing again buddy. You really should do something about that.

Anonymous said...

As usual, highboy is entertaining by trying to be insulting.

highboy said...

and when once again the anonymous troll gets his/her/its ass handed to them they hide behind the "highboy is funny" remarks. Truly comical, especially when canucklehead of all people refers to someone as "angry". Careful canuck, your inferiority complex is showing again. I guess we'll just be ignoring how the posted verses in Deuteronomy were proven to be irrelevant.

Captain Stubing said...

Don't know what "handing someone's ass to them" means in your brain slick, but you seem to have an awfully generous definition jammed in there. You can't even back up your own claims fella.

"Wrong slick. None of your quotes says a Christian is suppose to treat the "vanquished" that way. Get it slick?"

They quite clearly do buddy. See above quotes.

"Christ wasn't even born until a couple hundred years later get it slick?"

I'm afraid I don't get it pal. So that's your out? Only the New Testament counts? Fine by me mate.

Out with the Ten Commandments then as well I suppose. Whatever will you do without them for moral guidance huh?

And Jesus born a couple hundred years after Deuteronomy was written? Whatever you're smoking, you can keep it. That's just nuts slick.

Let's dump Genesis as well while we're at it, that would sort out a lot of confusion for Radar.

"As for a link, its called the Bible. You obviously can read it."

Don't chicken out now bud, this is your chance to shine. You clearly stated that -

"The Christian rule book on how to treat the vanquished is in the Gospels"

- and now you're down to "uh, I don't know, look it up for yourself, whatever man".

That's some awfully lazy ass-handing there my friend.

highboy said...

"Don't know what "handing someone's ass to them" means in your brain slick, but you seem to have an awfully generous definition jammed in there."

It means you got owned, and its about to happen again.

"They quite clearly do buddy. See above quotes."

Yeah, the words "Christian", "disciple", or just plain "Jesus" isn't in any of them slick. Try again.

"I'm afraid I don't get it pal. So that's your out? Only the New Testament counts? Fine by me mate."

Actually I said the Old Testament Law was fulfilled in Jesus. Try some reading classes.

"And Jesus born a couple hundred years after Deuteronomy was written? Whatever you're smoking, you can keep it. That's just nuts slick."

You do realise, that with this above quoted statement you thankfully didn't attach your real identity to, you just exempted yourself from any serious discussion about what the Bible does/doesn't contain right? You do realise that its common knowledge to almost anyone with a pulse and a Bible with at least a second grader reading comprehension that the Old Testament, particularly the Torah (of which Deuteronomy is a part of) was written HUNDREDS of years before Christ? I mean, wow.

"That's some awfully lazy ass-handing there my friend."

As I just pointed out slick, I had very little to do with it, it was all you. You just sent every self-respecting skeptic of the Bible off the deep end with your humiliating ignorance of what is actually in the Bible. A guy who didn't even know that there is literally hundreds of years separating Christ from Deuteronomy who lives in the Western world should have to wear a helmet before getting out of bed in the morning. Seriously. Christ says "love your enemies (Matthew 5:44, that's in the NEW TESTAMENT, and you'll notice it takes place a couple hundred years after Moses and Deuteronomy slick) Wow. Just....wow.

highboy said...

Really Cap if your seriously that ignorant about the Bible and what it contains please stop embarrassing yourself and trying to appear arrogant at the same time. Go look at some flash cards or color a book or something. Let the grown ups talk. Seriously.

Captain Stubing said...

That's right, hundreds and hundreds, not two hundred years like you claimed slick. That was my point.

That's why "you just exempted yourself from any serious discussion about what the Bible does/doesn't contain" applies squarely to YOU. If you wanna be the Bible expert, act the part.

Take your own advice and take those reading classes buddy - where do you think I said Jesus was born in LESS than 200 years after Deuteronomy was written? You've got anger issues man -two, three paragraphs based on you misreading a simple sentence, wow.

After all the frothing at the mouth though, thanks for finally coming up with the Gospel quote pal. Words to live by, huh?

Nice to have you admit that Jesus was a full-on pacifist, and perhaps some of Jesus' teachings could rub off on some of the Christians here. Did you see the way Radar treats atheists or even just people who aren't Young Earth Creationists like him? Too funny.

Anonymous said...

"It means you got owned, and its about to happen again." - highboy: a legend in his own mind.

Somebody already compared you to Dwight Shroot, didn't they? I'm pretty sure they did. Anyway, G'night Dwight.

- Canucklehead.

P.S. Seriously though, I know your anger makes you miserable. Talk to a professional. It can only help.

Anonymous said...

As usual, highboy falls back to his funny 'anonymous troll' and 'hide behind' rhetoric. Great laughs, highboy.

Keep it up!

Hawkeye® said...

Radar,
Thanks for posting my pics. I took the ones of the memorial in 2007.

Best regards...

Hawkeye® said...

P.S.-- Some of your commenters reveal a very poor understanding of the scriptures. I mean, quoting Deuteronomy as "Christian principles"? I guess that just goes to show how ignorant today's youth really are.

The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. --2Thessalonians 2:9-12

highboy said...

"That's right, hundreds and hundreds, not two hundred years like you claimed slick. That was my point."

LOL. Nice try slick. No one is buying. Besides, if you supposedly knew the point you wouldn't have tried to make the ridiculous point that the bilaws in Deuteronomy concerning how to treat the vanquished in war was some Christian code we all had to follow.

"After all the frothing at the mouth though, thanks for finally coming up with the Gospel quote pal. Words to live by, huh?"

Thanks for the concession that you were wrong. See, that wasn't so hard was it slick?

"Nice to have you admit that Jesus was a full-on pacifist, and perhaps some of Jesus' teachings could rub off on some of the Christians here."

Point to one statement I made that shows this stupid admission and you would actually be on to something. Simply pointing out "love your enemies" is hardly a pacifist make but you obviously read what you want to read and ignore what you want to ignore. I don't blame you though, with such a lack of knowledge on a subject you're trying have a discussion about.

But wait! Canuck has entered the fray:

"Seriously though, I know your anger makes you miserable. Talk to a professional. It can only help."

No, I'd rather just vent my anger by bullying my inferior Canadian troll canuck. Don't worry buddy, you'll hit puberty some day and you'll be able to speak intelligently about things instead of cheering from the sidelines.

highboy said...

"Some of your commenters reveal a very poor understanding of the scriptures. I mean, quoting Deuteronomy as "Christian principles"? I guess that just goes to show how ignorant today's youth really are."

That's because he, like most liberal atheist hacks, like to try and speak intelligently about the Bible without actually having read it.

Captain Stubing said...

"LOL. Nice try slick. No one is buying."

Read what I wrote slick.

"And Jesus born a couple hundred years after Deuteronomy was written? Whatever you're smoking, you can keep it. That's just nuts slick."

If you can't parse it that's on you.

You're the one who said Deuteronomy was written 200 years before Jesus, so you can't really harangue other people about their lack of knowledge there bud. No squirming out of that one.

"Thanks for the concession that you were wrong. See, that wasn't so hard was it slick?"

Wrong about what buddy?

"Point to one statement I made that shows this stupid admission and you would actually be on to something. Simply pointing out "love your enemies" is hardly a pacifist"

Uh, yeah, that's pretty pacifist dude. What else would you call it?

Now can you point out how Jesus wasn't a pacifist? Looking forward to that one.

Anonymous said...

"I said the Old Testament Law was fulfilled in Jesus."

So let me get this straight: the NC supercedes the OC, so the OC is moot, right?

Does that include the 10 Commandments?

And if not, why not?

highboy said...

"Read what I wrote slick."

I did slick. Apparently you didn't slick. You stated pretty clearly what you thought of the idea of Jesus being born a couple hundred years after Deuteronomy was written, and you were factually wrong. Period. Own it.

"You're the one who said Deuteronomy was written 200 years before Jesus, so you can't really harangue other people about their lack of knowledge there bud. No squirming out of that one."

First, I didn't say Jesus was born 200 years after Deuteronomy. I said He was born a couple of hundred years. Second, the idiom "couple" isn't just two, its two or more, according the dictionary. So wrong again slick. You made one of the most ignorant statements regarding the Bible and you're trying to squirm out of it yourself by a weak game of word salad. Sorry, you lost that game too. -idiom: couple of, more than two.

" Wrong about what buddy?"

That your list of bilaws in Deuteronomy were a set of rules Christians were suppose to live by. Clearly wrong slick.

"Uh, yeah, that's pretty pacifist dude. What else would you call it?

Now can you point out how Jesus wasn't a pacifist? Looking forward to that one."

Try the entire, and yes I mean the entire, book of Revelations. Thanks for coming out slick.

anon: "So let me get this straight: the NC supercedes the OC, so the OC is moot, right?"

The Old Testament Law isn't irrelevant, its the Law. What is written is that the Law is fulfilled in Jesus. The Law is summed up in Jesus. That doesn't mean something never counted. But a Christian is a follower of Christ and His teachings. The Old Testament is a validation of who Christ is.

Anonymous said...

ROFL this is comedy gold.

Your best comedy show so far, highboy!

highboy said...

It is a good comedy how you trolls let your keyboards write checks your brain obviously can't cash. LOL. Thanks for the compliment.

Captain Stubing said...

Wow, anal as can be one moment, sloppy the next. You are one nutty dude. In an adorable kind of way of course. I can see why Canucklehead is a fan.

1. I had no idea that you wanted to stray so far from the common usage of "a couple of" to mean 5 or 6 or more. Yes, one dictionary definition features "two or more" in a definition, but do you really think that means 2 to infinity?

If you want to be anal about this (as I strongly suspect you will) then please tell us if you would consider the following numbers to be included in "a couple":

7

14

358

One million.

2. You say I was wrong about "That your list of bilaws in Deuteronomy were a set of rules Christians were suppose to live by. Clearly wrong slick. "

But then you say "The Old Testament Law isn't irrelevant, its the Law. What is written is that the Law is fulfilled in Jesus."

So just to clarify pal, other than validating "who Christ is", does the Old Testament still carry any weight as law or doesn't it?

3. "Try the entire, and yes I mean the entire, book of Revelations. Thanks for coming out slick. "

The question was about you showing how Jesus wasn't a pacifist. You respond with mention of a text written by someone else after Jesus's death. Yeah it's got violence in there buddy, but it doesn't tell us anything about Jesus during his lifetime. Unless I missed something in which case please sort me out cutie.

Oh and when you have a moment, tell us how Jesus wasn't a pacifist.

Anonymous said...

"It is a good comedy how you trolls let your keyboards write checks your brain obviously can't cash."

That describes the ongoing Radar comedy show quite well. He makes claims he can't back up at a stunning rate.

"The Old Testament Law isn't irrelevant, its the Law. What is written is that the Law is fulfilled in Jesus. The Law is summed up in Jesus. That doesn't mean something never counted. But a Christian is a follower of Christ and His teachings. The Old Testament is a validation of who Christ is."

What Stubing said: does this mean the OC is relevant or not, other than "a validation of who Christ is"? Are the laws moot or not?

And if they have been superseded by the NC, where does that leave the 10 Commandments?

highboy said...

"Wow, anal as can be one moment, sloppy the next"

You're the one that tried to take an idiom and turn into an exact number. LOL. You just accused someone of being anal in the same thread you're being anal. Too funny.

"So just to clarify pal, other than validating "who Christ is", does the Old Testament still carry any weight as law or doesn't it?"

It carries weight in that it validates Jesus. The 10 Commandments, according to Jesus are summed up in two of them: Love God and love others. Its odd how skeptics keep trying to make this so complicated when its written quite clearly in the Bible. So as Jesus said, the "rules" you keep trying to attribute to Christians are as Jesus says, the above two commandments. Its why people who believe take it on the whole instead of cherry picking verses here and there to prove some point. (not accusing you of that)

"You respond with mention of a text written by someone else after Jesus's death. Yeah it's got violence in there buddy, but it doesn't tell us anything about Jesus during his lifetime. Unless I missed something in which case please sort me out cutie.

Oh and when you have a moment, tell us how Jesus wasn't a pacifist."

Really? Are you serious? Wow, you realise the embarrassment over being wrong is quite minimal when you're under an anonymous screen name right? Yet you'll get more and more ridiculous as you go instead of just giving up the ghost. Okay, here goes:

"You respond with mention of a text written by someone else after Jesus's death."

Which has what to do with anything? You posted verses that were written long before Jesus' life. So your point here was....???? If you're trying to make the claim that because the book was written by someone else after Jesus' death than we would have to throw out the whole Bible, since none of it was written during his actual physical existence. For that matter, throw out most of ancient history.

"Yeah it's got violence in there buddy, but it doesn't tell us anything about Jesus during his lifetime."

I also quoted you a verse where Jesus said quite clearly He isn't here for peace, but brings a sword, but you're reading what you want as I said. The violence by the way, is quite relevant, since you said Jesus was/is a pacifist and you simply ignore an entire book about Him entitled "The Revelation of Jesus Christ". Interesting.

radar said...

How did you people turn Pearl Harbor Day into a treatist on the dying need for a "Bible for Dummies" handbook? Good grief.

