MrMoe said:

Click to expand...

They’d like to critique the “other side’s” media.
Yes, this is all part of what we do to drive politics along.

Colo Millz said:

Heaven and hell have the same root

Click to expand...

Sorry, what do you mean by heaven and hell having the same root? Are you talking about the origin of the words "heaven" and "hell", either in English or in the original bible languages, or do you mean that heaven and hell share a common origin?

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

Nice evasion! IF they have his tax records, which liberals keep screaming about, why don't they post them?? Maybe they don't...

Click to expand...

Releasing other people’s tax returns is illegal.
I would have thought a “law & order” fan would have known that.

Fisherking said:

God made TWO KINGDOMS ONE.........how do is that done Doug my friend? By taking the remnant of the 10 Tribes that fled, and adding them to the Judah Kingdom, now all 12 tribes make up Israel and all live in Judea thus they were indeed one kingdom when Babylon toted them off, they were all 12 tribes living under ONE KING, in Judea.


WHY? When Israel were toted off by Rome they were ALL 12 Tribes right? We can call it Concrete, God cares not, when Israel were living in Judea when Jesus came he stated he came for Israel only, not half of Israel, but the whole nation he likened unto lost sheep. We know when they were regathered they were regathered as the Whole House of Israel, but they were also toted off as all 12 tribes.

Click to expand...

With the Babylonian Captivity yes, Judah came to represent all 12 tribes, and ultimately under a single king. However, the prophecy in Eze 37 is talking about when the single Kingdom of Israel comes under the reign of Messiah. That has not yet been fulfilled.

Ezra 6.17 For the dedication of this house of God they offered a hundred bulls, two hundred rams, four hundred male lambs and, as a sin offering for all Israel, twelve male goats, one for each of the tribes of Israel.

2 Chron 11.5 Rehoboam lived in Jerusalem and built up towns for defense in Judah... So Judah and Benjamin were his.
13 The priests and Levites from all their districts throughout Israel sided with him. 14 The Levites even abandoned their pasturelands and property and came to Judah and Jerusalem, because Jeroboam and his sons had rejected them as priests of the Lord 15 when he appointed his own priests for the high places and for the goat and calf idols he had made. 16 Those from every tribe of Israel who set their hearts on seeking the Lord, the God of Israel, followed the Levites to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices to the Lord, the God of their ancestors. 17 They strengthened the kingdom of Judah and supported Rehoboam son of Solomon three years, following the ways of David and Solomon during this time.

So you think the sky is a solid dome with windows in it through which rain falls?
Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of the life of Noe, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened: 12 And the rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

Really?

Platte said:

Keep looking. The glass is half full not half empty.

Click to expand...

So you've just realized that taking it literally is a mistake?

Isn't that an important discovery?

FutureAndAHope said:

I have a view similar to the Open View of God. What is this view, it is that God although a planner, does not know every choice that man will make. It is supported by verses like:

Gen 6:5-7 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."

This scripture is quite clear, God saw man’s evil, and wished that He had not created man. This can only happen in a situation where the future is partially “open”, not foreknown, certainly not preplanned.

But this would not come as a surprise to a person who believes God gives man the ability to make choices.

When investigating the issue of foreknowledge and how much freedom man has, I have read the early church fathers, from the first and many from the second century. From their writings, it is clear they believed in two things:

• Man has genuine free will, that God gives his good will to all
• They also believed that God has foreknowledge

So this introduces a challenge, how can God have foreknowledge, and free will still exist? There are many mysteries that we can not know. But I do have a theory on this.

I did some research into the theory of time, and theoretically it is possible to move both forward and backwards in time. This would allow God the Father to send information about time backwards in time to the beginning. So basically God could know that was going to happen in time at the start.

But time is still a reality, there are still free choices. God would have to play through time to “see” what happens. This is why He could have regret, and wish He had not created man, for there was a point that time was “open” to even God. Yet not entirely open, I believe God puts constraints on the choices we can make.

An interesting point is that even within the Godhead there, is hidden knowledge, Jesus did not know everything about creation that the Father knew. But that is a thought for a different time.

Mark 13:32 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Click to expand...

Your notion that God does not know some things before they happen doesn't seem to fit with what Isaiah wrote, recording God's words:

“9 Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,’ 11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken [it]; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed [it]; I will also do it.” (Isa 46:9-11 NKJV)

Xeno.of.athens said:

Acts chapter one is post resurrection New Testament times, is it not? And why is it that you are so willing to correct the twelve apostles and the holy scriptures with your opinion on the legitimacy of casting lots after prayer for Divine guidance? Surely the apostles were competent to pray and receive from God the guidance for which they petitioned God?

Click to expand...

The Apostles were fallible and even disagreed strongly at times - it was a learning curve for them. Post resurrection does not imply perfection among them. Jesus clearly corrected them post resurrection. This is clear from Acts 24:35ff

Danthemailman said:

Exactly. In regard to "tasted" the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, they may have tasted in such a way as to give them a distinct impression of what was tasted, yet they still fell away. Inherent in the idea of tasting is the fact that one might or might not decide to accept what is tasted. For example, the same Greek word (geuomai) is used in Matthew 27:34 to say that those crucifying Jesus "offered him wine to drink, mingled with gall; but when he tasted it, he would not drink it." We do not merely taste, but drink into one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:13)

Click to expand...

Yes, it's been pointed out before that Judas Iscariot was called a "child of Satan," and yet was given the powers of heaven to do miracles, like the rest of the Apostles. He experienced the spiritual power of God, and had been enlightened by the revelation of Jesus' word.

And yet, because he was a child of Satan, refusing complete devotion to the Lordship of Christ, he turned away at the critical moment in his life, when his metal was really being tested. And he failed the test.

This was not the loss of Salvation, since he was never truly saved. He merely experienced the power of God until he turned away to follow his natural bent towards the Natural Man.

As such, he could no longer receive the truth of Christ, and rejected Christ as a failed Messiah. He had lost his revelation, since the choice for his Natural Man leads inexorably to reject Christ as Lord and Savior.

It is clear to me that all of us can choose either for the Spiritual Man or the Natural Man. When the word of Christ comes to us we may receive his gifts, but not his Lordship. We may reserve for ourselves enough doubt in the ways of the Lord that when it comes to being tested we utterly reject the Spiritual Man for our own ways. (God forbid!)

Douggg said:

While I do agree that many from the Northern Kingdom fled to Judah/Jerusalem at the time of Assyrian war, I don't think that was the reunification of the northern and southern kingdoms spoken of in Ezekiel 37 - because the northern kingdom was under Assyrian control.

Click to expand...

God made TWO KINGDOMS ONE.........how do is that done Doug my friend? By taking the remnant of the 10 Tribes that fled, and adding them to the Judah Kingdom, now all 12 tribes make up Israel and all live in Judea thus they were indeed one kingdom when Babylon toted them off, they were all 12 tribes living under ONE KING, in Judea.

Douggg said:

1948 it seems to me to be the fulfillment of the reunification. David Ben-Gurion, the leader in the 1948 rebirth of the nation chose to call the nation "Israel".

Click to expand...

WHY? When Israel were toted off by Rome they were ALL 12 Tribes right? We can call it Concrete, God cares not, when Israel were living in Judea when Jesus came he stated he came for Israel only, not half of Israel, but the whole nation he likened unto lost sheep. We know when they were regathered they were regathered as the Whole House of Israel, but they were also toted off as all 12 tribes.

Douggg said:

While I do agree that many from the Northern Kingdom fled to Judah/Jerusalem at the time of Assyrian war, I don't think that was the reunification of the northern and southern kingdoms spoken of in Ezekiel 37 - because the northern kingdom was under Assyrian control.

1948 it seems to me to be the fulfillment of the reunification. David Ben-Gurion, the leader in the 1948 rebirth of the nation chose to call the nation "Israel".

Click to expand...

Or, the divided kingdom ended with the Assyrian captivity, and the prophecy in Eze 37 is speaking of when Israel becomes not just a single kingdom, but more, a single kingdom under Messiah? What it tells me is that even though Israel was a single kingdom under Herod, the prophecy called for a kingdom not under Herod but rather, under Messiah. That is when the nation would be truly cleansed.

Douggg said:

Fisherking, a suggestion: To make your posts understandable to the reader, don't use "run-on" sentences.

Also, use one or two sentence paragraphs. Not one big one like above.

Those two things will help in your communication to others.

Click to expand...

I have been doing this 40 plus years Dougggg.......I understand how I need to place things to get a point across my dear friend. All of that had to be grouped together for a reason. When I write blogs I take the time to has it all out, when I am on a message board, I prefer to group all my points to ONE REPLY at a time and if it goes long, because I think of more that needs to be added, I am not going to go back and redo it on a message bard.

AND...........Smile.....Israel never accepts the Anti-Christ as their Messiah. You are misinterpreting John 5:43 as have told you before.

orbiter said:

Peace in Christ.

The “holy”….to be separate for our sanctification…commandment of the Father is given here by Jesus in John 14:31 .

His commandment is this: “Arise, let us go from here.”

We are to arise and depart from the man-based churches where His life is not being made manifest in the flesh of anyone that is being deceived by them. No flesh is being saved in them. We can then shine His light to the people of the outside world.

Joh 14:31 KJV
(31) But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.

His commandment….His holy commandment…is life age-lasting. There is no life in staying put in the man-based churches.

Click to expand...

But there is absolutely nothing in those words of Jesus, "Arise, let us go from here," about leaving churches. He was talking to His disciples after the Last Supper. Here is verse 31 in its context:

“25 ¶ “These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26 “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. 27 “Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.”

“28 ¶ “You have heard Me say to you, ‘I am going away and coming [back] to you.’ If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, ‘I am going to the Father,’ for My Father is greater than I. 29 “And now I have told you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe. 30 “I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me. 31 “But that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave Me commandment, so I do. Arise, let us go from here.” (Joh 14:25-31 NKJV)

Nothing there about leaving churches. Taking a few bible words out of their context can lead us into all sorts of errors. Psalm 14:1 includes the words, "There is no God." But the verse is not an atheist's charter, by any means. We would have to ignore the context of the words to make the bible teach that there is no God. As I am sure you know, the whole verse says:

“The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good.” (Ps 14:1 NKJV)

This shows the wrongness of taking bible phrase out of context.

stevevw said:

How do we know that Amenhotep’s original cartouche makes it his. Just like Ramesses who reused other pharoahs stuff.

Anyway you must have missed that I pointed out that even if it was from the middle kingdom it is still knowledge and tech beyond the capabilities of the tools on record. The whole Egyptian era has amazing works but especially early on is amazing.

Click to expand...

You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to the point of absurdity.
Ramesses II usurped over a 100 statues and numerous monuments of Amenhotep III and by an amazing coincidence all of these were from the Old Kingdom which Amenhotep had also usurped??
What the actual evidence tells us is Amenhotep may have usurped some Middle Kingdom statues and from his great-grandfather Thutmose III.

I will ask you again given you went into detail the act of usurpation leaves tell-tale signs, explain how obelisks attributed to Hatshepsut, Thutmose III and Ramesses II are from the Old Kingdom when there is no evidence of erasure of the original pharaoh’s identity?

stevevw said:

But this is what I did not want which was to get bogged down in specific examples and lose track of the overall point. Which was on a global scale of knowledge and tech that we see very early and well advanced for what we consider for that time and the primitive tools. Along with other evidence such as exeperiences and the stories told by the very people.

Click to expand...

You don't get make a ridiculous claim the New Kingdom accomplishments in granite is based on lying pharaohs and not expect a refutation of this nonsense.

stevevw said:

If the evidence points to what you say and I have not checked then it is what it is. I am not trying to force any conspiracy or deny there was amazing works later. Just questioning the signatures that don't match the tools even if thats later dynasties.

Actually there is little inscriptions on works from the old kingdom. Thats why it was like an open invitation to usurp these works I think.

Not if there were no old kingdom inscriptions on the old kingdom works to begin with.

Click to expand...

So now you are making things up or to put it less diplomatically being dishonest.
Do I need to remind in your very link the discovery of the 6th dynasty granite obelisk stated “There is an inscription on one side of the obelisk, with what seems to be the beginning of the titles and the name of Queen Ankhnespepy II.”
Queen Ankhnespepy II was a Queen of the 6th dynasty pharaoh Pepy I.

Once again how did Hatshepsut, Thutmose III and Ramesses II leave no tell-tale signs of erasing these Old Kingdom inscriptions on obelisks?

stevevw said:

OK fair enough. If its the evidence then you need to explain the out of place works. My whole point is that we see the same level if not better than the middle or new kingdom works in old kingdom ones. Its the time factor. It may be concievable that later works could be managed with later knowledge and tech such as the use of steel and the wheel.

But what we see in the old kingdom has none of this. It is more or less out of nowhere and even superior to the later works without any modern help.

We have not even begun to look at the entire evidence all over the world for out of place works. There are too many pointing to advanced knowledge an tech well beyond what we thought to be explained by chisels and pounders.

Click to expand...

By focussing on the subject of obelisks not only are 18th dynasty obelisks vastly superior to their Old Kingdom counterparts but equally telling are your counterarguments based on being contradicted by your own links and resorting to a grand conspiracy theory of New Kingdom pharaohs engaging in widespread fraud would make Apollo landing denialists proud.

stevevw said:

As I pointed out which is something you also have ignored that the tech involved in some of these works like the vases is beyond craftmanship. In some ways its almost a conspiracy to keep claiming its sheer freehand craft to explain this. Its actually saying that freehand craftsmen some how felt and by sight alone shaped in 3D what mtaches in signatures to what we call controlled machine precision tool making.

They happened to be able to blindly guess within microns all the relational angles to all points of the works, and match almost perfectly geoometry by luck.

Art and crafts is not techincal precision tool making. It would be like getting an artist to make a precision tool for NASA parts freehand and get it near perfect. Happening once maybe it was luck. But even then its impossible because it goes beyond luck getting so many relational points correct.

The signatures match some sort of advanced lathing with a fixed point cutter able to remain steady and produce such a 3D signature. That is well beyond what ancient Egyptians tools in the records.

Click to expand...

What a profoundly ignorant bigoted statement directly against craftsmen.
I suggest you go back to the relevant thread, not only is there is zero evidence of micron accuracy as nothing has been peer reviewed but there is also a provenance issue as there is no evidence the samples tested by your youtuber conspiracy theorists were even predynastic vases.

stevevw said:

You have to remember that I am not disputing that there were great works later. The whole Egytian period is amazing for that time. It stands out and anyone admits that.

My point is that we see a level of knowledge and tech in the earliest dynasties full stop, that are out of place, fullstop. That don't match the tools on record, fullstop. All the debate on individual pieces whether they are old, new or middle kingdom does not change this fact.

It doesn't mean that because later works are just as good that somehow this proves old kingdom works must have been made by the traditional tools. This is the arguement I think you are trying to make. That the old kingdom works are just everyday works all made by the same method which is the orthodox tools and methods on record. Therefore the old works are nothing out of the ordinary.

Let me ask. Do you think that the signatures in the old kingdom works can be explained by the orthodox methods claimed. I think it was yourself who even identified that cuts in the granite was made by a modern tool like a circular saw due to its signature.

Can you say that the other signatures that cause us to come to the same conclusion of modern signatures that these are all actually modern forgeries and that there are no actual signatures that cause you to question that they were done with the primitive toos on record.

Click to expand...

I can understand why you get up the noses of so many posters, the issues have been discussed and HAVE BEEN DONE TO DEATH.
If don’t understand the answers, have the memory of a goldfish or in pure denial node that’s your problem.
Your argument is based on personal incredulity, has no supportive evidence and ignores the evidence which contradicts your conspiracy theory.

ARBITER01 said:

There are times when you really are on the mark and accurate,..... then there are times like this.

Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by that.
I didn't make up what I said; I read it in commentaries.

ARBITER01 said:

4 But it is impossible for those once being enlightened, and tasting of the heavenly gift, and becoming partakers of The Holy Spirit,

5 And tasting of the good word of GOD, and the powerful deeds of the coming age,

6 And then falling away, to be renewing themselves again unto repentance, since they art crucifying again for themselves The Son of GOD, and holding Him up to open shame.

Click to expand...

Yes I know what it says.
I'm not sure what your reason is for highlighting certain sentences in bold, and in another colour, in case I hadn't seen them.

The background was that some Jewish Christians - who had experienced God's love, saving grace and blessings for themselves - were thinking of denying that Jesus was the Messiah and returning to Judaism. That way, when Christians were persecuted, they would be safe. They would probably have "repented" again when persecution was past.
I.e they had received many blessings from Jesus, the Messiah, but were thinking of denying him and returning to a faith which did not accept Jesus as the Messiah.

ARBITER01 said:

Unbelievers do not have any of these things happen to them,... certainly not becoming partakers of The Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

Read my post again; where did I say anything about unbelievers?
I said Jewish Christians - i.e. Jews who had accepted that Jesus was the Messiah.

ARBITER01 said:

This is not a history lesson, it's reality of what some selfish people are capable of doing, like Judas.

Click to expand...

But Scripture needs to be read in context, not in isolation.
Read the first 5 chapters of Hebrews. The author says that Jesus is greater than the angels, greater than Moses, a great high priest and greater than Melchizedek. He warns them against turning away from the faith.
Why? Because some believers, who had converted from Judaism, were thinking of rejecting Jesus and returning to it.

what we like to experience.

Sometimes things…

rjs330 said:

I honestly dont know where this is coming from. I can tell you I have been in conservative Christian churches and circles for a long time. I have NEVER heard anyone espousing that women should not receive equal pay for an equal job.

And quite frankly this notion that they don't has been debunked.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I assumed perhaps incorrectly that you knew more about conservative churches than I. I just wanted some conservative US-specific input. No I'm also a bit confused by the results, because there seems to be no difference historically with regards to if one finds religion important or not. The liberal churches I know are very positive to womens rights. But I'm also shocked that anyone since 1960s has said - "No, women should not recieve equal pay for equal jobs". In Sweden, the unexplained gap is down to 5% which could be random chance if it weren't for the fact that it is always to womens detriment so there are probably still some misogynistic attitudes around beneath the surface. Do you know if it really is zero in the US?

stevevw said:

Good stuff. I like the whole big bass and strings kind of music especially fused with say bluegrass.

Click to expand...

The last band I was in was a three-piece group with acoustic guitar, violin, and double bass. We met at Chicago's Old Town School and played Americana, a mix of Blues, Folk, Rock' n' Roll, and old-timey music. The bluegrass folks used to call our stuff Jazzgrass.

We split when the frontman’s fiancé decided he was spending too much time with the band. Ironically, they met because of the band.

stevevw said:

I loved that movie. That and Devil at the Crossroads, about Robert Johnson. Dylan was asked how he got so famous. He said he did a deal with the the man. What man asks the interviewer. Dylan replies the big chief, you know the one up there lol. Everyone thinks he meant the devil lol.

Click to expand...

Yeah, The Blues Brothers was a fun movie. L'Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper, called The Blues Brothers a "Catholic classic" on the film's 30th anniversary in 2010. The article cited the themes of repentance, faith, sacrifice, and redemption. Some folks felt that the Church's enthusiasm for recognizing spiritual messages in pop culture was a good step. Others were not so enthusiastic about it.

stevevw said:

Listen to these voices. Sometimes Ren the lead guy partners with another busker Sam Tompkins and they are amazing I think. It sounds like they are reincarnating all the old and new voices together, even womens voices lol. Just great street talent.

Click to expand...

I enjoyed the group. That Andalusian chord progression in the first video (i-♭VII-♭VI-V) is also used in Resucito, one of my favorite Easter songs. I posted about it recently in this thread.

---------------------
Lady: Are you the police?
Elwood Blues: No, ma'am, we're musicians ... We're on a mission from God.

Hentenza said:

And if that stranger professes his/her faith for the Lord then neither your church nor mine are in any position to call them a liar by omission.

Click to expand...

We don’t call anyone a liar, but we also do not believe the criteria you provide are sufficient for admission to the Eucharist. It requires more than professed faith - see 1 Corinthians 11:27-34 and also James, entire. We believe Baptism and correct worship are necessary prerequisites, as well as a belief in the Real Presence and also not partaking of the Eucharist without examining one’s conscience and preparing through spiritual or physical fasting and confession, and many other things, based on our interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:27-34

If your church believes professing faith in Christ is sufficient to receive the Eucharist no Orthodox Christian will attempt to stop you, but conversely, your doctrine is not aligned with ours so we cannot say we are in communion with you - which does not mean we deny your Christianity, rather, we have disagreements that are sufficient to prevent us from partaking in the Eucharist with you.

Also your post omits the possibility someone could profess a sincere faith in the Lord but be in error on an essential point of faith, which is the case with Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses - they believe in Christ as much as anyone, but disagree with us on who He is.

What I don’t understand is why you want a church whose doctrines you reject to admit you to its Eucharist against its own beliefs?

rjs330 said:

I seriously think you can come up with a wilder and more nonsensical analogy than that. I'm disappointed.

Click to expand...

I’m getting tired of the constant ridicule my work here.

Servus said:

Probably the most prolific complain against Christians among unbelievers is them "always ramming their religion down people's throats". When atheists are asked why they focus so much on Christians compared to other religions, the reason given is because of all the evangelizing Christians do trying to convert people. So based on what I've heard from a lot of unbelievers, and atheists in particular, is that Christians do way too much evangelizing, rather than not enough. So the saying that only 2% of Christians share the gospel seems a little hard to believe.

Click to expand...

If we let the fear of criticism or dislike by atheists guide whether we obey Christ, we’re letting the world dictate our obedience.

Jesus warned that following Him would bring opposition: “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you” (John 15:18). He also said, “Blessed are you when people hate you… on account of the Son of Man” (Luke 6:22). Opposition, rejection, or even ridicule is inevitable when we share the gospel, but that doesn’t remove the command to go and make disciples (Mark 16:15).

Sharing the gospel will sometimes be uncomfortable and unpopular — that’s exactly why fear or worldly opinion shouldn’t stop us. Obedience to Christ comes before the approval of men.

Charles Spurgeon once said: “Have you no wish for others to be saved? Then you're not saved yourself, be sure of that!” The desire to tell people of God’s great love comes from being born again and Him giving us a new heart and new desires.

concretecamper said:

Like Luther?

Click to expand...

Martin Luther is not a Reformed Protestant. The Lutherans specifically reject Reformed theology (which includes Calvinism, Zwinglianism and a few related movements such as the Huguenots, as well as the Radical Reformation groups like the Puritans and Anabaptists).

Pommer said:

Okay, lemme ask you this:
Say I’m on my yacht and (on the “high-seas”) almost get rammed by a cartel frigate and a ton of fentanyl falls into my boat’s hold.
Say the Navy has drug sniffing dolphins who definitely can smell the opioids in my boat, can they blow my craft out of the water?

Click to expand...

I seriously think you can come up with a wilder and more nonsensical analogy than that. I'm disappointed.

rjs330 said:

Utter gish gallop. We are not a racist nation and there is nothing racist in this nation that is holding BIPOC back from succeeding.

Click to expand...

Look up the origin of the term “redskin”, (in referring to America’s indigenous peoples).

rjs330 said:

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Of course we should value almost everyone. There are those we shouldnt value however and certain cultural values we shouldnt value either. Such as the cultural values surrounding fatherless homes. We shouldn't value gangbangers or white supremacists.

Click to expand...

I’m saying it shouldn’t matter where people are born. Or what they look like.