Feed on Posts or Comments 25 May 2016

Islam Thomas on 18 Jun 2013 12:57 am

Religious education teaches insanity

When people who are religious are allowed to teach children, they often end up indoctrinating the children in nonsense, as documented by Richard Dawkins in this video inside an Islamic school:

It can take children years to recover from this indoctrination, if they recover at all.

460 Responses to “Religious education teaches insanity”

  1. on 20 Jul 2013 at 3:59 pm 1.The messenger said …

    400.Angus and Alexis, gay people are not allowed to have sex with the same gender.

    Straight people are not allowed to have sex with the same gender.

    Ps, there are better ways to show love than having sex.

  2. on 20 Jul 2013 at 5:00 pm 2.The messenger said …

    Jesus stated that he would give his stone( the authority to literally stone a person ) to the first person who can say that they have never sinned.

    All humans have sinned, therefore GOD is the only person who can literally stone someone.

  3. on 22 Jul 2013 at 1:43 pm 3.the messenger said …

    389.freddies_dead, are you stupid?

    The “stoning” mentioned in the bible had nothing to do with actual stones.

    The verses about stoning are metaphores meaning punishments. It has nothing to do with actual stones.

  4. on 22 Jul 2013 at 5:03 pm 4.freddies_dead said …

    397.The messenger said …

    390.freddies_dead, within comment 338 you stated that polygamy was allowed in the bible( you lied). When I responded to comment 338 I accidentally included polygamy in my statement about at arranged marriages and concubines.

    Polygamy is not allowed, according to the bible.

    I didn’t lie. The old testament is full of patriarchs and prophets who had multiple wives – Lamech, Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Gideon, Saul, David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Elkanah, Ashur, Abijah and Jehoiada and nothing in there that admonishes them for doing so.

    Exodus 22:10 states “If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.”

    It was allowed in the Bible.

  5. on 22 Jul 2013 at 5:15 pm 5.freddies_dead said …

    399.The messenger said …

    391.freddies_dead, here is comment 268, thus proving that you made that statement in comment 268.

    You cited 2 comments in your failed attempt to show I lied.

    You said:

    In comment 268 you stated the following quote.

    Then in comment 268 you stated the following quote.

    You got it wrong messy. That second comment that I made was actually post 340 – not 268. You can’t even keep the post numbers straight so why should we believe anything you say about more complex issues?

  6. on 22 Jul 2013 at 7:27 pm 6.Anonymous said …

    freddies_dead, BTW, you do a superb job of putting Messy and others in their place with respect to their non-nonsensical arguments.

    It’s just a shame that the current contributors claiming to be theists, are mostly trolls who make up shit as they go along.

    Let’s hope that as Ass and his socks gasp to be fed due to the “no troll food” diet, real believers will come back and join in the conversation. “Shall we pray?” ;)

  7. on 22 Jul 2013 at 7:55 pm 7.A said …

    Messenger

    You must think as an atheist. Anything you disagree with is hate to an atheist. They hate all things they do not like therefore you must as well.

    I could of pulled out one of mu army of posters but decided to stick with A.

    Lol!!!!

  8. on 22 Jul 2013 at 11:56 pm 8.the messenger said …

    407.A, thank you for the advise.

  9. on 23 Jul 2013 at 12:06 am 9.the messenger said …

    on 22 Jul 2013 at 5:03 pm 404.freddies_dead, you lied.

    This is what exodus 22 :10 states.

    Show resourcesAdd parallel
    Exodus 22:10
    New International Version (NIV)
    10 “If anyone gives a donkey, an ox, a sheep or any other animal to their neighbor for safekeeping and it dies or is injured or is taken away while no one is looking,

    <<

    >>

    New International Version (NIV)
    Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

    Exodus 22:10 in all English translations

  10. on 23 Jul 2013 at 12:42 pm 10.Angus and Alexis said …

    “Ps, there are better ways to show love than having sex.”

    In your opinion, please think of others.

    “400.Angus and Alexis, gay people are not allowed to have sex with the same gender.
    Straight people are not allowed to have sex with the same gender.”

    Straight people aren’t allowed?
    Last time i checked, you can have sex with any gender and no one can do anything about it…

    Again, bigot.

  11. on 23 Jul 2013 at 1:23 pm 11.the messenger said …

    Lamech had multiple wife and was justified because it was before GOD made the law against polygamy.

  12. on 23 Jul 2013 at 1:31 pm 12.the messenger said …

    Hagar was not Abraham’s wife.

    She was a concubine.

  13. on 23 Jul 2013 at 1:36 pm 13.the messenger said …

    Abraham married Keturah after the death of his fist wife, sarah.

    It is not considered polygamy because he married keturah after his first wife died. Therefore he only had one wife at a time.

  14. on 28 Jul 2013 at 7:18 am 14.remrem.nl said …

    Great goods from you, man. I’ve understand your stuff previous to and you are just extremely magnificent. I actually like what you’ve acquired here, really like what you’re stating and the way in which you say it. You make it entertaining and you still care for to keep it wise. I cant wait to read much more from you. This is really a terrific web site.

  15. on 28 Jul 2013 at 7:37 pm 15.A said …

    Thanks remmy.

  16. on 28 Jul 2013 at 8:56 pm 16.DPK said …

    Mr. “A” the science guy can’t even recognize a spam bot when one shows up and thinks “remmy” is paying him a compliment.
    God, he is such a complete asshole.

  17. on 28 Jul 2013 at 9:51 pm 17.alex said …

    “God, he is such a complete asshole.”

    him thinks the bot is one of his socks. i’m just waiting for him to post as remrem and congratulate hisself. if he does that, i finna lose it.

    when busted again, the motherfucker would prolly go out and try to shoot up an atheist church. good luck.

  18. on 28 Jul 2013 at 11:53 pm 18.Anonymous said …

    “God he is such a complete asshole”.

    Which one? Atum, Thor, Ra?

    Meanwhile, in an excess of complete assmanship, we have the following. On the other thread he is so desperately in need of being contrary, he actually said:

    “Mousey pretending there ate two of him. How quaint. The MO is the same, no answer.”

    Just how fucking stupid do you have to be to tell someone, as he did? No, no, no! You are not using Sock Puppets. No, No, No. You are not pretending to be someone else.

    This must be the first in in ever that a troll (“assman”) accused someone of *not* being a troll!

    What a complete and utter asshole.

  19. on 29 Jul 2013 at 1:21 am 19.alex said …

    “God he is such a complete asshole”.

    “Which one? Atum, Thor, Ra?”

    methinks, he was referring to the sockmaster. the one thanking the intelligently designed bot.

  20. on 29 Jul 2013 at 3:08 am 20.Anonymous said …

    I know that! I was just taking the piss out of the term “God”. ;)

    Still, it’s really, REALLY, funny to see the puppet-master having a conversation with a bot. Not very intelligent is he?

    Now what is it Hor (aka “a”, Ben, Biff, Boz… martin… 40YA, etc) says at this point.

    Oh yes… LOL

  21. on 29 Jul 2013 at 3:30 pm 21.freddies_dead said …

    409.the messenger said …

    on 22 Jul 2013 at 5:03 pm 404.freddies_dead, you lied.

    No messy, I simply misquoted the number of the relevant chapter – it should have been Exodus 21:10 not 22:10. Do you have any actual response to your Bible happily allowing polygamy?

  22. on 29 Jul 2013 at 4:11 pm 22.freddies_dead said …

    411.the messenger said …

    Lamech had multiple wife and was justified because it was before GOD made the law against polygamy.

    Chapter and verse for this law please.

    412.the messenger said …

    Hagar was not Abraham’s wife.

    She was a concubine.

