Obama upsets US Christians....again

[TLK Valentine]

when doing official debates in court settings, fallacy is stricken from the record and in a variety of ways.

I hold to that here, as well,

and needingly so.

You comment was fallacious, you didn't rebute this fact or even question it, therefore it stands the my reply has defeated your premise.

simple.

thanks for the post.

Sounds like you win because you say you win.

That might work in play debates; here it reeks of a cop-out.

 

[createdtoworship]

One thing you've said that I do agree with -- everyone can see where the real dishonesty lies.

You claimed that my post "wasn't worth responding to."

let me spell it out for you: I think you're bluffing.

I don't think you have a response.

Nobody thinks you have a response.

Prove me wrong. Answer the original question:

"Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. . . Slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

This is the statement that launched a thousand aneurysms. Is anyone still denying that it was, in fact, the truth?

I don't even need to see the premise, if the it is fallacious- it is self defeating (with fallacy).

it is like the football player, tackled by gravity,

as the wise man said.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I don't even need to see the premise, if the it is fallacious- it is self defeating (with fallacy).

it is like the football player, tackled by gravity,

as the wise man said.

...you're still bluffing.

As the wise man said, "put up or shut up."

What did Obama say that was incorrect?

 

[tulc]

when doing official debates in court settings, fallacy is stricken from the record and in a variety of ways.

I hold to that here, as well,

and needingly so.

You comment was fallacious, you didn't rebute this fact or even question it, therefore it stands the my reply has defeated your premise.

simple.

Hitchen's razor:
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
you made the assertion that you won, but failed to support that claim. therefore, you lost. if you wish to present evidence in support of your claim please do so other wise no one needs to show why we know you lost.

thanks for the post.

you're very welcome!
tulc(tries to be polite as much as possible)

 

[createdtoworship]

...you're still bluffing.

As the wise man said, "put up or shut up."

What did Obama say that was incorrect?

I never said Obama said anything incorrect.

I am sure He has, as everyone has.

that simply is not something I have said in this thread, and at this time.

thanks for the post.

 

[createdtoworship]

Sounds like you win because you say you win.

That might work in play debates; here it reeks of a cop-out.

Look at it this way, if fallacy was in fact a legitimate argument, then all of these would be as well:


Bandwagon fallacy
Two premises:
Everyone is doing it
The majority is typically right
If I do it, I will be in the majority and will be right (for the most part)
“When phrased like this, few people would say that they'd fall for such a stupid thing - but it's still a remarkably easy trap to fall into, precisely because people don't realise that it's a bandwagon that they're jumping on. In a manner similar to the Matthew effect[wp], something that gains attention (legitimately or otherwise) will attract more interest. This interest generates more interest, like an internet meme circulating around internet forums, and before you know it everyone is on the bandwagon shouting "yee haw!!" While this is merely just how information tends to propagate, the bandwagon argument truly becomes fallacious when people use it as an excuse to say that an issue is important or that the circulating opinion must be correct.”
Bandwagon argument - RationalWiki
appeal to the populous
appeal to common practice
appeal to tradition
appeal to common belief
appeal to novelty (newer is better)
(see more here:
Full alphabetic list of Fallacies

Appeal to authority and Appeal to the populous:
Examples: Evolution is true because everyone believes it. Truth is not made on the basis of the popular vote. OR Evolution is true because the majority of scientists are evolutionists: This is an appeal to authority, and just because a scientist believes it does not make evolution 100% correct. For example scientists believed in spontaneous generation for many years, or blood letting for example. So the appeal to authority is a fallacy. Something is true based on it’s scientific data, not on how many believe it.
Cut off the nose to spite the face:
cut off your nose to spite your face - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online (US)
Word Salad: a bunch of random words, often unintelligible.
Text Wall: , or wall of text: no paragraphs, and or a large body of text with many grammatical errors.
Cognitive Dissonance-
Cognitive Dissonance-
“This is the feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time.
Dissonance increases with:

1. The importance of the subject to us.
2. How strongly the dissonant thoughts conflict.
3. Our inability to rationalize and explain away the conflict.”

Above quote from: Cognitive Dissonance

Illegitimate Totality Transfer-taking all the synonyms of a lexicon on a greek work and applying it to one passage….aka…the amplified Bible.
“What does Illegitimate Totality Transfer mean? This is a big word in biblical interpretation with an easy definition. Illegitimate Totality Transfer simply means to illegitimately ( wrongly) transfer a word’s total possible meaning, with all its variations and nuances, and forcing them all into a particular context.
For example, if one were to do a word study on the Greek word phile, one would find that it could mean “affection, friendship, love, or kiss.” The context must decide. The illegitimate totality transfer occurs when one forces all of these meanings into one passage, without consideration of which nuance best fits the context. This is a common interpretive fallacy.[1]
One particular version of bible is famous for doing this fallacy, the Amplified Bible. In more solid bibles such as the NASB, EVS, NKJV, & KJV the translators do not entrap themselves in this fallacy. Instead they follow correct biblical hermeneutical”
[1] Illegitimate Totality Transfer - Empowered By Christ
Above quote in entirety from the website above.
Changing the bars- Removing the bars is not changing the bars. For example if I have a burden of proof where the burden is too great and I decide to strike it from the record. It’s not changing the bars. But if someone asks for evidence or questions a certain fact of a view, and they then modify the view to avoid the specific criticism, and not address it. This is changing the Bars.
also known as “appeal to the populous”, or “or appeal to common belief”:
“Appeal to Common Belief: If others believe it to be true, it must be true.”
Appeal to Common Belief
Gamblers Fallacy – chance can be predicted
Gambler's Fallacy
Ad hominem and abusive Ad hominem:

• A lawyer attacking a defendant’s character rather than addressing or questioning based on the case, e.g., in a case of theft pointing out the defendant’s level of poverty.
• A politician degrading another politician during a political campaign when asked about a specific policy, e.g. “Well, I think we need to look at the other candidate’s failures regarding this topic.”
• Responding in any debate with an attack on one’s personal beliefs.
• Using someone’s known background or beliefs to respond in a way such as “Of course you would say that, because you believe _____.”
• Stating that someone’s argument is incorrect because of her religious beliefs, such as, “Perhaps if you weren’t part of the religious group that you are, you would see this quite differently.”
• Demeaning a teacher’s decision on grading by insulting her intelligence, e.g., “Well, it’s not like you graduated from the best school, so I can see why you wouldn’t know how to properly grade a writing assignment.”
• Using racial slurs to demean a person of another race in an argument about a crime involving people of different racial backgrounds, such as, “People like you don’t understand what it’s like to be of my race so you blatantly have no right to make an argument about this situation.”
• Generalizing views of a political party as an insulting argument to an individual who is a member of a different party, e.g., “Well, it’s pretty obvious that your political party doesn’t know how to be fiscally responsible, so I wouldn’t expect you to, either.”
• Stating that one’s age precludes him from being able to make an intelligent or meaningful argument, such as, “You are clearly just too young to understand.”
• Asserting that someone’s geographical location prevents him from being able to make a clear judgment, such as, “You’ve only ever lived in an urban environment. The issues of those in other areas is clearly beyond you.”
• Using gender as a means to devalue an argument from an opposing gender, e.g., “This is a female issue. As a man, how can you have an opinion about this?”
• Stating that the ethnicity of the opposing individual keeps him from formulating a valuable opinion, e.g., “You are from the United States, so you could never understand what it’s like to live in a country like that.”
• Using someone’s educational level as a means to exploit and degrade the opposer’s argument, such as, “You didn’t even finish high school - how could you possibly know about this?”
• Relying on socioeconomic status as a means to undermine an opposing individual’s opinion, such as, “You wouldn’t understand since you have never had to struggle."

above examples from :
Ad Hominem Examples


do you recognize any of these fallacies?:
Cognitive dissidence
The mental trauma regarding contradiction in your mind, and the real world, and your bodies psychological response to it.-gl

False Arguments from Ignorance/personal incredulity:
Example: Quantum Mechanics is confusing, therefore it’s untrue.
This is a common misconception regarding a lot of things, However:
"Suppose you fail to turn in your homework in math class and you get an "F" for the day? Could you go to the teacher and claim she is being unfair because you might very well know the homework answers but she just cannot see them in your head. You claim that when she gave you an "F" it was an Argument From Ignorance, or from her personal incredulity!”.
Just because one does not mentally see the picture of what was said, does not mean that it is untrue this is the fallacy of personal incredulity, or an argument from ignorance.
Equivocation: "evolution" has six meanings. (see notes on Hovind)

Evolutionists often commit the fallacy of equivocation on the word
evolution. This word has a number of meanings. Evolution can mean
“change” in a general sense, but it can also refer to the idea that
organisms share a common ancestor. Either meaning is perfectly
legitimate, but the two meanings should not be conflated within an
argument. Many evolutionists seem to think that by demonstrating
evolution in the sense of “change,” that it proves evolution in the
sense of “common descent.”

Fallacy of equivocation

You might hear them say something like, “Creationists are wrong
because we can see evolution happening all the time. Organisms are
constantly changing and adapting to their environment.”
“Consider for example the English word bow – this could mean many different things depending on its context. One meaning is a weapon, another is the front of a ship, still another is the decoration on a gift, and the fourth is to bend at the waist. Not only are the definitions radically different, but it can also be used as a noun and as a verb.”- Douglas hamp - the first six days chapter 5


Non Sequitur: "Doesn't follow." Notice that many
times in debates when a particular perspective has no contributing
premises anymore, or supporting facts, they will resort to a certain
amount of word fillers (time wasters.) In order to fill in the time
gap during the debate, where they lack real factual support, or have
exhausted theirs. They typically have used terminology not as a means of
relaying true information, but as a means of committing a fallacy of an
appeal to authority of sorts. I do this too, but it is dishonest in
debate. It is best to define terms implicitly and not as a result of
showing off vocabulary to distinguish ones authority of lack of
authority. Simply knowing terminology does not in fact prove ones
authority. It may simply mean that one may like reading dictionaries
in his spare time. These fallacies may overlap with a Red Herring,
Dependent on if the person is willfully doing this or not.

The Fallacy of Begging the question, more commonly known as "circular
reason," or arbitrary logic:

When I was reading a book on logic sold by Ken Ham ministries it said this:
"In order to determine the truth value of a statement, it is necessary
to go outside the statement." - Introductory Logic- by D. J. Wilson,
and J. B. Nance - 2002 by mars hill textbooks.
An example of this is: “Evolution is true because it is scientific”
It begs the question as to what legitimate science is. Especially in relation to Evolution. In other words it presupposes evolution is scientific without laying out the argument why it is scientific.

Circular and arbitrary arguments are not useful because anyone who
denies the conclusion would also deny the premise (since the
conclusion is essentially the same as the premise).
So, the argument,

“Evolution must be true because it is a fact,”

-while technically valid, is fallacious because the arguer has merely assumed
what he is trying to prove.

again we must go OUTSIDE the statement to declare it true.

Arbitrary assumptions are not to be used
in logical reasoning because we could equally well assume the exact
opposite. It would be just as legitimate to argue,

“Evolution cannot
be true because it is false.”
Josh McDowell once pointed out that using the Bible to quote the Bible is thought of as circular reasoning by many. But McDowell responds “who ever told you the Bible was one book.” Many assume because it is abridged, that is is one book. The Bible is not just one book; it's actually sixty-six books written by 40 authors, on two different continents, in three different languages, by 40 authors, and over a period of 1600 years.
Using the Bible to prove the Bible is not Circular reasoning, as long as the quotes come from separate books of the Bible, and preferably separate authors.

It should also be noted that there are certain special cases where
circular reasoning is unavoidable and not necessarily fallacious.
Remember that begging the question is not invalid; it is considered
fallacious because it is arbitrary. But what if it were not arbitrary?
There are some situations where the conclusion of an argument must be
assumed at the outset, but is not arbitrary.2 Here is an example:

Without laws of logic, we could not make an argument.
We can make an argument.
Therefore, there must be laws of logic.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Look at it this way, if fallacy was in fact a legitimate argument, then all of these would be as well:


Bandwagon fallacy
Two premises:
Everyone is doing it
The majority is typically right
If I do it, I will be in the majority and will be right (for the most part)
“When phrased like this, few people would say that they'd fall for such a stupid thing - but it's still a remarkably easy trap to fall into, precisely because people don't realise that it's a bandwagon that they're jumping on. In a manner similar to the Matthew effect[wp], something that gains attention (legitimately or otherwise) will attract more interest. This interest generates more interest, like an internet meme circulating around internet forums, and before you know it everyone is on the bandwagon shouting "yee haw!!" While this is merely just how information tends to propagate, the bandwagon argument truly becomes fallacious when people use it as an excuse to say that an issue is important or that the circulating opinion must be correct.”
Bandwagon argument - RationalWiki
appeal to the populous
appeal to common practice
appeal to tradition
appeal to common belief
appeal to novelty (newer is better)
(see more here:
Full alphabetic list of Fallacies

Appeal to authority and Appeal to the populous:
Examples: Evolution is true because everyone believes it. Truth is not made on the basis of the popular vote. OR Evolution is true because the majority of scientists are evolutionists: This is an appeal to authority, and just because a scientist believes it does not make evolution 100% correct. For example scientists believed in spontaneous generation for many years, or blood letting for example. So the appeal to authority is a fallacy. Something is true based on it’s scientific data, not on how many believe it.
Cut off the nose to spite the face:
cut off your nose to spite your face - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online (US)
Word Salad: a bunch of random words, often unintelligible.
Text Wall: , or wall of text: no paragraphs, and or a large body of text with many grammatical errors.
Cognitive Dissonance-
Cognitive Dissonance-
“This is the feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time.
Dissonance increases with:

1. The importance of the subject to us.
2. How strongly the dissonant thoughts conflict.
3. Our inability to rationalize and explain away the conflict.”

Above quote from: Cognitive Dissonance

Illegitimate Totality Transfer-taking all the synonyms of a lexicon on a greek work and applying it to one passage….aka…the amplified Bible.
“What does Illegitimate Totality Transfer mean? This is a big word in biblical interpretation with an easy definition. Illegitimate Totality Transfer simply means to illegitimately ( wrongly) transfer a word’s total possible meaning, with all its variations and nuances, and forcing them all into a particular context.
For example, if one were to do a word study on the Greek word phile, one would find that it could mean “affection, friendship, love, or kiss.” The context must decide. The illegitimate totality transfer occurs when one forces all of these meanings into one passage, without consideration of which nuance best fits the context. This is a common interpretive fallacy.[1]
One particular version of bible is famous for doing this fallacy, the Amplified Bible. In more solid bibles such as the NASB, EVS, NKJV, & KJV the translators do not entrap themselves in this fallacy. Instead they follow correct biblical hermeneutical”
[1] Illegitimate Totality Transfer - Empowered By Christ
Above quote in entirety from the website above.
Changing the bars- Removing the bars is not changing the bars. For example if I have a burden of proof where the burden is too great and I decide to strike it from the record. It’s not changing the bars. But if someone asks for evidence or questions a certain fact of a view, and they then modify the view to avoid the specific criticism, and not address it. This is changing the Bars.
also known as “appeal to the populous”, or “or appeal to common belief”:
“Appeal to Common Belief: If others believe it to be true, it must be true.”
Appeal to Common Belief
Gamblers Fallacy – chance can be predicted
Gambler's Fallacy
Ad hominem and abusive Ad hominem:

• A lawyer attacking a defendant’s character rather than addressing or questioning based on the case, e.g., in a case of theft pointing out the defendant’s level of poverty.
• A politician degrading another politician during a political campaign when asked about a specific policy, e.g. “Well, I think we need to look at the other candidate’s failures regarding this topic.”
• Responding in any debate with an attack on one’s personal beliefs.
• Using someone’s known background or beliefs to respond in a way such as “Of course you would say that, because you believe _____.”
• Stating that someone’s argument is incorrect because of her religious beliefs, such as, “Perhaps if you weren’t part of the religious group that you are, you would see this quite differently.”
• Demeaning a teacher’s decision on grading by insulting her intelligence, e.g., “Well, it’s not like you graduated from the best school, so I can see why you wouldn’t know how to properly grade a writing assignment.”
• Using racial slurs to demean a person of another race in an argument about a crime involving people of different racial backgrounds, such as, “People like you don’t understand what it’s like to be of my race so you blatantly have no right to make an argument about this situation.”
• Generalizing views of a political party as an insulting argument to an individual who is a member of a different party, e.g., “Well, it’s pretty obvious that your political party doesn’t know how to be fiscally responsible, so I wouldn’t expect you to, either.”
• Stating that one’s age precludes him from being able to make an intelligent or meaningful argument, such as, “You are clearly just too young to understand.”
• Asserting that someone’s geographical location prevents him from being able to make a clear judgment, such as, “You’ve only ever lived in an urban environment. The issues of those in other areas is clearly beyond you.”
• Using gender as a means to devalue an argument from an opposing gender, e.g., “This is a female issue. As a man, how can you have an opinion about this?”
• Stating that the ethnicity of the opposing individual keeps him from formulating a valuable opinion, e.g., “You are from the United States, so you could never understand what it’s like to live in a country like that.”
• Using someone’s educational level as a means to exploit and degrade the opposer’s argument, such as, “You didn’t even finish high school - how could you possibly know about this?”
• Relying on socioeconomic status as a means to undermine an opposing individual’s opinion, such as, “You wouldn’t understand since you have never had to struggle."

above examples from :
Ad Hominem Examples


do you recognize any of these fallacies?:
Cognitive dissidence
The mental trauma regarding contradiction in your mind, and the real world, and your bodies psychological response to it.-gl

False Arguments from Ignorance/personal incredulity:
Example: Quantum Mechanics is confusing, therefore it’s untrue.
This is a common misconception regarding a lot of things, However:
"Suppose you fail to turn in your homework in math class and you get an "F" for the day? Could you go to the teacher and claim she is being unfair because you might very well know the homework answers but she just cannot see them in your head. You claim that when she gave you an "F" it was an Argument From Ignorance, or from her personal incredulity!”.
Just because one does not mentally see the picture of what was said, does not mean that it is untrue this is the fallacy of personal incredulity, or an argument from ignorance.
Equivocation: "evolution" has six meanings. (see notes on Hovind)

Evolutionists often commit the fallacy of equivocation on the word
evolution. This word has a number of meanings. Evolution can mean
“change” in a general sense, but it can also refer to the idea that
organisms share a common ancestor. Either meaning is perfectly
legitimate, but the two meanings should not be conflated within an
argument. Many evolutionists seem to think that by demonstrating
evolution in the sense of “change,” that it proves evolution in the
sense of “common descent.”

Fallacy of equivocation

You might hear them say something like, “Creationists are wrong
because we can see evolution happening all the time. Organisms are
constantly changing and adapting to their environment.”
“Consider for example the English word bow – this could mean many different things depending on its context. One meaning is a weapon, another is the front of a ship, still another is the decoration on a gift, and the fourth is to bend at the waist. Not only are the definitions radically different, but it can also be used as a noun and as a verb.”- Douglas hamp - the first six days chapter 5


Non Sequitur: "Doesn't follow." Notice that many
times in debates when a particular perspective has no contributing
premises anymore, or supporting facts, they will resort to a certain
amount of word fillers (time wasters.) In order to fill in the time
gap during the debate, where they lack real factual support, or have
exhausted theirs. They typically have used terminology not as a means of
relaying true information, but as a means of committing a fallacy of an
appeal to authority of sorts. I do this too, but it is dishonest in
debate. It is best to define terms implicitly and not as a result of
showing off vocabulary to distinguish ones authority of lack of
authority. Simply knowing terminology does not in fact prove ones
authority. It may simply mean that one may like reading dictionaries
in his spare time. These fallacies may overlap with a Red Herring,
Dependent on if the person is willfully doing this or not.

The Fallacy of Begging the question, more commonly known as "circular
reason," or arbitrary logic:

When I was reading a book on logic sold by Ken Ham ministries it said this:
"In order to determine the truth value of a statement, it is necessary
to go outside the statement." - Introductory Logic- by D. J. Wilson,
and J. B. Nance - 2002 by mars hill textbooks.
An example of this is: “Evolution is true because it is scientific”
It begs the question as to what legitimate science is. Especially in relation to Evolution. In other words it presupposes evolution is scientific without laying out the argument why it is scientific.

Circular and arbitrary arguments are not useful because anyone who
denies the conclusion would also deny the premise (since the
conclusion is essentially the same as the premise).
So, the argument,

“Evolution must be true because it is a fact,”

-while technically valid, is fallacious because the arguer has merely assumed
what he is trying to prove.

again we must go OUTSIDE the statement to declare it true.

Arbitrary assumptions are not to be used
in logical reasoning because we could equally well assume the exact
opposite. It would be just as legitimate to argue,

“Evolution cannot
be true because it is false.”
Josh McDowell once pointed out that using the Bible to quote the Bible is thought of as circular reasoning by many. But McDowell responds “who ever told you the Bible was one book.” Many assume because it is abridged, that is is one book. The Bible is not just one book; it's actually sixty-six books written by 40 authors, on two different continents, in three different languages, by 40 authors, and over a period of 1600 years.
Using the Bible to prove the Bible is not Circular reasoning, as long as the quotes come from separate books of the Bible, and preferably separate authors.

It should also be noted that there are certain special cases where
circular reasoning is unavoidable and not necessarily fallacious.
Remember that begging the question is not invalid; it is considered
fallacious because it is arbitrary. But what if it were not arbitrary?
There are some situations where the conclusion of an argument must be
assumed at the outset, but is not arbitrary.2 Here is an example:

Without laws of logic, we could not make an argument.
We can make an argument.
Therefore, there must be laws of logic.

Keep doubling down on your bluff -- good boy.

 

[createdtoworship]

Keep doubling down on your bluff -- good boy.

I believe your argument is a special case of ad hominem. I sufficiently pointed out a fallacy. And your response is that I am bluffing, in detecting fallacy, and that this is in turn insufficient of a response. And namely that your premise deserves a more thought provoking response from me. But regardless of whether it is thought provoking, or interest stirring, matters not to me. I am here to win the debate. I don't need fans.

and won, I have.

thanks for proving me correct.

Good luck, and thank you for the talk.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I never said Obama said anything incorrect.

I am sure He has, as everyone has.

that simply is not something I have said in this thread, and at this time.

thanks for the post.

Then we are in agreement.

 

[Rationalt]

The behaviour of ISIS is spot on with what Mohammed himself practiced.

..

That is a point the muslim apologists want to bury.

 

[kiwimac]

That is a point the muslim apologists want to bury.

Actually it is not.

 

[Rationalt]

Actually it is not.

Hmmm. Why I see apologists and media steadfastly refusing to discuss muhammad activities that resemble ISIS actions ?.

Why we don't see discussion of muhammad's killing,looting and slave trading activities studiously recorded by devout muslims ?. The records that muslims consider sacred .

 

[mkgal1]

I know very little about Islam.....but I have heard about the Covenant of Medina (that Mohammed was responsible for). This is a link I found that summarizes a bit about that covenant:

Covenant of Medina

A quote from that link: "Sixthly, Medina shall be regarded as a sacred by both, all bloodshed being forbidden therein. Seventhly, Muhammad shall be the final court of appeal in cases of dispute.

James A. Michener writes in "Islam: The Misunderstood Religion" (New York, 1955, p. 68) that, "Muhammad thus became head of the state and the testimony even of his enemies is that he administered wisely. The wisdom he displayed in judging intricate cases became the basis for the religious law that governs Islam today."[/quote]

....and, for anyone interested, I also found this video on the topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYLNFUudg7E

 

[HonestTruth]

Obama draws ire for comparing Isil to Spanish Inquisition and Ku Klux Klan - Telegraph

The difference of course is that whilst Christ never practiced or advocated the inquisition or slavery, Mohammed was a warlord who robbed caravans and executed prisoners in order that his men could rape their wives.

Has America ever had a president that was more mocking of, and hostile to, Christianity? I can see why some think him a Muslim, I really can.

President Obama is not mocking Christians. He is speaking the truth - just ask any historian.

Bush called his imperialistic war a "crusade" - that was an insult to Christianity and to all American ideals.




And while it is true that Jesus never practiced any of those atrocious acts, he knew in advance that the New Testament would be written and that more people would be killed in its name than for any other reason in history. Case in point: Hitler who said he was doing God's handiwork in killing Jews. Therefore, like it or not, Jesus was complicit in these horrible actions as was Mohammed.

 

[Red Fox]

There is this: Hitler’s Inspiration and Guide: The Native American Holocaust. It has been said, even by Adolf Hitler himself, that he was inspired to exterminate the Jews as the U.S. Government tried to exterminate the NDNs. The undeniable fact of American history is there has been a Native American Holocaust committed in the United States. Millions of NDNs have died since the Europeans first came to our land. One estimation is 19 million NDNs have died in this country since the Europeans first came here. And by 1970, there are only 260,000 NDNs living in the United States (watch the video).

American Holocaust of Native American Indians (FULL Documentary) - YouTube

 

[TerranceL]

That's hilarious, you know the claim is doubleplusgood when you can't find any actual source for it.

Yeah I'm sure it was totes the Americans that inspired Holocaust and not the centuries and centuries of hatred that european christians had for the jews.

 

[brewmama]

How many whites (or any other color) have died in this country since the white man first came here? And what does that mean?

 

[createdtoworship]

Then we are in agreement.

you at first state a misquote of my posts,

I correct it.

then you say you agree with it?

Are you in agreement that you misquoted my posts?

If so, please state so clearly.

thank you for the post,

have a nice day.

 

[HonestTruth]

How many whites (or any other color) have died in this country since the white man first came here? And what does that mean?

How many were killed in the name of the Bible?

 

[Red Fox]

How many were killed in the name of the Bible?

All that was done to American NDNs of that time was done under the guise of Christianity, which led to the ideals of Manifest Destiny, which led to all the forced removals of NDNs from their ancestral homeland unto barren land Reservations; the death marches, such as the Trail of Tears; the chemical warfare of small-pox in blankets given to NDNs; the broken treaties violated by the United States government in the theft of NDN land (one perfect example of this is Oklahoma); the cultural genocide based on "Kill the Indian, but Save the Man," which led to the NDN Residential Schools; and ultimately the attempted genocide committed the entire race of the American NDN, which led to the deaths of millions of NDN men, women and children living on the land that is now America. And all of these atrocities lead back to the ideals of Manifest Destiny, which was done in the name of God and under the guise of Christianity, resulting in the Native American genocide committed on the land that is now the United States of America.