Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, October 18, 2016

A team of archaeologists from Stanford University has unearthed an about 8,000-year-old figurine at Catalhöyük, a Neolithic site in central Turkey.

The figurine, wrought from recrystallized limestone between 6300 and 6000 B.C., is a rare find in a place where most previously discovered pieces are sculpted from clay and deformed over millennia in the soil.

Conventionally associated with fertility goddesses, this figurine is also thought to represent an elderly woman who had risen to prominence in Çatalhöyük's famously egalitarian society.

The stone figurine measures 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) long and 10.96 centimeters (4.3 inches) wide, weighing in at 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds).

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Some people are asking whether the doll has a pu##y.
I mean, seriously, it does bear a strong resemblance to me.
Like, after I've removed my head warmer and corset.
~ Dainty Don

#1 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2016-10-18 09:27 AM | Reply

WOw... crazy...8000years old..

My dad and friends as kids used to leave Lima and head to Lake Titicaca and scour the shorelines for silver fertility charms.

So Ive been told, the Incan couples would gather by the shore and throw offerings, including these figurines, into the lake when hoping to start a family. He showed me one that he found as a --------.

But nowhere near 8000 years old..

#2 | Posted by aescal at 2016-10-18 12:15 PM | Reply

Wow, someone did a mold of Gracie! :)

Just playing Gracie...

This must have been before Turkey became Muslim. Because..well you know, they (muslims) would never have a woman as a goddess...

#3 | Posted by boaz at 2016-10-18 12:46 PM | Reply

Where are the goddesses in Christianity, Boaz?

#4 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2016-10-18 01:13 PM | Reply

That's a fake. It's obviously modeled on a modern American.

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-18 01:28 PM | Reply

#4

In Christianity, God is a genderless spirit with many names, including El Shaddai, "the many breasted one" which speaks to nurturing and provision. There is no gender among spiritual heavenly beings, according to the texts.

The women of the texts, though, were mostly stable and or heroic types, while the men were mostly slimeballs, even when they are heroic types. The texts rarely treat men as anything other than flawed personalities, especially the leaders, which is something that sets them apart from most histories in general where the leaders tell the historians what to write.

This find in Turkey is quite unique, given it's age and condition and the society it represents.

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-18 01:43 PM | Reply

If that is what a goddess looks like, then apprerently goddesses love shopping at Walmart.

#7 | Posted by Sully at 2016-10-18 02:43 PM | Reply

"In Christianity, God is a genderless spirit with many names"

False.

While it is pointless to try and compare God to a gender, biblically speaking he is given masculine names even called father by Jesus himself. It is a modern construct of some seeking to PC the bible that are trying to remove the historical and traditional traits and names given. This can be seen in the ridiculous stretch you posted about El Shaddai, while there are many ideas about the etymology of the term the generally and widely accepted one is God who suffices or Almighty God. Even translations that Predate Christ by centuries held that to be true. Only recently has anyone tried to claim that a slight resemblance to a word meaning breast is a realistic meaning and to take it as such would make no sense in the majority of it's contextual use.

There is no point in trying to remove the traditional gender of God to try to fit with modern politics. God does not need gender but has always been expressed and express himself as the masculine. Be it to fit with the gender roles at the time or for whatever reason, playing PC is pointless and pandering.

#8 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 03:15 PM | Reply

#7

Ever try a Golden Corral on 2fer1 night?

#9 | Posted by aescal at 2016-10-18 03:18 PM | Reply

Wow, the rwing misogynist "Christians" die hard, eh?"

- Only recently has anyone tried to claim that a slight resemblance to a word meaning breast is a realistic meaning

El Shaddai

Shad in Hebrew means "breast", always has, and is used as such multiple times.

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/El/el.html

- trying to remove the historical and traditional traits

"By your traditions you make void the word of God." - JC

The spiritual realm is genderless, despite the types used in ancient texts referring to gender.

Genesis says that gender was introduced to material world humans for the purpose of procreation, which is not a function in existing or created spiritual beings.

Philippians 3:20-21 says "For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself."

stacyling.blogspot.com

And Paul said that there is in Christ, " no male or female".

You don't even argue that there is spiritual gender, you know here is not. You just hate that God can be inclusive of both male and female because, well, "If the KJV was good enough for Moses, it's good enough for me!" rofl.

#10 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-18 03:34 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

www.hebrew4christians.com

#11 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-18 03:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If that is what a goddess looks like, then apprerently goddesses love shopping at Walmart.

If you can't figure out why fertility goddesses are fat, it's for when the stork drops the baby from the sky it has a nice big cushion to land on.

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 04:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Shad in Hebrew means "breast", always has, and is used as such multiple times."

And is one of dozens that starts with the part Shad all but one point to things other than breast.
Shad is also derives from a shuwd(according to Strong's) which is defined as
"שׁוּד shûwd, shood; a primitive root; properly, to swell up, i.e. figuratively (by implication of insolence) to devastate: -- waste."
www.blueletterbible.org

Your own source admits that the traditional and over 2000 year old translation says it is not breast and instead they just say but in one verse that speaks of blessing and includes that of breasts and womb which is not literal and the creation of man and woman easily encapsulates this usage.
The full context includes
"22 "Yosef is a fruitful plant, a fruitful plant by a spring, with branches climbing over the wall. 23 The archers attacked him fiercely, shooting at him and pressing him hard; 24 but his bow remained taut; and his arms were made nimble by the hands of the Mighty One of Ya'akov, from there, from the Shepherd, the Stone of Isra'el, 25 by the God of your father, who will help you, by El Shaddai, who will bless you with blessings from heaven above, or: that says beautiful words. blessings from the deep, lying below, blessings from the breasts and the womb. "

Yet it ignores its use in non gender required or in the masculine. Never mind ignoring the previous name given of mighty one of Jacob.
Again context matters.

One time your source takes it out of context and ignores thousands of years as the definition given of Almighty God, or in some peoples take, thunderous God.

It also ignores the countless times God is spoken of as Father even by the Son himself. So again you have at best one very loose translation assuming a similar word but not the word it was derived from or the dozens of other similar words that contradicts the usage in the verse earlier or at least does not coincide with it as the proof and only in that one specific usage as no other usage lends itself to that.

Your claim was that Christianity does not gender God yet the vast, vast majority believes in God the father thus you are wrong even if your small sect tries to degender the bible. The majority decides the belief system that is associated with it, not your splinter group. The holy trinity is key to Christianity including Catholicism.

"And Paul said that there is in Christ, " no male or female". "
Yes, we are all equal, that does not remove gender obviously. The verse being Galatians 3:28.

But again, gender is not actually important, as i said it is not a requirement for a supernatural being.

Personally i don't think God is 100% male or female because there is no need, but his identity and presence aligns closer with the masculine then feminine, traditionally and generaly speaking.