    Odd then that Genesis 16:3 states: And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

    Even if I grant you Abraham, due to differing translations of what Hagar was to him, that still leaves Lamech (waiting on that chapter and verse for the law that bans polygamy), Jacob, Esau, Gideon, Saul, David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Elkanah, Ashur, Abijah and Jehoiada (to name but a few). I’m fairly comfortable sticking with my claim that the Bible shows polygamy as a perfectly good version of marriage.

  23. on 30 Jul 2013 at 12:10 am 23.the messenger said …

    421.freddies_dead, here is the text leading up to exodus 21 10, and after.

    7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

    The text is not referring to polygamy. It is referring to the rights of a woman who has been rejected by her fiancé, thus she never married him.

  24. on 30 Jul 2013 at 10:29 am 24.freddies_dead said …

    What on earth are you talking about messy? Exodus 21 has rules for slave owners and verse 10 states quite clearly that if the slave owner takes another wife he’s not allowed to deprive the old wife of her food, clothing and, most importantly, marital rights. Why would they mention those marital rights if they’d never gotten married? It’s polygamy messy, plain and simple.

  25. on 31 Jul 2013 at 1:10 pm 25.the messenger said …

    424.freddies_dead,exodus 21 9 talks about a man selecting a servant(not a slave) to marry his son.

    Exodus 21 10 states that if the son chooses to marry another girl instead of the one that his father selected for him, he is to treat her well.

    Exodus 21 10 states that the son decided to marry another woman, therefore meaning that he did not marry the one that his father selected for him.

    This passage gives no indication that the son of the servant master decided to marry the woman that his father selected for him, therefore is means that he only married the woman that he choose and that he rejected the woman that his father selected for him.

    These are not slave rules, these are servant rules and arranged marriage rules.

  26. on 31 Jul 2013 at 3:32 pm 26.freddies_dead said …

    425.the messenger said …

    424.freddies_dead,exodus 21 9 talks about a man selecting a servant(not a slave) to marry his son.

    You don’t buy servants, you buy slaves.

    Exodus 21 10 states that if the son chooses to marry another girl instead of the one that his father selected for him, he is to treat her well.

    Exodus 21:10 states nothing of the sort. It’s talking about the slave owner getting another wife.

    Exodus 21 10 states that the son decided to marry another woman, therefore meaning that he did not marry the one that his father selected for him.

    21:10 doesn’t mention the son at all. The ‘he’ in that verse is the ‘he’ that bought the woman in the first place and that ‘he’ is told quite specifically that should ‘he’ marry another woman ‘he’ must not deprive the first woman of her marital rights.

    The old ‘marital rights’ are going to get you every time messy.

    This passage gives no indication that the son of the servant master decided to marry the woman that his father selected for him, therefore is means that he only married the woman that he choose and that he rejected the woman that his father selected for him.

    You are now reading things into the verse that simply aren’t there. It does not talk of the son refusing the marriage at all. It’s a set of rules for the owner and it states quite clearly that should the owner marry another woman he can’t deprive the other one of her ‘marital rights’.

    Why do you keep ignoring those marital rights messy? Is it because they destroy your argument so completely?

    These are not slave rules, these are servant rules and arranged marriage rules.

    I repeat: you do not buy servants, you buy slaves.

  27. on 01 Aug 2013 at 2:36 am 27.the messenger said …

    426.freddies_dead, the words “buy” and “sell” are used in that passage to express how dependent and close that the servants were to their employers.

    The word “slave” is nowhere in that passage.

    The workers in that passage are referred to as “servants”, not “slaves”.

  28. on 01 Aug 2013 at 3:27 am 28.the messenger said …

    426.freddies_dead, here is exodus 21 9-10.

    9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.

    Exodus 21 9 talks about a man who has arranged for one of his servants to marry his son.

    Exodus 21 10 talks about a person marrying another woman, indicating that he decided to marry her instead of the first girl.

    Due to the fact that verse 9 and 10 speak of marriage, it is logical to conclude that the man in verse 10 is the same man within verse 9.

    Furthermore, verse 10 states that a man married another girl, thus hinting that he did not marry the servant girl that his father selected.

    Exodus 10 does not label the 2nd girl as the man’s wife, thus proving that he did not marry her and that he rejected her as his spouse to be.

    Can you give any proof within this text that can disprove my statements listed above?

  29. on 01 Aug 2013 at 3:37 am 29.the messenger said …

    426.freddies_dead, tell me, where in Exodus does it say that the “he” in verse 10 is also the man in verse 9?

    Verse 9 talks about a servant girl being selected to be married to her master’s son.

    Verse 10 talks about a man marring one girl instead of the other.

    Due to the fact that verse 9 talks about a woman who has been selected to marry a son, it is logical to conclude that she is also the woman in verse ten who was not chosen to be married.

  30. on 01 Aug 2013 at 3:42 am 30.the messenger said …

    426.freddies_dead, tell me, does exodus 21 state that he married both of those women?

    It clearly states that he married another woman, therefore proving that he did not marry the first woman and that he chose a different woman to marry(aka he only married one of them).

  31. on 01 Aug 2013 at 9:33 am 31.freddies_dead said …

    427.the messenger said …

    426.freddies_dead, the words “buy” and “sell” are used in that passage to express how dependent and close that the servants were to their employers.

    They’re used to denote the exchange of money for ownership of a human being – that’s slavery.

    The word “slave” is nowhere in that passage.

    The workers in that passage are referred to as “servants”, not “slaves”.

    I know what they’re referred to as, it’s just that buying and selling human beings is slavery no matter how you try and avoid the term.

  32. on 01 Aug 2013 at 9:57 am 32.freddies_dead said …

    428.the messenger said …

    426.freddies_dead, here is exodus 21 9-10.

    9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.

    Exodus 21 9 talks about a man who has arranged for one of his servants to marry his son.

    And? Where have I said it says otherwise?

    Exodus 21 10 talks about a person marrying another woman, indicating that he decided to marry her instead of the first girl.

    It specifically mentions the first girl’s MARITAL RIGHTS – you keep ignoring that phrase like crazy but it’s still there to piss all over your argument. ‘He’ (the owner) marries the first girl which gives he MARITAL RIGHTS, then, should he marry another woman he’s told not to screw over the first girl’s MARITAL RIGHTS.

    Due to the fact that verse 9 and 10 speak of marriage, it is logical to conclude that the man in verse 10 is the same man within verse 9.

    The only logical thing to conclude is that the ‘he’ in 9 is the same ‘he’ in 10. ‘He’ is not the son, ‘he’ is the man who bought the slave and, if ‘he’ bought her for his son ‘he’ is to treat her as a daughter, whereas, if ‘he’ bought her for himself, ‘he’ is told specifically to preserve the girl’s MARITAL RIGHTS should he choose to marry someone else as well. It couldn’t really get any clearer.

    Furthermore, verse 10 states that a man married another girl, thus hinting that he did not marry the servant girl that his father selected.

    That man who marries another is the owner – not his son. The verse says nothing about the son, nor about him possibly rejecting his father’s choice of bride. 9 and 10 are separate rules. 9 concerns the owners responsibility should he have bought the girl for his son i.e. he must treat her as a daughter. 10 has nothing to do with his son and specifies quite clearly that the owner should preserve the girl’s MARITAL RIGHTS should he choose to marry another woman. It wouldn’t mention MARITAL RIGHTS if they didn’t get married.

    Exodus 10 does not label the 2nd girl as the man’s wife, thus proving that he did not marry her and that he rejected her as his spouse to be.

    MARITAL RIGHTS, MARITAL RIGHTS, MARITAL RIGHTS. Why would it mention MARITAL RIGHTS if they weren’t married? Why messy? Can you actually answer that? Or will we see you doing yet more mental gymnastics to deny the words you claim to believe come from your God.

    Can you give any proof within this text that can disprove my statements listed above?

    The text itself disproves your statements. It’s blatantly fucking obvious to everyone but you it seems.

  33. on 01 Aug 2013 at 10:01 am 33.freddies_dead said …

    429.the messenger said …

    426.freddies_dead, tell me, where in Exodus does it say that the “he” in verse 10 is also the man in verse 9?

    It’s the same ‘he’ from Exodus 21:8 through to 21:11 – the owner/master, the one who buys the girl. How can you not see this?

    Verse 9 talks about a servant girl being selected to be married to her master’s son.

    And ‘he’ is told to treat her as a daughter.

    Verse 10 talks about a man marring one girl instead of the other.

    No it doesn’t. MARITAL RIGHTS messy. You’re still ignoring them but they’re not just going to disappear. ‘He’ must marry the girl (MARITAL RIGHTS!) and is told that should he wish to marry another ‘he’ cannot deprive the first girl of her MARITAL RIGHTS.

    Due to the fact that verse 9 talks about a woman who has been selected to marry a son, it is logical to conclude that she is also the woman in verse ten who was not chosen to be married.

    Only if your logic comes from Mars.

  34. on 01 Aug 2013 at 10:07 am 34.freddies_dead said …

    430.the messenger said …

    426.freddies_dead, tell me, does exodus 21 state that he married both of those women?

    It states quite clearly that he cannot deprive the first woman of her MARITAL RIGHTS. Why would it mention MARITAL RIGHTS if he hadn’t married the first woman? C’mon messy, tell us why it does that?

    It clearly states that he married another woman, therefore proving that he did not marry the first woman and that he chose a different woman to marry(aka he only married one of them).

    It states nothing of the sort. It’s an instruction that should he choose to marry another woman he’s not allowed to deprive the first woman of her MARITAL RIGHTS.

    You’re ignoring the first woman’s MARITAL RIGHTS!

    MARITAL RIGHTS, MARITAL RIGHTS, MARITAL RIGHTS.

    The first woman has them and he can’t deprive her of them if he marries a second wife. It’s so clear even a child could see it.

  35. on 01 Aug 2013 at 10:10 am 35.freddies_dead said …

    W00t! This is fun. Can any of the other theists here (if there are actually more than 1 of them of course) help messy out and explain why the verse mention’s the first woman’s MARITAL RIGHTS if the owner didn’t actually marry her?

  36. on 01 Aug 2013 at 12:34 pm 36.Angus and Alexis said …

    Sadly freddie….the only other theist is “A” and his army of puppets…

    Makes me wonder where solomon, and all the others from the archive went…

  37. on 04 Aug 2013 at 1:40 am 37.the messenger said …

    434.freddies_dead, the words “marital rights” do not appear anywhere in that verse.

    You liar.

  38. on 04 Aug 2013 at 2:02 am 38.the messenger said …

    434.freddies_dead, forget what I said in comment 437.

    I was a bit tired when I typed that comment. I was not thinking straight.

  39. on 04 Aug 2013 at 2:15 am 39.the messenger said …

    431.freddies_dead, the word “servant” means a person employed in a house on domestic duties or as a personal attendant.

    The person in the text is labeled as servants.

    They are not slaves, they are servants.

  40. on 04 Aug 2013 at 2:37 am 40.the messenger said …

    431.freddies_dead, if the owner of a company decides to sell his company, he can also include his employees in the deal too.

    If the owner of the company changes, the employes of the company now work for someone else. Therefore they are under a different ownership.

    Within company they are in a way owned, but they are not truly owned.

    That is the kind of ownership that they are referring to in exodus.

  41. on 07 Aug 2013 at 3:56 am 41.thorin said …

    434.freddies_dead, making your letters bigger does not help your argument sound any less ridiculous.

  42. on 07 Aug 2013 at 3:59 am 42.the messenger said …

    on 01 Aug 2013 at 10:07 am 434.freddies_dead, to inform you, I thought that I should change from the old name, but I decided to switch back to being called the messenger.

    Thorin is longer my name on this site.

  43. on 07 Aug 2013 at 4:02 am 43.the messenger said …

    431.freddies_dead, the word “servant” means a person employed in a house on domestic duties or as a personal attendant.
    The person in the text is labeled as servants.
    They are not slaves, they are servants.

  44. on 07 Aug 2013 at 4:21 am 44.the messenger said …

    434.freddies_dead, the text does not contain the words “second wife”, you liar.

    10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

    If the text ment that he married both women, it would have stated the following instead.
    (If he marries another woman as well as the first one)

    The text does not say the sentence above.

    The words “chose another” can be interpreted in many ways. It can be understood as he choose one thing, or person, over a different one, thus only having one. It can also be understood as he chose more than one thing, thus he chose both.

    The wording of this text can be interpreted in two different ways, therefore I suggest that we abandon this debate because neither of us can prevail.

  45. on 07 Aug 2013 at 4:29 am 45.the messenger said …

    270.Angus and Alexis, stop pouting like a 3 year old child.

    You made the claim that animals feel emotion, therefore it is your job to prove it and research it.

    Show me proof that animals feel emotion.

    PS, arn’t you a little old for pouting. I think I made you cranky. Maybe your rattle will cheat you up little man.

  46. on 09 Aug 2013 at 11:42 am 46.freddies_dead said …

    439.the messenger said …

    431.freddies_dead, the word “servant” means a person employed in a house on domestic duties or as a personal attendant.

    I know what a servant is, messy, but you don’t buy servants, you hire them.

    The person in the text is labeled as servants.

    In that translation, yes. There are others – such as the English Standard Version (ESV) – that use the more accurate term “slave”.

    They are not slaves, they are servants.

    You do not buy servants, you buy slaves.

  47. on 09 Aug 2013 at 11:42 am 47.freddies_dead said …

    440.the messenger said …

    431.freddies_dead, if the owner of a company decides to sell his company, he can also include his employees in the deal too.

    Not true. The new company takes over the employment contracts (if they are to continue), that is not the same as buying/selling the employees.

    If the owner of the company changes, the employes of the company now work for someone else.

    If they agree to the move, yes. They are allowed to refuse and come to an agreement about the ending/cancellation of the employment contract.

    Therefore they are under a different ownership.

    Nope, at no time are the employees ever “owned” by anyone.

    Within company they are in a way owned, but they are not truly owned.

    They are not ever, in any way, “owned”. They have an agreement to work for a company for appropriate remuneration, that is all.

    That is the kind of ownership that they are referring to in exodus.

    No, it isn’t. In Exodus people are bought and sold, as slaves.

  48. on 09 Aug 2013 at 11:43 am 48.freddies_dead said …

    441.thorin (messy) said …

    434.freddies_dead, making your letters bigger does not help your argument sound any less ridiculous.

    Firstly, the emphasis needs to be made because you insist on overlooking what the passage actually says in your misguided attempt to defend the Bible on the issue of polygamy. I understand why, it’s because it is devestating to your claim.

    Secondly, you have yet to provide any evidence that supports your assertion that my argument is ridiculous. The passages in Exodus are part of the evidence that the Bible condoned polygamy. The passages in question confirm that, should a man take another wife, he’s not allowed to deprive the first wife of her MARITAL RIGHTS. Nowhere have you addressed this issue.

  49. on 09 Aug 2013 at 11:43 am 49.freddies_dead said …

    444.the messenger said …

    434.freddies_dead, the text does not contain the words “second wife”, you liar.

    What a bizarre accusation. How can I be a liar when I’ve never claimed that the text contains the words “second wife”? It is simply an inference based on what the text does tell us i.e. that should the man marry another woman he must not deprive the first woman of, among other things, her MARITAL RIGHTS.

    10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

    If the text ment that he married both women, it would have stated the following instead.
    (If he marries another woman as well as the first one)

    The text does not say the sentence above.

    Holy crap but you’re dense. How could he deprive the first woman of her MARITAL RIGHTS if he didn’t marry her? This is what you keep ignoring. It’s a huge elephant sat in the room and you’re doing everything possible to avoid mentioning it. I know why, it’s because you have no answer, no way to spin the phrase to support your misguided claim.

    The words “chose another” can be interpreted in many ways. It can be understood as he choose one thing, or person, over a different one, thus only having one. It can also be understood as he chose more than one thing, thus he chose both.

    I believe you mean the words “marries another”, as “chose another” isn’t part of the text in question but yes, it can be interpreted in different ways. However, in this case, the context tells us that it’s the latter meaning – that he married both – when it points out the other woman’s MARITAL RIGHTS.

    The wording of this text can be interpreted in two different ways, therefore I suggest that we abandon this debate because neither of us can prevail.

    What debate? As I’ve already noted, the context gives us the correct meaning – that the man marries both women. Unless, of course, you have some way of explaining why the text mentions the first woman’s MARITAL RIGHTS when, according to you, she never married?

  50. on 09 Aug 2013 at 12:51 pm 50.Angus and Alexis said …

    “270.Angus and Alexis, stop pouting like a 3 year old child.
    You made the claim that animals feel emotion, therefore it is your job to prove it and research it.
    Show me proof that animals feel emotion.
    PS, arn’t you a little old for pouting. I think I made you cranky. Maybe your rattle will cheat you up little man.”

    Haha, nice post necro…

    Anyway, animals feel emotion.

    You have a pet dog? Perhaps a bird?

    Rub the dogs belly, or feed the bird some nice fruit, if you cant take in that they are in a state of complete bliss and happiness during so, reply, and i will give up, not because i am defeated, by because there is no reason having a debate with a person who cannot realise emotions.

    Or secondly, search “Emotion in animals” in wikipedia (i know wikipedia is not reliable, but i skimmed through the page and it checks out fine).

    And pouting?
    I admitted defeat due to your ignorance, it takes serious balls to just give up peacefully despite the opposition being an idiot.

  51. on 09 Aug 2013 at 10:50 pm 51.the messenger said …

    446.freddies_dead, if an employee signs a contract that states he must work for that company for several years, he is bound to that company(aka, the company tecnichly hold a form of power over him).

    If a man sells that company, the workers that are bound in that company by contract, now technically “sold” to the new employer.

    Once again, they are servants, not slaves.

  52. on 09 Aug 2013 at 10:55 pm 52.the messenger said …

    447.freddies_dead, the employer does not have to come to an agreement with the employee. He could simply refuse to end the contract.

    If the worker refuses to work, even though his contract is still active, the employer can sue the employee and have him arrested for not abiding by their legal agreement(aka, the contract.

  53. on 10 Aug 2013 at 3:20 am 53.the messenger said …

    450.Angus and Alexis, rubbing a dog’s belly causes a physical form of bliss, not an emotional form of bliss.

    A person can feel emotionally well, but can feel physically awful at the same time.

    Yes, I did have a pet dog, his name is sabre. I pray that when I die GOD will give him a soul so that I can see my old companion again.

  54. on 10 Aug 2013 at 3:22 am 54.the messenger said …

    450.Angus and Alexis, it takes balls to never except defeat, even when the enimies are as delusional as you.

  55. on 13 Aug 2013 at 10:36 am 55.the messenger said …

    446.freddies_dead, if an employee signs a contract that states he must work for that company for several years, he is bound to that company(aka, the company tecnichly hold a form of power over him).
    If a man sells that company, the workers that are bound in that company by contract, now technically “sold” to the new employer.
    Once again, they are servants, not slaves.

  56. on 19 Aug 2013 at 1:26 pm 56.freddies_dead said …

    451 and 455.the messenger said …

    For the purposes of this discussion I’ll be assuming English employment contract law … because I’m English. I’m fairly sure that American employment contract law is similar and I’m certain that neither of them allow people to be bought and sold as chattel i.e. as slaves.

    446.freddies_dead, if an employee signs a contract that states he must work for that company for several years, he is bound to that company(aka, the company tecnichly hold a form of power over him).

    He has a contract with that company. They do not own him. The only power they have is ending the contract and even then they must have a good reason. An employer or an employee can break the contract any time that they want and the worst that can happen is that the other party can pursue them through the courts for breach of that contract. If anything employment contracts give the employee a great deal of power – totally unlike being a slave who is bought and sold without any personal rights.

    If a man sells that company, the workers that are bound in that company by contract, now technically “sold” to the new employer.

    No, they are not. There’s no buying and selling of people. Employment contracts are “transferred” as part of the organisational unit that is being sold but, due to said sale, the terms of those contracts change. The employees must be consulted about this change and they can object to the transfer if they wish. If they object, the contract is terminated. The reason it’s a “transfer” is to ensure the employees “period of continuous employment” isn’t broken (which is all about maintaining their statuatory rights) not because they’ve been “sold” to the new company. The fact that most workers stay on after a company is sold is a personal choice i.e. they would rather just stay where they are than go searching for a new job.

    Once again, they are servants, not slaves.

    Once again, people being bought and sold as chattel are slaves, not servants.

  57. on 19 Aug 2013 at 1:41 pm 57.freddies_dead said …

    452.the messenger said …

    447.freddies_dead, the employer does not have to come to an agreement with the employee.

    Yes, they do.

    He could simply refuse to end the contract.

    No they can’t. If an employee objects to transferring then the contract is terminated.

    If the worker refuses to work, even though his contract is still active, the employer can sue the employee and have him arrested for not abiding by their legal agreement(aka, the contract.

    Even if we ignore the facts that a) breach of contract is a civil matter not a criminal offence and b) the police will not arrest you for breach of contract, there is no broken contract if you object to transferring your contract to new owners when a company is sold. The contract gets terminated and everyone goes their separate ways.

  58. on 19 Aug 2013 at 2:00 pm 58.Angus and Alexis. said …

    “450.Angus and Alexis, it takes balls to never except defeat, even when the enimies are as delusional as you.”

    No, that would take stupidity to not admit defeat, the point of admitting defeat is to show the opposition has beaten them.
    Not win, beaten, in this case, by your brainwashed opinion of emotions.

    “450.Angus and Alexis, rubbing a dog’s belly causes a physical form of bliss, not an emotional form of bliss.”

    right, so that is why it rubs its tail, licks your face and seems to be in a good “mood”?
    Ohh please, first you say elephants cry because stuff gets in their eyes, that monkey’s dont have emotions, and now dogs dont have emotions?

    “A person can feel emotionally well, but can feel physically awful at the same time.”

    Not sure about your mindset, but if i feel like shit, i usually am pissed off, sad , or angry…
    If you get happy from a broken leg or from throwing up, please stay away from public areas…

    “Yes, I did have a pet dog, his name is sabre. I pray that when I die GOD will give him a soul so that I can see my old companion again.”

    Going to burst your bubble here, but you aint seeing him again, he is dead, his very physical matter no longer is alive, the very chemical reactions and electrons that made him move are no longer existent. The same will happen to you, myself, and every living thing. Live with it.

  59. on 10 Sep 2014 at 9:26 pm 59.cinedux said …

    The human brain seems to have enlarged beyond it’s owner’s capacity to use it rationally.It will be the author of the species destruction. What an interesting episode in “the record of the rocks” we will make!;-)

  60. on 07 Mar 2015 at 10:15 pm 60.jase said …

    Tread Posts states;

    “When people who are religious are allowed to teach children, they often end up indoctrinating the children in nonsense”

    Stating “religious” is a very broad term and covers the vast majority of humanity. Everyone is indoctrinated as a result of their education. Some are indoctrinated with truth, some with half-truth and some with lies.

    It seems the blogmaster is stating that only atheists should be employed to teach children. That was done in the former USSR and ended with a mass of humanity who feared the state and lived in a hopeless state of existence as a result of their indoctrination.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply