Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by jonstad, Dec 31, 2005.
I bet that was an interesting class.
Did anyone say it is fine? I must have missed that.
I actually have the book(unsigned) and have read it. No, it does not single out black babies. And I find it a bit troubling and twisted that one would extrapolate from this statistic and amend it to imagine the abortion of all black babies as a possible crime solution, even as labeling it "an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do." Before you can label it as impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible, you must first consider the possibility.
I did find the comparison of popular names by socio-economic status quite interesting though. Not in the book, but the fact that "Paris" has become an extremely popular name for newborns perhaps says more about our society and culture then any of us would like to hear!:nono2:
I can't pass this up any longer. I'm surprised that the liberals hereabouts haven't stated that the title of this thread is an oxymoron.:bink: :scratch: :evilgrin: :icon_lol: :rolling:
Finally! Someone who gets it.:lol:
Hmmm. Interesting theory. But where did the rest of us come from?
Can you say INCEST???
Sure can. Sin entered the world. But your statement was that homosexuality predated religion is countered by the millions of people, including Christians and Jews, who start their beliefs with "in the beginning God created" (even those who have a different god in the beginning). Religion predates sexuality.
I'm suprised the conservatives hereabouts haven't countered with, say, pretty much every word spoken by Howard Dean.
Next you're going to tell me "sexuality" is a sin.:icon_dumm
And you don't specify whose sexuality.:scratch:
Weren't the creatures of the world "created" before Adam & Eve? At least before Eve? And almost all of them reproduced sexually, yes? Or is it just human sexuality that poses problems?:shrug:
No. But I will notice that you have conceded the point.
That's what the millions of Christians and Jews will tell you. But it still goes back to "In the beginning God ..." He predates the existance of the world let alone animals and animals having sex. (In the opinion of millions of Christians and Jews.)
Did you know that dogs have been known to eat their young? Do you want to transfer that practice over from the animal kingdom to humans as well? If you're going to try to use "animal morality" to argue standards for "human morality" you should be doing your arguments from within a padded room.
And that's what virtually all of the nut cases whose quotes make up the basis for this thread will tell you too. What makes you, or they, right? You're "the majority"?:rotfl:
Swinging wildly off topic of course, if you believe "In the beginning God ..." He predates the existance of the world let alone animals and animals having sex. Then you need the courage to ask the next logical question, where did "God" come from? If you claim God is eternal, why not skip a step and concluded the Universe(in one form or another) is eternal? And if you believe God "just happened" to be there(out of nothingness) to create the Universe, why not skip THAT step and conclude the Universe "just happened" out of nothingness?
"In the beginning" implies a specific point where time and space(the Universe) BEGAN! What came BEFORE time and space? Assuming it's meaningful to address such an oxymoronic question, I would say at this point I don't know! You would claim "God" came before. But then the burden is on you to prove it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And there can be no more extraordinary claim then "God(s)"! And of course there is no proof at all, let alone extraordinary proof. And whether your god is Marduk, Ra, Zeus, Krishna, Yaweh, Jesus or Allah, no proof has ever been presented beyond the imaginings of Man.
In fairness, there were very few Christians and Jews at the time of "creation". Religion provides us with explanations about creation but that does not mean that the religion started at the moment of creation.
There were no Christians at the time of creation. There was no reason to have such labels on people (especially before there were people to label). But the point remains that many religions start with "in the beginning God" which places their religious roots before creation on the timeline.
BTW jonstad, I'm still waiting for the extraordinary proof to your claim.
Gee, this would all be great, unless religion is really something created by those in power to control the masses and give them a reason to explain away their pathetic lives (as in, "it's God's will that I'm poor, or, it's God's will that I contracted cancer).
But hey, who knows? These days, we see a meteorite and we know what it is. In biblical times, they thought that was God showing His anger.
No offense intended, but I wish people would stop talking as if they speak for God. If I want to know what God thinks, I'll ask Him.
Sorry JL but having a belief that stretches back to creation is alittle different.
Yes it was.
If you got rid of all the black babies, I doubt the crime rate would be that greatly affected, but the conviction rate and prison population would decline. Either that or we would have to start putting white people in jail for their crimes.
If God actually created only two people in the beginning, the only way for the earth to be populated was by incest. Throughout the Old Testament men had multiple wives, not to mention concubines, and being given their wife's maid to try to have a male heir. Are these the old time Biblical values we hold dear? Incest and bigamy?
First you must prove YOUR extraordinary claim that initially there were only two distinct humans, which you cannot do because that's not how it happened. There was not suddenly two humans, nor five or a dozen for that matter. We evolved from our common ancestor with the other great apes over millions of years. And there IS proof for that, EXTRAORDINARY proof!
Look at it this way. If you could travel back in time in 1000 year increments, you could successfully "mate" with our "human" ancestors the first 50-100(50-100 thousand years) times or so. At some point though you would be unsuccessful because THAT ancestor would no longer be "human". OTOH, if you took a human ancestor at each one of your stops back the thousand year increment, they WOULD be successful. And you could follow this regression not only back to the origins of the human species, but back to the first fish that crawled out of the water to colonize the land. And even further back to the pond scum we all evolved from.
This makes much more sense than divine dust, mudcakes or magic ribs. And there is proof of it, literally MOUNTAINS of proof!
:scratchin ... another "only black people are prosecuted and go to jail" rant. Maybe we should just let the blacks have the cities then there won't be any crime there and the countryside would abound in rapes and murders by those unprosecuted white folk. Oh wait, that's pretty much the demographic we do have today,... and its not happening that way. Hmmm. Bad people commit crime. And most in prison are there for the second, third, ... or more crime that they have committed. You want to make them a "victim", go right ahead. But the only victims are the innocent men, women and children they have beaten, raped, robbed and murdered. And the only problem is that when youth commit these crimes, they are handled with "kid gloves", so they get the impression they can actually get away with that stuff. Fix the juvenile justice system, and the prison population will probably drop some. Stop the modern liberal assault on values, and things will improve.
:nono2: :nono: :nono: :nono2:
There isn't enough bits on the dbstalk server to fully address how wrong you are. But again, for just a small piece of it, please quote chapter and verse where God told people to have more than one wife, of even that He thought it was a good idea. A lot of the Old Testament is people reasoning how they would help God accomplish what God promised, and then dealing with the (negative) consequences. You know the type - placing emphasis on reason and logic over simple trust and faith in what God can do.
This episode shows the power of context. Even a superficial listen to Bennet's comment reveals how twisted the criticism really is.
jonstad, have you stopped beating your wife yet? Adolf Hitler loved animals, was kind to children, and was a dedicated vegetarian. Without more context he sounds like a PETA member, a liberal in all the best ways.
The trouble is that some otherwise reasonable people will hear just enough of the controversy to go off in the wrong direction, for the wrong reasons. Bomb throwing in politics is fun but highly irresponsible. As is repeating the junk.
Better to say nothing than be loudly wrong.