#13 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 04:37 PM | Reply

Your claim was that Christianity does not gender God yet the vast, vast majority believes in God the father thus you are wrong

Christianity doesn't say anything about The Rapture, but plenty of Christians believe in it.

Unless you are defining "Christianity" as "Christian people" and not "Beliefs rooted in the Bible."

(Likewise, The Bible doesn't say abortion is forbidden, but many Christians believe that it does.)

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 04:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

If one is omnipotent, omniscient, why should one be classified by gender binaries used by weak and simple humans.

At the end of the day, we are all crafted in zhe's image 😇.

#15 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-10-18 04:49 PM | Reply

"Christianity doesn't say anything about The Rapture,"

What in the world are you talking about?
There is plenty in the Bible about the rapture. There are various understanding of exactly what it will look like but it is mentioned many times.

Are you thinking of the cartoon people levitating up into the clouds?

Here are a few.
www.kingjamesbibleonline.org

"Likewise, The Bible doesn't say abortion is forbidden, but many Christians believe that it does."

Well it forbids the unjustified killing of a person and is perfectly clear that person hood begins inside the womb but if those two very close dots are too hard for you to connect than sure, no where does it specifically say "thou shalt not abort". Kind like no traffic law says specifically you cannot reenact the full scale battle of the buldge while operating a motorcycle.

#16 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 04:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

There is plenty in the Bible about the rapture.

No, there just isn't.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 05:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

sure, no where does it specifically say "thou shalt not abort"

Thank you for acknowledging reality.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 05:23 PM | Reply

"There is plenty in the Bible about the rapture.
No, there just isn't."

So obviously that link i posted just made up all the verses, and subsequently went to all the bibles in the world and modified them so snoofy's "truth" magically became false.
Amazing how quickly they did that and how thorough, if you did not know it was a giant impossible conspiracy against snoofy you would have believed there are thousands of years of records that would have everyone laugh at how uninformed snoofy is on the subject.

#18

"Thank you for acknowledging reality."
So i assume you "acknowledge, the reality that there is no law against the full scale reenactment of the battle of the bulge on a motorcycle too right?
See when you try to be so absurdly contrarian by trying to come across as so much of a literalist that you become surreal yourself you only embarrass yourself.

Does the bible speak of personhood before birth many times?
Undisputedly yes.

Does it prohibit killing when not justified?
Unequivocally yes.

Only a troll would pretend that linking those two is not realistic.

But we know you snoof, you are the definition of a troll.

#19 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 05:34 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

- yet the vast, vast majority believes

I guess I have to repeat, "You make void the word of God with your traditions" - JC

Doesn't matter what traditionalists believe, what's actually in the texts matters. And the longer you rant on a word meaning doesn't change the word meaning.

-Your claim was that Christianity does not gender God

And.... your reading comprehension still sucks, or else you just made that up. I never claimed that at all. I said there was no gender for spiritual beings in the texts. That those same texts used patriarchal terminology is very Captain Obvious of you, but no more.

How did you get unplonked, anyway. Grrrr!

#20 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-18 05:42 PM | Reply

Snoofy, curious: have you ever done a cover to cover reading of the world's most bestselling and widely distributed book, The [Christian] Bible?

#21 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-10-18 05:44 PM | Reply

"-Your claim was that Christianity does not gender God
And.... your reading comprehension still sucks,"

Except you said this.

"In Christianity, God is a genderless spirit with many names,"

Not surprising you want to back out of it now.

"Doesn't matter what traditionalists believe, what's actually in the texts matters"
And now you can see why your little splinter sect and their wacky attempts to spin have no bearing on Christianity as a whole.
Christianity as a whole has not gone crazy and ignored context and ancient hebrew as your group seems to have.
The given and accepted definition and translation does not change simply because you a a small group wants it too.

The words are what matters as well as the context that they are in, neither one points to your revisionist definition as even a possibility. That is why Christianity as a whole does not accept your spin.

#22 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 05:50 PM | Reply

"How did you get unplonked, anyway. Grrrr!"

I apologize if reality diverging from your personal beliefs upsets you. Feel free to ignore all those that can prove you wrong and plonk them till your little heart is content.

#23 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 05:52 PM | Reply

Sala those arguments are fatuous. The only punishment mentioned in the Bible for terminating a pregnancy is a payment to the pregnant woman for her loss.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 05:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-Not surprising you want to back out of it now.

A Sallygator hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest (lie, lie, lie).

- "In Christianity, God is a genderless spirit with many names,"

- I said there was no gender for spiritual beings in the texts.

That's what I said, which has nada to do with what you said - "Your claim was that Christianity does not gender God". You are are still being your usual pedantic self.

-Christianity as a whole has not gone crazy and ignored context and ancient hebrew as your group seems to have.

My "group" studies the texts in their original languages by diagramming their grammar and researching word meanings for context. I doubt you could read a line of Syriac or ancient Hebrew if your life depended on it.

And the idea that the what the texts means depends on what most people think it means is absurd.

#25 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-18 05:59 PM | Reply

#24 |

It's a myth like suicide. There is no admonishment against it in the texts, yet many people believe there is. Or like Paul wasn't talking about Temple prostitutes in particular, which he was, but about homosexuality in general, which he was not, whether that is sin or not.

Anything not of faith is sin, and each of us sin or "miss the mark" of perfection daily.... because, as Jesus pointed out, it is impossible not to sin while in humans form... he said the OT condemned the action of a sin, but "I tell you" that if you even think it, it is a sin.

The KJV has a cheery Jesus going around saying, "Be of good cheer!" which is frightfully Old English for what he is really saing which is "Courage!" or "Have courage!".

There are translations of important cornerstones of the faith that hang on whether "of" or "in" is being translated. Such as the faith of Jesus or faith in Jesus. In particular, it's "of" in a most mistranslated verse.

#26 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-18 06:10 PM | Reply

#24

Snoof, you have already demonstrated that you know absolutely nothing of the bible. Just that bit about nothing about the rapture in it showed that.

If you choose not to educate yourself and refuse to even look at the proof supplied there is no point in trying to educate you.

But eh,

"The only punishment mentioned in the Bible for terminating a pregnancy is a payment to the pregnant woman for her loss."

False, there is monetary punishment for causing early birth without miscarriage, if there is miscarriage it was a life for a life.

"21:22 "If men fight and hit a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no serious injury, he will surely be punished in accordance with what the woman's husband demands of him, and he will pay what the court decides. 23 But if there is serious injury, then you will give a life for a life"

So doing something that killed a child would result in your own death.

Beyond that there is no specific mention so obviously it fall under other laws, which state not life shall be unjustly taken.

