Creation/evolution3

[Chas]

The Jews were opposed to male homosexuality, but it's not clear how they felt about female homosexuality.

It seems likely it was "don't ask, don't tell".

[Roxy904]

The Jews were opposed to male homosexuality, but it's not clear how they felt about female homosexuality.

It seems likely it was "don't ask, don't tell".

No, because there were no female homosexuals whatsoever. Everyone knows females don't have real feelings, or thoughts. They only have enough brain capacity to serve men. Duh, people, get with it.
1 Timothy 2:12
I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

Yeah, shut up, women.
Oh.
Wait...

[The Grand Nudger]

Seems more like "we all know what we think about girl on girl so that needn't be addressed"- to me. "Now, here let me tell you what I don't like about other men!" The hot lollipop girl/girl on dad action outta make the authors positions clear..I mean...so long as he totally didn't know.....lets repeat that a bunch of times....

[Drich]

OK.

First off, I understand not wanting to call anyone out, but by doing that you just repeated your assertion that no one is addressing your points without providing evidence.

Post 445 is another example of me knocking down a strawman. line by line. This thread is full of these examples.

You just repeated that we are using the strawman fallacy without pointing out where it was used.

Because in 2/3's of my posts i spend the majority of my time addressing strawmen and their specifics. I did not know I needed to point them out to you.

Second, I don't see how anyone here is intellectually lazy, since most of us are actually trying to understand your points and make our own.

This is not true. Post 445 is a great example of my answer to an atheist changing what I said to make his points valid.

(We would be intellectually lazy if we just took everything we heard for granted, in which case we would not be having this discussion.

Yes that is indeed one form of intelectual laziness. another is not addressing the points of a topic because one does not have an answer to give on the specifics of a given topic, but rather change the topic just enough to make old arguements work, or they introduce a red herring to change the topic. (much like your efforts have been centered around)

Third, I see you're still holding a grudge for the spelling thing.

So?

Like many people pointed out, we have given you our arguments, which you then ignored and repeated your earlier assertions.

examples? The last two times this claim was made I addressed absolutly everything questioned. That was the purpose of post 443, and 445. It shows two things. one of which is I am more than willing to address a person's topic point by point and even line by line if need be.

Did you not read the posts i left for you to specifically read? It certainly seems that way, because I can not see how you could make that arguement otherwise.

In that situation there is little to do but point out the spelling mistakes. It's not a personal attack, the mistakes make your posts less clear.

And being on the topic, you could at least admit to some of them, which you didn't.

You don't understand how this whole dsylexica thing works do you? My mind literally auto corrects, and I do not see it the mispellings unless a word is way off. Otherwise there is nothing to admit to, because there is nothing wrong that I can see. I would have to go letter by letter with the correct spelling along side to see and make those changes.

When a word is way off I will ask siri, if she can't help then I will do a search for it. if I cant spell it well enough for a search I try and replace it. if I cant then your stuck with it or a phonetic spelling of it.

And, just like the spelling, your formatting is making your posts very hard to read. Please fix it.

out of 48 pages 3 maybe 4 indivisual posts had formatting issues. Those who can do
Those who can't only teach
Those who can't teach grade papers. you are little more than a paper grader, as nothing we have discussed has had anything to do with what is topically being discussed.

This is the Exact laziness I was talking about. (appeal to logical fallacy rather than have a topical discussion)[/quote]
But, hey all you words were spelled correctly, so you have that going for you.

[Norman Humann]

Oh boy. It's the Drich time of day again.

[Drich]

Still not answering the question angels have no free will of their own so they cannot be included. It is how you would treat non human life is all i am asking because for all you know they have their own beliefs or not considering they have the technology to reach us and even talk to us. The better thing to say is why did god lie or even is god even real because its clearly written we are made in his image yet other sentient beings who are far from human who are there talking to us. So is god a lair is god to be trusted yes or no.

wait your turn dry sand

The angels is heaven have already had their 'freewill' test. That is why 1/3 of them are now refered to as demons.

Define 'Made in God's image.' Your whole arguement is based on what you think that term means. so I need to know where that terms begins and ends to give you your answer.

