Jump to content

Evolution is Just Junk Science


Recommended Posts

Posted

Jason wrote:

> In article <7usj05-0is.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>> [snips]

>>

>> On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 11:03:44 -0800, Jason wrote:

>>

>>> What if the old man is in a comma and has not signed the mercy killing

>>> legal forms?

>> Why would he be in a punctuation mark? (ISTR you've been called on this

>> one before.)

>>

>>>> This is alarmist, reactionary garbage, and completely unsupported by

>>>> the facts. Do you have any evidence that ANYBODY is pushing for

>>>> mandatory euthanasia at age 70?

>>> Not yet--but it could happen about 20 years after mercy killing is legal

>>> in all states.

>> And it could happen in 20 years as population pressures due to "be

>> fruitful and multiply" continue, so by your logic we should abolish

>> that odd little belief system which contains such a decree.

>

> God told the people that were alive thousands of years ago to be fruitful

> and multiply. They done exactly what God told them to do. There were not

> very many people in the world when gave that order.

 

God didn't say "go forth, be fruitful and multiply...oh, but if there

gets to be too many folks, then stop multiplying" or "go forth, be

fruitful and multiply...oh, but only do so for the next 4000 years and

then this no longer applies", etc. He (supposedly) said "go forth, be

fruitful and multiply(period)" So either we're breaking his command if

we try to reduce the population or else he never said it at all. Which

is it?

  • Replies 19.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Jason wrote:

> In article <06il05-a9a.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>> [snips]

>>

>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:04:43 -0800, Jason wrote:

>>

>>>> And it could happen in 20 years as population pressures due to "be

>>>> fruitful and multiply" continue, so by your logic we should abolish

>>>> that odd little belief system which contains such a decree.

>>> God told the people that were alive thousands of years ago to be fruitful

>>> and multiply.

>> Last I checked, you'd failed completely in demonstrating God exists at

>> all, let alone that he said anything - or that the things he said (if any)

>> were quoted correctly.

>>

>> Secondly, while the command to be fruitful does appear in a certain book,

>> there doesn't seem to be a stop clause, meaning the rule is presumably

>> still in effect. Which means despite there being 6+ billion people

>> around, you're still required to breed like rabbits - without end. Drop

>> litters until you can't.

>>

>> Which, in turn, means that 6 billion will be 16 billion in jig time. Hmm.

>> Pretty much exactly what I said above - it could happen in 20 years (give

>> or take) thanks to your breeding requirements, thus - by your logic -

>> the belief system which contains the command should be abolished according

>> to the dictates of the slippery slope you adhere to.

>>

>> So, are you going to be first to line up and cease believing - with or

>> without the aid of a bullet? Somehow I don't think so.

>

> No, I have stated in former posts that most all of the laws mentioned in

> the Old Testament were for the people that were alive during that time

> period.

 

Does the law that was created in 1782 that says "murder is a felony"

cease to be effective after some period of time? when can we start

robbing? How about rape? Is that law no longer effective now? The ones

about counterfeiting? Do they still apply?

 

Clue time: laws don't (generally) "become obsolete." Either they were a

valid law at the time and STILL are or else they were bad laws to begin

with. Which is it?

 

Did god say, ANYWHERE, "these laws will sunset in the year 654AD" or

something such?

Posted

In article <fhcrut$dm0$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > In article <fh7m05$3s5$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> >

> >> Jason wrote:

> >>> In article <fh36o7$4tv$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

> >>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote:

> >>>

> >>>> Jason wrote:

> >>>>> In article <I9OdneObIsbLkqnanZ2dnUVZ_vPinZ2d@comcast.com>, Charles

& Mambo

> >>>>> Duckman <duckman@gfy.slf> wrote:

> >>>>>

> >>>>>> Jason wrote:

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>> That commandent is "Do Not Murder". It is not "Do Not kill". Back

> > in those

> >>>>>>> days, it was legal to stone people to death. That was not a

violation of

> >>>>>>> the commandment since it was not considered to be "murder".

> >>>>>> Did you learn this in your Bullshit Interpretation 101 class?

> >>>>> No--I have a copy of the New American Standard version of the Bible. It

> >>>>> clearly states in Exodus 20:13 Do Not Murder

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>> You do know that this is the translation of a translation of a

> >>>> translation (ad infinitum)?

> >>> I disagree. The Hebrew word for "murder" that is used in Ex. 20:13 is

> >>> ratsach (raw-tsakh'). It means "put to death or to murder".

> >>>

> >>> Therefore, it would be more accurate to use the term "Thou shall not

> > murder."

> >> How do you get "it would be more accurate to use the term 'Thou shall

> >> not murder.'" from "thou shalt not 'put to death or murder'"? This is a

> >> cherry tree where you get to pick just the part of the definition that

> >> you like. If it says "thou shall not (some word that means both 'put to

> >> death' and 'murder')" then that's exactly what thou shall not do; "put

> >> [someone] to death" OR "murder [someone.]"

> >

> > That is what translators do related to thousands of Greek and Hebrew words.

>

> No, they don't. They look at the CONTEXT to see which would be the best

> usage. But even here "put to death" doesn't mean "put to death only if

> found guilty via a jury of his/her peers." It says "though shall not put

> to death/murder." VERY clear to anyone with at least one working brain cell.

 

In this case, the context was related to MURDER. The reason is that other

scriptures in the old testament clearly stated that is was legal to stone

people to death. If all forms of killing were against the law--why did God

allow the people to stone people to death?

Posted

In article <fhcugh$g84$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > In article <7usj05-0is.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

> > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

> >

> >> [snips]

> >>

> >> On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 11:03:44 -0800, Jason wrote:

> >>

> >>> What if the old man is in a comma and has not signed the mercy killing

> >>> legal forms?

> >> Why would he be in a punctuation mark? (ISTR you've been called on this

> >> one before.)

> >>

> >>>> This is alarmist, reactionary garbage, and completely unsupported by

> >>>> the facts. Do you have any evidence that ANYBODY is pushing for

> >>>> mandatory euthanasia at age 70?

> >>> Not yet--but it could happen about 20 years after mercy killing is legal

> >>> in all states.

> >> And it could happen in 20 years as population pressures due to "be

> >> fruitful and multiply" continue, so by your logic we should abolish

> >> that odd little belief system which contains such a decree.

> >

> > God told the people that were alive thousands of years ago to be fruitful

> > and multiply. They done exactly what God told them to do. There were not

> > very many people in the world when gave that order.

>

> God didn't say "go forth, be fruitful and multiply...oh, but if there

> gets to be too many folks, then stop multiplying" or "go forth, be

> fruitful and multiply...oh, but only do so for the next 4000 years and

> then this no longer applies", etc. He (supposedly) said "go forth, be

> fruitful and multiply(period)" So either we're breaking his command if

> we try to reduce the population or else he never said it at all. Which

> is it?

 

Some Catholics and Mormons would agree with you. I don't agree with you.

Most Christians are intelligent enough to understand that God was giving

that message to people that lived thousands of years ago and that message

was NOT intended for people living today. The reason is that the world is

now over populated but when God gave that message--the world was under

populated.

Jason

Posted

In article <fhcupa$g84$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > In article <06il05-a9a.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

> > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

> >

> >> [snips]

> >>

> >> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:04:43 -0800, Jason wrote:

> >>

> >>>> And it could happen in 20 years as population pressures due to "be

> >>>> fruitful and multiply" continue, so by your logic we should abolish

> >>>> that odd little belief system which contains such a decree.

> >>> God told the people that were alive thousands of years ago to be fruitful

> >>> and multiply.

> >> Last I checked, you'd failed completely in demonstrating God exists at

> >> all, let alone that he said anything - or that the things he said (if any)

> >> were quoted correctly.

> >>

> >> Secondly, while the command to be fruitful does appear in a certain book,

> >> there doesn't seem to be a stop clause, meaning the rule is presumably

> >> still in effect. Which means despite there being 6+ billion people

> >> around, you're still required to breed like rabbits - without end. Drop

> >> litters until you can't.

> >>

> >> Which, in turn, means that 6 billion will be 16 billion in jig time. Hmm.

> >> Pretty much exactly what I said above - it could happen in 20 years (give

> >> or take) thanks to your breeding requirements, thus - by your logic -

> >> the belief system which contains the command should be abolished according

> >> to the dictates of the slippery slope you adhere to.

> >>

> >> So, are you going to be first to line up and cease believing - with or

> >> without the aid of a bullet? Somehow I don't think so.

> >

> > No, I have stated in former posts that most all of the laws mentioned in

> > the Old Testament were for the people that were alive during that time

> > period.

>

> Does the law that was created in 1782 that says "murder is a felony"

> cease to be effective after some period of time? when can we start

> robbing? How about rape? Is that law no longer effective now? The ones

> about counterfeiting? Do they still apply?

>

> Clue time: laws don't (generally) "become obsolete." Either they were a

> valid law at the time and STILL are or else they were bad laws to begin

> with. Which is it?

>

> Did god say, ANYWHERE, "these laws will sunset in the year 654AD" or

> something such?

 

Some laws such as the one that you mentioned NEVER become obsolete.

However, many other laws do become obsolete. For example, many of the laws

related to homosexuaity and smoking are now obsolete. There were once all

sorts of laws related to horses that were in large cities such as San

Francisco. Since horses are no longer on the main streets of most

cities--those laws are obsolete.