It will take more than a few sentences to explain to the untutored what Deuteronomy was about, the situation and the application. Let's just say that if you want to use the Bible to explain anything, you had better know the whole thing or you will get hopelessly lost. Deuteronomy is a book of history and in fact much of the OT is history that records both the good and bad and involves cultural mores that are entirely different than found in the 21st Century Western world. As usual somebody takes a portion of scripture out of context and pretends to know what they heck they are talking about. Not.

radar said...

Oh, and I actually make posts that have the evidence for my claims included. That is what the posts are for, to make assertions and back them up with evidence. It is the commenters who tend to just make unsupported statements. My articles take research and include references and footnotes and links as needed. So do not give me any BS about "Radar makes unsupported claims" anymore. Read the posts or read them not, but evidence is what I use to produce them.

radar said...

I suppose after the "thinking" series I am going to have to do a quick Old Testament Survey class to deal with the profound misunderstanding this thread represents. You guys need to keep the language sort of civil, please? Nice to see some of you have actual identities, I respect and admire that.

There is no doubt that Deut 20 and 21 are about how to treat the Canaanites. God wanted the Canaanites to be exterminated so that their evil ways would be ended. The Canaanites did things like human sacrifices and would throw babies into fire to appease their "gods" and engaged in wicked evils. Since the Canaanites all descended from the sons of Noah, they knew and turned away from the God of the Bible, so God demanded that the children of Israel must exterminate them, with a few mentioned exceptions.

Like an arm that has gone to gangrene, God wanted that part of humanity cut off so that the rest of mankind would not be infected. However, the Jews were not totally obedient and therefore many consequences would later befall them. So it would happen a couple of times thereafter that God would want a portion of humanity cut off to save the rest.

These specific incidents have nothing to do with the Christian life as specified in the New Testament. You need context, author, audience, time, culture, history, Biblical background and Biblical reference points to interpret scripture. Please do not pretend to understand Deuteronomy when you don't know the entire book. You cannot read one act of Shakespeare and understand the entire play and certainly not his entire body of work. Neither can you comprehend two chapters out of a 66-book volume of work we call the Bible taken out of context.

Anonymous said...

Deuteronomy is a book of history and in fact much of the OT is history that records both the good and bad and involves cultural mores that are entirely different than found in the 21st Century Western world.

An admission that absolute morality is capable of evolving?

I'm getting the popcorn ready. Awesome.

Anonymous said...

"So just to clarify pal, other than validating "who Christ is", does the Old Testament still carry any weight as law or doesn't it?"

"It carries weight in that it validates Jesus."

So that's that answered. But apart from that...:

"The 10 Commandments, according to Jesus are summed up in two of them: Love God and love others. Its odd how skeptics keep trying to make this so complicated when its written quite clearly in the Bible. So as Jesus said, the "rules" you keep trying to attribute to Christians are as Jesus says, the above two commandments."

So the ten commandments are moot, replaced by the above two.

Yes or no?

Anonymous said...

So do not give me any BS about "Radar makes unsupported claims" anymore.

I imagine those will cease once you stop making unsupported claims. For example, "obvious design" is an unsupported claim.

Anonymous said...

Anyone else just totally and utterly shocked that highboy actually boasts about attempting to bully someone. I'm sure Christ would be sooo proud. This Internet tough guy routine is getting a little tired there slick, slick, slick.slick? The word has lost all meaning to me now. Slick, slick slick. Thanks a lot, slick. Anyway, you're not bullying anyone by the way, hb, despite your intentions, you just end up looking like a guy that spent way to much time studying a glorified, and much less entertaining, Lord of The Rings, and is really pissed off about it.

Oh and at least you are now admitting to being angry. They say the first step is admitting it you know.

By the way, I have a very good idea about how old you are, you, on the other hand, have no idea how old I am. Keep guessing bro. Now why don't you go back to that pathetic little blog of your own and hide out there for a little while, I dunno, maybe read a few of your own posts on how you need to be a better christian, or something. Who knows, maybe you and your bible obsessing friends can have a circlejerk of your own over there.

- Canucklehead.

Captain Stubing said...

"You're the one that tried to take an idiom and turn into an exact number. LOL. You just accused someone of being anal in the same thread you're being anal. Too funny."

You're evading the issue slick. Cool, I'll take that. Next.

Captain Stubing said...

"Wow, you realise the embarrassment over being wrong is quite minimal when you're under an anonymous screen name right?"

