We all know the media lie to us. Long gone (if they ever existed to begin with) are the days of objective journalism which was intended to inform and educate the reader. Now, our journalism schools are pumping out half-baked excuses for “reporters” who seem to be trained at trying to get around all evidences and push the leftist party line. Sometimes it’s blatant, but sometimes it’s a little more subtle.
Scientists create liver cells from human skin
British scientists have grown liver cells out of stem cells from human skin, boosting hopes that healthy cells can be transplanted into organs to repair damage from diseases like cirrhosis and cancer, according to new findings.
Cambridge University researchers took skin biopsies from seven patients suffering from various hereditary liver diseases, and from three healthy patients, “reprogramming” the skin samples into stem cells which can effectively become any tissue in the body.
For the first time, such cells were used to mimic a range of liver diseases, according to the findings published in Wednesday’s Journal of Clinical Investigation.
Sounds great, right? Well, it IS great! This is just one more in a long line of advancements in the use of stem cells to find and develop all kinds of therapies to treat any number of diseases and infirmities which afflict mankind.
But it was done using ADULT stem cells. Skin cells taken from the liver patients themselves, in fact.
Now, notice what the staff writer at AP sort of slides in a little later down in the article,
The success comes as a debate swirls in the United States on research involving human embryonic stem cells, after a US judge Monday blocked federal funding for stem cell research.
Christian organisations had argued that federal funding would go for research that involved destroying human embryos, which they said violated a 1996 law.
Many scientists see embryonic stem cells as essential for medical research as they have a unique ability to become virtually any cell in the body.
“Given the shortage of donor organs — the liver in this case — the development of alternatives is urgent,” said the findings’ lead author, Tamir Rashid of Cambridge University.
“Our study raises the possibility of developing such alternatives, either by developing new treatments or developing a cell therapy approach,” he said.
Now isn’t that interesting? Somehow we went from a discussion of actual scientific results derived from an adult stem cell therapy, to theoretical possibilities derived from embryonic stem cells. So, we urgently need ESC research since embryonic stem cells have this “unique” ability to become any cell in the body. An ability that is somewhat similar, apparently, to the ability of adult skin cells to become liver cells.
Indeed, as anyone who’s been following the progress of stem cell research will know, adult cells have been shown to have a “unique” ability to be turned into a large number of cell types. This done through what are called “induced pluripotent stem cells” (IPSCs). It has also been shown that stem cells obtained from, among other things, umbilical cord blood and bone marrow, can also be used to generate cells useful in this type of therapy.
Meanwhile, the actual state of affairs with embryonic stem cells, despite the stated “urgency” for obtaining them, has been that this type of stem cells have been a dead end, research-wise. And that’s not for a lack of trying. Remember – the US government has not “banned” embryonic stem cell research. It merely stated that public funds may not be used to support this type of research. Corporate funding and university research funded through private donations is still entirely legal, and has been going on for years. It just hasn’t produced anything worth speaking of.
Invariably, when you see an article proclaiming the next great therapy derived from stem cells, reading the fine print shows that it was done using adult stem cells. Every time. Hence, the effort in articles like this one to conflate ASC and ESC research in the minds of the readers is…sneaky…at best. The less charitable might even call it “bald-faced lying.”
Naturally, as an added bonus in this article, there’s the ever-present gratuitous reminder that “Christian groups” want to keep people with horrible genetic diseases from being healed. Get it? Get the meme? Jesus went around healing people, while the American Family Association wants you to die of some horrible liver disease.
Now, there may be some of the “I only care about economic issues” type goobers out there reading this and thinking, “Who cares?”
Well, YOU should care. Because guess what? If the media are lying about stem cell research this way, so as to induce the American people to support the left-wing agenda, then you know they lying about any number of other issues. Guns. Taxes. Debt. Role of government in our lives. You name it. We KNOW the media are doing this. That’s why you should care. If the media are trying to trick people into making an invalid connexion with regards to stem cell research, they are also doing it to try to sway people – falsely – away from taking the right stances on issues YOU care about, too.
Face it, folks – conservatives are in this together. Not fiscal conservatives vs. social conservatives. CONSERVATIVES. You either stand for it all, or you’re not really standing for any of it. Fight on the issues of the day, but understand this – if we go splitting ourselves up into little factions because a certain set of issues aren’t really our cup of tea, then the left – with their media running dogs at the fore – will continue to get away with this sort of purposeful solecism, and half of conservatism will sit by and let them get away with it. It’s time we start thinking long-term.
This is kinda like the memo that went out to the media (ap) telling them not to mention the word “mosque” in regards to the ny mosque.
@ Centrist:
Hey welcome aboard! I love your avatar!
You hit it right on the head with this one. They (the MSM) use every opportunity to demonize the Christians in this country. Add to that fact that most reporters are CLUELESS on what they are reporting on especially when it comes to science or the military.
You’ve got it right.
It’s the pro-abortion lefties at it again. They want to increase the total number of abortions simply because, at the root of it all, they hate human beings.
You have to understand. Destroying human embryos is a potent sexual fetish of the Left, and all such sexual fetishes must be satisfied. Abortion is good, but that requires the consent of the female (some call that the “mother”). Wouldn’t it be better for all concerned to simply creat human embryos that could then be destroyed for delicious sexual pleasure? We wouldn’t want to get rid of abortion, mind you. Some people like that retro-kick, but the rest need to move into the future where we can destroy human embryos for the pure pleasure of it!
(You probably think this is sarcasm…)
@ Rodan:
Thanks! I can’t credit for the avatar, the h/t goes to J$, I robbed it from olbermannwatch.com yrs ago.
@ 1389AD:
Actually I don’t think they hate all humans, just certain ones. Abortion and Planned Parenthood, at their core, are racist in concept. Get rid of a kid thats a “mistake” and also get rid of the peasants, poor and stupid. Its the ultimate in selfish behavior. I don’t want to be affected by any mistake I make so I’ll just make it go away. And those poor, smelly people.. I can make them go away also so I don’t have to deal with them.
Well you got half of it… And not one single useful therapy has been developed from embryonic stem cells despite more than 30 years of research.
Iron Fist wrote:
Hell, that POS Obungler himself voted that babies that survive abortions should be killed. That’s infanticide. How in God’s name can anybody vote for a sick fuck like that?
@ doriangrey:
Yeah, if there were a successful therapy using embryonic stem cells, the inventor would be famous, because the MFM and the Left would laud him or her constantly. Every time the issue came up, they’d point to it and crow. They don’t because they can’t. They’ve never even came close. If it weren’t fo rthe cheerleading on the left, it would be abandoned altogether.
doriangrey wrote:
That well-known scientist Michael J. Fox disagrees with you…
//
@ Bob in Breckenridge:
Joe’s Abortion Parlor! You rape ‘em, we scrape ‘em! Every abortion comes with a dead baby guarantee!
Centrist you are new?
I haven’t seen you around before.
Welcome.
@ Iron Fist:
Ouch.
@ lobo91:
That breaks my heart. My very first crush was on Alex Keaton… now when I see Michael J Fox all I can think is – delusional.
Bless.
@ typicalwhitey:
Yeah really! ew ew ew eeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwww
In fact embryonic stem cells [which aren't yer own
] cause great harm.
Similar to circulating your drug chemistry through a baboon’s red, inflamed-looking arse tissue is bad for ya.
@ m:
I aim to please
Btw, at 1.0 they are openly mocking the latest post.
Adult stem cell research is doing some amazing things.
There has, as far as I know, nothing that has come from embryonic research.
m wrote:
Not just delusional, but drowning man pushing those near him underwater trying to stand on them to keep himself from drowning delusional. I loved his work, but am utterly repulsed that he advocates killing the defenseless to try to save his own life.
Iron Fist wrote:
And that’s why the left has such vitriolic HATE for Sarah Palin.
Giving birth to a Downs Syndrome baby just doesn’t fit their modern woman mold.
@ Centrist:
I used to be on Olbermannwatch many moons ago.
I’m shocked you don’t recognize this nick.
2005-2007 were teh ebst years there.
@ typicalwhitey:
Yeah and I’m sure they are forthcoming with all of those GREAT examples of ESC wonder.
/
@ typicalwhitey:
Of course they are. I think we should be able to harvest their stem cells. Why not? Adult stem cell research has done some amazing things…
@ m:
Hi beauty, have you seen this ?
@ Iron Fist:
Oh yeah, that’s what you’re aiming for! LOL!
@ Iron Fist:
Progressives love killing humans. Robespierre, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot enjoyed murder. Margaret Sanger and Woodrow Wilson were hard core Eugenicists. Obamacare is all about Eugenics and determining who lives or dies.
Iron Fist wrote:
Those cells would just multiply the stupid LOL.
You know when I first read this, I was hoping it was something that would help my Dad.
Too bad it will take so long to be used.
Bob in Breckenridge wrote:
I agree. However, I can’t help but wonder about the “health-care” professionals that would allow a baby that survived an abortion to perish. It must have something to with the rationalizations they have to go through to avoid acknowledging they have had a hand in murder.
Iron Fist wrote:
BTW Iron, I was talking about cj’s post.
Not ours.
As we are drifting off topic, I wonder if this is the same Omar Rivera?
Even if it is there is no excuse for what he did. maybe understanding of the reasons, but no excuse.
http://www.4to40.com/legends/index.asp?p=To_Ground_Zero_:_Omar_Rivera_and_his_guide_dog_Salty
Later
@ Guggi:
I had not. Thank you!
I wonder if he’ll title it… “Draw mo – and face the consequences! ! !”
@ Rodan:
It is about power, ul;timately. Having the power over who lives and who dies. I imagine it is quite a rush. Addictive. It is what keeps serial killers at their work…
@ Iron Fist:
Dexter is the only one worth saving!
They used adult stem cells on my Aunt for her leukemia.
She died anyway.
@ Possum:
Oh, he’s blind. Sounds like a good defense to me, “well it SMELLED like the urinal!”
@ m:
I thought about getting the Mo-bomb-head cartoon done as a tattoo, but decided I wasn’t quite that brave…
@ NoThreat2U:
I am sorry.
@ m:
Who is Dexter?
@ Iron Fist:
He is on a tv show. He is a serial killer.
A cute one LOL.
@ Iron Fist:
Brave hell! I wouldn’t put a depiction of that piece of shit on my body for anything in the world.
*spit*
Talk about one you’d regret…
@ Possum:
Is that they guy who went into a mosk and peed on the prayer rugs?
Oh well, if I had a penis I would whip it out an piss all over them too
@ typicalwhitey:
It’s OK. Thank you, but I believe she is in a better place
@ typicalwhitey:
Yeah and he gets PROOFS before he takes out the crazies the system lets loose…
Besides being a cutie patootey ~:D
Great article, tqcincinnatus! I’ve noticed this in the media for a while now. Especially the gratuitous use of adjectives that are meant to drive emotion.
NOw in regards to embryonic stem-cells, I find it fascinating that there seems to be a designed failsafe, or killswitch that forbids humans to kill someone in order to prolong the life of someone else. I just love how God pays attention to all the little details!
@ NoThreat2U:
1.0 posted about that and most of the posters over there are mocking it LOL.
NoThreat2U wrote:
A friend of mine just started his own business, making land mines that look like prayer rugs. It’s doing well. He says Prophets are going through the roof!
BuddyG wrote:
Yuk yuk… :shocked:
@ typicalwhitey:
LOL LOL LOL
@ BuddyG:
+1 and a ^5 for you!
@ vapig:
There are a lot things that God puts in our way to stop us from doing stupid and sinful things. We as humans have free will and can override it. Thats what is happening. People rationalize that what they are doing is legal so it must be right.
Oh good God almighty! ! !
Russell Simmons Unveils “Coexist” Banner Near Ground Zero
There’s only one symbol in that banner that doesn’t want co-existence with the rest!
New DOD!
The Jazz Man loves a good beating
@ m:
That is why it is used as the first symbol. All the other symbols are submitting properly, so everything is fine. Things would get ugly if one of them got out of order…
@ m:
Hmmm, I guess you can visualise an r out of a star. Wonder which Christ is it?
@ m:
I met him back in the mid 90′s. Me and the DJ crew I was at did an Album release party for LL COOl J and Simmons was the head of Def Jam at the time. He’s a Universalist and believes all religions are one. He means well but is blinded by the evil that is Islam.
Don’t worry—we can stop the invasion of the alien Fetusians!
Canadian Idol contestant arrested in Jihad plot
“You can’t judge me!”
lol
A future thread?
@ Iron Fist:
Christianity last on the pecking order. That is the Universalist view.
@ Iron Fist:
I always look at that coexist slogan as a giant pac-man (islam) gobbling up all the others with Christianity being the last to go…
@ Rodan:
Hey Rodan, I have an idea on a DOD.
Can I email it to the blogmocracy?
m wrote:
What’s a Muslim doing messing around with idols?
NoThreat2U wrote:
O/T, but as I get older I feel it is expected that I veer way off topic and reminisce.
I knew a girl in college that claimed she could write her name in the snow.
We could never convince her to prove it.
MikeA wrote:
Actually, I saw is as reading CHRIST.
Anyone else?
@ Rodan:
It spells Christ, The question is,,,,which one?
typicalwhitey wrote:
You know what’s sad? I strolled over to 1.0 (first time I’ve been there in about a year, I think) and checked it out. The only thing worth mentioning is that I *immediately* recognised the make and model of the shotgun held by that Enright guy in the picture from his Facebook page.
@ typicalwhitey:
Yeah, let them try to explain that crap to my boy Sampson.
@ typicalwhitey:
See 55
typicalwhitey wrote:
Sure!
MikeA wrote:
I always think of dangerously naivety. Then of unicorns, rainbows, and a sunny flower filled meadow……
@ waldensianspirit:
@ buzzsawmonkey:
There shall be no pet rocks before the Pet Rock…
Bob in Breckenridge wrote:
When I was accused of raaaaaacism for not supporting Obozo, I mentioned that as my reason. I never got a coherent answer to that.
citizen_q wrote:
Pretty good description of the whole Progressive thing: replacing Nativity scenes with Naivete scenes…
@ m:
I saw that. Good thing our RCMP were on the case and grabbed them on time.
@ Rodan:
Thanks, I sent it.
NoThreat2U wrote:
I have enough for two people, so you wanna borrow … never mind.
BuddyG wrote:
Yet they support the Muslims’ ‘right’ to cousin marriages, which significantly increase the likelihood of genetic disease.
snork wrote:
You know why women can’t measure?
……..
Because we have been told that this |……………….| is 6 inches one too many times!
typicalwhitey wrote:
Definitely threadworthy. I don’t have time to make it into one myself; I have some other stuff in the works that I need to finish.
Any takers??
waldensianspirit wrote:
Exactly, because Christ only means Messiah in Greek. It wasn’t Jesus’s name is is just a title.
@ citizen_q:
Make Hulk want smash…
@ citizen_q:
I am proud to say that I have never tried that. Although, peeing outside is difficult enough…it gets in your shoes. lol lol lol
@ snork:
Lemme get out my pocket knife…
@ snork:
Scrolling right along……
lol
The Israelis should still tell Turkey to fuck off.
Report: Turkey tells US will maintain friendly ties with Israel
If you need some real disinformation, lies and fraud, just read the libleral clap trap that yahoo’s open page puts out, stinks to high heaven. Shame and a disgrace.
ps
Take a look at the real weather, Pacfic cold front comeing on land northwest Washington State,,,, if you search the mountain areas inland you’ll find some 32F Friday and Sat night.
http://www.nws.noaa.gov
How much you want to bet that will be on any of the AP, yahoo, CBS, ABC, New YorkTimeout lie sheets ………
Ludwiggedout will freak out……
Charles would delete this and claim, “The Southern Proverty Law Center disproved that info years ago.”….
Rodan wrote:
Yes, his name is actually Yeshua Ha-Mashiach, or Yeshua the promised redeemer.
taxfreekiller wrote:
Tell me about it.
@ typicalwhitey:
Ha!!!!!!
@ NoThreat2U:
If you live on a farm and are a woman, you get REAL good at it!
@ NoThreat2U:
@ typicalwhitey:
Maybe it is because the only time I have had to pee outside I was drunk??? lol
What an unfortunate (?) headline, lol!
Manhattan judge probed after porn found on work computer
At least he was ripe for it!
The tsunami is coming and I am going to enjoy every second of it!
m wrote:
HAHAHAHAHAH!
PROBED! LOLOLOL
@ Rodan:
I remember you, Rodan. Florida, right?
@ m:
But were the probers aliens? If so, did they have their Little Green Card?
citizen_q wrote:
Long time ago I bet a lady bartender a beer that she couldn’t touch her elbows together behind her back. She tried and tried and I was mesmerized.
@ NoThreat2U:
Rodan wrote:
No it wasn’t it was an act of war.
@ BuddyG:
Did you tell her it would be easier if she leapt up and down?
BuddyG wrote:
I’ve always found that lady bartenders can do most anything they say
Nevergiveup wrote:
Have you ever seen one pick up a quarter tip without using her hands?
Check this shit out:
Count the absentee ballots, yes. That is what should happen. Run third party if her constituents tell her it is time to pack it in? Way uncool. That Washington, DC sense of entitlement infects everyone up there. That is the best arguement for term limits, IMHO. DC is like a toxic waste dump. Stay there too long and you will get contaminated.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
I’ve seen one throw a the bum out the bar for only leaving a quarter tip?
doriangrey wrote:
That’s why Jews aren’t Christians; when Jesus’ followers said he was the Messiah, the Jews said, “Yeah, sure…”
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
[self-deleted]
I have done enough to drag this thread into the gutter.
Nevergiveup wrote:
I was referring to a certain …facility that waitresses in dives were purportedly capable of performing with their nether regions…
Bumr50 wrote:
Yup
@ taxfreekiller:
I wish some of that cold front would reach us here in SoCal, it has been hot here for the last 2 months, no record temps, just our regular hot, but still it doesnt take long before you get tired of 103+ temps.
citizen_q wrote:
I dare ya!
@ buzzsawmonkey:
I’ve never seen a stripper take a quarter tip. I’ve seen them pick up a ten in some interesting ways, though…
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
And Christians should be fine with that. But unfortunately many get bent out of shape and don’t fully read Scripture to note the Covenant with Abraham lasts as long as the universe lasts.
Iron Fist wrote:
I saw a very interesting show once in Thailand that involved balloons and darts. What aim. A freakin’ sniper.
Last I checked the universe is still here.
Here ya go,
http://www.nws.noaa.gov
Chance of rain and SNOW Friday night, Pocatello, ID
and that is down at 7800 Elev.
@ taxfreekiller:
typicalwhitey wrote:
Yea, I about ready to vote for Jerry “the moonbat” Brown because Meg is a fucking Marxist whose business skills nearly killed Ebay.
@ BuddyG:
Makes you wonder how they develop these skills…
@ waldensianspirit:
Prove it…
@ doriangrey:
Brown never had the chance to kill EBay, or I’m sure it wouldn’t have been nearly. If y’all elect Brown, I’ll have no pity for you. Of course, I don’t have any now, so you won’t lose much. California hasn’t had a run of bad luck, she has a bad electorate, and has had since Reagan was President…
Iron Fist wrote:
Well, I can tell you where there’s a crab-infested nebulous…
@ Nevergiveup:
Well, lets just say there is more than one way to smoke a cigarette.
@ taxfreekiller:
Come on… Don’t you know it all about “climate change” now. Doesn’t matter what the weather does. Its all proof of man caused problems. Thats why the public is getting tired of it. They can’t predict the weather more than 12 hours ahead, they are going to tell me what it will be like 20 or 30 years from now? Also, the morphing of AGW to clmiate change has made most people think they are insane.
California wasted itself.
May be it would be something to get the Mexican Govt./Drug Cartel to buy, that way we get all the money and they get all the moonbat loon voters.
citizen_q wrote:
As in this story recounted by Bessie Smith’s aunt Ruby
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
The difference between Jew’s and Muslims is that if a Jew becomes a christian their family “might” disown them, if a Muslim converts to Christianity, their family kills them.
I dated a woman back in the 80′s who was a Jew by birth and a Christian by faith, her folks were a tad bit annoyed, but never ever considered disowning her, and her father was a orthodox Jew.
citizen_q wrote:
Ho boy
citizen_q wrote:
Dangerous Habit
Iron Fist wrote:
Ya, about that. I lived here when Jerry was Governor last time, believe it or not while he might be a barking moonbat he was not a bad governor. The only reason Meg did not kill Ebay is because the board of directors removed her before she could, it wasnt because she didnt try.
Jerry Brown is actually a old school Democrat, not a progressive Marxist, Meg Whittman is a progressive Marxist. You tell me which one is more dangerous.
Chris Cuomo of ABC on twitter:
@ Nevergiveup:
ho is right anyway, LOL!
m wrote:
Does he got anything in this century?
BuddyG wrote:
Reminds me of the first time I saved someones life. Drinking while sitting on a window ledge is a dangerous habit as well. Especially if you like to sway to the music.
m wrote:
So who exactly is that uneducated imbecile and why should I give a fuck what he tweets?
@ Nevergiveup:
Apparently not so he reverts to the old fail-safe.
pfft!
If he didn’t like that reaction, he’s definitely not going to like the next one.
doriangrey wrote:
Islam combines the militant evangelism of Christianity in its Constantine phase—that is to say, conversion by sword and conquest—with a debased version of Jewish law (halacha) that has all of the mercy and mitigation (rachmones) removed.
In other words, take the “eye for an eye” Biblical language which in Jewish jurisprudence is taken to indicate a just adjudication of monetary damages, interpret it absolutely literally—as we have seen in the recent Saudi judicial decision to sever a man’s spine because he caused injury to another man’s spine—and combine it with the worst features of the warrior evangelism that drove early Christian expansion, and you have the Islam of today.
Islam combines the worst elements of Christianity and Judaism—elements which both religions forsook long ago—with utter literalness, in a way neither Christianity nor Judaism has accepted for at least half a thousand years.
m wrote:
The only fools who ever fall back on the old Crusades line are those who are actually ignorant of history.
Centrist wrote:
That’s me!
doriangrey wrote:
Well, he does work for ABC…
citizen_q wrote:
I just had an interesting epiphany. My father was killed by a drunk driver. While not particularly heroic I have acted to save someone’s life twice, and both incidents involved the person’s life I saved drinking.
I am not moralizing, but just commenting on being struck by the commonality.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Good post.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
Sorry Buzz, but Christianity never had a “conversion by sword and conquest” phase, not even under Constantine. Rome did and Constantine did make Christianity the official religion of Rome, but you are clearly confusing the policies of Rome with those of Christianity.
doriangrey wrote:
From his ABC bio:
I think the short answer to your question is, “You shouldn’t.”
@ doriangrey:
You can give a fuck or not *shrug* but as to the other question, he’s an anchor on ABC 20/20
The Arab Lobby Rules America
Lost in all of the controversy over the mosque is the fact that the Arab lobby is one of the strongest in America—even stronger than Israel’s, says a controversial new book. Alan Dershowitz on how Arab governments influence U.S. politics.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Who did Constantine convert by the sword? The Romans were fighting defensive wars around the time that Roman Orthodox became the official religion of the Empire. There was a dispute with the Monophosites (Coptics and Maronites) but thatw as more about a unified Political religion.
Guggi wrote:
ROTFLMAO… Yea, and Barrack Obama is really a space Alien from Alpha Centaurus….
doriangrey wrote:
Oh, please.
@ doriangrey:
Exactly, hat Constantine did was no different than when Mithraism became the officla Roman Religion via the Sol Invictus cult. It was about Roman policy, not Christianity.. Before teh foundation of the Roman Orthodox (Both Catholic and Greek Orthox) Church at Nicea, the Christians never engaged in violence.
Also the Christian Roman Empire engaged in onlt defensive wars, they never conquered anyone.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
Now who is deluding themselves… (and no it isnt me)
@ buzzsawmonkey:
When did the Christian Romans force people by the sword to Christianity?
In fact, the Christians got Holy war from Islam, not the other way around.
Rodan? Atlassshrugs links to
http://www.lookingattheleft.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/elmarco-lookingattheleft-0012.jpg
Had you seen it? The Indians spell it out pretty clear.
@ m:
Just another example as to why you shouldn’t trust the media. This motherfucker can’t tell if it is the 12th century or the 21st century. As Bugs would say, “What a maroon!”
@ waldensianspirit:
Yup, the Indians nailed it.
doriangrey wrote:
He’s the one that snuck the Peripheral Canal in to steal water from the north and give it to the south. I hate him!
@ vapig:
All I know is he couldn’t be a bigger moonbat if he jumped up on the table and crowed like a rooster. California is FUBAR, anyway. We need to saw it off and drop it into the Pacific, sink or swim…
m wrote:
Obviously he’s never studied the crusades or why they took place!
@ Iron Fist:
Seriously. Wish I could reply to all of his 987,000 twitter followers.
Rodan wrote:
Watch out, Buzz is gonna whip out his Rabbi Kaplan text and beat you like a bad Matzo….
vapig wrote:
If you look at his bio, he’s a lawyer, not a historian or a religion expert.
Apparently, though, the fact that he can read a script off a teleprompter makes him an expert…
The Obamassiah is busy with the People’s Business:
If only our economy could get a vacation from his Presidency…
waldensianspirit wrote:
Yup, they got that 100 percent correct…
@ Iron Fist:
You like waving the red flag at it don’t ya
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
Sorry, bud. You’re way off there!
@ m:
And he probably saw “Kingdom of Heaven,” too.
So he’s clearly qualified to comment on the Crusades…
vapig wrote:
<—— Hello…. Lives in Southern California….
@ lobo91:
It appears to work for our illustrious President…
@ doriangrey:
He’s entitled to his opinion, but I never read about the Romans conquering and forcing Christianity on a people. After Constantine, the Empire was on the defensive from Barbarian Tribes, Sasasanian Persians and then Islam.
In Fact, The was the Romans fought with the Persians who were Zorastrian and Nestorian Christian, was never about religion. It was about control of the trade routes.
The Islam invasion of the Christian Roman Empire was about Arabic Supermacy AKA Islam.
@ waldensianspirit:
Yeeeee-Haaaaawwwwwww!
@ lobo91:
D’oh! I shoulda thought of that!
Iron Fist wrote:
Sigh…beautiful state spoiled by idjit people!
Guggi wrote:
Threadworthy.
@ Rodan:
The mostly-pagan Roman Empire did not become mostly-Christian (of whatever variant) merely by exhortation. To suggest that there were not conversions made at the edge of a sword is to deny reality; conversion or death at the sword’s edge (third option, sometimes, being expulsion) was common throughout Europe long after Constantine’s day, and long after the Roman Empire was a distant memory. Conversion, death or expulsion was the option given to the Jews and Muslims in Ferdinand and Isabella’s Spain; conversion, death or expulsion was the option given to the Huguenots of France. Conversion or death was the option which was given to the Arian heretics by other Christians. Forced conversion—alternative, death or expulsion—was routinely visited upon Jewish communities in what used to be called Christendom, and is today known as Europe.
To suggest that Christianity in its early years (and even after) was not spread (in part) by the sword is to deny reality. We can quibble about Constantine, if you wish—but that is to no purpose. I use him merely as a convenient referent to remind Christians that Christianity, too, was once upon a time spread by the sword as well as by persuasion. That’s not a problem; it was all long ago, and Christianity has long since abandoned behavior which is today still current practice among the followers of Mohammed.
That is my point: I have no doubt that 2500 or 3000 years ago, the Jewish law that has been a beacon of mercy for a mere 2000 years was (before it was ameliorated by jurisprudence) every bit as brutal as sharia is today. Christianity, too, has its brutal episodes in history—it would be absurd and dishonest to deny or whitewash them. The point is, however, that the very worst historical elements of both Judaism and Christianity, unameliorated by mercy, jurisprudence or reformation—elements long abandoned by both religions—are the foundational principles and guiding lights of the Islam of today. And that is where our own problem lies—not in some disagreement over whether Constantine was good or bad.
Iron Fist wrote:
Go for it, We have the 5th largest economy on EARTH, or one fifth, that’s right one fifth of the US economy. I’m pretty sure we would survive, the rest of ya’ll… Now that’s another story…
@ lobo91:
He seems to forget his own history. The Cuomos are Sicilian. The Muzzies invaded in the 800′s and seized it for the Eastern Romans (Byzantines) then the Norman Crusaders liberated Sicily from the Muzzies.
He’s an idiot.
lobo91 wrote:
Well, I’m not a historian or religion expert and I know how and why they happened. It’s not rocket science. It’s just another politician pushing one of those big lies.
@ vapig:
Oh, that is definately true. When Velvet Glove lived out there, I’d visit, and we’d go around the whole area looking at the land, trees, wildlife. It is gorgeous. But they’ve dug themselves a hole with their government that John Henry couldn’t dig them out of. They need to start by adopting a law similar to (but probably harsher than) Arizona’s on illegal immigration, outlaw the unions, and make the Democrat Party illegal. Then they might stand a chance, if there really is gold in them there hills…
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Continue to delude yourself if you wish Buzz, your examples do not show or prove what you claim they do, they show violent despotic rulers using whatever means was at their disposal to control the allegiances of their subjects, they show nothing what so ever regarding Christianity.
@ doriangrey:
You have a debt larger than your economy. I wish we could persuade you to seceede, but only if we ruled no foreign aid. Dude, face it, you all are fucked. Half of North Mexico has come there to plunder goods and services. You aren’t being invaded, you’ve been colonized…
Iron Fist wrote:
From your keyboard to God’s ears.
doriangrey wrote:
If you can show examples of where forced conversions—a common occurrence in European society up to modern times—were not accepted by, or were condemned, by, the local religious authorities, you have some semblance of a leg to stand on. Otherwise, you’re farting in the wind.
Iron Fist wrote:
ROTFLMAO… It’s bad but it aint that bad, our gross product is 4 trillion a year, our state government spends 400 billion a year, 35 billion more than it brings in in tax revenue. Cutting off social services to illegal aliens would eliminate 40 billion a year in state spending alone.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
You specuifically said Constantinian Christianity spread by the sword. So I was pointing out on that specificity. It became the offical religion of the Roman Empire and thus people converted because it was now the State religion. The Emperor who was perviously a God, now was the Regent of God on Earth. People converted becasue it was now the Patriotic religion of Rome. Where there some forced conversions, sure but that was standard Roman Policies. When it was the Sol Invictus, the Romans persecuted Christians and Jews becasue they didn’t give offerings to the Sun God. Internal persecution, is not the same as what Islam did.
Islam was spread by the sword explicitly to Non Arabs as a policy. The Christians Romans, never fought an offensive war in the name of Christianity. They were defensive in nature against Barbarians, Persians and then Arab Muslims.
Your other examples are valid, but that was after Christinaity came into contact with Islam. It was Islam that created the invade others and spread by the sword mentality. The Christians copied it from the Muslims.
So we are not in disagreement about the latter point, but I disagree that Islam copied Constantinian Christianity.
There definitely wasn’t a Samuel-like adviser to Constantine amongst the Christians he consulted with.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
Show where any where or any period in Christian history Christian doctrine advocated forced conversion. Christian theology and doctrine always condemned such behavior, it has never been acceptable. I don’t have to show you where we condemned it because our theology and doctrine have always condemned it.
@ Iron Fist:
Sorrty, Hispanic Immigration isn’t colonization. The Illegals are not even close to the majority of California Hispanics.
Rodan wrote:
I disagree Christianity never adopted those tactics, king and rulers adopted those tactics as political tools to maintain their iron grip on power. Christianity has never had any such theological doctrine and actual Christian theological doctrine has always opposed such actions.
@ doriangrey:
Yup, now The Catholic Church did to some degree but keep in mind, it had broken off from the Orthodox Church in 1054. In reality your point is correct, it was rulers who did it to create unified states and they copied the Muzzies.
doriangrey wrote:
Don’t really want to get int this, but does this suffice?
Edgardo Mortara
@ Rodan:
I used Constantine as an example because he is generally credited with “Christianizing” the Roman Empire. There may be flaws in my having used him as my example—I admit to not being as up on that period of history as I probably should be—but Constantine can take it; he’s long dead.
The larger point—that Christianity has been spread by the sword as well as the word—stands, even if Constantine is not the best example of this. I’m not trying to dump on Constantine, or on Christianity either; rather, I am pointing out that just as Islam takes what looks, superficially, like Jewish law, and administers it as if it were being implemented by a demented sadist, it takes the conversion by force which was employed, on occasion, by Christians and exalts it to the level of a fundamental principle.
Christianity, to its credit, has long foresworn conversion by force. And Judaism has long labored to ensure that even the harshest-sounding strictures of Torah law are administered in the most merciful manner possible. Islam has done neither of these things, and instead continues to exhibit, in the modern age, the worst elements from the history of both religions, which both religions have long abandoned and progressed beyond.
It is my objective to contrast the development and evolution of both Christianity and Judaism with the brutal stasis that is Islam, and to show that this is something Christianity and Judaism have in common, in contrast with the Muslim world. There is no purpose to quibbling over the details to the obscuring of the larger point.
Rodan wrote:
Buzz like most Jew’s has a problem with evangelism, and why would you blame him? Christianity is after all a cultist sect of Judaism, it’s messiah is a Jewish man, it’s founding fathers were Jewish men, it’s first and most important theologian was a Jewish scholar and theologian. For the first hundred years 90 percent of all Christians were Jewish people.
No one can blame Jewish people for not wanting their culture and heritage to be swallowed (if you are Jewish please feel free to read perverted and defiled here) up by a different culture, which is exactly what would happen if every Jew converted to Christianity.
citizen_q wrote:
Short answer, No.
@ doriangrey:
You are in deep denial. Enjoy!
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
No, the larger point is, no it does not stand. The larger point is you are attempting to propagate something that is every bit as much a fiction as that advanced in the late 1800′s and still to this day that average Christians before Gallaeo thought the world was flat.
That was a complete and total fiction just like your assertion that Christianity was advanced by the sword. Christianity was never advanced by the sword, various European empires were, and the vast majority of the individuals who lived in those empires were Christian there is however no connection between those two facts.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
I take it that is far from the shallow end of dee Nile
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
No, what I am is moderately well studied on Christian history, were you as well studied in Christian and Europe history as you are in Talmudic theology we would not be having this ridiculous and insulting discussion.
doriangrey wrote:
There is a word for what you are peddling here: bullshit.
One of the things that distinguishes America from the nations—and, before the nations, the city-states, principalities, mini-kingdoms, and empires of Old Europe—is that America rejected the concept of an established religion, which is to say a religion (Catholic, or Protestant, or even Orthodox—but in all instances a form of Christian) which was allied with and backed by the power of the state. That was, and is, a radical notion—one which flew completely in the face of European history from the fall of the Roman Empire until modern times. In point of fact, as has been noted on this site in a recent thread mocking England’s Prince Charles, the monarch of Britain is still styled “Defender of the Faith,” as s/he has been since the time of Henry VIII. The monarchies of Europe were always allied with whatever the “state” church was—and in the Papal States, the monarch and the religious authority were one.
For you to declare, as you do repeatedly in this thread, that the monarchies of Europe were not, for most of Europe’s post-Roman history, closely allied (for the most part) with their local church authorities at least to the extent of enforcing compliance with the local orthodoxy (however much they may have also, at the same time, been at war with these same church authorities for the upper hand of power) is to show that you have bought into a fantasy history that renders every single comment of yours utterly worthless.
And, by the way, Edgardo Mortara, whom you casually dismiss, is very much to the point; torn from his family at the age of six by the Papal Inquisitorial Police, on the strength of an illiterate maid’s claim that she had secretly baptized him, this does not count as an example of forced conversion to you? How dishonest on your part; how despicable.
rats.
i missed a great debate.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Oh, there goes Buzz on his I’m smarter and more educated than everybody else hobby horse. I wondered how long it would be before you pulled that BS.
What I really can’t figure out here is whether you really can’t understand or just prefer your perverted version of history.
I guess it’s safest to assume you do understand and just prefer to be insulting. But I will try one last time, claiming to do something in someone name does not make you that someone’s agent.
King’s throughout Europe made claims, not because they were true, but because the claim gave them an appearance of authority. Europe was struggling to throw off hereditary rulers; those rulers needed something to bolster their claims to authority, by supplanting Christianity they assumed the mantle of divine right to rule.
The only dishonest or disputable thing here is you attempting to use a single isolated incident as proof of a consistent systematic point of theological doctrine. If anyone should be ashamed or embarrassed Buzz, it is you.
@ doriangrey:
I haven’t said a thing about my education, sweets—if, however, it shows, I make no apologies for that, nor do I grieve over your snarly little anger at feeling as dumb as your posts make you out to be.
The Church supported the divine right of kings, don’t you remember? Why do you claim, falsely, that “Europe was struggling to throw off hereditary rulers” when hereditary rulers still sit on several European thrones (with nobody trying to “throw them off”) and—with the exception of Cromwell’s rule, the Napoleonic interregnum and the various French republics—Europe and Britain were entirely ruled by hereditary rulers up through WWI?
The Mortara case is of note merely because it is the most recent instance of a forced conversion, occurring so late in modern history that it was considered an outrage both in Europe and in the Americas. It is by no means the only one.
You, with an unfailing instinct for the capillary, appear to be obsessed with declaring that Christianity was never spread by the sword. This is nonsense; no honest Christian would maintain such a position. I am prepared to agree that Hitler’s regime was not “Christian,” though it exploited centuries of Christian antisemitism in the service of furthering its barbaric acts and Hitler himself, nominally a Catholic, was never excommunicated by the Pope. But to suggest that Christianity was never, in the course of its 2000-year history, spread by the sword—which is what you are contending—is risible. The Hundred Years War, alone, renders that contention nonsense, as does the ongoing rivalry between England and Spain which owed as much to the religious disagreements between newly-Protestant England and Catholic Spain as it did to economic/colonial rivalries.
As usual, you have offered nothing save abuse and generalities to bolster your wholly unsupported contentions. It appears that you believe Christianity needs “defending” from an attack I have not made; that unless Christian belief can be established as simon-pure and utterly peaceful since the death of Jesus (a nonsensical contention) it is somehow not worth defending…or something. Like so many zealots, you do not understand that recognition of change is acknowledgment of growth, and that it is the acknowledgment of growth that is important here, not the bankrupt defense of a fantasy “purity” that never existed.
and the debate gets nasty because people cant separate the debate from the debatee.
i guess nothing from thew past few days has sunk in.
why did we bother?
coldwarrior wrote:
Hey, somebody wants to get snotty, I like to let them know that that is a two-way street.
If doriangrey wants to provide some facts, we’ve got something to talk about—otherwise, it’s simply dealing with someone going “la, la, la—I can’t hear you,” which is juvenile and tiresome. He seems to think that he has to defend the honor of Christianity, or something; sadly, he does not realize that that is precisely what I have been doing.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
this is an example of what the admins were talking about the other evening. why does a good debate always have to go bad? it makes me sad to see this REGARDLESS OF WHO STARTS IT.
if i were here in real time, i would have agreed with you on your points after you clarified them.
now shake hands and try to agree to be better blogmocrats and avoid ad hominems, please…for my sanity…all yinz.
doriangrey wrote:
And herein lies the problem – the conversion, sword, burning at the stake, Inquisition stuff wasn’t “Christian” – at least not in any biblically acceptable sense of the word.
Calling something “Christian” and something actually being Christian are two entirely different things.
And this is also why BSM will have no standing if he tries to make a “No True Scotsman” argument…
tqcincinnatus wrote:
The continent of Europe was at least nominally “Christian” from the waning days of the Roman Empire onward until today—a period of some 1500 years or so—with the exception, of course, of those areas, like the Iberian Peninsula and, at times, the Balkans, that were conquered by Islam. It was, you might recall, known as “Christendom” during much of that time.
During that time, various populations—pagan holdouts, Jewish enclaves, Christians who did not belong to the proper dominant sect—were subjected to the options of convert, die, or leave. These options were inflicted on the subject populations in the name of Christianity, with the objective of making the subject populations putative Christians. There is no denying this.
The Christians can argue among themselves—and parse and backflip as they will, for that matter—to decide what is or is not “Christian” in their eyes. That it soothes them to decree such measures as “not Christian” is, I regret to say, a hollow pretense on their part; they were done in the name of Christianity as much as the destruction of the Towers was done in the name of Islam—and, if these staunch defenders of Christianity insist on getting a wholly unnecessary pass for these ancient atrocities because they are too gutless to own up to the fact that they were in fact done in the name of Christianity, however unjustly, they place themselves in the position of having to grant a pass to Islam for the destruction of the World Trade Center.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Jesus made the ultimate hollow pretense according to you. Where you error is claiming Christianity reformed. It didn’t reform; it restituted. Albeit there was always a remnant; a waldensian-like group carry the truth through dark days.
Were all kings of Israel good practitioners of Judaism?
waldensianspirit wrote:
I’m not making any claims whatever about Jesus—or about Christianity as such. I don’t consider myself qualified to do so, on a doctrinal basis, and have not tried to. That’s what you “defenders” don’t seem to comprehend; you’re “defending” against something I have not said.
Of course all the kings of Israel were not good practitioners of Judaism; the Prophets and Writings are quite clear on this. Nor, for that matter, were all the Jews/Israelites in ancient times, or more recent times, or today. I never claimed they were.
But we are not discussing such lapses from perfection—or at least I am not. What I was discussing was the way that Christianity operated in the real world, and the way Judaism operated in the real world, and contrasting them with the way Islam operates in the real world. All I said was that Christianity was spread in part by the sword—or, if you will, people espousing, or claiming to espouse, Christianity spread the observance of Christianity by the sword. Not an exceptional statement, in my view; it is a mere observation of what occurred, historically, long in the past.
My point, again, is that Christianity did do this—maybe not “properly,” maybe not in true adherence to proper doctrine, but it was done. It is no longer done, is the point—but is still done, in Islam, just as the black-letter harshness of Biblical law may well have been enforced without nuance or mercy or mitigation in the eras before Jesus, but is not read or understood that way in Judaism now—yet it is enforced in just such a merciless way in Islam.
You would think that people would be glad to view the difference between where Christianity and Judaism were in their respective infancies, and where they are today, and to realize that what we—Jews and Christians both—object to in Islam is the fact that it exemplifies the worst traits of both our respective religions in their infancies. But apparently, some people are more committed to ascribing the unfortunate excesses of some early Christians to the Eskimos than to looking at how far we have come.
tqcincinnatus wrote:
BSM is correct in is assertions. At the time the religious leadership was following what they called Christianity. The modern era doesn’t view it that way now. In the past was a different story. There were many instances of forced conversion, even from protestant to catholic and back again, especially during the Thirty years war. I haven’t seen BSM bring up the “No True Scotsman” argument, but others have.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
You’ll find I’m not a “defender”. But I simply saw the hollow pretense argument as juxtaposed to prophecy that Jesus made about many deceivers will come in his name.
In fact I’d just make trouble if I said what I think of organized religion
waldensianspirit wrote:
That prophecy is a reflection of the instructions in Deuteronomy to not heed a false prophet. All well and good, but really beside the point here; I have no interest in arguing whether Etheldred the Obese, ruler of the Grand Duchy of Swampland, was acting in a true Christian manner when he ordered all within his borders to submit to baptism or lose their heads. The point is, such things happened—and happened often—once upon a time, but do not do so any more, in Christianity, but do happen, today, in Islam.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
I completely agree with this edition.
[...] An Object Example of Why You Can't Trust the Media › 2.0: The … [...]
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
Hey bud, if you think you can make a case that any of this fits the New Testament pattern – whether operationally, soteriologically, ecclesiologically, or what have you – then feel free to try to make that case. If it doesn’t fit the New Testament pattern, then it doesn’t qualify as “Christian,” regardless of the terms people choose to apply.
PaladinPhil wrote:
See, that’s just it – you have to use the qualifier “what they called Christianity.” That doesn’t fly, however, since “Christianity” isn’t up for subjective definition. People don’t just get to do whatever, and call it “Christianity.” If the systematic behaviour doesn’t fit the pattern enjoined in the New Testament, then it’s not “Christianity,” period. And while I realise that there are some differences of opinion with respect to the interpretation of doctrine, I think it ought to be apparent that this can only be pushed so far. The idea that putting those who disagree with you to the sword can reasonably be considered an interpretation of the New Testament, and therefore called a “Christian” act, is simply ludicrous. Nowhere is that in the NT, and even when we see violence in the OT, there is an entirely different set of dispensational and “ecclesiological” issues in play that basically make the issue of OT violence moot in discussing NT Christianity.
This is why the “No True Scotsman” fallacy argument simply doesn’t work when someone tries to use it against a Christian who is arguing that violence is not Christian. The NTS fallacy relies upon a situation where there is no normative definition of an entity – i.e., there’s no normative rule written down anywhere that says a “true Scotsman” doesn’t eat porridge, so therefore it is a fallacy to try to make the special argument that “well, no TRUE Scotsman would ever eat porridge.” Problem is, there IS a normative definition of Christianity – it’s called “the New Testament.” If a belief system is not in line with the New Testament, then it can positively and reasonably be said that it is not a “Christian” belief system.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
Maybe you ought to go back and restudy European history because you clearly failed it the first time. There are no hereditary rulers still ruling in Europe, they all like Britons Windsors, purely ceremonial figureheads without any actual authority.
Europeans began overthrowing the hereditary rulers after finally suffering to much under the rule William Rufus, his brother King Henry I was forced to sign Charter of Liberties which began the process of stripping Europe’s hereditary rulers of their power.
That process finally resulted in the condition which prevails today, that none of the hereditary rulers wield any actual authority, they are excluded from having any say in their countries parliamentary bodies. They are nothing more than figureheads.
The Mortara case is not one of forced conversion, Edgardo was not forced to convert what the Mortara case was was an attempt at coerced conversion. What happened to the Mortara family was without a doubt a crime, but what it was not was a systemic or monolithic practice.
Moreover were we to investigate it more closely we might uncover other issues that were not publicly brought to scrutiny.
No true Scotsman eh, You just failed logic 101. In fact with that failure you lost your entire argument.
Interesting post tqcincinnatus – and great catch on the insight of the spin. Apparently, one can’t get away from politics. And an interesting debate going on here between Buzz and Dorian.
I’m of the opinion, one day we will not only recognize the evilness of embryonic stem cell research, but the end result will be that we discover its application not only deadly to the embryo which has great worth, but the attempted application both dangerous and futile.
It’s takes little time to quickly determine the only safe and so far very reliable method of stem cell treatment is self replication and differential. Which makes sense when one understands the difficulties and role of the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC). It’s no different than the reason organ transplants have a high degree of rejection.
@ BuddyG:
Dead thread and all – waaaaaay late, but I gotta say, that there is some funny sh*t !!!!!!!!!!!!!!