Posted

In article <fhcsel$dm0$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > In article <fh7m39$3s6$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> >

> >> Jason wrote:

> >>> In article <fh4enn$t4t$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> >>>

> >>>> That's not what I asked for. I asked for a definitive definition of

> >>>> "murder" and "kill" that would cover ALL possible cases of person A

> >>>> causing person B's death. Nowhere in your above "definitions" are things

> >>>> like "mercy killing", "suicide", "self defense", "manslaughter", etc.

> >>>> covered.

> >> <snip non answer>

> >>

> >> I asked for a definition of "murder" so that we could look at ANY act

> >> and decide if it was murder or not. I didn't ask for yet more of your

> >> vague, meaningless examples.

> >

> > I would describe murder as "unlawfully killing a person esp. with malice

> > aforethought."

>

> That definition is useless in this discussion. What is "unlawfully

> killing?" I.e. all that does is say "murder is what we declare to be

> murder" and does NOTHING to tell someone who is about to commit act A if

> act A is murder or not unless they are already versed in every possible

> act that the law does and does not cover.

>

> It's a very arbitrary definition. Try again?

 

Are you referring to first degree murder?

Posted

In article <Jason-1111071900480001@66-52-55-167.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> You would have to read a book about the end goal of Muslims

 

More bigoted lies, Jason?

 

Aren't you tired of repeating them?

 

--

655321

"We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi

Posted

Jason wrote:

> In this case, the context was related to MURDER.

 

No, it wasn't. There was NO context to tell in what sense the word was

being used. In fact, murder basically is "the unlawful killing of

another" so to say "thou shall not kill someone in an unlawful manner"

without FURTHER defining what said "unlawful manner" is, then it's

meaningless. The ONLY context that it could be read in in any meaningful

manner is "thou shall not kill."

 

The reason is that other

> scriptures in the old testament clearly stated that is was legal to stone

> people to death. If all forms of killing were against the law--why did God

> allow the people to stone people to death?

 

Because there's no consistency to the bible.

Posted

Jason wrote:

> In article <fhcsel$dm0$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> I would describe murder as "unlawfully killing a person esp. with malice

>>> aforethought."

>> That definition is useless in this discussion. What is "unlawfully

>> killing?" I.e. all that does is say "murder is what we declare to be

>> murder" and does NOTHING to tell someone who is about to commit act A if

>> act A is murder or not unless they are already versed in every possible

>> act that the law does and does not cover.

>>

>> It's a very arbitrary definition. Try again?

>

> Are you referring to first degree murder?

 

I'm referring to you coming up with a non-circular definition that

allows us to look at any given act and decide if it's murder or not.

 

To say "this law prohibits any killing that's prohibited by this law" is

meaningless. To say "murder is defined by law as 'the act of unlawfully

killing a person'" is likewise meaningless.

 

Try again?

Posted

Jason wrote:

> In article <fhcupa$g84$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> In article <06il05-a9a.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

>>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> [snips]

>>>>

>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:04:43 -0800, Jason wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>> And it could happen in 20 years as population pressures due to "be

>>>>>> fruitful and multiply" continue, so by your logic we should abolish

>>>>>> that odd little belief system which contains such a decree.

>>>>> God told the people that were alive thousands of years ago to be fruitful

>>>>> and multiply.

>>>> Last I checked, you'd failed completely in demonstrating God exists at

>>>> all, let alone that he said anything - or that the things he said (if any)

>>>> were quoted correctly.

>>>>

>>>> Secondly, while the command to be fruitful does appear in a certain book,

>>>> there doesn't seem to be a stop clause, meaning the rule is presumably

>>>> still in effect. Which means despite there being 6+ billion people

>>>> around, you're still required to breed like rabbits - without end. Drop

>>>> litters until you can't.

>>>>

>>>> Which, in turn, means that 6 billion will be 16 billion in jig time. Hmm.

>>>> Pretty much exactly what I said above - it could happen in 20 years (give

>>>> or take) thanks to your breeding requirements, thus - by your logic -

>>>> the belief system which contains the command should be abolished according

>>>> to the dictates of the slippery slope you adhere to.

>>>>

>>>> So, are you going to be first to line up and cease believing - with or

>>>> without the aid of a bullet? Somehow I don't think so.

>>> No, I have stated in former posts that most all of the laws mentioned in

>>> the Old Testament were for the people that were alive during that time

>>> period.

>> Does the law that was created in 1782 that says "murder is a felony"

>> cease to be effective after some period of time? when can we start

>> robbing? How about rape? Is that law no longer effective now? The ones

>> about counterfeiting? Do they still apply?

>>

>> Clue time: laws don't (generally) "become obsolete." Either they were a

>> valid law at the time and STILL are or else they were bad laws to begin

>> with. Which is it?

>>

>> Did god say, ANYWHERE, "these laws will sunset in the year 654AD" or

>> something such?

>

> Some laws such as the one that you mentioned NEVER become obsolete.

> However, many other laws do become obsolete. For example, many of the laws

> related to homosexuaity and smoking are now obsolete.

 

No, they aren't. They were either RULED upon by a court as being

unconstitutional OR they were repealed by the lawmakers. Now show us

where the laws from the bible against eating shellfish or working on

Sundays were either repealed by someone having authority to do so or was

ruled as unconstitutional.

 

There were once all

> sorts of laws related to horses that were in large cities such as San

> Francisco. Since horses are no longer on the main streets of most

> cities--those laws are obsolete.

 

No, they still prohibit particular actions by/with horses in that city.

They might not be needed that often since there aren't that many horses

but they are still in effect OR they were repealed.

 

Laws don't just "slowly fade away."

Posted

Jason wrote:

> Some Catholics and Mormons would agree with you. I don't agree with you.

 

That much is obvious.

> Most Christians are intelligent enough to understand that God was giving

> that message to people that lived thousands of years ago and that message

> was NOT intended for people living today.

 

No, they aren't. They're stupid enough to think that god only wanted his

commands to be obeyed when it's convenient.

 

The reason is that the world is

> now over populated but when God gave that message--the world was under

> populated.

 

Where, again, did god say "only go forth and multiply until you reach a

particular population"?

Posted

In article <fheu51$hc6$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > In this case, the context was related to MURDER.

>

> No, it wasn't. There was NO context to tell in what sense the word was

> being used. In fact, murder basically is "the unlawful killing of

> another" so to say "thou shall not kill someone in an unlawful manner"

> without FURTHER defining what said "unlawful manner" is, then it's

> meaningless. The ONLY context that it could be read in in any meaningful

> manner is "thou shall not kill."

>

> The reason is that other

> > scriptures in the old testament clearly stated that is was legal to stone

> > people to death. If all forms of killing were against the law--why did God

> > allow the people to stone people to death?

>

> Because there's no consistency to the bible.

 

Do you consider capital punishment to be murder?

Posted

In article <fheuh7$i7o$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > In article <fhcupa$g84$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> >

> >> Jason wrote:

> >>> In article <06il05-a9a.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

> >>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>

> >>>> [snips]

> >>>>

> >>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:04:43 -0800, Jason wrote:

> >>>>

> >>>>>> And it could happen in 20 years as population pressures due to "be

> >>>>>> fruitful and multiply" continue, so by your logic we should abolish

> >>>>>> that odd little belief system which contains such a decree.

> >>>>> God told the people that were alive thousands of years ago to be

fruitful

> >>>>> and multiply.

> >>>> Last I checked, you'd failed completely in demonstrating God exists at

> >>>> all, let alone that he said anything - or that the things he said

(if any)

> >>>> were quoted correctly.

> >>>>

> >>>> Secondly, while the command to be fruitful does appear in a certain book,

> >>>> there doesn't seem to be a stop clause, meaning the rule is presumably

> >>>> still in effect. Which means despite there being 6+ billion people

> >>>> around, you're still required to breed like rabbits - without end. Drop

> >>>> litters until you can't.

> >>>>

> >>>> Which, in turn, means that 6 billion will be 16 billion in jig

time. Hmm.

> >>>> Pretty much exactly what I said above - it could happen in 20 years (give

> >>>> or take) thanks to your breeding requirements, thus - by your logic -

> >>>> the belief system which contains the command should be abolished

according

> >>>> to the dictates of the slippery slope you adhere to.

> >>>>

> >>>> So, are you going to be first to line up and cease believing - with or

> >>>> without the aid of a bullet? Somehow I don't think so.

> >>> No, I have stated in former posts that most all of the laws mentioned in

> >>> the Old Testament were for the people that were alive during that time

> >>> period.

> >> Does the law that was created in 1782 that says "murder is a felony"

> >> cease to be effective after some period of time? when can we start

> >> robbing? How about rape? Is that law no longer effective now? The ones

> >> about counterfeiting? Do they still apply?

> >>

> >> Clue time: laws don't (generally) "become obsolete." Either they were a

> >> valid law at the time and STILL are or else they were bad laws to begin

> >> with. Which is it?

> >>

> >> Did god say, ANYWHERE, "these laws will sunset in the year 654AD" or

> >> something such?

> >

> > Some laws such as the one that you mentioned NEVER become obsolete.

> > However, many other laws do become obsolete. For example, many of the laws

> > related to homosexuaity and smoking are now obsolete.

>

> No, they aren't. They were either RULED upon by a court as being

> unconstitutional OR they were repealed by the lawmakers. Now show us

> where the laws from the bible against eating shellfish or working on

> Sundays were either repealed by someone having authority to do so or was

> ruled as unconstitutional.

>

> There were once all

> > sorts of laws related to horses that were in large cities such as San

> > Francisco. Since horses are no longer on the main streets of most

> > cities--those laws are obsolete.

>

> No, they still prohibit particular actions by/with horses in that city.

> They might not be needed that often since there aren't that many horses

> but they are still in effect OR they were repealed.

>

> Laws don't just "slowly fade away."

 

Are you stating that no laws (example: the number of horses that are

allowed to be in front of a bar that closed down 57 years ago) have become

obsolete?

Posted

In article <fheum0$i7o$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > Some Catholics and Mormons would agree with you. I don't agree with you.

>

> That much is obvious.

>

> > Most Christians are intelligent enough to understand that God was giving

> > that message to people that lived thousands of years ago and that message

> > was NOT intended for people living today.

>

> No, they aren't. They're stupid enough to think that god only wanted his

> commands to be obeyed when it's convenient.

>

> The reason is that the world is

> > now over populated but when God gave that message--the world was under

> > populated.

>

> Where, again, did god say "only go forth and multiply until you reach a

> particular population"?

 

God did not need to make that statement. He gave mankind enough

intelligent to figure out these sorts of issues.

Posted

In article <fheuab$hc6$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > In article <fhcsel$dm0$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> >

> >> Jason wrote:

> >>> I would describe murder as "unlawfully killing a person esp. with malice

> >>> aforethought."

> >> That definition is useless in this discussion. What is "unlawfully

> >> killing?" I.e. all that does is say "murder is what we declare to be

> >> murder" and does NOTHING to tell someone who is about to commit act A if

> >> act A is murder or not unless they are already versed in every possible

> >> act that the law does and does not cover.

> >>

> >> It's a very arbitrary definition. Try again?

> >

> > Are you referring to first degree murder?

>

> I'm referring to you coming up with a non-circular definition that

> allows us to look at any given act and decide if it's murder or not.

>

> To say "this law prohibits any killing that's prohibited by this law" is

> meaningless. To say "murder is defined by law as 'the act of unlawfully

> killing a person'" is likewise meaningless.

>

> Try again?

 

unlawfully killing a person

Posted

In article <fheuh7$i7o$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > In article <fhcupa$g84$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> >

> >> Jason wrote:

> >>> In article <06il05-a9a.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

> >>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>

> >>>> [snips]

> >>>>

> >>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:04:43 -0800, Jason wrote:

> >>>>

> >>>>>> And it could happen in 20 years as population pressures due to "be

> >>>>>> fruitful and multiply" continue, so by your logic we should abolish

> >>>>>> that odd little belief system which contains such a decree.

> >>>>> God told the people that were alive thousands of years ago to be

fruitful

> >>>>> and multiply.

> >>>> Last I checked, you'd failed completely in demonstrating God exists at

> >>>> all, let alone that he said anything - or that the things he said

(if any)

> >>>> were quoted correctly.

> >>>>

> >>>> Secondly, while the command to be fruitful does appear in a certain book,

> >>>> there doesn't seem to be a stop clause, meaning the rule is presumably

> >>>> still in effect. Which means despite there being 6+ billion people

> >>>> around, you're still required to breed like rabbits - without end. Drop

> >>>> litters until you can't.

> >>>>

> >>>> Which, in turn, means that 6 billion will be 16 billion in jig

time. Hmm.

> >>>> Pretty much exactly what I said above - it could happen in 20 years (give

> >>>> or take) thanks to your breeding requirements, thus - by your logic -

> >>>> the belief system which contains the command should be abolished

according

> >>>> to the dictates of the slippery slope you adhere to.

> >>>>

> >>>> So, are you going to be first to line up and cease believing - with or

> >>>> without the aid of a bullet? Somehow I don't think so.

> >>> No, I have stated in former posts that most all of the laws mentioned in

> >>> the Old Testament were for the people that were alive during that time

> >>> period.

> >> Does the law that was created in 1782 that says "murder is a felony"

> >> cease to be effective after some period of time? when can we start

> >> robbing? How about rape? Is that law no longer effective now? The ones

> >> about counterfeiting? Do they still apply?

> >>

> >> Clue time: laws don't (generally) "become obsolete." Either they were a

> >> valid law at the time and STILL are or else they were bad laws to begin

> >> with. Which is it?

> >>

> >> Did god say, ANYWHERE, "these laws will sunset in the year 654AD" or

> >> something such?

> >

> > Some laws such as the one that you mentioned NEVER become obsolete.

> > However, many other laws do become obsolete. For example, many of the laws

> > related to homosexuaity and smoking are now obsolete.

>

> No, they aren't. They were either RULED upon by a court as being

> unconstitutional OR they were repealed by the lawmakers. Now show us

> where the laws from the bible against eating shellfish or working on

> Sundays were either repealed by someone having authority to do so or was

> ruled as unconstitutional.

 

Going to church on Sunday (Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor. 16:2) follows the practice

of the early Christians. The reason was because Jesus rose from the dead

on a Sunday (Luke 24:1; John 20:19,26). One denomination (Seventh Day

Adventist) continues to worship on Saturday.

 

Peter received a message from God indicated that Christians could eat any

foods they wanted to eat. Acts Chapter 11: 5-18)

 

>

> There were once all

> > sorts of laws related to horses that were in large cities such as San

> > Francisco. Since horses are no longer on the main streets of most

> > cities--those laws are obsolete.

>

> No, they still prohibit particular actions by/with horses in that city.

> They might not be needed that often since there aren't that many horses

> but they are still in effect OR they were repealed.

>

> Laws don't just "slowly fade away."

Guest Kelsey Bjarnason
Posted

[snips]

 

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:15:30 -0800, Jason wrote:

>> Where, again, did god say "only go forth and multiply until you reach a

>> particular population"?

>

> God did not need to make that statement. He gave mankind enough

> intelligent to figure out these sorts of issues.

 

Really? Please point out the passage that reads "Go forth and multiply

until it makes sense to curb things a bit." You can't, because there is

no such passage. There is, however, one commanding you to be fruitful and

multiply. Period. No limits, no "until things change", no stopping point

whatsoever - just do it, do it, do it some more.

 

Oh, I'm sure I could be wrong on that, in which case you will, of course,

show us the passage that says "until conditions warrant stopping this

breeding like rabbits bit", right?

Posted

In article <1ebs05-dro.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

> [snips]

>

> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:15:30 -0800, Jason wrote:

>

> >> Where, again, did god say "only go forth and multiply until you reach a

> >> particular population"?

> >

> > God did not need to make that statement. He gave mankind enough

> > intelligent to figure out these sorts of issues.

>

> Really? Please point out the passage that reads "Go forth and multiply

> until it makes sense to curb things a bit." You can't, because there is

> no such passage. There is, however, one commanding you to be fruitful and

> multiply. Period. No limits, no "until things change", no stopping point

> whatsoever - just do it, do it, do it some more.

>

> Oh, I'm sure I could be wrong on that, in which case you will, of course,

> show us the passage that says "until conditions warrant stopping this

> breeding like rabbits bit", right?

 

If you want to have a dozen children--have a dozen children.

 

I have read the entire Old Testament. There are dozens or perhaps even

hundreds of laws that made perfect sence thousands of years ago. However,

those same laws make no sence today. For example, there were lots of laws

related to "farm" animals since in those days--most people had farm

animals. Those sorts of laws are obsolete related to all people that live

in cities since they do not own any farm animals.

Guest Tokay Pino Gris
Posted

Jason wrote:

> In article <fheuab$hc6$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> In article <fhcsel$dm0$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>> I would describe murder as "unlawfully killing a person esp. with malice

>>>>> aforethought."

>>>> That definition is useless in this discussion. What is "unlawfully

>>>> killing?" I.e. all that does is say "murder is what we declare to be

>>>> murder" and does NOTHING to tell someone who is about to commit act A if

>>>> act A is murder or not unless they are already versed in every possible

>>>> act that the law does and does not cover.

>>>>

>>>> It's a very arbitrary definition. Try again?

>>> Are you referring to first degree murder?

>> I'm referring to you coming up with a non-circular definition that

>> allows us to look at any given act and decide if it's murder or not.

>>

>> To say "this law prohibits any killing that's prohibited by this law" is

>> meaningless. To say "murder is defined by law as 'the act of unlawfully

>> killing a person'" is likewise meaningless.

>>

>> Try again?

>

> unlawfully killing a person

>

>

 

round and round we go....

 

 

Tokay

 

--

 

Germans are flummoxed by humor, the Swiss have no concept of fun, the

Spanish think there is nothing at all ridiculous about eating dinner at

midnight, and the Italians should never, ever have been let in on the

invention of the motor car.

 

Bill Bryson

Guest Tokay Pino Gris
Posted

Jason wrote:

> In article <fheuh7$i7o$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> In article <fhcupa$g84$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>> In article <06il05-a9a.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

>>>>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> [snips]

>>>>>>

>>>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:04:43 -0800, Jason wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> And it could happen in 20 years as population pressures due to "be

>>>>>>>> fruitful and multiply" continue, so by your logic we should abolish

>>>>>>>> that odd little belief system which contains such a decree.

>>>>>>> God told the people that were alive thousands of years ago to be

> fruitful

>>>>>>> and multiply.

>>>>>> Last I checked, you'd failed completely in demonstrating God exists at

>>>>>> all, let alone that he said anything - or that the things he said

> (if any)

>>>>>> were quoted correctly.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Secondly, while the command to be fruitful does appear in a certain book,

>>>>>> there doesn't seem to be a stop clause, meaning the rule is presumably

>>>>>> still in effect. Which means despite there being 6+ billion people

>>>>>> around, you're still required to breed like rabbits - without end. Drop

>>>>>> litters until you can't.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Which, in turn, means that 6 billion will be 16 billion in jig

> time. Hmm.

>>>>>> Pretty much exactly what I said above - it could happen in 20 years (give

>>>>>> or take) thanks to your breeding requirements, thus - by your logic -

>>>>>> the belief system which contains the command should be abolished

> according

>>>>>> to the dictates of the slippery slope you adhere to.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> So, are you going to be first to line up and cease believing - with or

>>>>>> without the aid of a bullet? Somehow I don't think so.

>>>>> No, I have stated in former posts that most all of the laws mentioned in

>>>>> the Old Testament were for the people that were alive during that time

>>>>> period.

>>>> Does the law that was created in 1782 that says "murder is a felony"

>>>> cease to be effective after some period of time? when can we start

>>>> robbing? How about rape? Is that law no longer effective now? The ones

>>>> about counterfeiting? Do they still apply?

>>>>

>>>> Clue time: laws don't (generally) "become obsolete." Either they were a

>>>> valid law at the time and STILL are or else they were bad laws to begin

>>>> with. Which is it?

>>>>

>>>> Did god say, ANYWHERE, "these laws will sunset in the year 654AD" or

>>>> something such?

>>> Some laws such as the one that you mentioned NEVER become obsolete.

>>> However, many other laws do become obsolete. For example, many of the laws

>>> related to homosexuaity and smoking are now obsolete.

>> No, they aren't. They were either RULED upon by a court as being

>> unconstitutional OR they were repealed by the lawmakers. Now show us

>> where the laws from the bible against eating shellfish or working on

>> Sundays were either repealed by someone having authority to do so or was

>> ruled as unconstitutional.

>>

>> There were once all

>>> sorts of laws related to horses that were in large cities such as San

>>> Francisco. Since horses are no longer on the main streets of most

>>> cities--those laws are obsolete.

>> No, they still prohibit particular actions by/with horses in that city.

>> They might not be needed that often since there aren't that many horses

>> but they are still in effect OR they were repealed.

>>

>> Laws don't just "slowly fade away."

>

> Are you stating that no laws (example: the number of horses that are

> allowed to be in front of a bar that closed down 57 years ago) have become

> obsolete?

>

>

 

Beside the point

 

Tokay

 

--

 

Germans are flummoxed by humor, the Swiss have no concept of fun, the

Spanish think there is nothing at all ridiculous about eating dinner at

midnight, and the Italians should never, ever have been let in on the

invention of the motor car.

 

Bill Bryson

Guest Tokay Pino Gris
Posted

Jason wrote:

> In article <1ebs05-dro.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>> [snips]

>>

>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:15:30 -0800, Jason wrote:

>>

>>>> Where, again, did god say "only go forth and multiply until you reach a

>>>> particular population"?

>>> God did not need to make that statement. He gave mankind enough

>>> intelligent to figure out these sorts of issues.

>> Really? Please point out the passage that reads "Go forth and multiply

>> until it makes sense to curb things a bit." You can't, because there is

>> no such passage. There is, however, one commanding you to be fruitful and

>> multiply. Period. No limits, no "until things change", no stopping point

>> whatsoever - just do it, do it, do it some more.

>>

>> Oh, I'm sure I could be wrong on that, in which case you will, of course,

>> show us the passage that says "until conditions warrant stopping this

>> breeding like rabbits bit", right?

>

> If you want to have a dozen children--have a dozen children.

>

> I have read the entire Old Testament. There are dozens or perhaps even

> hundreds of laws that made perfect sence thousands of years ago. However,

> those same laws make no sence today. For example, there were lots of laws

> related to "farm" animals since in those days--most people had farm

> animals. Those sorts of laws are obsolete related to all people that live

> in cities since they do not own any farm animals.

>

>

 

So it is cherry picking again?

 

 

Tokay

 

--

 

Germans are flummoxed by humor, the Swiss have no concept of fun, the

Spanish think there is nothing at all ridiculous about eating dinner at

midnight, and the Italians should never, ever have been let in on the

invention of the motor car.

 

Bill Bryson

Posted

In article <fhgchq$rv1$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

<tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > In article <fheuab$hc6$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> >

> >> Jason wrote:

> >>> In article <fhcsel$dm0$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> >>>

> >>>> Jason wrote:

> >>>>> I would describe murder as "unlawfully killing a person esp. with malice

> >>>>> aforethought."

> >>>> That definition is useless in this discussion. What is "unlawfully

> >>>> killing?" I.e. all that does is say "murder is what we declare to be

> >>>> murder" and does NOTHING to tell someone who is about to commit act A if

> >>>> act A is murder or not unless they are already versed in every possible

> >>>> act that the law does and does not cover.

> >>>>

> >>>> It's a very arbitrary definition. Try again?

> >>> Are you referring to first degree murder?

> >> I'm referring to you coming up with a non-circular definition that

> >> allows us to look at any given act and decide if it's murder or not.

> >>

> >> To say "this law prohibits any killing that's prohibited by this law" is

> >> meaningless. To say "murder is defined by law as 'the act of unlawfully

> >> killing a person'" is likewise meaningless.

> >>

> >> Try again?

> >

> > unlawfully killing a person

> >

> >

>

> round and round we go....

>

>

> Tokay

 

How would you define it?

Guest Tokay Pino Gris
Posted

Jason wrote:

> In article <fhgchq$rv1$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> In article <fheuab$hc6$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>> In article <fhcsel$dm0$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

>>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>>>> I would describe murder as "unlawfully killing a person esp. with malice

>>>>>>> aforethought."

>>>>>> That definition is useless in this discussion. What is "unlawfully

>>>>>> killing?" I.e. all that does is say "murder is what we declare to be

>>>>>> murder" and does NOTHING to tell someone who is about to commit act A if

>>>>>> act A is murder or not unless they are already versed in every possible

>>>>>> act that the law does and does not cover.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> It's a very arbitrary definition. Try again?

>>>>> Are you referring to first degree murder?

>>>> I'm referring to you coming up with a non-circular definition that

>>>> allows us to look at any given act and decide if it's murder or not.

>>>>

>>>> To say "this law prohibits any killing that's prohibited by this law" is

>>>> meaningless. To say "murder is defined by law as 'the act of unlawfully

>>>> killing a person'" is likewise meaningless.

>>>>

>>>> Try again?

>>> unlawfully killing a person

>>>

>>>

>> round and round we go....

>>

>>

>> Tokay

>

> How would you define it?

>

>

 

I don't. It was you that claimed you could. But to define it as

"unlawful killing" is bullshit.

 

Like you claimed that illegal drugs were imoral. Why? because they were

illegal.

 

Maybe you think the law is the be-all and end-all.

 

(Sounds like it)

 

I don't.

 

 

Tokay

 

--

 

Germans are flummoxed by humor, the Swiss have no concept of fun, the

Spanish think there is nothing at all ridiculous about eating dinner at

midnight, and the Italians should never, ever have been let in on the

invention of the motor car.

 

Bill Bryson

Posted

Jason wrote:

> In article <fheu51$hc6$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> In this case, the context was related to MURDER.

>> No, it wasn't. There was NO context to tell in what sense the word was

>> being used. In fact, murder basically is "the unlawful killing of

>> another" so to say "thou shall not kill someone in an unlawful manner"

>> without FURTHER defining what said "unlawful manner" is, then it's

>> meaningless. The ONLY context that it could be read in in any meaningful

>> manner is "thou shall not kill."

>>

>> The reason is that other

>>> scriptures in the old testament clearly stated that is was legal to stone

>>> people to death. If all forms of killing were against the law--why did God

>>> allow the people to stone people to death?

>> Because there's no consistency to the bible.

>

> Do you consider capital punishment to be murder?

 

Don't try and side-step the issue.

 

Define murder in such a way that we can look at some act and decide if

it's murder or not and without using some meaningless definition as

"murder is illegal killing and so if it's against the law, it's murder."

Posted

Jason wrote:

> In article <fheuab$hc6$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> In article <fhcsel$dm0$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>> I would describe murder as "unlawfully killing a person esp. with malice

>>>>> aforethought."

>>>> That definition is useless in this discussion. What is "unlawfully

>>>> killing?" I.e. all that does is say "murder is what we declare to be

>>>> murder" and does NOTHING to tell someone who is about to commit act A if

>>>> act A is murder or not unless they are already versed in every possible

>>>> act that the law does and does not cover.

>>>>

>>>> It's a very arbitrary definition. Try again?

>>> Are you referring to first degree murder?

>> I'm referring to you coming up with a non-circular definition that

>> allows us to look at any given act and decide if it's murder or not.

>>

>> To say "this law prohibits any killing that's prohibited by this law" is

>> meaningless. To say "murder is defined by law as 'the act of unlawfully

>> killing a person'" is likewise meaningless.

>>

>> Try again?

>

> unlawfully killing a person

 

Try again with a REAL answer and not just repeating yourself. I just

told you that "unlawfully killing a person" is meaningless since it

doesn't say anything about "what's illegal?" Also, even if you outlined

every possible illegal way of killing a person by today's laws, that

means nothing in context of the bible. Stoning a person today would be

murder. The bible seems to think it's perfectly fine. Do you go around

stoning your neighbors? If not, why not? God said it was fine to do,

didn't he?

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...