Say whaaat slick? Yeah of course, but so what? Would you have a mouth on you like that if you weren't anonymous?

Captain Stubing said...

"Which has what to do with anything? You posted verses that were written long before Jesus' life."

Er. Not in relation to whether Jesus was or wasn't a pacifist I didn't.

Try to keep up with the conversation slick. You're all over the place.

"So your point here was....????"

Are you high or something? The point is crystal clear. I asked for you to show how Jesus wasn't a pacifist. You come back with a text written by someone else long after Jesus was dead about hypothetical stuff Jesus was going to do at some point after he expired.

It tells us nothing about what Jesus was like during his lifetime slick.

"If you're trying to make the claim that because the book was written by someone else after Jesus' death than we would have to throw out the whole Bible, since none of it was written during his actual physical existence."

True, virtually nothing was written about Jesus during his lifetime. But at least the Gospels are about his life, for the most part.

"For that matter, throw out most of ancient history."

In relation to Jesus being a pacifist or not, I most certainly will slick.

Captain Stubing said...

"I also quoted you a verse where Jesus said quite clearly He isn't here for peace, but brings a sword, but you're reading what you want as I said."

Actually no slick. I'm trying to read what you're now pretending you wrote, and it's not for lack of me wanting to read it, it's for lack of YOU HAVING WRITTEN IT.

It ain't there cutie.

"The violence by the way, is quite relevant,"

if it were related to what Jesus said or did, which it isn't.

"since you said Jesus was/is a pacifist and you simply ignore an entire book about Him entitled "The Revelation of Jesus Christ". Interesting."

Way interesting. Not. Doesn't matter what the book is called, it's about a bunch of hypothetical stuff that Jesus didn't actually do during his lifetime, so it tells us exactly zip about whether Jesus was a pacifist or not slick.

If I published a book called "The Further Adventures of Highboy" in which I made you out to be a calm, kind person with absolutely no anger issues who farms little pink bunny rabbits and in the next life will be married to Jessica Alba, would that make any of those things true?

Anonymous said...

Oh and relative to all the condescension concerning religious knowledge, it looks like we non believers have you guys beat there too.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/09/non-believers_know_more_about.php

I figured I'd go with scienceblogs as they are now one of Radar's preferred sources. This line from the article is probably my favourite "The nasty explanation: Of course believers know less about it than non-believers; if they were more educated they'd stop believing.". He he.

- Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

It is a good comedy how you trolls let your keyboards write checks your brain obviously can't cash. LOL. Thanks for the compliment.

You're welcome. :-)

Please continue to be entertaining by trying to be insulting. ;-)

Anonymous said...

"The 10 Commandments, according to Jesus are summed up in two of them: Love God and love others. Its odd how skeptics keep trying to make this so complicated when its written quite clearly in the Bible. So as Jesus said, the "rules" you keep trying to attribute to Christians are as Jesus says, the above two commandments."

So the ten commandments are moot, replaced by the above two.

Yes or no?

radar said...

Canucklehead, just keep in mind that, if I am right, there is a God who judges all people and all things. Your ignorant rants against God and His people are an insult to Him. Your ignorant rants against military personnel are just moronic. You can be the grasshopper on the train tracks and shake your fist at the train but when it comes you will find that your feet are stuck to the tracks and then what will you do?

If we are all the result of random processes how do we think logically and with intent and purpose? If the Universe has a random cause would it not consist of random systems and laws? How would such a Universe maintain itself? How do you know you even exist? You are remarkably sure of yourself considering you probably do not have any absolutes upon which to stand. You are flying by the seat of your pants.

Anonymous said...

Uh-oh, Radar is waving the white flag already.

highboy said...

"So the ten commandments are moot, replaced by the above two.

Yes or no?"

No. The two commandments are a part of the 10 commandments, so how can we say the 10 commandments are replaced by two of the 10 commandments?

Stub: "You're evading the issue slick. Cool, I'll take that. Next."

Another lie I see.

"Say whaaat slick? Yeah of course, but so what? Would you have a mouth on you like that if you weren't anonymous?"

Come to Altoona, PA and I'll be happy to meet you face to face. Unlike canuck, I don't have internet tough guy syndrome.

"Er. Not in relation to whether Jesus was or wasn't a pacifist I didn't."

You posted them as a reference to how CHRIST'S followers were suppose to act. YOU try to keep up with the conversation slick.

"Are you high or something? The point is crystal clear. I asked for you to show how Jesus wasn't a pacifist. You come back with a text written by someone else long after Jesus was dead about hypothetical stuff Jesus was going to do at some point after he expired."

Pretty relevant book, since a large portion of it were suppose to be His own words, and the acts He promised to do would not follow under the "pacifist" category.

"It tells us nothing about what Jesus was like during his lifetime slick."

What about "I came not to bring peace, but a sword" is being a pacifist? If you're simply trying to argue He didn't fight back when He was suppose to be crucified that's one example, but He took on the Pharisees, Jews, even His own hometown all throughout His lifetime. He never once backed down. That's not a "full on pacifist" no matter how you slice it slick. Keep trying though.

highboy said...

"By the way, I have a very good idea about how old you are, you, on the other hand, have no idea how old I am. Keep guessing bro. Now why don't you go back to that pathetic little blog of your own and hide out there for a little while, I dunno, maybe read a few of your own posts on how you need to be a better christian, or something. Who knows, maybe you and your bible obsessing friends can have a circlejerk of your own over there."

Actually I think I'll just stay here and watch the grey canucklehead continue to blog from his mother's basement. Its quite hysterical how you keep trying to paint me as this angry insulting person when you have yet to write a single post on this blog that wasn't without either hate or insults. Admit it, you're pissed off you're a grey Canadian living in a globally significant iceberg and you suffer from internet tough guy syndrome. Problem is, you're not strong enough in your ideology and frankly don't have the intellect to properly defend any of your positions or to properly attack anyone else's. That makes you angry and you have to project it, we get it, but let's not pretend that the anger isn't there. No one is foolish enough to believe that.

Anonymous said...

I LOL'd at those comments, highboy, but I didn't ROFL like usual.

If you want to keep your level of entertainment up I'd suggest you use some new vocabulary. I mean, we've seen the 'mother's basement' and 'internet tough guy' a bit too often now.

6/10

You can do better, highboy! Come one!

highboy said...

"You can do better, highboy! Come one!"

You anonymous trolls are the teenagers trying to turn every thread into an internet smack off. If you were capable of saying something productive, you and canuck would have done so. I do tend to play down to my competition though, you're right about that. LOL.

Anonymous said...

LOL, nice highboy! You see: a little encouragement can do wonders, hmmm? Too bad you had to recycle the old 'anonymous troll' lingo, but anyway...
Not sure where you see a competition though...unless it's a competition for cramming the most insults into a reply, LOL!

But anyway; it's always amusing to see you turn your friend's blog into a flamefest.

Keep it up!

Anonymous said...

Oh, and by the way; it wasn't as bad as I first thought because I'd missed this little gem of yours:

"Come to Altoona, PA and I'll be happy to meet you face to face. Unlike canuck, I don't have internet tough guy syndrome."

Really one of the most hilarious things I've seen posted on any internet forum/blog in quite some time! This is a true 10/10! Congrats!

Anonymous said...

hb, I'm not to sure why you aren't putting things together here. It seems pretty simple, really.

First things first though, were you aware that you confessed to being angry a bunch of comments ago? You said,
"No, I'd rather just vent my anger by bullying my inferior Canadian troll canuck."
Now, I understand that furiously pounding out angry and boastful comments about your bullying prowess makes it hard to remember everything you've typed. But as you can see, you admitted to being angry and needing to vent. Which is fine, I mean, I'll gladly deflect some of that if it means that your wife/kids/dog are spared some of it.

Oh and I don't blog, you and Radar do that, I just comment. And, I should point out that I comment on Radar's blog and not your lonely little outpost. I respond to Radar's insulting tone. I respond to his overblown sense of self importance. I respond to Radar's intellectual dishonesty. You, on the other hand, choose to react to my reactions. And of course cruse the comments section for an opportunity to lay a biblical smackdown on anyone that dares to mention that there are contradictions in the bible (and there ARE contradictions by-the-way). Tell me, does it make you a little sad that the absolute best use of your theological education is "working over" dudes in internet comments sections because they aren't schooled in the latest brand of christian apologetics.

If I ran a blog attacking christians, I can understand why you might be really mad, but being angry about someone defending their beliefs (albeit in a snarky and sarcastic way) seems like a waste of energy to me.

