Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
My thoughts on him have been non-impressed, but also non-paying attention.
92
I've been thinking the same thing for a while, tempered only by the lack of caring I have about the subject of Sam Harris.  But I'm looking forward to what you bring up.
93
Bookmarked.
94
This has been growing on me for a while. This guy seems to have a very limited ability to grasp reality. I'm going to post different videos and comment on them to highlight my point starting tomorrow probably. But it has to be said.
95
Chatter / Re: kava
« Last post by Add Homonym on April 25, 2017, 09:42:32 PM »
Taking shrooms scares me, but buying them doesn't.
96
Religion & Society / Re: The world we are finding ourselves in
« Last post by jaimehlers on April 25, 2017, 08:20:41 PM »
That's pretty mind-blowing.
97
Religion & Society / Re: Why aren't Christians, Christians?
« Last post by screwtape on April 25, 2017, 08:20:36 PM »
Matthew 25:  "Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?  When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?.....And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.  Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:  For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in"


One of the very few bible verses I think are any good.  Also happens to be possibly the one most ignored by xians. 
98
The Hebrew says "lies with".  It is not talking about rape.  It's talking about premarital sex.  Rape carried the death penalty (Dt 22:25).

Deut 22:25 is talking about a "betrothed" woman.  I.E. someone else's property.

22:28-29 is talking about an unmarried virgin.  These distinctions mattered (and still do) to the jooz, foolish though they may seem to us. It is indicative of how they view women.

NIV says rape.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22%3A28-29&version=NIV
Quote
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

The Hebrew word is shakab which means "to lie down" or "relax".  This verse clearly means that if a man uses a virgin woman as a mattress on which to nap, he must then marry her.

Seriously, though, the key is in Dt 22:29.  It says, "he has violated her."  The word is "anah". 
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6031&t=KJV

It means, "to humble" or "mishandled" or "afflicted".  This could be referring to her "honor" being lost due to premarital sex.  But that makes no sense, in context, if it was consensual. 

The man is the one who has to pay a fine.  The man is the one who must support this woman until one of them dies.  The man cannot divorce her, "as long as he lives."  In other cases, where the woman is complicit,  they are both stoned. They share blame and punishment.

No.  Because only the man pays, this is implying he owes her.  Which means the woman had no say.  And her 'humbling' is something for which he must atone. Thus, her affliction is that she was raped.


The tribe of Benjamin was nearly wiped out because of retribution for multiple rapes (Judges Ch. 19, 20)

Let's just tackle one bullshit part of the OT at a time, Kay?
99
Groups, Events, & Activism / Re: Trump in Harrisburg!
« Last post by Chronos on April 25, 2017, 08:14:41 PM »
what happens if you sign up and then don't show up?   

That's what many people are doing. However, I wonder if your cell phone is out of area whether the Trump folks will simply book your tickets again anticipating the attempt to spoil the spectators.

I was wondering if there would be protestors with signs along Cameron Street where Orange Twittler will be.

I hope many.

march against this idiot when he's here in Harrisburg: https://www.facebook.com/events/1911103175767729/

Go for it!  Let's work both sides of this shitball!

100
No shifting goal posts.  Because your blood has your DNA but is not a human doesn't show anyone is moronic,

It is if they try to claim that DNA is what defines a thing as "a tree" or "a human", which is what you did, explicitly and implicitly.  I'm not saying you're a moron, but your argument is dumbassery.  Just own up to the mistake and move on. 

isn't evidence that a germinated seed isn't a tree...

It does.  It may say a germinated seed belongs to a particular species of tree and may, under the right circumstances become a tree.  But it does not say the germinated seed is a tree.  Your argument was that because the two had the same DNA, they were the same.  I was pointing out that argument does not hold.

...nor evidence a human fetus isn't a human.  Your comparison is bad because your blood, which is part of you, is you so far as it is part of you.  Your argument doesn't prove your claim.

It does, on both counts.  You were comparing a fetus to a germinated seed.  And because you said the seed was a tree (due to DNA), the obvious implication was that the fetus is a human (also due to DNA).  My point being, DNA can be misleading in this conversation.

And blood is only a part of me for as long as it is a part of me.

Concerning my comments about the human life cycle, I'm not saying anything different than I've been saying all along.  It's part of my argument.

I agree too, but it's a moot point.  Semen dumped into a tissue or ova flushed out at menstruation are also part of the life cycle.  We don't treat those as people.

And your argument about fetus rights is a straw man.  I've not said anything about a fetus having rights. 

It's not and I didnt say you did.  It was a tangential...rant.  I feel the conversation since your introduction to this thread to be off topic and not what I wanted to discuss.  I hoped the mods would split it off, but so far, no luck.  Given that, I hoped my argument would just end the derailment that followed you.

For my argument to have been a straw man, I would have had to say or imply you made an argument which you did not. I definitely did not say you said something you didn't.  And I tried to not imply as much either.  If I was unsuccessful at that, my apologies.

A human fetus is a prenatal HUMAN.  Fact.  And all the vulgarity in the world won't change it.

moot point, thus not worth arguing.  See my "rant" you accused of being  a straw man.

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]