or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Miscellaneous News.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Miscellaneous News. - Page 62

post #2441 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Is it necessary for you to lie about me to make yourself feel better?

I'm not lying about you.  You have repeatedly defended the "right" of others to discriminate against homosexuals.  You don't want to force hospitals to allow gays visitation rights.  You've made that very clear.  Are you changing your tune now?  Or are you just unable to confront the harsh reality of your views spelled out plainly?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2442 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I'm not lying about you.

 

Well then perhaps it's a comprehension problem that's causing you to say untrue things about me.

 

I have never said that I think it is fine, nor have I even said that I agree with people when they do such things. In fact I don't think it is fine, nor do I agree with such discrimination.

 

BR, your homosexuality is fine with me. I don't judge you for it, nor do I think anyone else should. Nor do I think anyone should discriminate against you for it. As far as I'm concerned your actions are between you, the people you do them with and God. No one else.

 

P.S. Nor do I agree with your unsupported dystopian expectations and claims.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You have repeatedly defended the "right" of others to discriminate against homosexuals.  You don't want to force hospitals to allow gays visitation rights.  You've made that very clear.  Are you changing your tune now?  Or are you just unable to confront the harsh reality of your views spelled out plainly?

 

You are correct.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Are you changing your tune now?

 

No. But neither of those things is the same thing as "it's certainly fine for others to discriminate against homosexuals." I don't think it is fine to discriminate against folks for those reasons and would not recommend any do it.

 

So here we have either a major failure in your logic comprehension or your comprehension of what I have actually said, or you're actually, deliberately lying about what I've said.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Or are you just unable to confront the harsh reality of your views spelled out plainly?

 

As I've aid, repeatedly, I do not believe I have any right to compel anyone to conform to my own personal values.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2443 of 2700

I find your assumptions about my sexuality to be rather revealing.  Clearly you think anyone who would defend the rights of gays so vigorously must be gay himself.  Nope, my desire for marriage equality does not come from a position of personal interest.  I just don't want my fellow humans being fucked over by bigots, including the de facto bigots like yourself who refuse to attempt to stop the discrimination through legislative means.

 

I suppose that makes me more like your Jesus than you would like to admit.  I love my neighbor and I'm willing to do something meaningful about it. 

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2444 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Clearly you think anyone who would defend the rights of gays so vigorously must be gay himself.

 

Not at all.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I just don't want my fellow humans being fucked over by bigots, including the de facto bigots like yourself who refuse to attempt to stop the discrimination through legislative means.

 

I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that I won't join you on the quest to forcibly impose our shared values of non-discrimination on others.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I suppose that makes me more like your Jesus than you would like to admit.  I love my neighbor and I'm willing to do something meaningful about it. 

 

As am I. But I stop at using force to make people comply with what I want them to do. Sorry if you don't like that. It's totally understandable.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2445 of 2700

Yes, how very convenient for you.  Meanwhile, heterosexual couples enjoy rights homosexual couples don't.  But it would be "wrong" to use legislation to correct that. How convenient that the folks that disgust you have no legal recourse in your eyes.

 

No pragmatism whatsoever in extremists like you.  Right now it's unfair that heterosexuals get rights that homosexuals don't.  Instead of fighting a hard, upstream battle to revoke the government involvement in heterosexual relationships, why not just treat all people equally under the existing framework?  That's a quick patch that would SAVE LIVES.  You can still fight that battle, but in the meantime, you don't have all these homosexual people fucked over in the meantime.  

 

But, compromise and pragmatism are not in your vocabulary.  

 

Once again, you value the right of the bigot to discriminate over the right of the homosexual to not be discriminated against.  You can rationalize all you want, but you are still on the side of the bigot on this one.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2446 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Yes, how very convenient for you.

 

Actually, it's not convenient at all. What would be convenient is forcing people to do what I want them to do.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Meanwhile, heterosexual couples enjoy rights homosexual couples don't.

 

Which "right" are these?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

No pragmatism whatsoever in extremists like you.

 

I see you're back to ad hominems and attempting to discredit someone by using the "extremist" bogeyman. How nice. 1rolleyes.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Instead of fighting a hard, upstream battle to revoke the government involvement in heterosexual relationships, why not just treat all people equally under the existing framework?  That's a quick patch that would SAVE LIVES.

 

Hyperbole much?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You can still fight that battle, but in the meantime, you don't have all these homosexual people fucked over in the meantime.  

 

But, compromise and pragmatism are not in your vocabulary.  

 

Once again, you value the right of the bigot to discriminate over the right of the homosexual to not be discriminated against.  You can rationalize all you want, but you are still on the side of the bigot on this one.

 

I'm on the side of real rights. You cannot support real rights by infringing upon them in order to support invented "rights." No one has a "right" to not be discriminated against. That's just a fabrication of your imagination.

 

Trying to reason with you is tiresome. Your deep-seated fallacies, biases (not to mention authoritarian tendencies) are such a huge barrier to overcome.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2447 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Nope, my desire for marriage equality does not come from a position of personal interest.

 

I've always assumed it just came from a deep-seated ignorance of what marriage actually is.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #2448 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

 

I've always assumed it just came from a deep-seated ignorance of what marriage actually is.

Maybe you're the one confused.  Even in the ancient Middle Eastern version of Dianetics that you hold so dear, it was never just one man and one woman.

 

biblical-marriage.jpg

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2449 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Maybe you're the one confused.  Even in the ancient Middle Eastern version of Dianetics that you hold so dear, it was never just one man and one woman.

 

biblical-marriage.jpg

 

Well it goes without saying that you have a generally loopy understanding of the Bible, but just from a cursory glance at your chart:

 

• Genesis 2:24 says nothing even close to the written description. The Biblical record clearly shows one man + one woman to be God's design for the family before the Fall. Everything else in the chart refers to mankind's broken society afterward.

 

• Your lists of concubines and polygamy mean nothing.

  The Bible records that broken men did broken things, and the Lord never blessed any of it.

 

Actually, Issac's and Ishmael's kids are still killing each other 4000 years later, Solomon's wives and concubines led him to personal destruction, David's entire household went up in flames, Jacob's 12 sons went to war regularly and ten tribes ended up being lost, etc. etc. etc. So the Bible sugarcoats nothing and sheds great light on why historically plural marriages are a crazy bad idea.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #2450 of 2700

Oh, you actually believe all that shit about the magic sky father, don't you?  Come up with a falsifiable definition of your deity and prove its existence, then we can take you seriously.  Until then, you are a deluded child with an invisible friend, causing legitimate harm to millions of people.  Come sit at the grown up table after you stop believing the tooth fairy is real.

 

Hint:  The bible proves the existence of your god as much as The Goblet of Fire proves the existence of Harry Potter.

 

circular-logic-of-the-bible.gif[Image: Circular_reasoning_fore-back.gif]

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2451 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Oh, you actually believe all that shit about the magic sky father, don't you?  Come up with a falsifiable definition of your deity and prove its existence, then we can take you seriously.  Until then, you are a deluded child with an invisible friend, causing legitimate harm to millions of people.  Come sit at the grown up table after you stop believing the tooth fairy is real.

 

Hint:  The bible proves the existence of your god as much as The Goblet of Fire proves the existence of Harry Potter.

 

Angry, intolerant, condescending and personally disrespectful of other people with whom you disagree.

 

I can't imagine why atheists aren't winning.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #2452 of 2700

Aww, somebody's offended because his invisible friend isn't being respected.  Meanwhile, you actively fight against equality for homosexuals.  While your thin skin and ridiculous beliefs may not be able to handle criticism, you sure dole out far worse to your homosexual neighbors.  You think what they do is an abomination.  You don't want them to have equal rights.  That's fucking obscene.  That's beyond disrespectful.  That's inhumane.  That's as far from Christ-like as you can possibly get.

 

 "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -Gandhi

 

Of course, you also hide behind the "I'm offended card" and dodged coming up with a falsifiable definition and providing evidence for the existence of your deity.  Shocking you'd avoid that impossible task.  You know, because god is Santa for grownups.

 

If you don't want your beliefs to be laughed at, don't hold such laughable beliefs with such a laughable lack of evidence.  Laughably.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2453 of 2700

Marriage is between a man and a woman period. Not this crap of females with females and males with males.That is what GOD intended in the Bible.
 

post #2454 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Oh, you actually believe all that shit about the magic sky father, don't you?  Come up with a falsifiable definition of your deity and prove its existence, then we can take you seriously.  Until then, you are a deluded child with an invisible friend, causing legitimate harm to millions of people.  Come sit at the grown up table after you stop believing the tooth fairy is real.

 

Hint:  The bible proves the existence of your god as much as The Goblet of Fire proves the existence of Harry Potter.

 

Perhaps you should do a bit more reading about those words you think you understand.

 

Can you provide a comprehensive theory that explains your political ideology? It has been rendered useless and failed repeatedly. Yet you cling to it and repeat it like a prayer. At least those folks with the magic sky father aren't trying to stick their nose into my business to the degree you demand. They don't demand the female daughters of my friends submit their bodies to their whims all to protect the herd. (Since per your theory we are all the sheep and you are the shepherd.)

 

Given the choice between a group who believes in an imaginary shepherd and you trying to be a very real, slightly crazy and profoundly authoritarian shepherd, I'll take the imaginary guy every time.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2455 of 2700
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

 

biblical-marriage.jpg

Lol! Tragic, but still lol!

 

Women in the UK fought hard not to be the property of their husbands. Sharia law in the UK for muslims, seemed like it would offer a good way for muslims to be free to live according to their faith without breaking UK laws. The problem is that now a lot of muslims aren't getting official marriages under UK law. Instead their getting married under Sharia Law, so legally their not even considered to be married. The man can take numerous wives and can end the divorce fairly quickly and easily. A woman though has a much harder time being granted a divorce. The courts are all governed by men. The man can take everything in a divorce and give the wife, or wives, nothing. He can not only do that, but the woman must give her dowery, (everything she brought into the marriage like a house, assets etc) to her husband. The man doesn't have to pay the Sharia court anything for the divorce, but the fee for women is £400, which is about $600. If the woman can't pay, they will lower this amount.

 

There are real problems allowing this kind of prejudice against women. Whilst it's important to respect people's religion, we're seeing a large population of people effectively living outside of the laws that we have to protect peoples rights, including those of children.

- An article on this topic- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9975937/Inside-Britains-Sharia-courts.html

 

As far as I'm aware the following is not common, but it shows just how damaging having separate unofficial laws can be-

 

"This disturbing trend has been highlighted this week by revelations that, during an undercover investigation, two imams from Islamic centres, one based in Peterborough, the other in East London, expressed their willingness to marry an under-age Muslim girl — aged just 12 — to a man in his 20s under the aegis of Sharia law.

 

It is right, of course, that we respect freedom of religion, but surely not when basic laws and morality are being flouted in this way. It is reported that one of the imams, in trying to justify his actions, said that he would not have married the girl unless she had given her consent.

 

But a 12-year-old cannot consent to a marriage. It is precisely because children lack the experience, judgment and maturity to make such decisions that we have laws against marriage and sex under the age of 16."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202991/Sharia-marriages-girls-12-religious-courts-subverting-British-law.html

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #2456 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

Perhaps you should do a bit more reading about those words you think you understand.

 

Can you provide a comprehensive theory that explains your political ideology? It has been rendered useless and failed repeatedly. Yet you cling to it and repeat it like a prayer. At least those folks with the magic sky father aren't trying to stick their nose into my business to the degree you demand. They don't demand the female daughters of my friends submit their bodies to their whims all to protect the herd. (Since per your theory we are all the sheep and you are the shepherd.)

 

Given the choice between a group who believes in an imaginary shepherd and you trying to be a very real, slightly crazy and profoundly authoritarian shepherd, I'll take the imaginary guy every time.

So, tu quoque, ad hominem, and you're apparently saying that you're fine with having a deity whose existence cannot be tested.  Not helping your cause at all.  Isn't it funny how you paint me as some sort of monster yet it's I who want more rights for a bullied minority and those you are defending are actually the ones sending their gay children to child abuse camp?

 

Up is down.  Black is white. 

 

Oooh, how authoritarian of me to want gays to have equal rights.  The words lose their meaning when you use them in such a stupid fashion.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2457 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

Perhaps you should do a bit more reading about those words you think you understand.

 

Can you provide a comprehensive theory that explains your political ideology? It has been rendered useless and failed repeatedly. Yet you cling to it and repeat it like a prayer. At least those folks with the magic sky father aren't trying to stick their nose into my business to the degree you demand. They don't demand the female daughters of my friends submit their bodies to their whims all to protect the herd. (Since per your theory we are all the sheep and you are the shepherd.)

 

Given the choice between a group who believes in an imaginary shepherd and you trying to be a very real, slightly crazy and profoundly authoritarian shepherd, I'll take the imaginary guy every time.

So, tu quoque, ad hominem, and you're apparently saying that you're fine with having a deity whose existence cannot be tested.  Not helping your cause at all.  Isn't it funny how you paint me as some sort of monster yet it's I who want more rights for a bullied minority and those you are defending are actually the ones sending their gay children to child abuse camp?

 

Up is down.  Black is white. 

 

Oooh, how authoritarian of me to want gays to have equal rights.  The words lose their meaning when you use them in such a stupid fashion.

 

Of course I'm fine with having a deity whose existence cannot be tested. If you understood falsifiability, you'd understand the difference between scientific proof, historic proof, legal proof and other types of proof instead of sounding like an idiot.

 

Design a scientific proof to show Abraham Lincoln existed. You don't because Abraham Lincoln isn't a scientific theorum. He isn't a theory. There isn't a control group and an experimental group for him. You use other types of proof.

 

Now that said regardless of whether a deity exists or not and the proof for one, what matters to me is how you use it to rationalize taking away my rights, freedoms and ability to live my life. It is very clear that you wish to control others and their lives. You claim good intentions in some cases but regardless, you don't leave people to their own conclusions but demand they conform to your conclusions.

 

As for defending those who send their chidlren to a camp that you claim is child abuse, I'm not defending them. I'm noting your hypocrisy because what you call abuse in one instance is what you defend as science in another scenario. It isn't like the Bible has shock therapy in it or anti-psychotic drugs, or any other tools within that field. Those come from people claiming to be scientists. Worse still you say people are denied their rights, aka cannot sit down at the table of human civil rights, until they conform to your view. Thus it is clear you would deny them the very rights you advocate. You'd deny them speech, the ballot box, and the right to self-determination. It is pure and indefensible hypocrisy.

 

It isn't that you want gay rights. I want gay rights too. However I'm not willing to deny rights to gain rights. I won't silence people. I won't put them in jails or prisons or demand control of their children. You can and do demand such things.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2458 of 2700

I think I found out who BR is. A person named Mikey Weinstein:

 

 

Quote:
“[Proselytizing] is a version of being spiritually raped and you are being spiritually raped by fundamentalist Christian religious predators,” Weinstein told Fox News.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2459 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Marriage is between a man and a woman period. Not this crap of females with females and males with males.That is what GOD intended in the Bible.
 

The Bible was written by (overwhelmingly).... men.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #2460 of 2700

Still it is written a marriage between a man and a woman. Not 2 females or 2 males.Who wrote the Bible in your opinion?
 

post #2461 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

The Bible was written by (overwhelmingly).... men.

 

In an era where women were basically considered property.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #2462 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Still it is written a marriage between a man and a woman. Not 2 females or 2 males.Who wrote the Bible in your opinion?
 

 

Lots of PEOPLE. Almost all men and a couple of women. I don't imagine that anyone within this collections of authors considered himself a deity... that delusion is for folk 2000-3000 years later....

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #2463 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

 

Lots of PEOPLE. Almost all men and a couple of women. I don't imagine that anyone within this collections of authors considered himself a deity... that delusion is for folk 2000-3000 years later....

 

Exactly who is proposing that any of the Bible's individual authors claimed to be a deity?

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #2464 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Marriage is between a man and a woman period. Not this crap of females with females and males with males.That is what GOD intended in the Bible.
 

The Bible was written by (overwhelmingly).... men.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Still it is written a marriage between a man and a woman. Not 2 females or 2 males.Who wrote the Bible in your opinion?
 

 

Lots of PEOPLE. Almost all men and a couple of women. I don't imagine that anyone within this collections of authors considered himself a deity... that delusion is for folk 2000-3000 years later....

 

 

What documents from early human rights origins be the Bible or even the Constitution do not reflect the limited understandings of their times? Why would we condemn the teachings and lessons they can provide for reflecting the people of that timeframe?

 

Don't you look forward to future generations looking back on you today and pointing their finger at how stupid you were because you reflect the times you lived in?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2465 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

 

Exactly who is proposing that any of the Bible's individual authors claimed to be a deity?

Those who claim that the Bible was the "word of God". There's millions in this country who believe such. I guess that refers to either first hand authorship (directly written by God) or 2nd hand (written by people who claim that what they wrote is/was "the word of God").

 

Anyone writing a book, and making such claims today (written by God) would be considered institution or certification material. Why should people 2000+ years ago be given special treatment - as if they knew something that we don't?

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #2466 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Those who claim that the Bible was the "word of God". There's millions in this country who believe such. I guess that refers to either first hand authorship (directly written by God) or 2nd hand (written by people who claim that what they wrote is/was "the word of God").

 

It is generally considered the second interpretation: Human authors inspired/directed by God to write what they wrote. Using the phrase "the word of God" is merely a common short-hand expression for "the divinely inspired word of God as written by fallible and imperfect humans." No one is claiming the human authors are deities themselves. That's a straw man.

 

 

Secondly though, there's a fair amount to recommend the Bible as the divinely inspired word of God, not the least of which are the multitude of prophecies (more than 300 as I recall), specifically for Jesus (and which Jesus is the only one to have fulfilled...the odds of which are astronomical), that were written well before Jesus came and went. Someone or something had to have had the foreknowledge in order to inspire writers to write them. If you don't want call that someone/something "God" (or a "god"), fine, but then we're merely quibbling over semantics and terminology.

 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Anyone writing a book, and making such claims today (written by God) would be considered institution or certification material.

 

Probably, yes. So?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2467 of 2700
Throw enough shit against the wall and some might stick. Of course, there's also now shit all over the place.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_biblical_prophecies

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2468 of 2700

I thought all these religious fanatics said that Jesus wrote the Bible.That what i was told.
 

post #2469 of 2700

The Bible was written when?  Many of the stories in it took place when?  And yet it contains direct quotes.  It was a collection of transcriptions of stories either passed down through time or created at a later date. 

 

If passed down, then they were well kept by the relatively small number of participants who actually seem to have been rather busy doing things other than passing down stories.  And how does that explain different religions in different places?

 

Party time: ask twenty people to line up.  Whisper something into the first person's ear and ask that the message be passed along.  How often is the message relayed by the last person in line not exactly the same as the original message?

 

Ask many people to tell a story of some event.  Wait a week.  Ask them to tell it again. Transcribe both stories and compare.  Dang, with some people ask them tho tell the story again ten minutes later and it comes out different.

 

Ten people witness an accident.  Ten different stories.  Often very different.

 

Human nature.

 

Even old Bibles varied from copy to copy as they were transcribed by hand and the monks... well, they are human.


Edited by Bergermeister - 5/4/13 at 5:36am

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #2470 of 2700

Futurama understands.

 

MCfgewM.gif

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2471 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Futurama understands.

MCfgewM.gif

So did an actuall god write those words or were they written by men who declared that they were smarter and better than others and thus they felt compelled to write down their wisdom for others?

Did other men who presumed the information to be good then demand that the information be taken in an unskeptical and dogmatic manner or else they were stupid, ignorant and harmful to humanity?

I know someone just like that on these forums. He posts futurama cartoons as deep thinking and is offended that his posts aren't treated and worshipped as dogma.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2472 of 2700

We've debated the veracity of the Bible many times over the last decade, and I'm happy to do it again if someone wants to start a thread.

(Or the mod can dump all our related comments into a new thread.) But this is a thread for Miscellaneous News.

 

Though I'm not sure if the fact that Democrats often hide their inner racist actually qualifies as news.

 

After all, this is the slavery-supporting, God-Bless-Planned-Parenthood party of America.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #2473 of 2700

Hide your guns in the kids' room so that you may protect the better!

 

NRA guy suggested this.

Seriously.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/04/nra-speaker-gun-safes-kids-bedrooms-home-defense_n_3216157.html

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #2474 of 2700

There's a rumor that Ted Cruz might run for POTUS.

 

Yep.

 

It will be real interesting to see how they spin the fact that he was born in Canada.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #2475 of 2700

Prophets wrote the new testament someone said to me today.To me all religion is a money maker.
 

post #2476 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

After all, this is the slavery-supporting, God-Bless-Planned-Parenthood party of America.

Ah, that intellectually dishonest shit again.

 

http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201109020010

 

 

 

Quote:
This is essentially the same old modern conservative trick of telling far, far less than the whole truth about the history of American political parties and race. West is blaming today's Democrats for the actions and beliefs of southern conservatives who left the party decades ago. As with slavery in the 1860s, when civil rights divided lawmakers in the 1960s the real split was along geographic and ideological lines, not partisan ones. The battle for the soul of the Democratic Party went decisively against the segregationists and racists who West seems to think populate the modern left. West either doesn't know this history himself, or he's hoping that people won't bother to look it up.

 

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_05/023915.php

 

 

 

Quote:

THE PARTY OF CIVIL RIGHTS.... Given the new-found electoral relevance of the Civil Rights Act, I suppose this was inevitable.

 

The GOP went there. In an email sent to reporters in the height of the Rand Paul firestorm yesterday, the NRSC defended its Senate nominee in Kentucky by pointing out that it wasn't Republicans who were the most vocal opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act when it was in Congress.

 

"As a side note, I would point out the irony - which seems to have been lost in some of the news coverage -- that the same party seeking to manufacture this issue today, is in fact the same political party which led the filibuster against the Civil Rights Act in 1964," NRSC spokesperson Brian Walsh wrote.

 

 

This comes up from time to time, whenever Republicans are feeling particularly defensive about the civil rights issues. But in light of the party's confusion, it's probably time for a quick refresher.

 

The Democratic Party, in the first half of the 20th century, was home to competing constituencies -- southern whites with abhorrent views on race, and white progressives and African Americans in the north, who sought to advance the cause of civil rights. The party struggled, ultimately siding with an inclusive, liberal agenda.

 

As the party shifted, the Democratic mainstream embraced its new role. Republicans, meanwhile, also changed. In the wake of Democratic President Lyndon Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act, the Republican Party welcomed the white supremacists who no longer felt comfortable in the Democratic Party. Indeed, in 1964, Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater boasted of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act, and made it part of his platform. It was right around this time when figures like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond made the transition -- leaving the Democratic Party for the GOP.

 

In the ensuing years, Democrats embraced their role as the party of diversity, inclusion, and civil rights. Republicans became the party of the "Southern Strategy," opposition to affirmative action, campaigns based on race-baiting, vote-caging, discriminatory voter-ID laws, and politicians like Helms and Thurmond.

 

Indeed, as the chairman of the Republican National Committee recently conceded, his party deliberately used racial division for electoral gain for the last four decades.

 

Just a minor detail, which seems to have been lost in some of the news coverage, and which the NRSC might have forgotten.

Update: For the record, 46 Democrats and 27 Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act, while 21 Democrats and 6 Republicans opposed.

 

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2477 of 2700

Obama administration forced to admit that a bible publisher is a religious employer.

 

Yet another example of the Obama administration's constant attempts to lie, distort and twist reality in order to further its agenda.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2478 of 2700
First, I say tough shit to those who want exemptions. Second, this is another point in favor of government single-payer healthcare--take healthcare out of the hands of the employer and treat it like the human right it should be. This would very much empower the labor market, cutting the healthcare tether keeping employees in shitty jobs with shitty working conditions just for the insurance.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2479 of 2700

Of course you say "tough sit" to exemptions from authoritarian actions you approve of. This is totally not surprising.

 

Second, there are other ways besides single payer to achieve that goal.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2480 of 2700

Looks like South Carolina will elect Sanford to congress.

 

 

 

Seriously.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Miscellaneous News.