You say "Admit it, you're pissed off you're a grey Canadian living in a globally significant iceberg and you suffer from internet tough guy syndrome."
And then you go on to talk about my lack of intellect but, dude, you can't even think of your own insults. I call you an "internet tough guy" (and, then prove my point by challenging an anonymous commenter to a fist fight fight - just like jesus would do) and then you, of course, call me one. I say you're pissed off and you say I'm pissed off. I call you on your anger, you admit it, and then try to tell me that I'm the one that's angry. I mean come on, get your own material buddy. Oh and thanks for recognizing that we are "significant". That said, looking outside today, I'd have to admit that it looks pretty iceberg-ey. Although, it is the middle of winter right now. You'll have to trust me, summers up here are lovely.

And seriously how many times are you going to go to the "mother's basement". Weak, weak, effort there. Come on hb, I just know you can be WAY more insulting.

- Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

Whenever I visit this blog I feel a bit like a disaster tourist.

It's fascinating, in a watching-a-train-wreck kinda way.

radar said...

Canucklehead and Highboy, this shouting contest is completely irrelevant. You have made it a personal insult contest, let it go.

Canucklehead, you think I am dishonest? I think you do not want to admit uncomfortable truths. Your tone is generally very brusque, so I am a bit hard on you sometimes but I do not think anybody needs to get crazy. Plus you shouldn't be calling anyone arrogant until you have checked yourself. I am not arrogant, but when people go overboard I can be sarcastic. There is a difference.

Bottom line, I should probably shut down comments on this post so you two will quit yelling at each other. You will wake the neighbors and the dogs will start barking. How about simply being thankful that a bunch of folks who are at an age that, if they are alive, they check the obits daily to look for friends, how about being thankful that they risked their lives (Canadian troops fought in WWII also) to allow you to live freely?

Anonymous said...

Highboy, have you ever considered the possibility of spreading Christian values by acting in some kind of exemplary fashion?

You might want to reflect on this when you get a chance. Read through your comments and try to imagine how they may be perceived, and how they reflect on Christians in general.

Food for thought, that's all.

Anonymous said...

"No. The two commandments are a part of the 10 commandments, so how can we say the 10 commandments are replaced by two of the 10 commandments?"

Well, you did say the 10 commandments have been fulfilled in Jesus. So the question is, are those still valid? And if they are, what about the rest of the OT?

BTW, since when are "love God" and "love others" part of the 10 commandments? Did I miss a memo?

Captain Stubing said...

"Pretty relevant book, since a large portion of it were suppose to be His own words, and the acts He promised to do would not follow under the "pacifist" category."

I hear "The Further Adventures of Highboy" also features a lot of things that are supposed to be your own words, but you wouldnt want me to hold those against you would you slick?

"You posted them as a reference to how CHRIST'S followers were suppose to act. YOU try to keep up with the conversation slick."

Yeah, I quoted from the Bible in reference to how Christians are supposed to act. Funny that. Then we got on to how Jesus as a person was a pacifist. Different part of the conversation altogether, get it bud?

Those quotes weren't about who or what Jesus was as a person centuries later. See, the conversation had moved on. And you didn't keep up sport.

You're off on some other planet aren't ya? Somewhere between the Blind Aggression Nebula and the Overbearing Pride Constellation, spinning out of control.

Captain Stubing said...

"Come to Altoona, PA and I'll be happy to meet you face to face. Unlike canuck, I don't have internet tough guy syndrome."

Street address please, otherwise all you're doing is displaying internet tough guy syndrome.

Captain Stubing said...

"Stub: "You're evading the issue slick. Cool, I'll take that. Next."

Another lie I see. "

Nope, clearly the truth as shown in the preceding comments slick.

Captain Stubing said...

"What about "I came not to bring peace, but a sword" is being a pacifist?"

What was the context, and do you think he was referring literally to a sword?

Anonymous said...

Come on highboy, I know you can do it!

Anonymous said...

"No. The two commandments are a part of the 10 commandments, so how can we say the 10 commandments are replaced by two of the 10 commandments?"

Well, you did say the 10 commandments have been fulfilled in Jesus. So the question is, are those still valid? And if they are, what about the rest of the OT?

BTW, since when are "love God" and "love others" part of the 10 commandments? Did I miss a memo?

highboy said...

Wow, too much foolishness to respond to it all, so I'll just stick to the relevant parts.

"I hear "The Further Adventures of Highboy" also features a lot of things that are supposed to be your own words, but you wouldnt want me to hold those against you would you slick?"

You're arguing that Jesus was a pacifist based on the same concept. Get it now slick?

"Yeah, I quoted from the Bible in reference to how Christians are supposed to act. Funny that. Then we got on to how Jesus as a person was a pacifist. Different part of the conversation altogether, get it bud?"

1. You quoted from a portion of the Bible that had nothing to do with how Christians are suppose to act, didn't mention Christ, couldn't mention Christ, Christians didn't exist, but otherwise, you're right I'm sorry. Very good reference.
2. You said Jesus was a full on pacifist and completely dismissed a book showing otherwise because it was written by someone else after He died, meanwhile the only way you could say He WAS a pacifist is to go by a book written by someone else after He died. Get it bud?

"Those quotes weren't about who or what Jesus was as a person centuries later."

No, they were written by someone else centuries BEFORE, and you wrote them to show how they were supposedly Christian values to follow. I'm simply pointing out, repeatedly, how utterly false that is.

"What was the context, and do you think he was referring literally to a sword?"

Of course its not a literal sword, that actual smiting comes, according to Him, at His return. (being the pacifist and all) He stood his ground to all the Pharisees, Romans, Jews, everyone. That is the exact opposite of a "full on pacifist". You're simply wrong, and embarrassingly so to say otherwise.

highboy said...

"Canucklehead, you think I am dishonest? I think you do not want to admit uncomfortable truths."

If you want me stop engaging with the troll I will, but your above assessment radar is just wrong. You have a core group of dissenters that engage and debate with you, sometimes heatedly, but there is always a back and forth and usually the core dissenters make arguments and use resources to support them one way or the other, and you do the same. With trolls, you get no argument, you get no facts, you get no sources, you get nothing but "ha ha you're stupid" and that's pretty much it. Its a pity some of your anonymous posters don't at least use some type of screen name like Jon does so at least you can distinguish some of the productive commenters from those whose entire goal is to attempt to piss you off.

highboy said...

Excuse me, anonymous whoits, but when did I say trolls bother me? Never. You keep pointing out that I'm feeding Canuck like I care one way or the other. All I'm simply pointing out is that radar's assessment of canuck's ridiculous posts was wrong, that its not about a lack of wanting to admit uncomfortable truths. Its simply about canuck not being able to adequately defend his own positions, nor being able to adequately attack the positions of others, hence his personal assault on radar since day one.

"If there's such a thing as being embarrassed on the internet; getting a slap on the wrists from your own friend for turning his blog into a personal insult contest would surely rank high on the list of 'internet embarrassments'."

You obviously have a different perspective of what a slap on the wrist is. As for your other comment, why don't you let me decide for myself what bothers me and what doesn't? You guys all posting under "anonymous" doesn't do anything but hurt your own credibility. If you think you're making a point by confusing every thread radar posts by every argument being posted under the same "anonymous" you're sorely mistaken. I could care less if you use it or not. But don't be surprised when comments get attributed to you that you actually didn't make.

Anonymous said...

Excuse me, anonymous whoits, but when did I say trolls bother me? Never.

I never said you did. I simply pointed out that you reply to a troll by calling him a 'troll' like you so often do, is quite contradictory and counter-productive. Apart from that I wanted to make you aware of the consequences of your behaviour towards trolls might have for Radar's blog. But maybe you don't care about that. Fine by me; it's not MY blog.


"You keep pointing out that I'm feeding Canuck like I care one way or the other."

Where did I mention Canuck? And if you didn't care you wouldn't reply. If you reply for your own amusement you care. If you reply out of anger you care.

"You obviously have a different perspective of what a slap on the wrist is."

Other people also have a different perspective of what 'embarrassment' is. That doesn't keep you from pointing out to them what you find 'embarrassing'.

I really advise you read up a bit on internet etiquette. I would spare you a lot of frustration and wasted time. Or keep doing what you do.

Whatever...

Anonymous said...

"No, they were written by someone else centuries BEFORE, and you wrote them to show how they were supposedly Christian values to follow"

Exactly how is something having been written centuries before Jesus arrived on the scene indicative that it should not be a Christian value to follow? The Ten Commandments are alive and well among Christians, aren't they?

Anonymous said...

"You said Jesus was a full on pacifist and completely dismissed a book showing otherwise because it was written by someone else after He died, meanwhile the only way you could say He WAS a pacifist is to go by a book written by someone else after He died."

I had a look at the comments above, and it seems the argument was not just that it was written by someone else after he died (since that is the case with all the Gospels), but that it didn't contain anything Jesus did in his lifetime.

Anonymous said...

"He stood his ground to all the Pharisees, Romans, Jews, everyone. That is the exact opposite of a "full on pacifist"."

You're confusing pacifism with "not standing one's ground". Gandhi was a pacifist yet stood his ground.