Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. "Terrorists" kill 200+ in Sri Lanka

    I know but religion is what's being used here. I don't understand Breivik at all. There are Christians all over the world in every nationality and so this had nothing to do with race. Yet he killed Norwegians.
  3. "Terrorists" kill 200+ in Sri Lanka

    Reborn Knights Templar is an allusion to purported contact with Breivik - something that is said to be unlikely by Breivik's lawyer and could be easily substantiated by authorities. The Reborn Knights Templar is fictional... for the time being. The idea only exists because of perceived Islamic immigration. There is no scripture per se.
  4. "Terrorists" kill 200+ in Sri Lanka

  5. "Terrorists" kill 200+ in Sri Lanka

    Anyway, I don't even know why I'm even getting involved in discussing good and bad Muslims and Christians. I don't believe in any of that stuff. There are only good people and bad people.
  6. Philosophy and psychology? Being in this section invites a multitude of perceptions I would imagine. Being in this section as a truly curious person can provide a plethora of insight. i caught the preaching comment Joc, seemed like you were referring to Rabids post. Perhaps it is “preaching” per the forum rules, I see it more as self validating ideas by attempting to attract others to the idea-sharing ideas with an agenda. like the op who actually stated his intent was to help people with his insight. Because more people here can buy into his shared wisdom it is accepted and not considered “preaching”. Like an evangelist giving testimony in a church of evangelicals. all we can share is what works for us, or seems to and validate our systems with our own experience. For one to say that exhibit a is the only way the “law of attraction” works is interesting, is it not? Like we have it all figured out. Why do we find ideas to be so threatening we can’t discuss from a neutral position or so profound we insist others try them? Why can’t we just consider them?
  7. YOU ARE BANNED (Part 7)

    Banning you for the chocolate eggs. See, unlike the real deal (often found on your average blokes dinner plate) these novelty offerings do not swim too well with HP Brown Sauce.
  8. I don't believe you

    lol take your last point first That would have been disempowering and patronising my wife, and assuming she couldn't handle a few disgruntled feminists. I am happy to shoot dead anyone likely to do my wife harm but then she is likely to beat me to it You should work for the UN. They are always seeking to impose one standard of ethics and moralities on the world. Fortunately they are toothless The world is already created and shaped by colonial and religious beliefs imposed on other cultures because the western colonizers thought their values were superior You have NO right to impose your own on another Murder is a legal entity and each society decides what is murder, and what is not. Gee some counties have half a dozen different categories for murder Some argue that every society must ban capital punishment, but i guess you don't see that as one of the superior moral values of the modern world How do you feel about torturing ( sorry, robustly interrogating ) a terrorist who has information which could stop bombings like those in Sri Lanka, putting them through a lot of pain and maybe even death to save 300 lives I am all in favour of it, but many, including the UN, would ban it ps in the case i was thinking of, the husband stabbed the wife to death at a public event, because she had told him she was leaving him We have many such cases in Australia and the west. It is not just an Islamic or Indian cultural thing. Many men kill or harm women because their honour is offended.
  9. "Terrorists" kill 200+ in Sri Lanka

    The goal of the Knight Templars was to regain control of the holy lands during the crusades. As far as saying he was Christian, he was following Breivik's claims of Christian agnostics and atheists being able to act because of their Christian culture. There was no belief in God there, so it would be far from proper Christianity. Just use of the term of Christian, which does seem like how these terrorists use the term of Islam.
  10. Vlad the Mighty

    Saharan Dust coated Cars in Wales with a dirty residue today!

  11. General tournament chat

    Ok, thank you. I'll wait for you to continue playing.
  12. "Terrorists" kill 200+ in Sri Lanka

    My point being that Tarrant doesn't represent Christians but he thought he was fighting in the name of Christianity, similar to the Knight Templars.
  13. United Nations report: One million species at risk of extinction The devastating impact of human activity on the Earth’s biodiversity has been laid bare in a shocking new report by the United Nations. Up to one million species face extinction due to human influence, according to a draft UN report obtained by AFP that painstakingly catalogues how humanity has undermined the natural resources upon which its very survival depends. The accelerating loss of clean air, drinkable water, CO2-absorbing forests, pollinating insects, protein-rich fish and storm-blocking mangroves — to name but a few of the dwindling services rendered by nature — poses no less of a threat than climate change, says the report, set to be unveiled May 6. Indeed, biodiversity loss and global warming are closely linked, according to the 44-page summary for policymakers, which distils a 1800-page United Nations (UN) assessment of scientific literature on the state of nature. https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/conservation/united-nations-report-one-million-species-at-risk-of-extinction/news-story/d9f8a97f5c53fe42bcd0fda8957f1e25
  14. Things that make you go grrrr ( Part 2 )

    Morrisons tinned baked beans & sausages. Those tiny bangers inside that tin taste like a herb overdose that's been out in the sun too long. A big yucky grrr.
  15. acute

    My old man said "Foller the van,

    And don't dilly dally on the way".

    Off went the van wiv me 'ome packed in it.

    I walked behind wiv me old côck linnet.

    1. ouija ouija

      ouija ouija

      "I dillied, I dallied .... something something something ..... I can't find my way 'ome"

  16. "Terrorists" kill 200+ in Sri Lanka

    Anymore it sure feels like thats all thats left.
  17. "Terrorists" kill 200+ in Sri Lanka

    Now compare that to suicidal Islamic terrorists being inspired by some abstract belief from something in the Quran. Any different?
  18. "Terrorists" kill 200+ in Sri Lanka

    I wasn't aware of this Templar group until you mentioned it. Like I told Golden Duck, it seems he talked to them. Breivik was his hero.
  19. "Terrorists" kill 200+ in Sri Lanka

    No. He did mention the Knight Templars though. Posted the link. That seems to have come from Breivik also. It seems he talked to them before he committed the murders.
  20. "Terrorists" kill 200+ in Sri Lanka

    He said he got approval from a revived Knights Templars as if that's even a thing.
  21. Dire wolf? Wolf shifter? Magic?

    Some animals do not need much light at all. for their eyes to glow.
  22. "Terrorists" kill 200+ in Sri Lanka

    Apparently his hero Brevik was the one that inspired him in his Knight Templar quest. Just saw your previous post now.
  23. "Terrorists" kill 200+ in Sri Lanka

    His reference to the Knight Templars seems to have also come from Breivik. https://heavy.com/news/2019/03/brenton-tarrant-anders-breivik-knights-templar/
  24. I don't believe you

    Go back and read all the previous posts . Rape did not even exist as an entity within a marriage until the 1970s. Rape is defined as sex which is had without ( in modern law free and informed) consent, and is thus illegal In a marriage consent was legally given by the act of marriage and could not be withdrawn under that contract (socially and legally) Second it was not illegal for either partner to demand sex from the other, although politeness civilty and a good nature might limit the demands marriage legally and specifically excluded the possibility of rape within it BUT outside of marriage, where no contract existed, a person could give and withdraw consent on an individual basis at different times Its taken centuries to make this clear and definite eg only recently it was decide that it was not necessary for a woman to refuse consent A failure to give it specifically resulted in rape, so if you has sex with an unconscious person, it was rape, but that is a quite recent legal evolution. Not long ago a court would not judge rape if a woman initially gave consent and then withdrew it during the act That has also been improved.
  1. Load more activity