Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Roy Moore, Alabama Chief Idiot back in the news yet again.
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 256 of 313 (751719)
03-05-2015 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by subbie
03-04-2015 6:43 PM


Never thought of that. That would be just charming!

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by subbie, posted 03-04-2015 6:43 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(2)
Message 257 of 313 (751720)
03-05-2015 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Faith
03-04-2015 11:22 PM


You've been shown that this is incorrect. The Greeks and Romans were at it for ages. You appear to express selective attention.
I only "damage my case" by the term because you all refuse to get the point.
Every one, I am sure, gets your point.
I do. But no body else here agrees with it. We understand your religious objection but do not hold the same objection.
Why this is the case varies from poster to poster. I (and others) don't beleive in the the supernatural, others don't take the bible literally.
Please don't confuse disagreeing with not understanding.
All the best.
Edited by Larni, : A lot.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Faith, posted 03-04-2015 11:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 1:59 AM Larni has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 258 of 313 (751721)
03-05-2015 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Larni
03-05-2015 1:55 AM


They did not have an officially sanctioned Gay MARRIAGE, however much homosexuality and even permanent homosexual relationships they may have had.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Larni, posted 03-05-2015 1:55 AM Larni has not replied

  
vimesey
Member (Idle past 150 days)
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 259 of 313 (751723)
03-05-2015 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Faith
03-05-2015 1:35 AM


My iPad ran out of juice, about 3 seconds before I hit reply - grrr !
I'll sort out a proper reply when I'm home and can get off my mobi.

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 1:35 AM Faith has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1332 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(2)
Message 260 of 313 (751728)
03-05-2015 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Faith
03-04-2015 11:22 PM


Faith writes:
As for the "religious right" I don't know why objection to gay marriage is limited to us since it was universally unthinkable throughout history up until fairly recently.
The fact objection to gay marriage is now limited to your extreme minority view would give most people pause to consider that perhaps they are being unreasonable. Since the religious right lives in unreasonable, it's impossible for them to even contemplate that they might be in error.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Faith, posted 03-04-2015 11:22 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34047
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 261 of 313 (751729)
03-05-2015 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Faith
03-05-2015 1:35 AM


the only benefits were social benefits Faith
Faith writes:
But I'm sure you mean social benefits and one would certainly be the protection of women, which would have been more necessary in earlier times, though up until fairly recently. And stability and security for the raising of children. That one's rather a joke in our age of easy divorce but in a society where marriage is valued and enforced as a standard that could be said of it.
But if you had ever actually read the Bible Faith you would know that Biblical Marriage was never for the protection of women or even stability and security for the raising of children. You are just making shit up again as I pointed out in Message 218.
Since you obviously didn't read it that time I will gladly repeat it again.
quote:
Sure Faith.
You bought wives just like any other property (and sold kids the same way). One party set a price and the negotiations started. How man cattle or sheep or goats for that little doe eyed piece.
The laws governed marriage between tribes and what to do with an excess widow. They established treaties and alliances, marriages for political or economic purposes.
This remained true throughout the Biblical fables.
Gotta ask yet again Faith, have you ever read the Bible?
One way is see a woman prisoner you want and take her.
Deut writes:
11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
Find the guy with an excess of daughters to get rid of and water his flock.
Exodus writes:
16 Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters: and they came and drew water, and filled the troughs to water their father's flock.
17 And the shepherds came and drove them away: but Moses stood up and helped them, and watered their flock.
18 And when they came to Reuel their father, he said, How is it that ye are come so soon to day?
19 And they said, An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds, and also drew water enough for us, and watered the flock.
20 And he said unto his daughters, And where is he? why is it that ye have left the man? call him, that he may eat bread.
21 And Moses was content to dwell with the man: and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter.
Rape some virgin and then pay off her dad.
Deut writes:
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Buy some property and get a wife thrown in as part of the deal.
Ruth writes:
5 Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance.
6 And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance: redeem thou my right to thyself; for I cannot redeem it.
7 Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour: and this was a testimony in Israel.
8 Therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee. So he drew off his shoe.
9 And Boaz said unto the elders, and unto all the people, Ye are witnesses this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech's, and all that was Chilion's and Mahlon's, of the hand of Naomi.
10 Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day.
I can keep going just about all day but not every single example shown is a matter of contract.
Shall I keep going?
Have you read Gen. 29:15-30, 1 Sam. 18:27, Hosea 1:1-3, 1 Kings 11:1-3, Esther 2:3-4, 1 Sam. 18:27?
They are all examples of "Biblical Marriage".
In the Bible women and children were chattel, possessions, personal property that was not just real estate.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 1:35 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 11:32 AM jar has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 262 of 313 (751738)
03-05-2015 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Faith
03-05-2015 1:06 AM


Destroying the meaning of marriage is a drastic solution to cram down the throats of people who object to it if all you want is practical covenantal benefits that can be arranged many other ways.
Except, as I've explained, since you don't even think the government should be involved in marriage, then any changes to that government definition cannot destroy what you hold the meaning of marriage to be.
You've admitted it has no impact on you.
This objection of yours is hollow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 1:06 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 11:29 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 263 of 313 (751745)
03-05-2015 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by New Cat's Eye
03-05-2015 9:59 AM


Except, as I've explained, since you don't even think the government should be involved in marriage, then any changes to that government definition cannot destroy what you hold the meaning of marriage to be.
Oh fer... That's a non sequitur. It doesn't matter what the source of the definition is. Since government is doing the defining it certainly CAN change its definition to destroy what's left of the definition of marriage that I hold the meaning of marriage to be.
You've admitted it has no impact on you.
Actually I didn't say that. What I said was that objections to gay marriage are not about anybody's own personal experience of marriage. This idea that arguments against gay marriage derive from personal concern about its personal impact are bogus. I am not arguing from personal concern but for objective social standards, and against what I see as "mind rape" in the redefining of a social category to include what is really a sham, a charade, a fantasy that homosexuals want to live in order to feel normal. I see this as a recipe for a form of society-wide deceit, or in those who can see through the Emperor's New Clothes, a cynicism that accepts the devaluation of marriage as just another social deceit. Big fat pretense that sane people know is a pretense.
This objection of yours is hollow.
Since it isn't my objection, it's your assessment that is hollow.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-05-2015 9:59 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-05-2015 11:56 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 264 of 313 (751746)
03-05-2015 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by jar
03-05-2015 8:55 AM


Re: the only benefits were social benefits Faith
Your examples are about how some marriages came about, not how the marriage itself was legally defined.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by jar, posted 03-05-2015 8:55 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by jar, posted 03-05-2015 11:58 AM Faith has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 265 of 313 (751748)
03-05-2015 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Faith
03-05-2015 11:29 AM


Since government is doing the defining it certainly CAN change its definition to destroy what's left of the definition of marriage that I hold the meaning of marriage to be.
Let me get this straight, you think that the government should not be involved in marriages.
But you also let them define, for you, what marriage means to you?
How could that possibly work?
Actually I didn't say that. What I said was that objections to gay marriage are not about anybody's own personal experience of marriage. This idea that arguments against gay marriage derive from personal concern about its personal impact are bogus.
I guess I just cannot understand trying to stop something that I have no personal concern for.
I am not arguing from personal concern but for objective social standards, and against what I see as "mind rape" in the redefining of a social category to include what is really a sham, a charade, a fantasy that homosexuals want to live in order to feel normal.
Wow, you're judging their motivation? How rude.
Honestly Faith, regarding gay marriage, all the gays want is equal rights. They don't care about what you think about their marriages. They just want to be able to enter the contract with each other.
I'm sure there are some that are seeking societal progress and acceptance and stuff, but that's really a side issue to the question of whether or not they can enter into a legal contract.
I see this as a recipe for a form of society-wide deceit, or in those who can see through the Emperor's New Clothes, a cynicism that accepts the devaluation of marriage as just another social deceit.
This doesn't make sense at all.
You're acting like if society re-defines marriage, then everyone must accept and embrace that definition. But then you're also arguing that society cannot change the real definition of marriage, because it means something different to you.
That's contradictory. And think about it: How can a legal definition change your personal definition? You still perfectly capable of not considering those gay marriages to be real marriages. How could a re-definition make you think otherwise?
And if it can't happen to you, then what makes you think that its going to happen to anyone else?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 11:29 AM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34047
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 266 of 313 (751749)
03-05-2015 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Faith
03-05-2015 11:32 AM


Re: the only benefits were social benefits Faith
Faith writes:
Your examples are about how some marriages came about, not how the marriage itself was legally defined.
More utter misrepresentation from Faith.
They are examples from the "Laws and the Prophets" Faith. They also show that protecting women and children were not part of Biblical Marriage and that women and children were not even seen as anything more than property, stuff to buy and sell. They describe "Biblical Marriage".
Thank God we have become far more moral than any of the characters in the Bible and have moved beyond the horror called "Biblical Morality".
But Faith, Roy Moore is still just a bigot and idiot with no respect for the US or Constitution.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 11:32 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 12:02 PM jar has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 267 of 313 (751751)
03-05-2015 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by jar
03-05-2015 11:58 AM


Re: the only benefits were social benefits Faith
Nothing I suggested about the social meaning of marriage implied that it was consciously designed that way, but women had to have the protection of a father or a husband in most societies throughout history because of the barbarian inclinations of men left over from the Fall, which cursed women with being ruled over by men. Which IS illustrated in your examples.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by jar, posted 03-05-2015 11:58 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by jar, posted 03-05-2015 12:16 PM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34047
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 268 of 313 (751753)
03-05-2015 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Faith
03-05-2015 12:02 PM


Re: the only benefits were social benefits Faith
Faith writes:
Nothing I suggested about the social meaning of marriage implied that it was consciously designed that way, but women had to have the protection of a father or a husband in most societies throughout history because of the barbarian inclinations of men left over from the Fall, which cursed women with being ruled over by men. Which IS illustrated in your examples.
Got it Faith.
Getting sold as property offers women protection.
Getting raped offers women protection.
Pick a prisoner offers women protection.
Some guy making a deal with a father to buy you offers women protection.
Do you have any idea how your posts are making you look as much a bigot as Roy Moore?
Biblical Marriage like Biblical Morality was and is horrific and thank God most folk today are far more moral than anyone found in the Bible stories.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 12:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 12:23 PM jar has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 269 of 313 (751755)
03-05-2015 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by jar
03-05-2015 12:16 PM


Re: the only benefits were social benefits Faith
You are generalizing a few anecdotes into law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by jar, posted 03-05-2015 12:16 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by jar, posted 03-05-2015 12:38 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 271 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-05-2015 12:57 PM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34047
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 270 of 313 (751756)
03-05-2015 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Faith
03-05-2015 12:23 PM


Re: the only benefits were social benefits Faith
Faith writes:
You are generalizing a few anecdotes into law.
Too funny Faith.
I am not generalizing rather quoting what is in the "Law & the Prophets".
Thank God we as a nation have moved beyond "Biblical Morality" and "Biblical Marriage".

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 12:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024