#27 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 06:14 PM | Reply

"21:22 "If men fight and hit a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no serious injury, he will surely be punished in accordance with what the woman's husband demands of him, and he will pay what the court decides. 23 But if there is serious injury, then you will give a life for a life"

Nothing about terminating an unwanted pregnancy.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 06:19 PM | Reply

What that is saying is that if men gang-rape a woman and she loses the baby as a result, they get the death penalty.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 06:20 PM | Reply

he said the OT condemned the action of a sin, but "I tell you" that if you even think it, it is a sin.

Which is sheer insanity, of course.

Thoughts come and go and they are not you. If you can be aware of your thoughts then they are not you. Your brain analyzes and comments on thousands of things a second. Most of which you are not even aware of. Every now and then a thought bubbles to the surface from your unconscious and you need rush out and to seek forgiveness for your brain functioning as God supposedly designed it too?

And don't get me started on dreams.

#30 | Posted by donnerboy at 2016-10-18 06:23 PM | Reply

#25

You state that in Christianity there are no genders for the spirits but freely admit that Christianity uses gendered terms and names for them.
That you cannot see the contradiction there is astounding.

You want to ttry to split hairs as say that they are not the same thing that calling somebody a gender is not actually saying they are that gender is a dishonest argument.

"My "group" studies the texts in their original languages by diagramming their grammar and researching word meanings for context."

No, that is false. As i have shown those who came up with the concept not only intentionally ignore the context but the very root of the word they claim it is based off of. They offer zero evidence aside from the single verse as it comes to El Shaddai and even the full context of that verses all but precludes their interpretation. Normally something like that would be laughed at, "here look it's kinda like this word therefore it must be that word, hey we can even spin one of the many times it was used to support it, we can ignore all the other uses, we need it to be this"

You want to pretend i am using definitions based on the kj bible but instead as i cited i used strong's looking at the original language used. I posted their definitions, why are you pretending i did not? Are you that afraid to be honest about it?

#31 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 06:26 PM | Reply

Nothing about terminating an unwanted pregnancy."

It also does not say i cannot pour salt in your ears while blasting pablo the goldfish at 136Db while you sleep. Guess that is not immoral either huh?

Snoof see motorcycle and battle of the bulge analogy, read it again, and again till you understand how dumb it is to assume that every possible thing will have a specific reference.

Until then you can only be considered to be trolling again.

#32 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 06:28 PM | Reply

Always funny to see a nonreligious person who has admitted to personally violating the sanctity of life with his own selfishness, lecture others on how the Bible allegedly dismisses the intrinsic value of all life.

#33 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-10-18 06:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#WentThere.

#34 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-10-18 06:30 PM | Reply

It also does not say i cannot pour salt in your ears while blasting pablo the goldfish at 136Db while you sleep. Guess that is not immoral either huh?

Cool story bro.
Now do slavery, pretty sure that's actually mentioned in The Bible.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 06:32 PM | Reply

the Bible allegedly dismisses the intrinsic value of all life.

Dismisses?
Is silent on.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 06:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#26

You should look at the motorcycle analogy too.

Trying to weasel something into being less immoral is not an act of faith or what any believer should be doing.
Just because the bible tells you not to steal does not mean you can't borrow without asking and not return it right?
Just because you can't kill an innocent person does not mean you can't call it an abortion and be clear of the sin right?

The deal is that our personal beliefs and what the faith teaches will never line up completely, we are not perfect people and we all falter. But we should be more intent on admittance of those faults and that sin than trying to twist meanings to make ourselves feel better about the dissonance.
History is rife with the abuse of religion for political reasons and the changing of meanings to fit personal desires. That is a bad thing not a good thing. It's something that any believer should wan't to stop not further.

#37 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 06:35 PM | Reply

Lol! Snoofy how about you do some personal reading and reflection rather than ReTorting on a subject you have little insight, context, or familiarity with.

#38 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-10-18 06:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#36

Ah, yes whenever snoof has nothing to say bring up slavery. Then you can call people racists, and you can probably fit in a sexist or two as well. If your luck you can bring up the CIA factbook thing.

Such a clever boy you are, never failing to disappoint.

#39 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 06:37 PM | Reply

Snoofy how about you do some personal reading and reflection

Love to. Steer me towards Scripture in support of the ridiculous claim that The Bible forbids abortion.
I bet you can't do it!

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 06:38 PM | Reply

Lol! Snoofy how about you do some personal reading and reflection rather than ReTorting on a subject you have little insight, context, or familiarity with.

#38 | POSTED BY GONOLES92 AT 2016-10-18 06:36 PM

If he did that he wouldn't be able to post on any thread. ;-)

#41 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 06:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Love to. Steer me towards Scripture in support of the ridiculous claim that The Bible forbids abortion.
I bet you can't do it!

#40 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Google: 10 commandments. You'll have your answer when you read the first commandment.

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 06:40 PM | Reply

Google: 10 commandments. You'll have your answer when you read the first commandment.
#42 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

To be fair, the first commandment is a little vague, don't you think?

#43 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2016-10-18 06:42 PM | Reply

"Steer me towards Scripture in support of the ridiculous claim that The Bible forbids abortion.
I bet you can't do it!"

As i pointed out, the dots can be practically touching but you would still refuse to connect them because you cannot approach it honestly.

Argue that there is not life in the womb and we can show you dozens of verses. Argue that innocent life is not to be takes and we can show you dozens. But you avoid this and move the goalpost until it is absolutely specific. And then when called out you bring up slavery and hope no one noticed your cowardly retreat.

#44 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 06:42 PM | Reply

#43 - Yeah. Sometimes one must kill in the act of self-defense. I find it difficult to believe that killing in a kill or be-killed scenario is a sin.

#45 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 06:50 PM | Reply

And then when called out you bring up slavery and hope no one noticed your cowardly retreat.

#44 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR

That's classic.

#46 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 06:50 PM | Reply

Sala

You said "Morality" as though it can be found in The Bible.
That's why I said "Slavery."
Get it?

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 06:55 PM | Reply

the dots

What dots?
Just cite the Scripture and spare me your revisionist interpretation.

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 07:04 PM | Reply

47

Seeing your general lack of knowledge of the bible, I doubt you have any idea what it says about it. So you pointing to it is irrelevant and just another obvious attempt to deflect from your previous idiocy.

#49 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 07:08 PM | Reply

48

Is it legal to reconstruct the battle of the bulge while riding a motorcycle?

Answer that and you have answered your question.

#50 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 07:09 PM | Reply

Is it legal to reconstruct the battle of the bulge while riding a motorcycle?

Probably?
Pretty sure Civil War re-enactment is legal, so I'm not sure why it would stop being legal after 19th century wards.

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 07:10 PM | Reply

Seeing your general lack of knowledge of the bible,

We're talking about a specific issue here.
And, really, it's The Bible. It's capitalized for a reason.

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 07:12 PM | Reply

45

First commandment is to have no God before him.

It was the sixth that said though shalt not murder. There have been some bad translations that changed it to kill but it is murder.

#53 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 07:13 PM | Reply

I doubt you have any idea what it says about it.

I'm completely confident it says nothing about abortion.
Not a word.

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 07:13 PM | Reply

51

See, you are trolling.

It's called distracted driving or many other thing. Just because the exact specific details are not mentioned doesn't mean it's not covered.

You know this, everybody does. Stop pretending like you dont.

#55 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 07:15 PM | Reply

See, you are trolling.

I've asked to see thee dots that you fancifully connected.
Where are they?
The best you have is some WWII reference.

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 07:17 PM | Reply

Just because the exact specific details are not mentioned doesn't mean it's not covered.

What sort of "specific details" are not mentioned?

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 07:18 PM | Reply

54

You already admitted it does. Check the definition of abortion, it would include the scenario where you falsely claimed there was only monetary punishment.

#58 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 07:19 PM | Reply

Check the definition of abortion, it would include the scenario where you falsely claimed there was only monetary punishment

Abortion is when two men fight and injure a woman?

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 07:20 PM | Reply

The whole abortion thing is explained in the Torah:

"Maimonides codified in the Mishneh Torah that the definition of murder according to the Noahide Laws includes a person who kills "even one unborn in the womb of its mother," and adds that such a person is liable for the death penalty. ... Jewish law permits abortion in order to save the life of the mother."

The Mishna explicitly indicates that one must abort a fetus if the continuation of pregnancy might imperil the life of the woman.

If a woman is in hard travail, one cuts up the offspring in her womb and brings it forth member by member, because her life comes before the life of her foetus. But if the greater part has proceeded forth, one may not set aside one person for the sake of saving another.[6]

en.wikipedia.org

If anyone cares? It was ancient times, life was cheap.

#60 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-10-18 07:23 PM | Reply

57

Can't kill without justification and unborn are people. There is no need to say though shalt not murder people even people that are not born. Unborn would be covered. You want to pretend that it's a legitimate argument to say the bible does not condemn killing people named Edgar because that name is not used in the bible. It's absurd and you know it.

#61 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 07:24 PM | Reply

From #60 "The Torah contains no direct references to intentional pregnancy termination, only to birth or miscarriage following violent altercation."

Sala denies this.

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 07:24 PM | Reply

59

Yes. If you want to make incredibly asinine arguments on semantics you should look up definition first.

#63 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 07:27 PM | Reply

"He breathed the breath of life into the man's nose, and the man became a living thing."

People are not alive until breathing.

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 07:30 PM | Reply

62

Lie

#65 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 07:30 PM | Reply

why do people take morality advice from people who ---- outdoors and ----- their ----- with their -----?

#66 | Posted by truthhurts at 2016-10-18 07:31 PM | Reply

Oh, so Sala agrees "the Torah contains no direct references to intentional pregnancy termination"

Yet he's also sure it contains direct references to why that is forbidden.

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 07:34 PM | Reply

Abortion is when two men fight and injure a woman?

Yes

I think I see the problem. You need to look up the definition of abortion.

#68 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 07:36 PM | Reply

64

There was no human life till he create.
You speak of what you have no understanding.

There are dozens of verses speaking of life in the womb.

Seriously, read the Bible. Know a bit about what you talk about or shut up about it.

At this point you might as well be telling a nuclear physicist to add more marshmallows to the formula. Cause you read the word swish somewhere online.

#69 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 07:38 PM | Reply

Pretty funny to see monotheists argue whether their imaginary sky god has a dick or not.

#70 | Posted by nullifidian at 2016-10-18 07:44 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

There are dozens of verses speaking of life in the womb.

Soul, yes.
Person, no.

#71 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 07:45 PM | Reply

Nulli,

If God is omnipotent I'm pretty sure he's well hung.

#72 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 07:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

There was no human life till he create.

Yes, and look when it became alive.
When filled with breath.

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 07:46 PM | Reply

I'm connecting dots just like you are.
Amazing that you refuse to acknowledge it.

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 07:46 PM | Reply

Nulli,
If God is omnipotent I'm pretty sure he's well hung.
#72 | Posted by JeffJ

So THAT's why she screams OH GOD!

#75 | Posted by truthhurts at 2016-10-18 07:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

That was seriously funny, Troofy. FF for you!

#76 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 07:49 PM | Reply

68

You are digging a deeper hole.

Full Definition of abortion
1
: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as
a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation -- compare miscarriage
b : induced expulsion of a human fetus
c : expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy

Boom.

#77 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 08:00 PM | Reply

Which one of those is definitions is supposed to encompass when men injure a woman resulting in miscarriage?
Would that be "induced expulsion of a human fetus."
You think that is what the men were trying to do?

#78 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 08:09 PM | Reply

78

No intention is mentioned or implied in the definition.

So now you can't claim that abortion is not mentioned are you gonna move the goalposts or crawl back in your hole?

#79 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 08:15 PM | Reply

74

Bwahaha.

Argue that life does not begin in the womb according to the Bible. Go ahead.

But even you are not that stupid which is why you ran away from it earlier.

#80 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 08:18 PM | Reply

#80

Is a slavery comment pending?

#81 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 08:19 PM | Reply

No intention is mentioned or implied in the definition.

I'm not asking about the definition, I'm asking about the Scripture.

#82 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 08:19 PM | Reply

You're saying if the men aren't fighting, the same rules apply?
Then why mention the fight?
It's asinine.

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 08:20 PM | Reply

82

OK so you are back on your words don't matter kick now you have been proved wrong when you said there was no mention of abortion.

#84 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 08:27 PM | Reply

83

No one is hinging an argument on that.

See that is an additional law that is specific. If you cause a woman to give premature birth you have to pay even if the kid is fine. You die if the kid dies.

Because there is no parallel to an adult it was added.

Then the rest of it just confirms the law is the same as any other person.

#85 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 08:30 PM | Reply

81

I'm sure it's not far off. Or maybe he will just blame a rich person for stealing all his education and it's not his fault he knows nothing about it.

#86 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 08:32 PM | Reply

#86

Or he may try to equate a church with a concentration camp.

#87 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 08:39 PM | Reply

No one is hinging an argument on that.

Of course it hinges on that.
Elective abortion is not an accident.
Nor can it be viewed as men attempting to harm a woman.

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 08:39 PM | Reply

Shouldn't it be called a Godperson?

#89 | Posted by Federalist at 2016-10-18 08:40 PM | Reply

....or misquote something you said months ago, completely out of context, and in no way related to the discussion at hand.

#90 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 08:40 PM | Reply

#89

Good question. What if God is transgendered? Would Snoofy then disavow atheism?

#91 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 08:41 PM | Reply

88

The real question is if that strawman was stolen from somebody's Halloween decorations.

The funny bit is you can't even strawman right.
See you have to be able to actually knock it down. You still failed to make an argument the knocks down your own strawman.

But you did get in a nice move of the goalposts with the addition of elective.

#92 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 08:44 PM | Reply

But you did get in a nice move of the goalposts with the addition of elective.

When people talk about abortion, they mean medical abortion.
Spontaneous abortion is called miscarriage.

#93 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 08:46 PM | Reply

93

So words have no meaning because you don't like the meaning?

Typical snoof.

Admit you were wrong about no mention of abortion.

#94 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 08:50 PM | Reply

You admit that and I have no problem admitting that it does not mention your made up definition within the specific parameters you set to attempt to preclude everything that did not include a time stamp from today.

#95 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 08:51 PM | Reply

Admit you were wrong about no mention of abortion.

Sure.
You got me!
But there's still no mention of elective abortion.

When people talk about the legality or morality of abortion, they don't mean abortion in the form of spontaneous miscarriage.

#96 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 08:55 PM | Reply

96

Spontaneous miscarriage is not what anyone is talking about.

Now will you admit that the bible says life begins in the womb?

#97 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 09:11 PM | Reply

When Scripture talks about men fighting and causing a woman to lose the baby, those men aren't abortionists. They are assailants.

#98 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 09:33 PM | Reply

98

It's been explained. Play dumb all you want, it doesn't change reality.

You were conned into believing somthing that was not true, you should be used to that embarrassment by now.

#99 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 09:51 PM | Reply

It's been explained.

I know, I just explained it.

#100 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 10:01 PM | Reply

You were conned into believing somthing that was not true

Funny, coming from a person who believes in G-d.

#101 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 10:02 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

You can't disprove the existence of God.

I have no problem with atheism other than the arrogance that some atheists display.

#102 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 10:07 PM | Reply

Wow, Judy Tenuta really let herself go.

#103 | Posted by bruceaz at 2016-10-18 10:11 PM | Reply

101

And we are done.

If you can't actually like a decent human you don't deserve to speak to me.

#104 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 10:13 PM | Reply

#104

At least he didn't call you a racist.

#105 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 10:15 PM | Reply

Act not actually.

#106 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 10:15 PM | Reply

I can't disprove the existence of a teapot orbiting Pluto either.

Are you saying the belief that the teapot is there and the belief that it isn't hold equal merit?

#107 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 10:16 PM | Reply

If you can't actually like a decent human you don't deserve to speak to me.

You said I was conned.
I sad you were conned.
But I'm the bad guy.

What a big baby you are.

#108 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 10:16 PM | Reply

Dude, you are seriously ridiculous when it comes to equivalence. So bad, in fact, that you deserve to be mocked and ridiculed.

#109 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 10:17 PM | Reply

105

If you egg him on enough he will admit he is just to try to tell you you are.

#110 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 10:17 PM | Reply

Dude, you are seriously ridiculous when it comes to equivalence

Really, I mentioned a thing you can't possibly prove or disprove, and you can't see the equivalence?

#111 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 10:18 PM | Reply

Jeff, you should plonk the ------- ------ already

#112 | Posted by eberly at 2016-10-18 10:20 PM | Reply

108

I have obtained from speaking on religion with you because you are a dishonest and hateful person with no respect for any belief. I gave you a shot and you just proved I was right.

Besides if you cannot tell the difference between me proving you wrong via even just the definition nevermind the reason and logic that I had to explain as far as connecting the dots and you just saying God is not real I have no time for you.

#113 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 10:24 PM | Reply

you are a dishonest and hateful person with no respect for any belief

I'm a mirror.

#114 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 10:27 PM | Reply

A mirror is honest. Somthing that no one could claim you are. Somthing that you have admitted you don't care about.

#115 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 10:29 PM | Reply

A mirror is an honest reflection. You're everything you claim to hate about me. Classic projection. Psych 101 stuff.

#116 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 10:30 PM | Reply

Seriously snoof, you used to be fun. You showed some signs of intelligence, you were at least partially genuine. But you have turned into a fundie troll with no principles or honesty. Whatever happened in your life must have sucked. To bad you took the low road.

#117 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 10:32 PM | Reply

I have no problem with atheism other than the arrogance that some atheists display.

I have no problem with belief other than the arrogance that some believers display.
Like Sala here, who thinks his interpretation of The Bible leaves room for no others.

#118 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 10:33 PM | Reply

116

I am rubber defence?

Childish for anyone but you.

#119 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 10:35 PM | Reply

Seriously snoof, you used to be fun.

Your memory is failing you.

#120 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 10:36 PM | Reply

I am rubber defense, sure.

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting. en.wikipedia.org

#121 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 10:39 PM | Reply

118

Aww, poor snoof did proving you wrong violate your safe space?

See to grown ups opinions are to be challenged and weighed based on their validity and support not just instantly valid because you belive them.

#122 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 10:41 PM | Reply

What opinions are you talking about? I thought you delivered nothing but facts. Was all this stuff about Scripture just your opinion?

#123 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 10:44 PM | Reply

Having trouble with the part about weighing opinions?
Is it just because the facts that were presented precluded your opinion from being valid?

Did I ever claim I was infallible. I gave you opportunity to prove me wrong at which point my opinion would change. However because mine was an informed one and yours was obviously not you failed to do so, again.

#124 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 10:50 PM | Reply

Oh, did you mean the opinion that there's a teapot orbiting Pluto, vs. the opinion that there is not? Would you care to weigh those based on their validity and support?

#125 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 10:51 PM | Reply

It is a logical fallacy to claim somthing cannot be disproven therefore must be.

That goes for God as well but cuts both ways.

Relying on lack of disproof is invalid. Invalid for many reasons the first is that no prove is proof of nothing. Another is that it allows your former of reasoning where the goalposts move and the question is just reframed again and again till proof is impossible.

My belief has nothing to do with lack of proof otherwise but instead a study of religion and my own life experiences, my perception.

#126 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 10:57 PM | Reply

If you cause a woman to give premature birth you have to pay even if the kid is fine. You die if the kid dies.

Nothing about that speaks to elective abortion. The Old Testament scenario we are discussing is not one where the woman is seeking to terminate a pregnancy. Rather, she is having a pregnancy interfered with and intruded upon by fighting men.

But I guess your argument is that this extends from fighting men causing harm, to professional men rendering aid.

Furthermore, you must be arguing and the wishes of the mother with regards to the continuation of her pregnancy are immaterial, thus she has no free will when it comes to emptying the contents of her own uterus as she sees fit.

Well, I don't buy that at all. It's a stretch, on top of a stretch.

#127 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 11:02 PM | Reply

but instead a study of religion and my own life experiences

In other words, "you were conned."
That's what you called it when I have beliefs.

#128 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 11:03 PM | Reply

It is a logical fallacy to claim somthing cannot be disproven therefore must be.

G-d is by definition supernatural.
Attempting to apply logic where none exists is a gross misapplication of reason.

#129 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 11:04 PM | Reply

Nothing about terminating an unwanted pregnancy."

The Bible recommends aborting people if they are bad. OTOH, the Bible also opposes ALL killing, even for self-survival or defense, so I guess it all boils down to whether or not God defines a fetus as a living person. Given the huge number of miscarriages He causes, I'm thinking he defines living as "breathing".

#130 | Posted by northguy3 at 2016-10-18 11:06 PM | Reply

Scientifically speaking God is unfalsifiable, therefore worthless.

That is not to say Gods believers are worthless, or there is no God, its just impossible science wise to prove the supernatural. Science deals with the natural.

#131 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2016-10-18 11:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You can't disprove the existence of God.

Of course you can't. ANY of them. You also can't prove Muhammed wasn't right. And that he didn't ride a flying horse to mecca.

You just have to say, "well anything is possible" but that also means you can't disprove God doesn't exist.

#132 | Posted by northguy3 at 2016-10-18 11:11 PM | Reply

Ask Sala why he worships the G-d of Abraham and not say Poseidon and he'll tell you it was the result of careful study. Not at all product of his environment or upbringing.

Sala, what religions did you run around the block before you starting dabbling in Christianity?

#133 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 11:15 PM | Reply

127

I said I am done arguing this with you. Everything you said was explained already. Nothing hinged on that verse but you brought it up so I showed it did not even support you.

Sorry dude but you blew it. Respect for religious beliefs is important even if you do not share them.

#134 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 11:18 PM | Reply

Nothing about terminating an "unwanted pregnancy."

Well in Biblical times all pregnancies were #blessed, so the concept of "unwanted" would be an impossibility.
Ergo, side on life in most if not all cases ;)

#135 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-10-18 11:23 PM | Reply

Respect for religious beliefs is important even if you do not share them.

Oh really. You respect Muslim beliefs then.
Yeah, you are done arguing this, I can tell.

#136 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 11:24 PM | Reply

133

Buddhism, Islam, Jewish, Mormon, some forms of Hindu, atheism, catholicism, and various Christianity. Some studied some dabbled in. But I initially rejected religion from my upbringing.

My personal beliefs do not line up perfectly with any.

So your attempt to pigeon hole me is irrelevant.

#137 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 11:26 PM | Reply

My personal beliefs do not line up perfectly with any.

And who is right, you or them?

#138 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 11:27 PM | Reply

136

I do.

Try again.

#139 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 11:27 PM | Reply

138

For me, I am.

#140 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 11:27 PM | Reply

I sense a cafeteria Christian.

#141 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 11:27 PM | Reply

You respect the belief that women must be covered in public.
You respect the belief that The Prophet should not be drawn or depicted.

#142 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 11:29 PM | Reply

Nothing about terminating an "unwanted pregnancy."
Well in Biblical times all pregnancies were #blessed, so the concept of "unwanted" would be an impossibility.
Ergo, side on life in most if not all cases ;)
#135 | Posted by GOnoles92

You're making my point for me. This Scripture is not informative of abortion.

#143 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 11:30 PM | Reply

Oddly similar.

CoedMagazine

#144 | Posted by sawdust at 2016-10-18 11:34 PM | Reply

142

I respect cultural and religious belief. Does not mean I think the practice is good. Just means I have no moral superiority over others.

#145 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 11:35 PM | Reply


...Ergo, side on life in most if not all cases ;)
#135 | Posted by GOnoles
You're making my point for me....
#143 | POSTED BY SNOOFY


Excellent, welcome to the pro-life team.

#146 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-10-18 11:37 PM | Reply

I sense a cafeteria Christian.

I sense someone who should shut the ---- up. This blog has been nothing but your blather for a week now.

#147 | Posted by REDIAL at 2016-10-18 11:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Just means I have no moral superiority over others.

Really, you don't think you have moral superiority over me?
That's funny.

#148 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 11:40 PM | Reply

Excellent, welcome to the pro-life team.

What kind of "logic" gets you from the Bible is silent on elective abortion to joining the pro-life team?

#149 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 11:43 PM | Reply

148

No, intellectual obviously, but not moral.

#150 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-18 11:49 PM | Reply

-This blog has been nothing but your blather for a week now.

Must still be summer vacation for these college kids.

#151 | Posted by nullifidian at 2016-10-18 11:52 PM | Reply

#147 | POSTED BY REDIAL

Wow!

#152 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 12:13 AM | Reply

#149

Being a literalist isn't an exercise in intellectualism. It's actually quite the opposite, when you really think about it.

#153 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 12:17 AM | Reply

Says the Constitutional literalist.

#154 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-19 12:20 AM | Reply

Constitutional originalist. Huge difference. But then, you knew that.

#155 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 12:24 AM | Reply

What kind of "logic" gets you from the Bible is silent on elective abortion to joining the pro-life team?

#149 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Do you understand what the Bible is?

It's not a textbook that weighs in on issues that were rarely, if ever, discussed at the point in time in which it was written.

As it pertains to abortion, you have to extrapolate. Let's use the Catholic Church as an example. The debate over how the church views elective abortion has been conducted ad nauseum and it has been done by people who are not only far smarter than you or I, but also infinitely more knowledgeable not only of the Bible itself, but its greater connotations for Catholicism. The Catholic Church views elective abortion as a mortal sin. Period. Now, if you choose to disagree with the Catholic church's position - fine. But to sit there and argue that there is no biblical basis for the position reached by the Catholic church that abortion is a mortal sin is absurd.

#156 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 12:47 AM | Reply

It's not a textbook that weighs in on issues that were rarely, if ever, discussed at the point in time in which it was written.

Such as abortion... yes I know.

#157 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-19 01:01 AM | Reply

The Catholic Church views elective abortion as a mortal sin.

They also oppose the death penalty, for the exact same reason.
But Sala doesn't. And neither do you.
So obviously it's entirely possible to read the same document and see opposite things.

#158 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-19 01:06 AM | Reply

As it pertains to abortion, you have to extrapolate

When you extrapolate, you are drawing conclusions that are not in the text.

For Catholics, the question of when G-d infuses the soul into life is now claimed to be at conception. But this isn't in The Bible. Nor is it what Catholics thought in the days of Thomas Aquinas, which as after 40 or 80 days, depending on male or female.

#159 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-19 01:08 AM | Reply

They also oppose the death penalty, for the exact same reason.
But Sala doesn't. And neither do you.

Yet another straw man. Why do you subject yourself to being smacked around online?

First, I oppose the death penalty. I put it in italics so that hopefully it will sink in.

Second, I disagree with the Catholic Church on a number of issues, including abortion.

So obviously it's entirely possible to read the same document and see opposite things.

#158 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

No. Not really. You don't know squat about Catholicism other than the insipid and condescending caricature you have concocted for it.

You are WAY out of your league. To sit there and try and argue that the Catholic Church has no biblical-grounding for its anti-abortion stance is beyond absurd.

And I make these assessments having mostly walked away from the church in my personal life.

#160 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 01:13 AM | Reply

No. Not really.

Yes, really.
Consubstantiation or Transubstantiation? Same book, two different "extrapolations."

#161 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-19 01:18 AM | Reply

To sit there and try and argue that the Catholic Church has no biblical-grounding for its anti-abortion stance is beyond absurd. ?

I didn't say they don't have a Biblical grounding. But I will. Grounding is too strong a word. I'd say they can extrapolate, just as Sala has. "Pope" isn't in The Bible either but they seem to have found a Biblical "grounding" for it. Not one that all Christians agree with. Clearly there is immense room for interpretation and extrapolation.

#162 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-19 01:20 AM | Reply

That is not to say Gods believers are worthless, or there is no God, its just impossible science wise to prove the supernatural. Science deals with the natural.

#131 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE

Best post on the thread.

Of course, Sally might be considered proof that if God does exist, he/she has a whole lot of werk to do

#163 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-19 01:22 AM | Reply

Clearly there is immense room for interpretation and extrapolation.

#162 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Not really. Unless you can point to a substantial minority (not kook fringe) of Catholic biblical scholars who are making the case you are pushing.

#164 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 01:23 AM | Reply

-"Pope" isn't in The Bible either but they seem to have found a Biblical "grounding" for it.

A close reading of the original text reveals that the rock on which the church was built was not Peter, the model for Popes, but the kind of faith he eventually demonstrated. Which understanding is basic to Protestantism's rejection of priests as a necessary interface to God by an individual for confession or prayer or anything else.

That and the selling of indulgences by a Catholic Church Gone Wild in Martin Luther's time were basic to his criticisms of the church.

#165 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-19 01:34 AM | Reply

163

Aww, corky is still upset he got called out for his fringe element comment and moreso that he could not defend it. Cute.

#166 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-19 01:36 AM | Reply

#166

You may be surprised to learn that Corky is a Christian and often clashes with people with whom he agrees with politically when threads regarding Christianity arise.

#167 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 01:45 AM | Reply

- that he could not defend it. Cute

I'm still waiting for you to read a sentence of ancient Hebrew or Syriac, much less diagram it's grammar.

And the link in #11 at El Shaddai still gives dozens of uses if you scroll down to it.

But I've learned, as have many others, that trying to have a discussion with a petty pedant such as yourself is useless. The replonking is imminent.

#168 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-19 01:47 AM | Reply

Unless you can point to a substantial minority (not kook fringe) of Catholic biblical scholars who are making the case you are pushing.
#164 | Posted by JeffJ

Why are you limiting it to Catholics?
Baptists are fine with the death penalty.
And they're reading from the same Bible.

#169 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-19 02:04 AM | Reply

#169

Actually, it's not the same, oddly enough. Catholics use a derivative of the Septuagint translation in Greek rather than the Hebrew.

www.christianitytoday.com

#170 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-19 02:09 AM | Reply

Why are you limiting it to Catholics?

I'm limiting it to Catholics because I was raised Catholic and attended a Catholic High School. In short, I can speak about Catholic Doctrine with a degree of knowledge.

And they're reading from the same Bible.

#169 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

No they are not. They are reading from similar Bibles, but they are not the same. That is something I learned my freshman year in High School.

www.differencebetween.net

#171 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 02:11 AM | Reply

Sure, yes. There are a few differences, a few words changed here and there. But you think that explains why Catholics oppose and other Christians support capital punishment? Those parts of The Bible are radically different?

#172 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-19 02:15 AM | Reply

People often conflate their religious and political views. Some people understand that their religious beliefs are not necessarily the same as the rights given individuals under the Constitution.

Things like the death penalty or abortion come to mind.

#173 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-19 02:20 AM | Reply

#172

I can't speak to the Baptists' views because I am unfamiliar with them.

You have been challenging the argument that biblical justification against abortion exists. In the process, you've demanded specific verse and scripture, on this specific subject, in modern terms, from text that was written roughly 2000 years ago.

I singled out Catholicism because it's a religion I happen to know something about and it's a pretty big religion and it's Bible is unique, although very similar to, other Christian Bibles.

Bottom line is the Catholic Church views elective abortion as a mortal sin and has cited scripture to substantiate their position.

I don't even know what you are arguing about at this point.

#174 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 02:25 AM | Reply

People often conflate their religious and political views. Some people understand that their religious beliefs are not necessarily the same as the rights given individuals under the Constitution.
Things like the death penalty or abortion come to mind.

#173 | POSTED BY CORKY

Yes. This! It's pathetic you even had to point that out.

#175 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 02:26 AM | Reply

It's more than just "changing a few words here and there."

Google: Dead Sea Scrolls.

#176 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 02:28 AM | Reply

168

So your claim is that because I do not speak ancient Hebrew that Strongs aND other accredited sources.

Here is a wealth of information on it. You can download the pdf for free.

www.researchgate.net

#177 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-19 02:36 AM | Reply

173

Exactly.

#178 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-19 02:38 AM | Reply

I can't speak to the Baptists' views because I am unfamiliar with them.

Let's make it easier then.

At one point, Catholics didn't believe life begins at conception. Now they do. Was it because of The Bible? Find a new Book or something?

#179 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-19 02:44 AM | Reply

#174 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-

Actually Jeff the Catholic church has taken several different stands on abortion through out its history.

But yes at this time in history the Catholic church is against abortion and I dont think this will change anytime soon BUT!

a poll in 2013 found 50 percent of all Catholics support abortion in 'all or most cases.

Another pull this year says 47 percent of Catholic favor legal abortion.
a lot higher number then the Prots.

"Compared to Protestants, Catholics are more supportive of abortion rights. 39% of Protestants think abortions should generally be legal while 56% say that they should be illegal."

What you might not know Jeff is this-

Pope Francis has changed the Catholic Church stands on some of the abortion issues of the Catholic Church

Pope Francis has suspended existing canon law which automatically excommunicates women who have abortions by telling priests to accept the confession of women who have had abortions.

Research from YouGov shows that the vast majority of American Catholics (79%) agree with the Pope's decision to allow priests to hear the confessions of women who have had abortions

today.yougov.com

#180 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2016-10-19 03:20 AM | Reply

So there is no longer excommunication for abortion in the Catholic church

#181 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2016-10-19 03:23 AM | Reply

Constitutional originalist.

A modern rehash of an old, outdated idea.

The term "originalism" has been most commonly used since the middle 1980s and was apparently coined by Paul Brest in The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding.[1] It is often asserted that originalism is synonymous with strict constructionism. en.wikipedia.org

Don't say originalist. You should call yourself an Antebellum Strict Constructionlast.

Most of your problems with the Federal government are rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment. That's where it all went wrong for you. And that's why orignalism can't make sense. Because the Constitutions means things now it didn't' mean then, because of amendments.

Scalia looked deep within his orignalism and determined it was okay for states criminalize consensual homosexual activity. If you agree with him how can I not call you a homophobic bigot? Just how? Are you going to tell me you yourself don't support bigotry, but if the Constitution permits it, who are we to tell Texas they can't engage in it?

#182 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-19 04:08 AM | Reply

#182

I am not going to waste my time deconstructing that giant straw man you erected.

That entire post is retarded as are you.

#183 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 06:49 AM | Reply

I do find it cute that you accused me of bigotry and by throwing the 14th Amendment in there you, with far more subtlety than you are usually able to muster, accused me of being a racist too.

You are seriously a contemptible person.

#184 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 07:07 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Sorry dude but you blew it. Respect for religious beliefs is important even if you do not share them.

I disagree.

Sometimes they're flat out stupid.

Sometimes they're used to enforce other people's behavior.

In neither instance should they be respected.

#185 | Posted by jpw at 2016-10-19 10:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Sometimes they're flat out stupid."

Stupid is relative and subject to perspective. Often times i found that the dumbest things about any given religion don;t actually exist but are bad characterizations from the outside.
Think magic underwear and mormons. Religions tend to be a lot more complex than they appear from the outside. So until you have been inside any given religion i don't think the perspective exists to adequately judge them.

Obviously i leave out the satire religions like flying spaghetti monster and such.


"Sometimes they're used to enforce other people's behavior."

This is true, religions have a moral code, so does a society, so does a workplace, so does a school or a park. I have no issue with doctrine that teaches specific morality as long as no one is forced into that doctrine. If a religion forces following of it i dislike it greatly, but you do not have to like something to respect it.

#186 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-19 12:00 PM | Reply

Some things are objectively stupid, sal.

For instance, any belief that holds Stone Age goat herder myths above millenia's worth of accumulated scientific knowledge.

The earth is not 6,000 years old. People did not co-exist with dinosaurs and humanity didn't start with a man and a woman living in a private garden with talking snakes.

But other things are more subjective. Transubstantiation for instance.

I'd say it's pretty ludicrous since you are quite clearly still consuming a wafer and wine (also since they apparently want to be carnnibals for a few minutes each weekend...) but for a believer less literal than me it's not.

One thing that is quite clear, however, is that it's almost always the objectively stupid that's being forced on society by the believers.

#187 | Posted by jpw at 2016-10-19 01:05 PM | Reply

Actually, reading about transubstantiation a bit leads me to a different conclusion.

It's objectively stupid.

#188 | Posted by jpw at 2016-10-19 01:08 PM | Reply

185

"Two atheists - John Gray and Alain de Botton - and two agnostics - Nassim Nicholas Taleb and I - meet for dinner at a Greek restaurant in Bayswater, London. The talk is genial, friendly and then, suddenly, intense when neo-atheism comes up. Three of us, including both atheists, have suffered abuse at the hands of this cult. Only Taleb seems to have escaped unscathed and this, we conclude, must be because he can do maths and people are afraid of maths."

"De Botton finds it bewildering, the unexpected appearance in the culture of a tyrannical sect, content to whip up a mob mentality. "To say something along the lines of 'I'm an atheist; I think religions are not all bad' has become a dramatically peculiar thing to say and if you do say it on the internet you will get savage messages calling you a fascist, an idiot or a fool. This is a very odd moment in our culture. Why has this happened?"

"Ultimately, the problem with militant neo-atheism is that it represents a profound category error. Explaining religion - or, indeed, the human experience - in scientific terms is futile. "It would be as bizarre as to launch a scientific investigation into the truth of Anna Karenina or love," de Botton says. "It's a symptom of the misplaced confidence of science . . .

It's a kind of category error. It's a fatally wrong question and the more you ask it, the more you come up with bizarre and odd answers."

www.newstatesman.com

#189 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-19 01:10 PM | Reply

I do find it cute that you accused me of bigotry and by throwing the 14th Amendment

I knew you'd read it that way.
You have turned into what you accuse me of being, seeing racism everywhere.
The Fourteenth Amendment was a massive expansion of Federal power, yes or no.
The Fourteenth Amendment puts a massive constraint States rights yes or no.

As for the bigotry part, if you support the idea that states can criminalize consensual sex between adults, what else am I supposed to think? How about you just say you don't support Scalia's opinion on that matter, despite him being your ideological mentor.

#190 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-19 01:35 PM | Reply

I have no issue with doctrine that teaches specific morality as long as no one is forced into that doctrine.

Well, if we are to take The Bible as the authority when it comes to Christian doctrine, it teaches that apostasy is a sin punishable by death.

#191 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-19 01:43 PM | Reply

#191

It teaches that you are going to die anyway, so you might as well be prepared for the next world, the non-material world, if there is one.

Some Tibetan monks traverse great distances on their knees in such preparation. Others try to be perfect people. Opening one's mind to the possibility of consciousness after death seems mild in comparison.

#192 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-19 01:58 PM | Reply

Corky.
Did you forget the "also?" It also teaches....
Because it absolutely is written in The Bible that the punishment for apostasy is death.

#193 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-19 02:10 PM | Reply

It teaches that the "punishment" re: consequences, for not being of the spiritual realm is entropy in the physical realm.... much like the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

#194 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-19 02:19 PM | Reply

#189 I would never claim science can address religion in every way. The entire thing is based on unfalsifiable assertions or premises.

It can, however, address specific claims from the holy books, ie age of the earth, mans origins etc.

#195 | Posted by jpw at 2016-10-19 05:24 PM | Reply

We are stardust.
Fact!

#196 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-19 05:54 PM | Reply

Nearly 200 comments on an archaeology story?

Outstanding.

Okay, okay, I'm sure most of them aren't archaeology comments (given that the figurine is estimated to be around 2,000 years older than the earth and all).

Still...

#197 | Posted by TheTom at 2016-10-19 10:13 PM | Reply

I tried really hard in #12. But there was no reining it in.

#198 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-19 10:19 PM | Reply

"It can, however, address specific claims from the holy books, ie age of the earth, mans origins etc."

Those two would be what you consider unfalsifiable.

Simply put, a supreme being has infinite power, nothing would force him to work in the realm of what we understand the physical laws are. Nothing would force him to create the earth as new thus no time frame is impossible.

#199 | Posted by salamandagator at 2016-10-20 12:59 PM | Reply

If God is omnipotent I'm pretty sure he's well hung.

#72 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2016-10-18 07:46 PM | REPLY | FLAG

God is omnipotent.

He can do anything he wants.

Except make money.

That's why he needs yours.

#200 | Posted by 726 at 2016-10-20 02:40 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort