• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Lord Language Resurrection.

Status
Not open for further replies.
MikeG said:
Yes, but can you eat horse **** and sheep **** like my dog can? Because you claimed that anything a dog can eat is safe for humans.
Click to expand...

May be I can eat horse **** and sheep **** like your dog.
May be you can eat horse **** and sheep **** like your dog.
May be you want eat horse **** and sheep **** like your dog.
I don’t want eat horse **** and sheep **** like your dog.
 
Border Reiver said:
That law is "thou shalt not commit murder" - which is very different from "thou shalt not kill."

CraigB is citing a passage dealing with actions against a people that was apparently sanctioned by the "diety" whose "holy book" you are touting as a means of bringing peace to the world. Which is yet another example of how you have not done the basic research into your ideas - the Old Testament, New Testament and the Koran are filled with 100s of morally questionable actions by divinities and are only suitable to live a moral life from if you heavily redact them or choose to ignore portions of them.
Click to expand...

President of US Abraham Lincoln freed the blacks from slavery and at the same time he was a slaveholder.
He made a great humanist act in its historical context.
Your mistake is that you do not make corrections to the historical context.
To abandon from cannibalism in cannibals environment as difficult as to go to my style of eating in the modern human environment.
 
Stuart said:
Ah I see you didn't lie about either you simply changed your mind about what you do. Sounds like either of my daughters (when they were about 5 years old and got caught out).
Click to expand...

For example vegetarian have some time to eat meat just for not to loose the ability to eat meat.
“I do not eat meat because I do not want to eat meat” is one thing.
“I do not eat meat because I can’t eat meat” is an other thing.
“I do not eat pork because I do not want to eat pork” is one thing.
“I do not eat pork because I can’t eat pork” is the other thing.
 
Nationalcosmopolitan said:
President of US Abraham Lincoln freed the blacks from slavery and at the same time he was a slaveholder.

He made a great humanist act in its historical context.
Click to expand...

Lincoln NEVER owned any slaves.

You could at least make a small effort at research.

Your mistake is that you do not make corrections to the historical context.
Click to expand...

Corrections to historical context? As in I don't change the historical context of events to suit my concepts?

Such as - making Abraham Lincoln a slaveholder, or pretending that the Indo-European languages evolved from a Semitic language, or that a sock in a bag water filter is necessary in a city with a functioning water treatment system?
 
Nationalcosmopolitan said:
President of US Abraham Lincoln freed the blacks from slavery and at the same time he was a slaveholder.
He made a great humanist act in its historical context.
Your mistake is that you do not make corrections to the historical context.
To abandon from cannibalism in cannibals environment as difficult as to go to my style of eating in the modern human environment.
Click to expand...
Lincoln was not a slaveowner, although as his wiki biography reports
In 1842, Abraham Lincoln married Mary Todd, who was a daughter of a slave-owning family from Kentucky. Lincoln returned to the political stage as a result of the 1854 Kansas–Nebraska Act and soon became a leading opponent of the "Slaveocracy"—that is the political power of the southern slave owners.​
You are presumably thinking of Thomas Jefferson, who (sincerely) promoted life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and who owned hundreds of slaves in the course of his life.
 
Nationalcosmopolitan said:
President of US Abraham Lincoln freed the blacks from slavery and at the same time he was a slaveholder.
He made a great humanist act in its historical context.
Your mistake is that you do not make corrections to the historical context.
To abandon from cannibalism in cannibals environment as difficult as to go to my style of eating in the modern human environment.
Click to expand...

Lincoln did not own slaves. If you want to make corrections to the historical context you could start by trying to be a tiny bit accurate.
 
Cosmo, just out of interest, where will you go to play when you are eventually banned from here?

I keep suggesting Ickes so you can mingle with other liars and crackpots yet you remain here.

Your spamming of the same lies, and suggestions that people kill themselves, is a tad annoying. Pasting your stupidly long links to multiple pictures of you and your idiotic hat are annoying.

Get a grip. There's no God and you're ill.

Bacon.
 
Nationalcosmopolitan said:
President of US Abraham Lincoln freed the blacks from slavery and at the same time he was a slaveholder.
He made a great humanist act in its historical context.
Your mistake is that you do not make corrections to the historical context.
To abandon from cannibalism in cannibals environment as difficult as to go to my style of eating in the modern human environment.
Click to expand...

No, he didn't own slaves. Wrong again.
 
Craig B said:
Oh, at last I understand why you have been spouting complete nonsense for months and months: you believe that Indo-European languages were brought into Europe by this event. Therefore, it seems to you that no language spoken in Europe prior to the barbarian incursions that destroyed the Roman Empire in and after 400 CE can be designated as Indo-European. Greek and Latin and Welsh and Irish must therefore be descended from Biblical Hebrew or Aramaic, because the ancestors of these languages were present in Europe long before 400 CE.

I don't know what to say in response to such delusions, so I'm going to have a cup of tea and a rest before I think about these things again.
Click to expand...

Philosopher Alexander Piatigorsky told in his lections about Buddhist Philosophy that Sanskrit is very similar to Russian language.
I do believe him very much because was a very known professor of Cambridge.
From another side I know very well that Russian language is very similar to Holy Resurrected Language of Holy Resurrected Israel.
That’s why Sanscrit is very similar to Holy Resurrected Language.
But Sanckrit and Holy Language are the most ancient languages.
What of this 2 languages was the “mother language”?
This one that has more ancient writing.
From Alexander Piatigorsky I know that Sanskrit writing has born in 3 century BC.
The writing of Holy Language has born in 13 century BC.
That’s why it is clear that God Holy Language is the “mother language” of Sanskrit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom