Boots & Sabers

The blogging will continue until morale improves...


Everything but tech support.

2059, 30 Nov 15

Cameron Calls Vote on Islamic State

Isn’t it almost quaint how the British vote on these things? Here in America, our President just does what he wants.

David Cameron has said he will call a one-day Commons debate and vote on Wednesday over UK air strikes against so-called Islamic State in Syria.

The decision comes after Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said he would grant his MPs a free vote on the matter.

The prime minister said there was “growing” parliamentary support for air strikes, saying it was “the right thing to do” and in the national interest.


2059, 30 November 2015


  1. Kevin Scheunemann

    UK and France now the freedom leaders in world. Obama has made US a second rate power.

  2. Pat

    Obama can’t even bring himself to say radical christian extremism. Without that, how can we fight domestic terrorism.

  3. Kevin Scheunemann


    Define “Radical Christian Extremism”, and if it includes violating the golden rule, I’ll make the case the alleged person with that label was not Christian by action.

  4. Pat


    I know you will be able to make a case that there is no such thing as Radical Christian Extremism. But that doesn’t change that fact that there is.

    There will always be individuals that will take an ideology to it’s extreme possibilities. Like Radical Islamic Extremism, there is Radical Christian Extremism. Both have potential for crazy individuals to do harm in the name of their ideology.

  5. Kevin Scheunemann


    That depends.

    What do you mean by “radical Christian Extremism”? Christianity has a clear covenant in the New Testament that means Christians should have an attitude of thankfulness and grtitude for the grace we live under in Christ.

    When we talk radical Islamic extremism, Islam has clear Koran passages to kill the infidel, for refusing to convert, as written by its founder who was a child molestor.

    One religion in best practice, does not encourage acts of violence, the other does demand violence in passionate practice.

  6. Pat


    Both encourage acts of violence. It depends on how each person wants to interpret the writings.

  7. old baldy


    Radical Christian Extremism has existed for centuries. Kevin cares not one whit for history, but a short review of the Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, Spanish missionaries in the Americas, etc. would bring the definition of Radical Christian Extremism into focus. Just don’t bother kevin with the facts.

  8. Kevin Scheunemann


    Please point to where in Christianity, it “encourages” violence.

    Those that truly understand Christianity understand the New Testament covenant replaces Old Testament ceremonial law. Non-christians and liberals generally don’t want to believe that, but if we want to honest about what Christianity really means, I challenge you to point to anything in the bible that supports your point keeping this important issue in mind.

  9. Pat


    There are people who believe they are true Fundamentalist Christians that take the Bible literally. The majority of Christians maybe don’t. Just like there are Muslims who take the Quran literally but the majority maybe don’t.

    Extremism resides in all belief systems be it religious or political.

  10. Kevin Scheunemann


    Please point out where the “literal” part of the bible that encourages violence…understanding that to be a “Christian” you need to accept the New Testament covenant, which replaces Old testament ceremonial law. (If the “Christian” does not accept the New testament covenant…they simply are not Christians.)

    Just 1 verse is all I ask to back up your point that Christianity encourages violence.

    I can point out many places/verses in the Koran where that religion, founded by a child molester, demands violence from true followers.

  11. Pat

    And Kevin,

    What was the youngest age acceptable to marry and have sex in the early Christian church. 12?

  12. Kevin Scheunemann

    You want to know what a Islam really teaches?

    Take it from a FORMER Muslim!

    His Muslim bretheran want him dead for what he says…as called for in the Koran!

    So he preaches the gospel and exposes the lies of Islam at great risk and peril to his own life.

    His presentations and lectures are way more “meaty” and substantive then some non-descript liberal blog entry pretending Islam is not a threat to basic humanity.

  13. Kevin Scheunemann


    You still have not pointed to anything in Bible that “encourages” violence among true Christians.

    Would you like to retract your statement?

    If so, there is always forgiveness for the repentant error. Otherwise, I’m willing to gently discuss any proof you find that supports your statement.

  14. old baldy


    As kevin describes religion we should all flee from any organized religion, as all can be extreme, dangerous and all-knowing. RUN !

  15. Pat


    No, I’m not going to point to anything in the bible, and I’m retracting anything. There is Radical Christian Extremism. You don’t have to agree, you don’t have to like it, but it is a fact, just like there is Radical Islamic Extremism. And, I surely don’t need forgiveness for a repentant error which wasn’t made.

    Were Christians who, in biblical times, married 12 year olds pedophiles?

  16. Mark maley

    The Koran specifically allows the murder of infidels that is defined as anyone not adhering to the Koran chapter and verse

    For this reason only , I’m convinced that Islam is the worst of all religions .

    But remember , they all are magic factories
    With inane jumps in logic – that’s part of the deal

    We get you to heaven , you lose all critical thinking process

    That doesn’t absolve the others of all their problems . Their belief in an omnipotent being
    Who creates a vast universe out of nothing but still has to offer his son / self in a blood sacrifice rather than do what normal folks can do – simply forgive those who sin against us

    And it’s Rock firm belief in the writings of illiterate goat herders ( as later translated endlessly until the Irish finished things up in the Dark Ages )and of the sighting of illiterate teen age girls at the Ressurrction

    And the virgin birth – a concept in almost all ancient religions and the Ascension of Mary

    Their insistence that only their version of God is correct vs the version of Muhammed or even Joseph Smith and the American salvation

    The ones who believe line for line the Bible 2.0 but would have you believe that 1.0 ( the NT ) was about life lessons even if they contained rape, stoning and a father being asked to kill his own son and of a multi decade wandering in the desert with no historical foundation
    ( and Jews adher to that as the only Bible )

    Good Grief !

    Or the modern day Irish Laundries or chuch Sanctioned moving know prodephiles while
    Simultaneously condemning all homosexuals

    It’s all hooey .

    I do think we have to kill the Moslems who
    Believe in the Koran word for word

    I want to see the plan to do so that gets us something other than an Iraq where we stay for 100 years X 10-15 countries

    All I see so far is a slowness to engage on my guys part and a willingness to break any and all pottery barns in the Middle East with no plan to own all of them after we’re done

  17. Kevin Scheunemann


    Of course you cannot point to anything in the bible because it’s a statement made in error by not understanding basic Christianity. The bible encourages the opposite of what you stated.

    I guess you cannot be forgiven about the error since you are unrepentant about the incorrect statement.

    Just 1 verse to back up your point?

    The founder of Islam married a 6 year old girl and historic fact indicates he consummated that marriage when his “wife” was 9.

  18. Pat


    I don’t need your forgiveness as I have nothing to be repentant about. I stand by what I said.

    Were Christians who, in biblical times, married 12 year olds pedophiles?

  19. Kevin Scheunemann


    You stand by what you said, but it is a statement without any basis in fact.

    You cannot even come up with one bible verse that “encourages” Christians to violence.

    I was hopeful you would point to a verse and we would discuss it.

    Little shocked you cannot even come up with 1 to back up your outlandish statement about Christians.

    Very disappointed.

  20. Pat


    Were Christians who, in biblical times, married 12 year olds pedophiles?

  21. Kevin Scheunemann

    Ae we talking two 12 year olds getting married, or a 6 year old marrying a 51 year old, as in case of founder of Islam.

    The latter is child molestation, the former could have been reasonable depending on local customs in the lens of history. In our culture, both are unacceptable.

    You are getting off topic about your statement the bible “encourages” violence.

    I’m waiting for you to name just 1 verse. Don’t I deserve that since you completely offended my Christianity and implied my faith “encourages” violence? .

    Baldy just got done saying he does not support your free speech right when it infringes on “rights of others”. Your untruth about what the bible says offends my rights as a Christian….bearing false witness.

  22. Pat


    I didn’t imply that your specific faith, as you interpret it, “encourages” violence. I said there is extremism in all ideologies, and that there are individuals who commit violent acts based on their Christian beliefs as they interpret them to be.

    In biblical times older Christian men married females as young as 12. Were they pedophiles?

  23. John Foust

    Kevin, I think you need to go back to Bible study and re-examine all the times that God decided to wipe out large groups of people, as well as all the times he commanded humans to wipe out other humans. That doesn’t count as manic violence?

    Who is in charge of determining whether someone is a Muslim or a Christian? Who wants to quibble about whether they’re “true” and what happens based on that decision?

  24. Kevin Scheunemann


    Then point out which Christian beliefs spell out and “encourage” violence?

    My point is: if that is the case, they are not paying attention to the New Testament basics, and are not Christian by virtue of their actions.


    If you understand the New Testament concerning Christ’s grace, then yes. If you don’t understand the covenant of Christ’s grace, which nearly all non-Christians don’t understand, then no. (Faith comes by hearing the Word. Many non -Christians don’t hear because they refuse to hear the Word, which explains your comment trying to equate divine justice with human justice.)

  25. Pat


    There are many religions where members believe they are Christians. I know from past discussions with you that you don’t consider them to be Christians as interpreted by your following of WELS. All that doesn’t negate the fact that there are others that see themselves as Christians as they interpret the bible. And may act in a manner that they find justifiable but you may not.

  26. Kevin Scheunenann


    What you just said is an interesting subject.

    Only Christ knows the heart. However, the Christian with true faith should reflect that in action.

    Does someone who calls themselves a Christian but fails to worship their Lord for 20 years, a Christian? (Remember the Sabbath commandment warns against this.)

    What about a Christian preaching a gospel other than Christ crucified and rose for forgiveness of sins, justifying by faith alone? (Galatians 1:8-9, warns twice that those that do this are under God’s curse.)

    Faith without works is dead. James 2:14. Works are not a requirement of salvation, but merely a thankful reflection of being covered by grace of the gospel.

    So if someone is constantly mean and hurtful to others in manner you describe as”extremism” and have no other good work indicators of active faith in action….are they Christian? In other words, if their actions only show violence against others, and show no other thankful action for Christ’s grace and mercy, that is no where near Christian in practice.

    In that case, I’d say no. They are considered to be lost and need to be evangelized.

    So this is why you need to define what you mean by Christian extremism. If it’s someone showing unchristian behavior, then I’d make the case they are not Christian. If it’s someone preaching the gospel in its truth, even though it offends the lost sinner, that is another issue altogether.

  27. old baldy


    Kevin is a radical christian, and being one allows you to suspend belief in fact, and removes the need for curiosity. And it also allows that he can follow the rules of his individual belief rather than those of society without fear (in his mind) that he is doing something wrong.

    It is historical fact that radical christians such as kevin have been responsible for horrible atrocities for the last 1000 years.

    kevin is free to believe whatever he wants, but when he tries to claim his beliefs are the one and only truth, a line must be drawn in the sand to protect the rest of humanity.

  28. Pat


    In answer to your question, here is what I’ve said.

    “There are many religions where members believe they are Christians. I know from past discussions with you that you don’t consider them to be Christians as interpreted by your following of WELS. All that doesn’t negate the fact that there are others that see themselves as Christians as they interpret the bible. And may act in a manner that they find justifiable but you may not.”

  29. Pat


    Would you consider a person who claims to be a Christian Reconstructionist a true Christian?

  30. Kevin Scheunemann


    You still have not clearly defined what you mean by “Christian extremism”.

    If the Christian Reconstructionist does not reject the basic grace of the gospel message in the New Testament, then Yes. Depending on which reconstructionist you are talking about, one could make the argument they may reject the basic gospel based on their writings, especially when it comes to legalism.

  31. Pat

    “Depending on which reconstructionist you are talking about, one could make the argument they may reject the basic gospel based on their writings, especially when it comes to legalism.”

    But they would still consider themselves Christians, while you would say they were not. That being the case, who decides who is a Christian and who isn’t? Do you consider Catholics to be Christians? How about Methodists?
    How about Mennoites?

  32. Kevin Scheunemann


    I fully believe some Roman Catholics are Christians. Just as some members of my church are Christians, but I also have some doubts some members based on action.

    Best way to tell is:

    Romans 1:17 “For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”

    Galations 1:8 “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!”

    Galations 1:9 “As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!”

    So if a church preaches evolution (which rejects the Fall into Sin in the Garden of Eden and the very need for Christ’s redemption), or the church preaches something other than Christ crucified for our sins, or preaches your good works earn salvation, that is not the Christian Gospel message.

    Can people inside a church with a false teaching see through the fog of the issue contrary to the gospel and still be Christian? Absolutely.

    So when Romans 1:17 says the “righteous will live by faith”, I don’t see a call for violence since the “live by faith” means living out the thankfulness of Christ’s grace.

    An extremist using unprovoked violence is usually not a “Christian” act under New Testament covenant, thereby questioning the validity of their Christianity claim. In Islam, acts of violence are encouraged and rewarded in the Koran which reinforces their Islamic claim.

  33. Pat

    Would it sit any better with you if I change it from Radical Christian Extremists to Radical Rightwing Extremists?

  34. old baldy


    So you are saying that no christian, by your personal definition, can believe in evolution? There you go again, denying science. I hope you can find a doctor that meets your standards..

  35. Kevin Scheunemann


    Slightly better, but in my experience most violent extremists are left wing.

    My only beef was: Christianity, most of the time, is not being practiced by the overtly, unprovoked violent extremist. However, in Islam, overt violence is basic to that religion.


    I’m saying a Christian who believes in evolution denies the need for Jesus to redeem them from sin. If you deny Creation, and the Fall of Mankind into sin at the Garden of Eden, why do you need Christ as your redeemer? Christ as your redeemer from sin is the basic point of Christianity. Without that you believe in vain.

    When did sin enter the world in an “evolution” scenario?

    Evolution denies Christ. It’s as simple as that.

  36. old baldy


    kevin is beyond redemption.


    Do you, or your family, go to medical professionals that abide by your interpretation of christianity? Or can you be selective in that belief as well?

  37. Pat

    The key phrase you used was, “most of the time, is not being practiced by the overtly, unprovoked violent extremist.”

    I’ve been saying that there are extremists in any ideology be it political, or religious. The vast majority of practitioners of any ideology are able to express themselves in a non-violent way. There is the potential for extreme violent behavior by anyone at anytime given the right circumstance and environment. There are Radical Christian Extremists, Radical Rightwing Extremists, Radical Leftist Extremists, and Radical Islamist Extremists.

    The vast majority of Muslims are not violent, as the vast majority of Christians are non-violent. But when applying a label to a group of people as Radical Extremists I saw first hand what it does to an individual. You didn’t like being lumped in with that group and I’m positive that the majority of Muslims don’t like being lumped in with the group you apply a label to.

  38. Kevin Scheunemann


    I agree most do not liked to be “lumped” in with extremists, but Christianity, in it’s biblical form, does not encourage that behavior.

    Islam does encourage violence in their holy book.

    There is a big difference between the 2.

    Christianity can renounce bad, violent behavior. Islam cannot renounce bad, violent behavior because that is what their holy book calls for.

  39. old baldy


    Remember, extreme ideology of any stripe allows you to disconnect with reality, and to be selective in what you believe.

  40. Kevin Scheunemann


    You mean “selective” like how you want to make sweeping judgmental decisions on the evils of smoking in cars, soda drinking, and fat intake, but unwilling to make any reasonable judgment about the evils of Islamic terrorism?

    I find that to be very extremist.

  41. Kevin Scheunemann


    Seriously, why would someone who belives in evolution be “Christian”?

    I hope we agree that Christ as our redeemer from sin is thee basic point of Christianity. So if one denies the Creation account of the Fall into Sin, by accepting the false theory of evolution, why does one need Christ?

    The only way evolution fits into Christianity is if one rejects Christ as your redeemer, which means you are lost from Christ. That puts one outside the sphere of Christianity.

  42. old baldy


    I know plenty of folks in the various fields of science and believe in evolution (some even teach it in institutions of higher learning!) that believe they are christian. yet you can sit in the back room of DQ and pass judgement on them. Again I ask, who made you the arbiter of determining christianity ? Are you paid (minimum wage I hope) for such awesome responsibility? And are you held to any performance standards, ever have a job review? Can you be relieved of your position?

    How old is the earth? Did dinosaurs and man exist at the same time? Explain the origin of mankind comparing and contrasting your beliefs with scientific knowledge. be specific.


  43. Kevin Scheunemann


    So then you disagree with the basic definition of Christianity: “Christ as our redeemer from sin.”?

    Agree or disagree?

    If you disagree, what is the purpose/definition of Christianity?

    We need to get clear on what Christianity means.

    Once we clear up your definition we can have a reasonable discussion about Christians that reject Creation.

  44. John Foust

    See? It’s simple! Even the Pope isn’t Christian, because he believes in evolution!

    Kevin, aren’t you fortunate to have been born in exactly the right place that taught the one true religion?

  45. old baldy


    It is obvious that kevin has no response, just more jargon and gibberish.

    Thanks for your comment.

  46. Kevin Scheunemann


    Then it would be fascinating to ask the Pope:

    1.) Is Christ our redeemer from sin? I assume he would say “yes”.

    2.) If you reject Creation account and the Fall of Mankind into Sin by embracing evolution, then how did sin enter the world?

    That would be a fascinating answer!

    Not even Baldy is willing to tackle that simple, basic issue.

  47. old baldy


    It appears that the current pope is a better educated and more worldly man than yourself. If he believes in evolution you are saying he isn’t a christian? There are a lot of roman catholics out there that will disagree with you. Who gave you that power? Why did the grantor of such power pick a DQ manager in a small WI town?

    The pope also feels climate change in real and is a problem. What is your learned opinion?

  48. Kevin Scheunemann


    It would not be the first time a Pope has said something contrary to the truth of the gospel.

    I’m saying the Pope is “Christian-like” in what he does many times, but if he rejects Christ as his redeemer from sin, then he is not a Christian.

    If you reject the biblical truth of how sin entered the world, why do you need salvation from sin? and why would you need Christ as your redeemer if you deny the problem of sin?

    If sin is a problem, when did it enter the world in the evolution scenario? That is a huge problem for the unbeliever to pin down.

    That is the problem with buying into evolution. Either you reject Christ’s redemption from sin as an evolutionist, thus destroying the very reason to be a Christian, or you are contorted into a scenario where sin enters the world in a way that does not make any sense under the falsehood of evolution.

  49. old baldy

    More gibberish and jargon. You need a new schtick.

  50. Kevin Scheunemann


    Then define Christianity, if it’s something other than Christ as our redeemer from sin.

    You are stuck because you know this is Christianity at its core and evolution rejects Christianity at its core by denying Creation and the Fall of mankind into sin.

  51. old baldy


    Since I am a non-believer, I won’t presume to define your ideology. Foolish question on your part.

    As a past student in a number of classes pertaining to evolution, there is nothing in Darwin’s work, or anyone elses, that would deny christianity or any other religion for that matter. Once again you are making stuff up to suit your selective beliefs.

  52. Kevin Scheunemann


    That is where the challenge lies, as a non-believer, that does not read or study the bible, trying to define Christianity and the gospel.

    Actual Christians understand the absolute truth, and the problem of sin, and the need for redemption from Christ. The bible is clear about how sin entered the world and how one can receive redemption.

    Evolution is a flawed human theory, which denies Genesis and the Fall of mankind into sin in Genesis 3. You take that away with evolution, Christianity is meaningless because you reject the very need for Christ to come to earth to save us from sin.

    “Christians” can claim they believe in evolution, but that means they reject Christ and the very thing that makes them “Christian”.

    This is not my judgment, it’s simply the absolute truth of Christianity.

    It’s not surprising some so called Christian leaders embrace evolution, the bible warns about this as well.

    Titus 1:9
    “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.”

    2 Timothy 4:3
    “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”

    Appreciate the discussion, but I consult the bible for my Christianity, not Baldy, Darwin, or other false teachers that take positions contrary to the gospel.

  53. old baldy


    Once again you make gross assumptions to serve you response. You know where assumptions based on little fact will get you.

    “This is not my judgment, it’s simply the absolute truth of Christianity”, proves you arrogance knows no bounds. Simply amazing.

    As a science denier, how do you find it possible to take you or your family to a doctor? You have failed to respond to this reasonable question repeatedly. Or in that case is your denial selective>

  54. Kevin Scheunemann


    Actually, the arrogance lies with you if you deny/reject the absolute truth and purpose of Christianity: Christ as our redeemer from sin.

    You can’t even come up with your own definition for purpose of Christianity, but you rail against the obvious, and simple biblical truth anyway.

    That is where the arrogance really lies.

  55. old baldy


    Can you prove christ rose from the dead? Ascended into heaven? The actual That there really is heaven? No you can’t by by any rational method. You can’t prove any of that. You can believe in it, you can hope they exist, but you can’t prove it. So when you make all you ridiculous claims without any substance, you are again showing your incredible arrogance.

  56. Kevin Scheunemann


    Since you refuse to accept the bible as evidence of the inspired Word of God, the next best proof is from human reactions:

    The nearest “proof”, in the context you think about “proof” is 10 of the original 12 apostles were martyred, some of them brutally, and they never renounced that Christ rose from the dead. (The other 2, 1 being Judas by suicide, and the other John, who died naturally after writing book of revelation after being in exile by authorities for preaching the gospel a long time.) That is very compelling from an evidence standpoint. In analyzing their motivation, why would they do that if they were not in the presence of Christ?

    There is tremendous historical evidence from Roman history that Jesus walked the earth and was on trial before Pilate and was crucified.

    I find the Saul to Paul conversion very compelling as well. Here’s a guy that was persecuting and abusing Christians because he was a Jew that denied Christ was the promised Messiah, and in one day, converted to be one of the, arguably, greatest missionaries of the gospel of Christ in the history of mankind. Nobody denies, Paul existed and from the standpoint of history, had several missionary journeys.

    Suggest you read Don Piper’s “90 minutes in Heaven” book. I find his story very compelling “evidence” for heaven. The film, which came out 3 months ago, was also very well done.

    Naturally, you can just dismiss the evidence I suggested here, but it is very hard to explain it away., especially in the case of Don Piper.

  57. Major Booris

    The strongest proof of God’s existence I’ve seen in the past couple months is the fact that Kevin seems to have accepted, of his own free will, that ‘suppression’ is the correct verb to use when referring to infringements on speech.

    Truly miraculous are the workings of the Holy Spirit.

    If he’d also confess that his past persistence in using ‘oppression’ was the product of willful stubbornness and a pathological phobia of admitting mistakes, it’d be a more effective testimony to the life-changing power of Christ than anything else he’s written on this blog, ever.

  58. Kevin Scheunemann


    Point out a mistake I’ve made, and if you are right, I’ll admit to it.

  59. old baldy


    You have an endless list of willful omissions and erroneous statements regarding anything scientific. Start with your lies about the Kewaskum POTW, then the MMSD, evolution, gravity, etc.

  60. Kevin Scheunemann


    I thought those were opinions and you were not going to be judgmental about them.

    I lied about gravity? That’s hilarious. I can’t wait until you point that specific “lie” out.

  61. old baldy

    kevin the coward:

    You made all sorts of claims as mentioned. Own it.

    And you said the Newton wasn’tup to your standards as a christian hence his work on gravity wasn’t “true” enough for you. You avoided responding when I asked you to explain that thought. You have a very short and selective memory enabled by blind faith.

    “The way to see by faith is to close the eye of reason”. B. Franklin

  62. Kevin Scheunemann


    What are you talking about?

    When it came to gravity, I only talked about that human reason is corrupted, and that reason is never complete, perfect, or unable to be overthrown by more flawed human reason.

    You need serious a serious reality check if that translates into a lie on my part about gravity.

    I’ll accept your apology for misrepresenting my statement so badly.

    Why don’t you come up with a direct quote from me to back up your point?

    That would be the basic courtesy when you accuse someone of a lie. That way we can discuss the quote, and if it’s correct, you can apologize. If it’s not correct, I can correct, and apologize.

    Currently you are acting like a blindfolded wild man shooting blanks in the air shooting “squirrel”.

    Fortunately, I have a pleasant disposition and find your squirrel dance fairly amusing.

  63. Steve Austin

    Ah another thread with Kevin arguing about Islam with our resident lefties.

    Of course this keeps happening because some radical Muslims kill some civilians in a bat$&%# and craven way pretty much EVERY SINGLE WEEK thus requiring Owen to post yet another thread.

    Such a shame we didn’t have this blog ONE THOUSAND YEARS AGO during the Crusades, that one time the Christians apparently last got violent. But hey, equivalency and all that nonsense I’m sure.

  64. Kevin Scheunemann


    It is a fascinating dynamic. Lefties will go out of their way to defend and protect an increasingly violent Islamic religion….bending over backwards to deny the evil and protect it.

    However, in same breath go out of their way to stomp out every last vestige of Christianity in the public square.

    I’m in lead car in Kewaskum Christmas parade tomorrow and I’ve declared a Christian “safe space” when I say “Merry Christmas” to everyone along parade route. I told lead organizer that Jesus is reason for Christmas and that Christmas is the only celebration in the Christmas parade (or Easter if it comes up), I will speak boldly about.

    I’m hoping my favorite liberal friends here will celebrate my declared “safe space” from anti-Christian micro aggression.

  65. Kevin Scheunemann


    I almost lost the point in your abrupt switching of the subject, but you did not comment on my outside the bible proof for Christianity. I had more “proof” lined up: Like the possible discovery of the City of Sodom, ( if scientists are correct about the site, it is direct evidence of God’s power) the historical finds of King David and Solomon, the marked out historical path of the Exodus, etc.

    You did not even attempt to knock down my first round of proof for Jesus and Christianity.

    You were the one that asked, why did you switch subject suddenly?

    When people are met with the evidence of the original 12 apostles demise, and the original 11 of them that witnessed the ressurection, including doubting Thomas, none of them renounced their Christianity, even when 10 of them met a brutal death for their faith. That is very compelling evidence they knew Jesus and he was who he said he was.

    I do appreciate the follow up personal attack, because that says I nailed your demanded proof for Christianity question very well.

    So thank you for acknowledging, in your own special way, that my answer to you question on proof for Jesus was articulate and compelling.

  66. old baldy

    Dear Readers:

    I would like to point out that the 10:24PM post is not mine, but rather someone with little grasp of decency, and not enough sense to chose their own screen name.

  67. old baldy


    The gospel accounts were written hundreds of years after they alleged activities took place by folks trying to recruit members into a cult. They took various stories and fables form other earlier religions and combined it into the whole christianity story. You can check that out as those are historical facts. How convenient that christmas occurs so close to the winter solstice around which many earlier religions had their various rituals. Or explain that the orthodox church celebrates christmas in January. I don’t care what you believe, but don’t purport those fairy tales as fact.

  68. Mark maley

    This lefty see this not as Radical Islam ” but simply “religious terrorism ”

    Islam is simply the worst of the modern religions

    The more theistic the state , the greater the chance that the God of their imagination justifies their actions .

    And that’s never good

  69. Mark maley

    In England , the cops have the guns and bad and good guys don’t .

    Politicans are scoffed at when they talk of their firmly held religious beliefs affecting their public policy .

    If London were 500% cheaper , you could sign me up !

  70. Mark maley

    False Baldy

    In the words of A Lincoln on the prospect
    Of hanging Confererates
    ” we don’t want to hang Kev, we want to hang on to him ”

    True Baldy
    Our friend got his 30 minutes of free time out of the basement early this Saturday !

  71. Kevin Scheunemann


    Gospel accounts.

    Matthew was written betwen 60-75 A.D.
    Mark was written 70 A.D.
    Luke was written around 80 A.D.
    John was written 85-90 A.D.

    Many other New Testament letters of Paul date back to 45 A.D. and many were written 50-66 A.D.

    So the gospel accounts were not written “hundreds” of years later.

    I thought we excluded biblical evidence and were talking about non-biblical evidence for Jesus?

    Why the attack on the biblical evidence? I already know you throw that evidence out.

    Your reaction is interesting to the “proof” I presented outside the bible accounts.

  72. old baldy


    Historical scholars have been debating when “year 0 ” is in relation to our current nomenclature for yeras. So and a 100 plus/minus and you are right in my wheelhouse.

    And were those original gospels written in English? No, they have been translated numerous times back and forth from Aramaic, Greek, Latin, hebrew, etc. into all the modern languages. That didn’t happen in 70 AD.

    And what about the variations in translations. I have 2 English and my grandmothers German bible at my perusal. Pick any verse and it may or may not be consistent among the three.

    I’ll agree that there was a historical person in the Levant around that time that may have been named jesus, or something that translates as such. But there is no “non-biblical” proof, or truth, of any of the supernatural qualities you bestow upon that person.

    No, why not explain how all the christian rituals were borrowed from earlier religions? Be specific.

  73. Kevin Scheunemann


    I don’t buy your calendar argument. The Council of Nicea met in 325 AD and there is no dispute about that. Christ’s crucifixion is down to exact day in either 30 or 33 AD. Historians are not sure which year based on earthquake evidence and Roman calendar during Pilate’s reign. The 1st century AD timeline is fairly clear through year 100 on when books of bible were written.

    So to believe your “theory” we would have to lose 100 years between AD 100 and the Coucil of Nicea in AD 325 when the biblical cannon was assembled into one book. Roman history alone during that time blows your theory up.

    Again you are trying to deny the bible, not the other evidence I presented.

    Translation is all about Source vs. Target language. Source language is used in NIV and ESV, the translations we embrace. They are geared for the more spiritually mature.

    There is the NLT which is more target. Can be good for new Christian in understanding but has some problems in getting some meaning through.

    It’s good to read and compare each verse and talk about the difference in source vs target language translations. We have trained pastors who can go back to original Greek and Hebrew on some of the questions and translate ancient languages direct.

    It makes for an excellent, deeper understanding when it comes to translation. You are welcome to a bible study on this. It is fascinating.

    As far as church calendar. Much of that was set up at Council of Nicea. Easter being most prominent. I’m certain some Jewish tradition was drawn upon, to overwrite the Old Testament traditions, especially when it came to setting Easter, and doing away with the Passover tradition.

    Some denominations don’t like set church calendar. Some do. Easter is a year long celebration. Christmas is a year long celebration. I agree with that. However, I have no issue in setting aside a day of observance of the birth and resurrection of Jesus as a special day. The only “pagan” intent was to overwrite the nearby pagan holidays to make them Christian holidays.

    Now we have wicked pagan liberals in this nation trying to take the Christian out of these holidays and almost any other basic aspect of Christianity.

    You still have done little to knock down the historical, brutal demise argument of the original apostles. Not even 1 recanted. That is very compelling for proof of Jesus and his resurrection.

    In a certain other false religion that liberals love to defend, you just have 1 child molesting camel driver to rely on. And that religion offers no hope, or guarantee of salvation except through jihad, the killing of others.

  74. old baldy


    “down to exact day in either 30 or 33 AD”. Well, which is it?

    “spiritually mature” So your version is different than others?

    “overwrite the nearby pagan holidays to make them Christian holidays”. So your guy couldn’t even come up with something original?

    “wicked pagan liberals”. Name one.

    You haven’t proved anything, other than you are making stuff up as you go. So sad.

  75. Kevin Scheunemann


    I bias toward 3rd Friday in April 33 A.D. But there is a possibility it was a Friday in April in 30 A.D. Scientists have confirmed an Earthquake in both years, corresponding with the Earthquake at Christ’s point of death in gospel accounts. To me, it does not matter whether it was 30 or 33 A.D.

    Source language translations can be, in certain areas, be a little harder to understand for new Christians. Depends on the person. Source language translations are more reliable to the true, intended, meaning.

    Not a matter of being original, but what I see as an attempt to overshadow and get rid of pagan holidays.

    Wicked pagan liberals. Charlie Sheen and Miley Cyrus come to mind.

    Making stuff up? I’m not the one claiming a 100 year black hole on the historical calender in the early Christian church years which has no evidence in fact.

  76. Kevin Scheunemann


    You still have not knocked down the “proof” argument I presented for Christianity, not using the Bible.

    You seem to want to talk about something else.

    It’s very difficult to knock down the deaths of the original Apostles of the 1st Century in terms of proof. God’s design is there, if you want to see it.

    Also very difficult to knock down Don Piper. It’s very compelling evidence. Again, it’s all about if you want to see the light/evidence or not.

  77. Pat

    Don Piper is a false prophet and scam artist. If you believe in what he says, the bible would need to be revised to include what he is saying.

  78. Kevin Scheunemann


    What I find interesting is: I don’t see this kind of liberal derision for the founder of Islam, who was a child abuser, and the followers of Islam.

    Liberals seem to want to defend Islam at all costs. Some liberal teachers are wanting school kids to practice Islamic rituals in public school.

    Why is Christianity not treated by liberal sphere at least as well as Islam or the global warming religion?

    I’ll bite, which part of Piper’s book conflicts with the gospel?

    I find it fascinating neither of you wants to touch the motivations, and eventual deaths of the original Apostles.

    We know the founder of Islam’s motivations: To become rich and powerful, engage in violence as a criminal, and indulge every evil inclination. It sounds pretty close to today’s liberalism.

  79. Pat


    If you want a Liberal’s view point global warming you’d have to ask a Liberal. I don’t answer for them.

    I don’t defend radical Islam as I don’t defend radical Christianity, radical Conservativism, or radical Liberalism.

    You’ll have to discuss the Apostles with someone who really cares.

    If what Piper says is true it needs to be included in the Bible.

  80. Kevin Scheunemann


    That is the problem. You don’t define “radical Christianty”. If you mean using overt, unprovoked, violence like radical Islam, that person is not living their Christianity, excluding themselves by actions. The Muslim IS living their faith that calls for violence.

    Define ” radical Christianity”, that is what I have been asking since the top.

    Piper May already be referred to in the Bible, Acts 2:17. What is most compelling about his story is after seeing heaven, he did not want to live. He was hesitant, for months, to even share his experience.

    You have to be pretty callous, after listening to the whole story, to claim he is making it up.

  81. Pat

    Better callous than stupid.

  82. Kevin Scheunemann

    That’s pretty cold.

  83. old baldy


    “To me, it does not matter whether it was 30 or 33 A.D”, or ” Christ’s crucifixion is down to exact day in either 30 or 33 AD”.
    Both your words. Both BS. And both prove my point that you, or anyone else, don’t don’t have any idea what is correct and what is fiction. You just believe what ever fits the discussion at the moment.

    And sine you refused to respond to my other inquiries I’ll take that as a “I don’t know, but I’ll make something up”.

  84. Pat

    Better child than stupid.

  85. Pat

    Better cold than stupid.

  86. Kevin Scheunemann


    I’ll take it you accept my other evidence for Christianity, since you couldn’t knock down the other points.

    Whether the date of crucifixion was 30, or 33, it does not matter because it is a fact and establishes Chtistianity as absolute truth.


    That’s a hardened way to go through life. Many times granting grace to others in life is the not so smart decision, from the world’s perspective.

  87. old baldy


    You didn’t prove anything. You just re-stated your fairy tale. Your other points were so ridiculous they didn’t warrant rebuttal.

    Your claim, “Christ’s crucifixion is down to exact day in either 30 or 33 AD”, really says it all. First you say it is an exact date, then you say it isn’t, all in the same sentence. Great evidence of the inner conflict in your mind. And your tenuous grasp of the language..

  88. Kevin Scheunemann


    What happened to the original Apostles does not merit rebuttal?

    That is cold.

    Their motivation to not recant Christ and his resurrection is very compelling.

  89. old baldy


    Once you dismissed any factual argument with “Christ’s crucifixion is down to exact day in either 30 or 33 AD”, a statement with an internal contradiction, what purpose does further explanation serve. You are still going to spew forth you rote recital of stories from you fairy tale regardless of what I say.

  90. Kevin Scheunemann


    Never mind that it dispproves your life theory we evolved from apes….

  91. old baldy


    No it doesn’t. If you feel strongly on the matter, please explain how you reached that conclusion. Be specific, use facts (including science), and try not to insult the intelligence of your audience.


Pin It on Pinterest