---

Fuck you.
Sorry, just had to get that off my chest.
Anyway, to adress what you said, which didn't address my original point. Why do you continue to believe that this is factual, when there has been no empirical evidence to support it? I was also trying to point out that if you don't take the Bible literally, you can still be a faithful Catholic; even my RELIGION teacher doesn't take the Bible literally. My textbook on Christianity says you shouldn't take the Bible literally.
And I don't know why you do, as it has no evidence to support wild and dubious claims.
Seriously? Arguing with people is one thing, but calling them in intellectually lazy is another, especially when you continue to claim the Bible is 100% historically accurate.
You calling all (baseless accusation right there) atheists intellectually lazy bothers me greatly. I was indoctrinated into the Catholic Church from when I was a baby upward. I have been at a Catholic school for the entirety of my education. I tried to believe, and read books and websites, and genuinely tried to believe, but reading different books and other sources of information led me to becoming an agnostic athiest. You claim that I'm intellectually lazy, when I had to break free of an indoctrination, and when you can't even spell intellectually correctly,
Also, Ender's Game is originally a book. Ever hear of those? Also, are you trying to compare Ender to God? Ender is continually manipulated throughout the book, and has deep-set physiological problems, due to his sociopath brother, and unreasonable pressure put upon him, as a child, albeit an extremely intelligent one, commandeering an army.
I did read the OP, and that's part of the irony of you claiming that I am "big on baseless accusations."

what are you responding to specifically?

[Roxy904]

Mostly your response to me. I also wanted to address some of the points you attempted to make to other people.

[Drich]

Let me see if I understand. Imagine a pregnancy, where the doctor can perform an abortion to save the mother's life, or the doctor can do nothing and allow both mother and fetus to die.

Oh, I so enjoy these lets speak to the exception and not the rule talks so much...
http://www.numberofabortions.com/
This is just a link to an abortion clock, just number and verfiable facts no pictures of baby-burgers/post abortion pics.

as of 11:30am EST 1.3 million baby burgers have been made this year. Are you saying that of those 1.3 million babies they were burgered to save the mother's life?

Your response is a perfect example of the 'Man's Morality' I speak of, and exacly why man tends to ascribe 'moral value to a given act' rather than to give his morality over to God to define.

Because when a given act is ascribed a moral value rather than letting God tell us what the Moral value is of an act, we can take it upon ourselves to justify or even cancel out the moral value of the act we want to do. Just by creating a situation of compareson to what we feel is a 'greater evil.' Where as God's word is unchanging and a sin is always and forever be a sin unless He says otherwise.

This is what you did with your abortion/saving the mother story.
You are attempting to justify the death of a child by saving the mother.

When killing a child is always wrong for us to do.

What would I do? Abort the baby. Save the mother. Repent. Move on.
That is what/Why Christ died on the cross. To free us from the law.

What if I got some girl pregnet when I was young? Dealt with it, married the girl try to make a life, even if it cost me my dreams.

What does the world say do? Kill the baby, keep the dreams alive.
That is why according to the clock 30,000 more babies have been turned into burger meat.

Are you saying that there is nothing inherently bad about death, but it is bad to break God's rules?

without redemption yes.

Therefore the doctor should do nothing and allow both mother and fetus to die (rather than break God's rule about abortion to save the mother's life)? (Correct me if I misunderstand.)

You stand corrected.

Most of you do not understand the fundementals of redemption and only see Sin and righteousness. Christ died to provide a third option and that is redemption.

I agree that nothing is inherently good or bad. I can see why a Christian might be tempted to use the Bible to define good and bad. Unfortunately the Bible isn't a law book, and it isn't consistent IMO.

One could argue it is indeed a book of law. a law we will all be judged by at some point.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not interested in that "redemption", and the means by which the offer is being extended is precisely why I'm not interested. It's just not in me to string someone else up for my failings, nor to accept such a "gift" from someone who chose to do such a horrid thing without consulting me - purportedly for my benefit. Perhaps, when I die, I'll find myself standing before Drich Almighty, and like the cunt that he is, he'll consign me to some "nowhere" of his own choosing - but oh well, nothing I can do about that except point out, while I still breathe, that it is validation for every moral condemnation I've ever made regarding Drich Almighty to begin with. If this is the way that the universe works, then the loneliness one might expect in heaven is in direct proportion to the moral fortitude found here on earth. Generally, I think people are pretty decent....I'm willing to wager that there won't be many voices in the heavenly choir singing praises to Lord Drich.

[Drich]

How about you read the responses that people take the time to type to you? You might find it enlightening. There is a timeline, it is very well delineated, you can do the math or I can do the math, in fact anyone can do the math.

Read the OP sport. The 'time line and all your math covers the time from the fall forward. That's it. From the fall back to the last day of creation their is no time line.

Do you understand now?

From fall forward 6000 years. from fall back to end of creation no time line.
Which leaves room for ALL Of Evolutionary account to have taken place.

Second thing. Man, a Man, Adam was different than ALL Other creatures in that God breathed into Him a Living soul. This was unique to Adam and his children and their children.

-of which you and I are not.

Noah was a son of Seth, which was a son of Adam. We are ALL Decendants of Noah. Therefore we are.

IF
It is your belief that man existed outside of the garden the bible does not deny you this belief. In fact it supports it as it speaks of cities and of people not listed in the garden account. However as per genesis 2 these 'men did not have souls as ADAM was the only one who did.

Neither do you, because you're one of those men, one of us......and yes, I'm aware...those men and those cities described therein are part of the timeline layed out in the narrative.

Point?

So to recap: Monkey men/Evolved man/ Man who lived out side the garden did not have a soul. Adam did per The Creation account.

Good for Adam, don't care.

Did you forget why we are reviewing all of this? you wanted biblical support for my position, here it is. now you say you don't care? How are you not a troll?

You do not have question you make strawmen and want me to defend what you think I should say.

as always, you misidentify a fallacy in the reverse.

I highlighted what you said my position was, then I corrected it. Your version, because it was different and because you formulated an arguement to fit what you said my position was, makes what you said a strawman.
So no. Your work has indeed been correctly identified. If you don't like your work being identified as being fallacious then make an effort to understand the opposition before you speak against it.

Nope try again sport. This is exactly what I mean by you creating strawmen. A link I posted showed the scripture that said their clothing did not wear out, everything being discussed clothing never came up. You all want to see camp fires, poop, bones, dead people, tents and pottery

Of course we do, because that's what real people would have left in their wake, as opposed to fictional people within the pages of a fairy tale about magical clothes and "manna".

But again I have demonstrated over and over again that 2000 year old cities who had lasted hundreds of years in that region, with millions of people who live and worked in them over the years, do not show us the bio-degradable 'evidence' you are looking for... And these cities were viable 2000 years ago. Moses happened about 2000 years before that... So help me out here, but if 60 different cities who had been in place for decades if not centuries, and all of it's people leave no trace but their stone foundations after 2000 years, how can a 40 year old tent settlement leave bio-degradable material to be found 4000 years later?

Just incase you STILL don't understand Imagine the trash 60 cities would make over 100 years. Lets take all that trash and put it into a ten mile by ten mile pile. Now lets take that pile and put it into the desert and leave it exposed for 2000 years. how much do you think would be left? This is essentially what has happened. How much 'trash' do you think would be left being exposed to the harshest climate/wild temp swings after 2000 years.. In truth very little. But for arguement's sake lets say there was enough left over after 2000 year to fill a modern dump/landfill. (usally a mile by a mile and the dig down as deep as the can and backfill with trash and dirt.)
Now put it all back in the desert and let another 2000 years go by. what's left of the bio-degradables then?

Again 60 cites have recently been found in that area. THE ONLY THING LEFT ARE THEIR STONE FOUNDATIONS. None of the Things You Are Looking For From The Exodus Have Survived These Cities! So then How are the Exapected to Survive the open Desert for twice the Exposure?

You've demonstrated your expertise in misidentifying logical fallacies at length.

Wishfull self deluded thinking
I provided a link to the defination, broke the defination down, compared your words and thoughts to the subject being discussed to the Fallacy's defination, and restated the subject matter being discussed prooving that you are indeed a spinner of strawmen

Actually I can not support what you believe I believe. In the very beginning of your last post you wanted to provide a synopsis. YOU FAILED To do That! So then how can you tell me I can't support what I believe if you don't even have an elementry grasp of it?

I stand by my summary.

then provide evidence that supports the fact that your summary is indeed an accurate repersentation of the subject matter as I have described it in great detail many many many times.

No you wont, and frankly, you can't. I point to your time here as evidence of both facts.

empty unsupported sweaping accusations. When you were prompted to support your claim, you just issued more sweeping accusation that you still will not support.

this is the laziness i was talking about.

---

(rather than break God's rule about abortion to save the mother's life)? (Correct me if I misunderstand.)

What's gods rules about abortion?

don't Murder

---

What's gods rules about abortion?

According to Drich, God is opposed to abortion and homosexuality. I think the abortion rule is derived from the ten commandments' "thou shalt not kill"? The homosexuality rule comes from some bible verse that says God hates a man sleeping with another man. The Jews were opposed to male homosexuality, but it's not clear how they felt about female homosexuality.

robvalue mentioned the verse about deciding the innocence of a women by forcing her to drink a nasty magic potion that would shrivel her womb or something. I never connected that with abortion, but maybe that was what it described. (My eyes usually glazed-over when I read that part of the Bible. )

Don't murder, and the Homosexual thing is derived from the only nonsinful way to have sex is through a santified marriage. God does not offer santification through same sex marriages therefore Homosexual sex is a sin. Just like anyother sexual sin. Which mean one must seek repentance for it.