If You Believe In Evolution, There Is Nothing Wrong With Rape
Sound of Trumpet
Whoopi Goldberg was Right. . . Sort Of!
http://www.americanvision.org/article/whoopi-goldberg-was-right---sort-of-/
^ | Oct 07, 2009 | Gary DeMar
Posted on 10. october 2009 19:57:27 by topcat54
If you believe in evolution, there is nothing wrong with rape. In
fact, you can’t really call it rape. Whoopi Goldberg dismissed Roman
Polanski’s rape conviction by declaring that it “wasn’t rape-
rape” (see her comments on The View.) As a firm believer in evolution,
she should have said, “There’s nothing wrong with rape or sexual
aggression. That’s how we all got here!” Here’s the premise: Whatever
animals do in nature is natural. What’s natural is normal. What’s
normal is moral. So if penguins engage in homosexual behavior, then
that behavior must be natural, normal, and moral. How can we mere
mortals impose our rules of sexual behavior on what’s natural in the
animal kingdom? Homosexuals extrapolate that what animals do naturally
in nature applies to what higher “animals” can do naturally without
any moral judgments attached.
Consider the case of Timothy Treadwell depicted in the movie Grizzly
Man (2005). He lived among bears for 13 years and thought of them as
his friends. In 2003, Treadwell and his companion, Amie Huguenard,
were mauled and mostly eaten by one of the Alaskan grizzly bears.
While he thought of the bears as his brothers and sisters, the bears
thought of him as lunch. “Nature, red in tooth and claw,” as Alfred
Lord Tennyson put it. Then there’s the case of Armin Meiwes who killed
and ate 43-year-old Bernd-Jurgen Brandes.[1] What did Mr. Meiwes do
that was wrong given the premise that animal behavior is a normative
model for human behavior?[2] If the bears that ate Treadwell were only
doing what came naturally, then how can the cannibal nature of Meiwes
be judged as abnormal given evolutionary assumptions? Whoopi missed a
great opportunity to extol the virtues of the evolutionary religion of
the intelligentsia by pointing out these examples of evolution in
action.
A few years ago, I saw an advertisement for a television special on
Turner Network Television—“The Trials of Life.” The full-page
advertisement showed a composite picture of six animals, one of which
was the bald eagle, with the following caption: “Discover how similar
the face of nature is to yours. The way you love, the way you fight,
the way you grow, all have their roots in the kingdom we all live in:
the animal kingdom.” The implication here is obvious: Humans are only
an evolutionary step away from other animals.
While channel surfing, I came across the second installment of the six-
part series. I soon learned what Benjamin Franklin meant when he
described the eagle as a bird of “bad moral character.” With two
eaglets in the nest and not enough food to go around, mamma allows the
weakest eaglet to die. She then cannibalizes the dead eaglet and feeds
it to the survivor. Was this natural or unnatural? Is this moral
animal behavior that we should emulate? How do we know? Should we
follow the example of the eagles or just the homosexual penguins?
If animal behavior is a template for human behavior, then why can’t a
similar case be made for rape among human animals? As hard as it might
be to imagine, the connection has been made. Randy Thornhill, a
biologist who teaches at the University of New Mexico, and Craig T.
Palmer, an anthropologist who teaches at the University of Missouri-
Columbia, attempt to demonstrate in their book A Natural History of
Rape [3] (MIT Press) that evolutionary principles explain rape as a
“genetically developed strategy sustained over generations of human
life because it is a kind of sexual selection—a successful
reproductive strategy.” They go on to claim, however, that even though
rape can be explained genetically in evolutionary terms, this does not
make the behavior morally right. Of course, given Darwinian
assumptions, there is no way to condemn rape on moral grounds. If we
are truly the products of evolution, then there can be no moral
judgments about anything. So then, if homosexuals want to use penguins
as their moral model, then they need to take all animal behavior into
consideration when they build their moral worldview. If we should
follow the animal world regarding homosexual penguins and thereby
regard human homosexual behavior as normal, then we must be consistent
and follow the animal world regarding rape, eating our young, and
eating our neighbors and decriminalize these behaviors as well. Whoopi
just needed some help in framing the issue a little better.
Endnotes:
[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3286721.stm
[2] Theodore Dalrymple, “The Case for Cannibalism” (January 5, 2005):
http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon_01_05_04td.html
[3] Randy Thornhill, and Craig T. Palmer, A Natural History of Rape:
Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000)..
James A. Donald
<soundof...@hush.com> wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2359584/posts
>
> Whoopi Goldberg was Right. . . Sort Of!
>
> http://www.americanvision.org/article/whoopi-goldberg-was-right---sort-of-/
> ^ | Oct 07, 2009 | Gary DeMar
>
> Posted on 10. october 2009 19:57:27 by topcat54
>
> If you believe in evolution, there is nothing wrong with rape. In
> fact, you can’t really call it rape. Whoopi Goldberg dismissed Roman
> Polanski’s rape conviction by declaring that it “wasn’t rape-
> rape” (see her comments on The View.) As a firm believer in evolution,
> she should have said, “There’s nothing wrong with rape or sexual
> aggression. That’s how we all got here!” Here’s the premise: Whatever
> animals do in nature is natural. What’s natural is normal. What’s
> normal is moral.
And for males to kill other males who interfere with their females is
normal and moral.
Haywire
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2359584/posts
>
> Whoopi Goldberg was Right. . . Sort Of!
>
What? That doesn't make any sense at all.
guardian Snow
emotions, his instincts and emotions must be controlled by his reason.
This control by reason is not inborn, but develops through a prolonged
learning process. Usually this happens in a social setting and starts
within the family. Even simple instinctive acts like urination are
subject to a lengthy learning process. Unlike animals, people do not
urinate wherever they feel the urge, they do it in special places. The
same applies to sex.
I find it interesting personally that homosexual people are now
comparing themselves to animals by saying that some animals also have
“homosexual” behavior. A dog will hump a person’s leg but we still
find this a disgusting and socially unacceptable behavior.
The argument that homosexuality should be tied to biblical sin and
approved by any person that disagrees with scriptures falls away when
reality of homosexuality is confronted not as sin but simply as a
behavior that is not socially desirable. While several people want to
pretend this is about some religious belief (because it serves the
purpose), it's not. At the core even homosexuals know that they have
a practice, that for those people who do not suffer from your form of
mental virus... it makes our skin crawl with disgust, it is a
perversion shunned by the public. Urinating in public is also illegal
should we now honor those who do this practice just because you don't
find it objectionable?
> Urinating in public is a health hazard, therefore there is a reasonable
> justification for making it illegal. People not liking something is not a
> reason for making it illegal.
Yet people do just that. Public nudity is not a “health hazard” and
yet it is illegal everywhere except in designated areas such as nude
beaches. The public does in fact regulate socially unacceptable
behavior in the same way they regulate smokers to designated areas
besides the fact that no science has proven the effects of second hand
smoke.
Simply put, homosexuals argue for marriage because they don’t see what
they are doing as a disgusting behavior and when they are informed of
this fact, they shout the person down as being “homophobic” or a
“bigot”, which is simply any person with an opinion.
In other words, they desire to hang what they consider undesirable
names on people that inform them that their behavior is undesired by
the public. They do this because it serves their interest to be seen
as a victim of attack rather than the instigator of socially degrading
behavior that undermines respect for other people values.
Why do you think in all the years they aired pro-homosexual shows like
“Will and Grace” on television, they never actually showed them
engaging in the practice? Because when people see men kissing, it
repulses the average person... nobody wants to see what you do.
You can sell your filth up until people actually have to watch you...
It's a lot like watching a guy drop trout and urinates in front of you
on the sidewalk. We know it happens... its illegal because the
majority says it is not to be encouraged in our society.
I’m not surprised to see homosexuals want to compare their behavior to
animals and in fact encourage them to continue this argument because
it illustrates the way that they think, without rationalization.
Black Widows eat the spouse after mating and we do not use this as an
reason to explain cannibalism. More is required of men because we
have the ability to reason, unlike animals.
“All that we are is the result of what we have thought. If a man
speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him. If a man speaks
or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that
never leaves him. All wrong-doing arises because of mind. If mind is
transformed can wrong-doing remain?”
Buddha
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- please join
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/messianic_Yehoshua/
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
If he who employs coercion against me could mould me to his purposes
by argument, no doubt he would. He pretends to punish me because his
argument is strong; but he really punishes me because his argument is
weak.
William Godwin
Steven J.
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2359584/posts
>
> Whoopi Goldberg was Right. . . Sort Of!
>
> ^ | Oct 07, 2009 | Gary DeMar
>
> Posted on 10. october 2009 19:57:27 by topcat54
>
> If you believe in evolution, there is nothing wrong with rape. In
> fact, you can’t really call it rape. Whoopi Goldberg dismissed Roman
> Polanski’s rape conviction by declaring that it “wasn’t rape-
> rape” (see her comments on The View.) As a firm believer in evolution,
> she should have said, “There’s nothing wrong with rape or sexual
> aggression. That’s how we all got here!”
>
descendants than did conspecifics with different traits. We got here,
at least in part, because our ancestors accumulated, over generations,
traits that enabled them to live in groups and cooperate to increase
everyone's chances of getting food, avoiding becoming food, and
raising offspring that survived to have offspring of their own.
Indiscriminate aggression, including sexual aggression, isn't good
for cooperation. Our ancestors needed to develop some degree of
sympathy and self-restraint, an ability to distinguish between members
of the group (who were not to be targets of aggression) and non-
members (predators or dinner or both).
>
> Here’s the premise: Whatever
> animals do in nature is natural. What’s natural is normal. What’s
> normal is moral. So if penguins engage in homosexual behavior, then
> that behavior must be natural, normal, and moral. How can we mere
> mortals impose our rules of sexual behavior on what’s natural in the
> animal kingdom? Homosexuals extrapolate that what animals do naturally
> in nature applies to what higher “animals” can do naturally without
> any moral judgments attached.
>
I'm not sure that this is a fair summary of homosexual activists'
arguments; I think those arguments are, rather, that you cannot say
that homosexual behavior is *unnatural* or an aberration only of
fallen human beings, since other species exhibit it.
You cannot assume that "natural" equals "moral;" not all behavior that
is natural contributes to our ability to live and work in cooperative
groups. You cannot just say that evolution teaches that we are
animals and ought to act like animals, since different animals act in
different ways. Lions kill cubs sired by other lions, and tuna
breathe through gills; there is no reason to suppose that either
behavior is "normal" for human beings.
It is as absurd to suppose that evolutionary theory requires us to
ignore the fact that humans have minds, abstract thought, and concern
about morals, than to suppose that it requires us to ignore that we
don't have wings or gills.
raven1
<soundof...@hush.com> wrote:
>If you believe in evolution, there is nothing wrong with rape. In
>fact, you can�t really call it rape.
And if you believe the Bible, rape is perfectly alright when God
commands it.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
And keeping young girls to reproduce after killing off the rest of their
family. They worship a despicable being.
Robert Carnegie
Apparently there's way fewer heart attacks for non-smokers in places
where smoking in public indoors spaces has been banned.
As for examining the sexual behaviour of animals and drawing
conclusions about our own options, it's a substantial advance on the
pseudo-scientific idea, still expressed quite recently, that
homosexuality is "unnatural", is a mental illness. We should remember
that so-called psychologists claimed that ******** was an "unnatural
act", and yet at the end of the day they'd climb into their automobile
and drive home and eat a cooked meal and drink years-fermented wine
and they'd perform the act of ******** with their own spouse. Or
possibly by themselves.
As for the original point concerning rape as defined in law, I myself
don't understand how Roman Polanski gets an excuse that more than one
other public figure has been denied, but I have just found a web page
where someone has collected bible statements that bear on how people
who believe in Jehovah should think of rape: as a tool of war, to
frighten the enemy, reward your own troops, and breed your side a
larger population in the next generation. I don't know if
<http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm> is meant to be exhaustive of all
such cases. But it's enough to go on with.
ilbe...@gmail.com
>
> Whoopi Goldberg was Right. . . Sort Of!
>
> Endnotes:
>
> [1]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3286721.stm
> [2] Theodore Dalrymple, “The Case for Cannibalism” (January 5, 2005):http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon_01_05_04td.html
> [3] Randy Thornhill, and Craig T. Palmer, A Natural History of Rape:
> Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000)..
Agree. If there are no absolute moral laws inscribed on the Fiber of
our Beings, then there is nothing objectively wrong with rape, incest,
murder...and no objective difference between a Mother Theresa and a
Hitler..for., , each were only operating on thier subjective notions
to which they thought were right. Yet we DO realize intrinsically
that there REALLY ARE things that are very wrong to do ; we see this
most clearly not so much by the things which we DO...but by the way we
REACT to things done unto us --- We react with ABSOLUTE indignation
when we are cheated for example. If there are no absolute moral
laws that are objective, then we have valid reason to complain when
someone treats us according to subjective morals ; the only validity
we can appeal to , is that ALL people, everywhere, and at all times
have the right to be treated morally correct because they occupy
infinite worth and dignity from a Source beyond Man . Otherwise,
how do accidental Materials from a leftover big bang explosion give us
these certain unalienable rights to expect/demand OBJECTIVE morals be
shown us by others ? Naturalism and Materialism has no answer
because this issue isnt contained in the realm of naturalism and
materials.
ilbe...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
P.S. The line above should read : .'..we have NO valid reason to
complain .....' . My apologies.
Lars Eighner
<2b85498d-4e15-4897...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented Sound of Trumpet broadcast on alt.atheism:
> If you believe in evolution, there is nothing wrong with rape.
Utter bullshit. Human beings evolved as social animals. Human beings
survive best in communities because it takes human infants so long to reach
an age at which they can reasonably support themselves. At perhaps five or
six a human child can contribute to its own support, perhaps by carrying a
basket to help its mother gather roots and berries, but i certainly cannot
fend for itself. No other mammal is dependant for so long. In that time
accidents and illnesses can easily strike its parents. That is why human
beings in communities do best. Rape would destroy the fabric of community
and that is why it is wrong for humans and why sentiment against it evolved.
Of course, with the exception of a few diseased individuals, rape is not
possible among animals. Animal sexualness is driven by instinct: pheromones
and sometime complicated instinctive signaling behaviors. Human beings
evolved away from these long ago because of the requirement for community.
Rape is a disorder among animals and destructive to human communities. It
is wrong for humans and wrong for other animals.
You are a moron.
--
Lars Eighner *Atheist #1965* use...@larseighner.com <http://larseighner.com/>
264 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.
Howard Brazee
survivability of mine. Working together to protect mine from rape is
a smart strategy.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Free Lunch
<ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
...
>Agree. If there are no absolute moral laws inscribed on the Fiber of
>our Beings, then there is nothing objectively wrong with rape, incest,
>murder...
Why not? Your argument means absolutely nothing. However, you did forget
that God demanded that the Israelites keep young girls to be baby
factories after the Israelites had murdered everyone else in their
families. Maybe that morality that you think God gave is pretty sick
after all.
>and no objective difference between a Mother Theresa and a
>Hitler..for., , each were only operating on thier subjective notions
>to which they thought were right.
Yet societies do set standards, often quite similar ones, so your
argument is made by ignoring reality.
>Yet we DO realize intrinsically
>that there REALLY ARE things that are very wrong to do ; we see this
>most clearly not so much by the things which we DO...but by the way we
>REACT to things done unto us --- We react with ABSOLUTE indignation
>when we are cheated for example. If there are no absolute moral
>laws that are objective, then we have valid reason to complain when
>someone treats us according to subjective morals ; the only validity
>we can appeal to , is that ALL people, everywhere, and at all times
>have the right to be treated morally correct because they occupy
>infinite worth and dignity from a Source beyond Man .
Yet you ignore the total lack of evidence to support your claim. Since
you have no evidence that there is such a source and you ignore the fact
that there are other ways to arrive at ethical standards, your argument
is that you don't really care how morality is arrived at, only that you
want people to accept your claim. Apparently you think that lying is not
immoral.
>Otherwise,
>how do accidental Materials from a leftover big bang explosion give us
>these certain unalienable rights to expect/demand OBJECTIVE morals be
>shown us by others ? Naturalism and Materialism has no answer
>because this issue isnt contained in the realm of naturalism and
>materials.
The Big Bang was an expansion, not an explosion, and the claim about
inalienable rights was not only just a political claim, but one that is
contrary to the doctrines of religions. So, if you accept Jefferson, you
must reject your religious dogma. Finally, you ask the wrong question,
so it's no surprise that you cannot arrive at a meaningful answer.
The question is how can society arrive at ethical standards. You, on the
other hand, cheated (another moral term, I know) and tried to give your
answer as the question. I'm glad you aren't in my critical thinking
class. You would fail.
Tim Miller
> Agree.
Whoopee. You're an idiot.
> If there are no absolute moral laws inscribed on the Fiber of
> our Beings,
There aren't. Sorry, skippy.
Piet de Arcilla
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2359584/posts
>
> Whoopi Goldberg was Right. . . Sort Of!
This is backwards. Nobody (sensible) says that because something is
natural, it's moral. The point is that if you claim that something is
_unnatural_ and therefore immoral, it is relevant to point out that
it's not unnatural.
If people would stop saying that certain behaviors are immoral
_because_ they are unnatural, then it wouldn't be necessary to point
out that animals also engage in them.
Davej
> [...]
> Yet we DO realize intrinsically that there REALLY ARE things that are
> very wrong to do ; we see this most clearly not so much by the
> things which we DO...but by the way we REACT to things done
In other words only a lying right-tard would pretend that evolution
would ever be considered a model for moral behavior. We can see for
ourselves what behavior should be criminalized based on the harm that
it would do to us while at the same time attempting to retain the
maximum amount of individual freedoms.
Whoopi Goldberg seemed to feel that this case should not have been
prosecuted as being equivalent to a case of forced rape. The victim
herself has said that the prosecution of the case has done more to
humiliate and harm her than the original crime did, however this is
not to say that a crime was not committed.
Michael Price
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2359584/posts
>
> Whoopi Goldberg was Right. . . Sort Of!
>
> ^ | Oct 07, 2009 | Gary DeMar
>
> Posted on 10. october 2009 19:57:27 by topcat54
>
> If you believe in evolution, there is nothing wrong with rape.
I believe in evolution and know that there is plenty wrong with
rape. For
a start it's a violation of someone's ownership of themself.
Your claim is based on the idea that success equals morality therefore
since success in natural selection is replication any pro-replication
activity is moral. This is an asinine as everyone knows that there is
a
big difference between morality and what gets you more kids. Nobody
bases their moral system on what create the most offspring, although
conservative theists are closest to this.
> In fact, you can’t really call it rape. Whoopi Goldberg dismissed Roman
> Polanski’s rape conviction by declaring that it “wasn’t rape-
> rape” (see her comments on The View.) As a firm believer in evolution,
> she should have said, “There’s nothing wrong with rape or sexual
> aggression. That’s how we all got here!” Here’s the premise: Whatever
> animals do in nature is natural. What’s natural is normal. What’s
> normal is moral.
And here we have the self-evident fail, who said what's normal is
moral?
If everyone else is jumping off a cliff are you morally obliged to do
it too?
> So if penguins engage in homosexual behavior, then
> that behavior must be natural, normal, and moral.
This simply doesn't follow.
> How can we mere
> mortals impose our rules of sexual behavior on what’s natural in the
> animal kingdom? Homosexuals extrapolate that what animals do naturally
> in nature applies to what higher “animals” can do naturally without
> any moral judgments attached.
>
> Consider the case of Timothy Treadwell depicted in the movie Grizzly
> Man (2005). He lived among bears for 13 years and thought of them as
> his friends. In 2003, Treadwell and his companion, Amie Huguenard,
> were mauled and mostly eaten by one of the Alaskan grizzly bears.
> While he thought of the bears as his brothers and sisters, the bears
> thought of him as lunch. “Nature, red in tooth and claw,” as Alfred
> Lord Tennyson put it. Then there’s the case of Armin Meiwes who killed
> and ate 43-year-old Bernd-Jurgen Brandes.[1] What did Mr. Meiwes do
> that was wrong given the premise that animal behavior is a normative
> model for human behavior?[2]
A premise that nobody but irrational theists (but I repeat myself)
ever thought
worth considering.
> If the bears that ate Treadwell were only
> doing what came naturally, then how can the cannibal nature of Meiwes
> be judged as abnormal given evolutionary assumptions? Whoopi missed a
> great opportunity to extol the virtues of the evolutionary religion of
> the intelligentsia by pointing out these examples of evolution in
> action.
>
> A few years ago, I saw an advertisement for a television special on
> Turner Network Television—“The Trials of Life.” The full-page
> advertisement showed a composite picture of six animals, one of which
> was the bald eagle, with the following caption: “Discover how similar
> the face of nature is to yours. The way you love, the way you fight,
> the way you grow, all have their roots in the kingdom we all live in:
> the animal kingdom.” The implication here is obvious: Humans are only
> an evolutionary step away from other animals.
>
Well several steps actually, but who's counting.
> While channel surfing, I came across the second installment of the six-
> part series. I soon learned what Benjamin Franklin meant when he
> described the eagle as a bird of “bad moral character.” With two
> eaglets in the nest and not enough food to go around, mamma allows the
> weakest eaglet to die. She then cannibalizes the dead eaglet and feeds
> it to the survivor. Was this natural or unnatural? Is this moral
> animal behavior that we should emulate?
If the alternative is both of your children dying are you saying you
let that
happen rather than resort to cannibalism? Are you sure? Are you sure
that
doing so is moral?
> How do we know? Should we
> follow the example of the eagles or just the homosexual penguins?
>
> If animal behavior is a template for human behavior, then why can’t a
> similar case be made for rape among human animals? As hard as it might
> be to imagine, the connection has been made. Randy Thornhill, a
> biologist who teaches at the University of New Mexico, and Craig T.
> Palmer, an anthropologist who teaches at the University of Missouri-
> Columbia, attempt to demonstrate in their book A Natural History of
> Rape [3] (MIT Press) that evolutionary principles explain rape as a
> “genetically developed strategy sustained over generations of human
> life because it is a kind of sexual selection—a successful
> reproductive strategy.” They go on to claim, however, that even though
> rape can be explained genetically in evolutionary terms, this does not
> make the behavior morally right. Of course, given Darwinian
> assumptions, there is no way to condemn rape on moral grounds.
Of course there is, and many have done so. It is a violation of
self-ownership
and therefore morally wrong. That it may be advantageous to your
genes
doesn't change that.
> If we are truly the products of evolution, then there can be no moral
> judgments about anything.
Why not? What about how we are created implies that there is no
moral
code?
> So then, if homosexuals want to use penguins
> as their moral model, then they need to take all animal behavior into
> consideration when they build their moral worldview. If we should
> follow the animal world regarding homosexual penguins and thereby
> regard human homosexual behavior as normal, then we must be consistent
> and follow the animal world regarding rape, eating our young, and
> eating our neighbors and decriminalize these behaviors as well. Whoopi
> just needed some help in framing the issue a little better.
>
Massive non sequitur. And we shouldn't legalise homosexuality
because
penguins do it but because it is not a violation of rights.
Michael Price
And if they are going to say that the behaviour is immoral because
it's unnatural
they should stop using the highly unnatural internet to do it. And
microphones,
television stations, hell even buildings. Yep, if you want to preach
against the
"unnatural" then do it out in the fields with just your own voice -
naked.
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2359584/posts
>
> Whoopi Goldberg was Right. . . Sort Of!
>
> http://www.americanvision.org/article/whoopi-goldberg-was-right---sort-of-/
> ^ | Oct 07, 2009 | Gary DeMar
>
> Posted on 10. october 2009 19:57:27 by topcat54
>
> If you believe in evolution, there is nothing wrong with rape.
>
fucking stupid this statement is. Not to mention the entire article.
Fuck off, Strumpet, your preaching is not welcome.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
http://azhotops.blogspot.com
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
Syd
>
> Whoopi Goldberg was Right. . . Sort Of!
>
> ^ | Oct 07, 2009 | Gary DeMar
>
> Posted on 10. october 2009 19:57:27 by topcat54
>
> If you believe in evolution, there is nothing wrong with rape.
No.
<Snip rest of lying pile of crap>
PDW
Thurisaz the Einherjer
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Greg Goss
>I have just found a web page
>where someone has collected bible statements that bear on how people
>who believe in Jehovah should think of rape: as a tool of war, to
>frighten the enemy, reward your own troops, and breed your side a
>larger population in the next generation.
You don't breed a larger population for the next round. In Jewish
culture, which our old testament is attached to, the next generation
is counted from the mother, not the father. If you rape a bunch of
Canaanite women to get extra sons, they will not be "your" people.
>I don't know if
><http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm> is meant to be exhaustive of all
>such cases. But it's enough to go on with.
--
apart from one noisy guy up in Canada, no-one wants
a three-cylinder tissue box on bicycle tires.
Terry Cross
> Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> >I have just found a web page
> >where someone has collected bible statements that bear on how people
> >who believe in Jehovah should think of rape: as a tool of war, to
> >frighten the enemy, reward your own troops, and breed your side a
> >larger population in the next generation.
>
> You don't breed a larger population for the next round. In Jewish
> culture, which our old testament is attached to, the next generation
> is counted from the mother, not the father. If you rape a bunch of
> Canaanite women to get extra sons, they will not be "your" people.
Maybe Darwin's rules are unfamiliar with the stock market, Parcheesi,
and the pronouncements a rabbis, eh? Even a rabbi could not cancel
the genetic imperative.
And Jews still rape Gentile women, so even the Jews are not impressed
with rabbi mumbo jumbo.
TCross
Wombat
You either didn't read, or more likely, didn't understand Steven J's
explanation of the simple reasons for human morals. Plus ca change.
Wombat
Terry Cross
Wow! The 17th prophet of science has spoken. Where we used to have
the scientific method, we now have clever explanations.
Say, Wombat, was Gould's theory tested in a lab by the scientific
method, documented, and peer reviewed? Or is that stuff just too old
fashioned?
TCross
William December Starr
Haywire <paris...@gmail.com> said:
> On Oct 11, 4:25�pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@hush.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2359584/posts
>>
>> Whoopi Goldberg was Right. . . Sort Of!
>>
>> http://www.americanvision.org/article/whoopi-goldberg-was-right---sor...
>> ^ | Oct 07, 2009 | Gary DeMar
>
> What? That doesn't make any sense at all.
It's something that was printed in the freep (The Free Republic).
Of *course* it doesn't make sense.
-- wds
William December Starr
guardian Snow <snowp...@eck.net.au> said:
> The argument that homosexuality should be tied to biblical sin and
> approved by any person that disagrees with scriptures falls away
> when reality of homosexuality is confronted not as sin but simply
> as a behavior that is not socially desirable. While several
> people want to pretend this is about some religious belief
> (because it serves the purpose), it's not. At the core even
> homosexuals know that they have a practice, that for those people
> who do not suffer from your form of mental virus... it makes our
> skin crawl with disgust,
That's your problem, bigot.
-- wds
Mike Schilling
>
> It's something that was printed in the freep (The Free Republic).
> Of *course* it doesn't make sense.
But even compared to Freeper stuff, it makes no sense: "Whoopi said
something false and offensive. But we'll pretend she said something
insane, so we can use that to bash evolution."
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> >I have just found a web page
> >where someone has collected bible statements that bear on how people
> >who believe in Jehovah should think of rape: as a tool of war, to
> >frighten the enemy, reward your own troops, and breed your side a
> >larger population in the next generation.
>
> You don't breed a larger population for the next round. In Jewish
> culture, which our old testament is attached to, the next generation
> is counted from the mother, not the father. If you rape a bunch of
> Canaanite women to get extra sons, they will not be "your" people.
But they did it anyway. (According to the story, although I'm
sceptical of all bible "history" up to and including the exile to
Babylon.) I assumed they wanted to make more Israelites and not more
slaves or just have fun, in one episode the survival of the tribe of
Benjamin appears to be the issue, and of course both Old and New
Testament count family descent by fathers' names, not mothers'. There
must have been a switch at some time: in the "interesting times" of
the first century C.E. perhaps. Not surprising, as if one inquires
into Jewish culture, one also finds that they get the Sabbath day
wrong - they use Saturday (starting Friday night in fact) but all
Christians know it is Sunday.
JazzCat
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2359584/posts
>
> Whoopi Goldberg was Right. . . Sort Of!
>
> http://www.americanvision.org/article/whoopi-goldberg-was-right---sor...
> ^ | Oct 07, 2009 | Gary DeMar
>
>
> If you believe in evolution, there is nothing wrong with rape.
Curiously, that's exactly the message being propagated in the Bible.
RS
Erwin Moller
<snipped>
So, Mr. IlBeBauck: You can respond after all.
How do you explain your cowardice in almost all other postings you
enrich this group with?
Why is it you never stand up to defend your claims?
The only thing you do is nodding semiwise to people making the same
claims as you do, but you don't dare to face opponents.
Does it surprise you I consider you a coward?
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Budikka
The challenge I offered you in this thread:
http://tinyurl.com/nubnxr
on May 11th 2009, only to see you RUN AWAY.
Unmet challenge #2
Provide *positive*, *scientific* evidence *for* a creation. Not Bible
quotes. Not quotes from creationists or atheists or evolutionists.
Not divine revelation. Not juvenile unsupported ignorant assertions.
Not chants of 'no it isn't!'. Not counter challenges when you haven't
even met ours, but *positive*, *scientific* evidence *for* a creation.
Unmet challenge #3
Provide evidence that shows how DNA is the work of a creator. Show us
this evidence and explain how it demonstrates a creator.
Unmet challenge #4
Support claims that bacteria have never arisen from anything other
than bacteria/life has never arisen from anything but life.
Unmet challenge #5
Provide evidence in support of the creationist claim that information
cannot be added to a genome.
Unmet challenge #6
Define scientifically what the "genetic boundaries" are: specifically
what the mechanism is which (according to creationist claims) prevents
one species from evolving into another species over time.
Unmet Challenge #7
Provide your scientific evidence (as opposed to your LYING,
unsupported bullshit, which has been refuted repeatedly) to support
your creationist claim that life cannot arise from organic chemistry,
when scientists have repeatedly demonstrated that the truth is quite
to the contrary
Unmet Challenge #8
Prove that there's a god out there waiting to judge me when I die.
Otherwise you and your creationist fundie ilk are nothing but pathetic
LIARS and FRAUDS.
Unmet Challenge #9
Prove that we have a soul. Demonstrate scientifically where it is and
what its purpose is.
Unmet Challenge #10
Prove that this fictional Jesus isn't fictional and that he literally
died and that he came back to life and went to Heaven.
Here's a list of the strongest advocates of creation on Usenet WHO
HAVE FLED one or more of these challenges:
Chicken Adman
Chicken Andrew
Chicken Brother Ted
Chicken Codebreaker
Chicken Curtjester1
Chicken Duke
Chicken Gabriel
Chicken I'll Be Bauck
Chicken Pastor Dave
Let's face it, NOT A SINGLE creationist on Usenet has been able to
find the guts to face these challenges. This fictional god of theirs
has deserted every one of these liars and frauds That's what a sad,
pathetic and vacuous bunch of lousy, low-life scum they are.
Case closed. End of story.
Budikka
guardian Snow
> As for the original point concerning rape as defined in law, I myself
> don't understand how Roman Polanski gets an excuse that more than one
> other public figure has been denied, but I have just found a web page
> where someone has collected bible statements that bear on how people
> who believe in Jehovah should think of rape: as a tool of war, to
> frighten the enemy, reward your own troops, and breed your side a
> larger population in the next generation. I don't know if
> <http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm> is meant to be exhaustive of all
> such cases. But it's enough to go on with.
It seems to me that everybody has an extremist that should be
ignored:) Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me.
thomas p.
> Unlike animals, Man cannot rely exclusively on his instincts and
> emotions, his instincts and emotions must be controlled by his reason.
> This control by reason is not inborn, but develops through a prolonged
> learning process. Usually this happens in a social setting and starts
> within the family. Even simple instinctive acts like urination are
> subject to a lengthy learning process. Unlike animals, people do not
> urinate wherever they feel the urge, they do it in special places. The
> same applies to sex.
>
> I find it interesting personally that homosexual people are now
> comparing themselves to animals by saying that some animals also have
> "homosexual" behavior. A dog will hump a person's leg but we still
> find this a disgusting and socially unacceptable behavior.
Yes, natural has nothing to do with right or wrong. Therefore your argument
that it is unnatural is irrelevant even if true, which, as you say above it
is not. Thank you for pointing out both of your errors. I admire your
honesty.
snip
Free Lunch
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Oct 11, 11:22�pm, Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
>> On 12 Oct, 03:00, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> > Agree. �If there are no absolute moral laws inscribed on the Fiber of
>> > our Beings, then there is nothing objectively wrong with rape, incest,
>> > murder...and no objective difference between a Mother Theresa and a
>> > Hitler..for., , �each were only operating on thier subjective notions
>> > to which they thought were right. �Yet we DO realize intrinsically
>> > that there REALLY ARE things that are very wrong to do ; � we see this
>> > most clearly not so much by the things which we DO...but by the way we
>> > REACT to things done unto us --- � We react with ABSOLUTE indignation
>> > when we are cheated �for example. � If there are no absolute moral
>> > laws that are objective, then we have valid reason to complain when
>> > someone treats us according to subjective morals ; �the only validity
>> > we can appeal to , is that ALL people, everywhere, and at all times
>> > have the right to be treated morally correct because they occupy
>> > infinite worth and dignity �from a Source beyond �Man . �Otherwise,
>> > how do accidental Materials from a leftover big bang explosion give us
>> > these certain unalienable rights to expect/demand OBJECTIVE morals be
>> > shown us by others ? � Naturalism and Materialism �has no answer
>> > because this issue isnt contained in the realm of �naturalism and
>> > materials.
>>
>> You either didn't read, or more likely, didn't understand Steven J's
>> explanation of the simple reasons for human morals. �Plus ca change.
>
>
>Wow! The 17th prophet of science has spoken. Where we used to have
>the scientific method, we now have clever explanations.
Some people have chosen not to learn. Please note that Wombat directed
IlBeBauck to a previous post related to this if he wanted to try to
understand it again. Based on IlBeBauck's track record, we can reliably
predict that he will not read it, will make no effort to understand it,
will come back with another completely unsupportable religious
explanation and will ignore all explanations about why he has erred,
repeated a falsehood, or otherwise screwed up.
>Say, Wombat, was Gould's theory tested in a lab by the scientific
>method, documented, and peer reviewed? Or is that stuff just too old
>fashioned?
So, you agree that religious explanations are useless.
Howard Brazee
<dear...@gmail.com> wrote:
>This is backwards. Nobody (sensible) says that because something is
>natural, it's moral. The point is that if you claim that something is
>_unnatural_ and therefore immoral, it is relevant to point out that
>it's not unnatural.
>
>If people would stop saying that certain behaviors are immoral
>_because_ they are unnatural, then it wouldn't be necessary to point
>out that animals also engage in them.
Same thing applies to both sides. Something isn't moral because it
is natural, nor immoral because it isn't natural.
If someone's brain is (naturally) damaged so that he goes on a killing
rampage - he still needs to be stopped.
Morality needs to be evaluated by different criteria.
Will in New Haven
The practice of _carrying off_ women from another people, marrying
them and/or enslaving them by force, and raising their children as
members of your tribe _is_ rape. However, it results in expancing your
population. This was the practice of the ancient Hebrews, the Romans
(see Sabine Women) the Vikings and the Commanches, among others, over
many centuries. It is a brutal nasty custom and it is rape.
What people think of today when they hear the word rape is an
individual or possibly a group forcing sex upon another individual.
The rapist doesn't expect to raise a child nor is that his objective.
That any children who result will carry on his genetic heritage is a
side "benefit." Both activities are rape but they are very different
from one another in many respects.
--
Will in New Haven
Erwin Moller
Nice summary.
You might consider to repost this one as a fresh thread and see if some
respond.
Most people in your list have a habbit of never replying (for obvious
reasons), and I think most don't even read the responses they receive,
eg Illbebauck-chicken-curry.
I do not expect any of the cowards will stand up to defend their claims;
They never do.
Regards,
Ken
> Nice summary.
>
> You might consider to repost this one as a fresh thread and see if some
> respond.
> Most people in your list have a habbit of never replying (for obvious
> reasons), and I think most don't even read the responses they receive,
> eg Illbebauck-chicken-curry.
>
> I do not expect any of the cowards will stand up to defend their claims;
> They never do.
>
> Regards,
> Erwin Moller
Ever notice that most, if not all of Dimwitted Dave's
replies have
nothing to do with the original post or, after someone made a
detailed and carefully crafted challenge to one of his rants, there's
no reply, or that he never answers a direct question, instead going
off on some tangent about Dog, sex, or religion completely unrelated
to
the subject with the intent to gain control of the thread and push
HIS
point of view?
Well, there a good reason for all this:
HE NEVER READS THEM
In his puny mind, why should he?
He knows that whatever is said will not with his views so why even
bother.
If he actually reads them. or thinks about them logically, he might
need to examine the basis for his own religious delusions so, again
why even bother
It's much better, in his mind, for him to just push his views than to
waste valuable trolling time reading replies to his endless stream of
bullshit
From 2001..."Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?"
Ron Dean
> In our last episode,
> <2b85498d-4e15-4897...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, the
> lovely and talented Sound of Trumpet broadcast on alt.atheism:
>
>> If you believe in evolution, there is nothing wrong with rape.
>
> survive best in communities because it takes human infants so long to reach
> an age at which they can reasonably support themselves. At perhaps five or
> six a human child can contribute to its own support, perhaps by carrying a
> basket to help its mother gather roots and berries, but i certainly cannot
> fend for itself. No other mammal is dependant for so long. In that time
> accidents and illnesses can easily strike its parents. That is why human
> beings in communities do best. Rape would destroy the fabric of community
> and that is why it is wrong for humans and why sentiment against it evolved.
>
This makes certain assumptions. First that the rapist is known or
his identity is later discovered. He could be a stranger and never
identified. Under such circumstances what makes this rape morally
wrong? Secondly, the name of the game is reproductive success,
obviously, the more offspring one has the better one's chances of
success, while two or three offspring, one or all could fall victim of
disease or accident and die, if one had a large number of offspring,
one could easily afford to lose a few and still enjoy reproductive
success In short the more offspring one has the better the chances of
reproductive success. A man who cannot "win" a female, could justify
rape on evolutionary grounds, since reproductive success is beneficial
in terms of evolution. His only problem, in society, is his "crime"
being being detected and being caught. However, if it's not reported or
if he can remain free, where is the moral wrong. IOW it's morally wrong
only if he is caught.
>
> Of course, with the exception of a few diseased individuals, rape is not
> possible among animals. Animal sexualness is driven by instinct: pheromones
> and sometime complicated instinctive signaling behaviors. Human beings
> evolved away from these long ago because of the requirement for community.
> Rape is a disorder among animals and destructive to human communities. It
> is wrong for humans and wrong for other animals.
>
This describes why rape is disadvantageous to a society, but it does
really explain what makes it morally wrong, since rape is often hidden
or unreported. When this occurs society is none the worse off.
Therefore, there is nothing morally wrong with rape.
>
> You are a moron.
>
Free Lunch
alt.talk.creationism:
Logical fail.
Davej
> On Oct 11, 6:25 pm, Sound of Trumpet <..> wrote:
> >http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2359584/posts
> > Whoopi Goldberg was Right. . . Sort Of!
>> If you believe in evolution, there is nothing
>> it rape. Whoopi Goldberg dismissed Roman
>> Polanski’s rape conviction by declaring that
>> The View.) As a firm believer in evolution,
>> she should have said, “There’s nothing
>> wrong with rape or sexual aggression. That’s
>> how we all got here!”
>
> traits left more descendants than did conspecifics
> with different traits. We got here, at least in part,
> because our ancestors accumulated [...]
Irrelevant. Nobody has suggested that "Nature red in tooth and claw"
should be our model for legal or moral behavior. Actress Whoopi
Goldberg was just trying to incoherently differentiate between violent
forced rape and what may have been consensual sex with a minor. That
doesn't mean it was legal or moral -- just somewhat less abhorrent.
>> Here’s the premise: Whatever animals do in
>> nature is natural. What’s natural is normal. What’s
>> normal is moral.
Bullshit. Did you pull that out of your ass? From that viewpoint
murder is "normal" but if you will look around you might notice it
isn't legal or moral. Evolution isn't related to morality.
> I'm not sure that this is a fair summary of
> homosexual activists' arguments
How is it even relevant? The whole argument is utterly specious.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
talk-o...@moderators.isc.or�g <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> Not surprising, as if one inquires
>into Jewish culture, one also finds that they get the Sabbath day
>wrong - they use Saturday (starting Friday night in fact) but all
>Christians know it is Sunday.
I'm trying to figure out whether you're making a joke, or are serious.
Saturday is the original Sabbath. Christianity switched to Sunday,
the first day of the week, in honor of the Resurrection occurring on a
Sunday.
Many calendars still reflect this by showing Sunday as the first day
of the week, and some Christian sects, such as Seventh-Day Adventists,
keep the original sabbath.
In some languages (e.g. Spanish) Saturday is still called "Sabbath"
(Sabado), while Sunday is "the Lord's Day" (Domingo) instead.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>> Not surprising, as if one inquires
>>into Jewish culture, one also finds that they get the Sabbath day
>>wrong - they use Saturday (starting Friday night in fact) but all
>>Christians know it is Sunday.
>
>I'm trying to figure out whether you're making a joke, or are serious.
>
>Saturday is the original Sabbath. Christianity switched to Sunday,
>the first day of the week, in honor of the Resurrection occurring on a
>Sunday.
>
>Many calendars still reflect this by showing Sunday as the first day
>of the week, and some Christian sects, such as Seventh-Day Adventists,
>keep the original sabbath.
>
>In some languages (e.g. Spanish) Saturday is still called "Sabbath"
>(Sabado), while Sunday is "the Lord's Day" (Domingo) instead.
Which doesn't change the fact that most (not all) Christians have
Sunday as the Sabbath.
Ron Dean
> If I believe in evolution, I will do what is best to increase the
> survivability of mine. Working together to protect mine from rape is
> a smart strategy.
>
If one can rape a dozen women and have multiple offspring by
each, this is reproductive success. So, he ends up serving life
in prison. In terms of evolution, is he not still reproductive successful?
>
Ron Dean
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:12:56 -0400, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Not surprising, as if one inquires
> >>into Jewish culture, one also finds that they get the Sabbath day
> >>wrong - they use Saturday (starting Friday night in fact) but all
> >>Christians know it is Sunday.
>
> >I'm trying to figure out whether you're making a joke, or are serious.
>
> >Saturday is the original Sabbath. Christianity switched to Sunday,
> >the first day of the week, in honor of the Resurrection occurring on a
> >Sunday.
>
> >Many calendars still reflect this by showing Sunday as the first day
> >of the week, and some Christian sects, such as Seventh-Day Adventists,
> >keep the original sabbath.
>
> >In some languages (e.g. Spanish) Saturday is still called "Sabbath"
> >(Sabado), while Sunday is "the Lord's Day" (Domingo) instead.
>
> Which doesn't change the fact that most (not all) Christians have
> Sunday as the Sabbath.
And that's when the shops are closed, etc.
I was joking. It amuses me that a version or imitation of the Jewish
Sabbath-observance rules in the Old Testament are imposed by
Christians on themselves and on their neighbours, often quoting the
Old Testament text as backup, when the Old Testament Sabbath was and
is SATURDAY (and Friday night). I don't believe that modern Jews
miscounted somehow. I do believe that you could persuade most
Christians to believe it. Maybe explain that when the Jews returned
from Old Testament exile they went RIGHT AROUND THE WORLD, and so they
had the wrong day, and Jesus had to come to PUT IT RIGHT.
There's a bible story where Jesus isn't so particular about the
Sabbath, anyway - but that's the Saturday one, of course.
David Johnston
>Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>I have just found a web page
>>where someone has collected bible statements that bear on how people
>>who believe in Jehovah should think of rape: as a tool of war, to
>>frighten the enemy, reward your own troops, and breed your side a
>>larger population in the next generation.
>
>You don't breed a larger population for the next round. In Jewish
>culture, which our old testament is attached to, the next generation
>is counted from the mother, not the father. If you rape a bunch of
>Canaanite women to get extra sons, they will not be "your" people.
>
Except of course that in those days women captured and made part of
the tribe would be expected to become their husband's religion anyway
so that wasn't really an issue. Matrilineal Judaism would have arisen
only once the Jews were a religious minority in a larger culture.
Free Lunch
alt.talk.creationism:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:54:21 -0400, Ron Dean <rd...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> alt.talk.creationism:
>>
>>> Lars Eighner wrote:
>>>> In our last episode,
>>>> <2b85498d-4e15-4897...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, the
>>>> lovely and talented Sound of Trumpet broadcast on alt.atheism:
>>>>
>>>>> If you believe in evolution, there is nothing wrong with rape.
>>>> Utter bullshit. Human beings evolved as social animals. Human beings
>>>> survive best in communities because it takes human infants so long to reach
>>>> an age at which they can reasonably support themselves. At perhaps five or
>>>> six a human child can contribute to its own support, perhaps by carrying a
>>>> basket to help its mother gather roots and berries, but i certainly cannot
>>>> fend for itself. No other mammal is dependant for so long. In that time
>>>> accidents and illnesses can easily strike its parents. That is why human
>>>> beings in communities do best. Rape would destroy the fabric of community
>>>> and that is why it is wrong for humans and why sentiment against it evolved.
>>>>
>>> This makes certain assumptions. First that the rapist is known or
>>> his identity is later discovered. He could be a stranger and never
>>> identified. Under such circumstances what makes this rape morally
>>> wrong? Secondly, the name of the game is reproductive success,
Not exclusively. If the victim of rape is ostracized then, if there is a
child, that child's chances of reproductive success are also restricted.
>>> obviously, the more offspring one has the better one's chances of
>>> success, while two or three offspring, one or all could fall victim of
>>> disease or accident and die, if one had a large number of offspring,
>>> one could easily afford to lose a few and still enjoy reproductive
>>> success In short the more offspring one has the better the chances of
>>> reproductive success. A man who cannot "win" a female, could justify
>>> rape on evolutionary grounds, since reproductive success is beneficial
>>> in terms of evolution. His only problem, in society, is his "crime"
>>> being being detected and being caught. However, if it's not reported or
>>> if he can remain free, where is the moral wrong. IOW it's morally wrong
>>> only if he is caught.
So goes all of the arguments about all crimes.
>>>> Of course, with the exception of a few diseased individuals, rape is not
>>>> possible among animals. Animal sexualness is driven by instinct: pheromones
>>>> and sometime complicated instinctive signaling behaviors. Human beings
>>>> evolved away from these long ago because of the requirement for community.
>>>> Rape is a disorder among animals and destructive to human communities. It
>>>> is wrong for humans and wrong for other animals.
>>>>
>>> This describes why rape is disadvantageous to a society, but it does
>>> really explain what makes it morally wrong, since rape is often hidden
>>> or unreported. When this occurs society is none the worse off.
Why not?
>>> Therefore, there is nothing morally wrong with rape.
>>
>> Logical fail.
> >
>Can you not expand?
Yes, because you jumped from one statement to the next without showing
how they are related. When you claim "therefore" it really needs to be
implied by the argument.
1. Societies invent ethics (aka morality) for their needs. The changes
over time are often slow. Violations of societal norms are violations of
morality.
2. The societies that are most likely to have rapes hidden are the ones
in which women are punished for being a victim of rape or not believed
when they come forward. This approach, tends not to discourage rape,
even if it is nominally forbidden and it reflects the idea that women
are inferior beings to men.
3. Societies that treat women as equal citizens generally treat rape as
a serious crime and strongly encourage victims of rape to step forward.
This tends to discourage rape and encourages punishment for rape.
Free Lunch
alt.talk.creationism:
>Howard Brazee wrote:
But that has nothing at all to do with morality or ethics. We do not
derive our cultural norms from some supposed evolutionary strategy.
Terry Cross
Where is the "also"? The Hebrews and Jews until the time of Jesus
certainly used patrilineage to track the families. The old patriarchs
regularly took female captives for slaves and concubines (though the
Hebrew wives were hardly anything else), and raised some of the
children as their own.
Sometime in the history of Judaism -- maybe when it was transplanted
to the Russian Khazars -- patrilineage probably became unreliable and
the rule was changed.
As to the Sabbath, Christianity did not "get it wrong." Paul of
Tarsus changed that deliberately, not accidentally.
TCross
Terry Cross
You don't get it yet. Christians deliberately changed the Sabbath.
On purpose. Knowingly. Not an accident.
The difference is that Christians don't need a Sabbath goy to handle
their door keys and turn on their lights so they can pretend they are
keeping to the old Sabbath rules. And that is a BIG difference.
>
> There's a bible story where Jesus isn't so particular about the
> Sabbath, anyway - but that's the Saturday one, of course.
Yes, the Gospel shows that Jesus repudiated all the pillars of
Judaism, including Kosher, Sabbath, animal sacrifice, racism, Temple
priesthood, and neighborhood stonings. It just wasn't the same Old
Time Religion after Jesus came to town.
TCross
Terry Cross
Thank you. "Carry off" is the original meaning of the word in Latin.
Thus we have the word "rapine", which means to carry off valuable
goods and has nothing to do with a sexual act.
Rape
–noun
1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or
duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3. statutory rape.
4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation;
violation: the rape of the countryside.
5. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
–verb (used with object)
6. to force to have sexual intercourse.
7. to plunder (a place); despoil.
8. to seize, take, or carry off by force.
–verb (used without object)
9. to commit rape.
Origin:
1250–1300; (v.) ME rapen < AF raper < L rapere to seize, carry off by
force, plunder; (n.) ME < AF ra(a)p(e), deriv. of raper
TCross
Free Lunch
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Oct 12, 9:36�am, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
Of course, Jesus said explicitly that He was not repealing the law, a
fact that Christians cheerfully ignore (if they aren't SDA).
Terry Cross
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:33:54 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
Hardly. Evolution explanations have been widely USED to justify the
worst barbarities. Religious explanations of other types have been
USED in many other ways, too, sometimes to liberate, sometimes to
enslave.
But religious explanations -- including Evolution explanations -- are
not scientific.
TCross
Free Lunch
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Evolution is scientific, but asserting without clear evidence that
behavior is a result of evolution is not.
Dragonblaze
> If one can rape a dozen women and have multiple offspring by
> each, this is reproductive success. So, he ends up serving life
> in prison. In terms of evolution, is he not still reproductive successful?
One can also end up dead by a very determined woman - in which case
there is no reproductive success.
Terry Cross
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:19:19 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
If you understood textual criticism, you must recognize that those
verses are emendations on the larger body of text in which Jesus
repudiated each pillar of Judaism individually.
We recognize your Judaic background. Despite your Atheist pose, your
vested interest in keeping Christianity within the "Judeo-Christian"
fold is obvious. Israel is at stake.
TCross
Wayne Throop
: In some languages (e.g. Spanish) Saturday is still called "Sabbath"
: (Sabado), while Sunday is "the Lord's Day" (Domingo) instead.
"Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my Lord, prepare to die."
Hpf. I guess I didn't know Inigo was an anti-semite. On the other hand,
perhaps "I want my Lord back, you son of a bitch!" works better that way...
something that can indeed happen on Domingo.
"I swear by the soul of my father, Domingo Montoya,
you will reach the top alive."
--- Inigo to the Man in Black
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Greg Goss
>Except of course that in those days women captured and made part of
>the tribe would be expected to become their husband's religion anyway
>so that wasn't really an issue.
There are some exceptions. I've been told that Irish "wives" raising
the next generation were the reason that the Vikings converted to
Christianity.
--
apart from one noisy guy up in Canada, no-one wants
a three-cylinder tissue box on bicycle tires.
thomas p.
Shouldn't you provide your data to all the biologists all ove the world who
think evolution is scientific? No doubt they will be grateful, considering
your vast knowledge and experience.
Mike Schilling
.
>
> I was joking. It amuses me that a version or imitation of the Jewish
> Sabbath-observance rules in the Old Testament are imposed by
> Christians on themselves and on their neighbours, often quoting the
> Old Testament text as backup, when the Old Testament Sabbath was and
> is SATURDAY (and Friday night).
But not Saturday night. In the Hebrew calendar, days go from sunset to
sunset.
Mike Schilling
> You don't get it yet. Christians deliberately changed the Sabbath.
> On purpose. Knowingly. Not an accident.
To ditance themselves from Jews, as a preluide to trying to convert or kill
all of them. Yeah, we get it just fine.
Howard Brazee
>The difference is that Christians don't need a Sabbath goy to handle
>their door keys and turn on their lights so they can pretend they are
>keeping to the old Sabbath rules. And that is a BIG difference.
>
>>
>> There's a bible story where Jesus isn't so particular about the
>> Sabbath, anyway - but that's the Saturday one, of course.
>
>Yes, the Gospel shows that Jesus repudiated all the pillars of
>Judaism, including Kosher, Sabbath, animal sacrifice, racism, Temple
>priesthood, and neighborhood stonings. It just wasn't the same Old
>Time Religion after Jesus came to town.
The parts of the Old Testament that I agree with still apply. Those
that I can use to condemn someone else (gays), are particularly
useful. But those parts that are inconvenient (pork), no longer
apply.
It's nice to have a document from God that I can pick and choose from
to prove I'm Right.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Evolution is scientific, but asserting without clear evidence that
>behavior is a result of evolution is not.
It would help if we actually had good statistical evidence of behavior
differences between people of various religious beliefs.
Terry Cross
wrote:
Uh, a prelude hundreds of years in advance of the event? Wow, you
guys are really, really paranoid.
At the time Paul changed the Sabbath for Christians, the Jews, in
company with the Roman soldiers, were happily murdering Christians.
Some of those Christian deaths are recorded in the New Testament.
TCross
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:12:56 -0400, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
>wrote:
>
>>> Not surprising, as if one inquires
>>>into Jewish culture, one also finds that they get the Sabbath day
>>>wrong - they use Saturday (starting Friday night in fact) but all
>>>Christians know it is Sunday.
>>
>>I'm trying to figure out whether you're making a joke, or are serious.
>>
>>Saturday is the original Sabbath. Christianity switched to Sunday,
>>the first day of the week, in honor of the Resurrection occurring on a
>>Sunday.
>>
>>Many calendars still reflect this by showing Sunday as the first day
>>of the week, and some Christian sects, such as Seventh-Day Adventists,
>>keep the original sabbath.
>>
>>In some languages (e.g. Spanish) Saturday is still called "Sabbath"
>>(Sabado), while Sunday is "the Lord's Day" (Domingo) instead.
>
>Which doesn't change the fact that most (not all) Christians have
>Sunday as the Sabbath.
But it does contradict "they get the Sabbath day wrong," referring to
Jews.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
talk-o...@moderators.isc.or�g <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>On Oct 12, 5:24�pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:12:56 -0400, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Not surprising, as if one inquires
>> >>into Jewish culture, one also finds that they get the Sabbath day
>> >>wrong - they use Saturday (starting Friday night in fact) but all
>> >>Christians know it is Sunday.
>>
>> >I'm trying to figure out whether you're making a joke, or are serious.
>>
>I was joking.
Okay. It's hard to tell on Usenet.
Terry Cross
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:19:19 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
> >The difference is that Christians don't need a Sabbath goy to handle
> >their door keys and turn on their lights so they can pretend they are
> >keeping to the old Sabbath rules. And that is a BIG difference.
>
> >> There's a bible story where Jesus isn't so particular about the
> >> Sabbath, anyway - but that's the Saturday one, of course.
>
> >Yes, the Gospel shows that Jesus repudiated all the pillars of
> >Judaism, including Kosher, Sabbath, animal sacrifice, racism, Temple
> >priesthood, and neighborhood stonings. It just wasn't the same Old
> >Time Religion after Jesus came to town.
>
> The parts of the Old Testament that I agree with still apply. Those
> that I can use to condemn someone else (gays), are particularly
> useful.
You are rediscovering the term, "Old Testament Christian." It is a
particularly nasty mongrelized religion, pretending to the greatest of
virtues while practicing the opposite.
> But those parts that are inconvenient (pork), no longer
> apply.
None of it applies, of course, because Christianity is not Judaism.
> It's nice to have a document from God that I can pick and choose from
> to prove I'm Right.
>
> --
> "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
> than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
> to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
>
> - James Madison
Madison did not predict the supine legislature of today.
TCross
Free Lunch
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Oct 12, 1:44�pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:19:19 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>>
>> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >The difference is that Christians don't need a Sabbath goy to handle
>> >their door keys and turn on their lights so they can pretend they are
>> >keeping to the old Sabbath rules. �And that is a BIG difference.
>>
>> >> There's a bible story where Jesus isn't so particular about the
>> >> Sabbath, anyway - but that's the Saturday one, of course.
>>
>> >Yes, the Gospel shows that Jesus repudiated all the pillars of
>> >Judaism, including Kosher, Sabbath, animal sacrifice, racism, Temple
>> >priesthood, and neighborhood stonings. �It just wasn't the same Old
>> >Time Religion after Jesus came to town.
>>
>> The parts of the Old Testament that I agree with still apply. � Those
>> that I can use to condemn someone else (gays), are particularly
>> useful. � �
>
>
>You are rediscovering the term, "Old Testament Christian." It is a
>particularly nasty mongrelized religion, pretending to the greatest of
>virtues while practicing the opposite.
>
>
>> But those parts that are inconvenient (pork), no longer
>> apply.
>
>
>None of it applies, of course, because Christianity is not Judaism.
So you agree that Christians have no excuse to attack homosexuals.
Terry Cross
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:24:10 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
>
>
> >On Oct 12, 1:44 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:19:19 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
> >> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >The difference is that Christians don't need a Sabbath goy to handle
> >> >their door keys and turn on their lights so they can pretend they are
> >> >keeping to the old Sabbath rules. And that is a BIG difference.
>
> >> >> There's a bible story where Jesus isn't so particular about the
> >> >> Sabbath, anyway - but that's the Saturday one, of course.
>
> >> >Yes, the Gospel shows that Jesus repudiated all the pillars of
> >> >Judaism, including Kosher, Sabbath, animal sacrifice, racism, Temple
> >> >priesthood, and neighborhood stonings. It just wasn't the same Old
> >> >Time Religion after Jesus came to town.
>
> >> The parts of the Old Testament that I agree with still apply. Those
> >> that I can use to condemn someone else (gays), are particularly
> >> useful.
>
> >You are rediscovering the term, "Old Testament Christian." It is a
> >particularly nasty mongrelized religion, pretending to the greatest of
> >virtues while practicing the opposite.
>
> >> But those parts that are inconvenient (pork), no longer
> >> apply.
>
> >None of it applies, of course, because Christianity is not Judaism.
>
> So you agree that Christians have no excuse to attack homosexuals.
What is the justification of this "so you agree.. so you agree"
language? "Excuse" is not the subject. The Pauline letters also
condemn homosexuals. Homosexuality is condemned in the New
Testament. I do not follow Paul, and I would not call myself a
Christian.
So you agree you are a burned marshmallow.
TCross
Terry Cross
> David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> >Except of course that in those days women captured and made part of
> >the tribe would be expected to become their husband's religion anyway
> >so that wasn't really an issue.
>
> There are some exceptions. I've been told that Irish "wives" raising
> the next generation were the reason that the Vikings converted to
> Christianity.
Irish wives are capable of a great many things to which even the
Vikings are not immune.
TCross
Terry Cross
Many lawyers think they work in a system of justice. Many doctors
think they work in the healing arts. Many ministers think they work
for morality. Many reporters think they are publishing news.
Why do you think biologists are uniquely correct in their delusions?
TCross
Terry Cross
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:54:21 -0400, Ron Dean <rd...@gmail.com> wrote in
> alt.talk.creationism:
>
>
>
> >Lars Eighner wrote:
> >> In our last episode,
> >> lovely and talented Sound of Trumpet broadcast on alt.atheism:
>
> >>> If you believe in evolution, there is nothing wrong with rape.
>
> >> Utter bullshit. Human beings evolved as social animals. Human beings
> >> survive best in communities because it takes human infants so long to reach
> >> an age at which they can reasonably support themselves. At perhaps five or
> >> six a human child can contribute to its own support, perhaps by carrying a
> >> basket to help its mother gather roots and berries, but i certainly cannot
> >> fend for itself. No other mammal is dependant for so long. In that time
> >> accidents and illnesses can easily strike its parents. That is why human
> >> beings in communities do best. Rape would destroy the fabric of community
> >> and that is why it is wrong for humans and why sentiment against it evolved.
>
> >This makes certain assumptions. First that the rapist is known or
> >his identity is later discovered. He could be a stranger and never
> >identified. Under such circumstances what makes this rape morally
> >wrong? Secondly, the name of the game is reproductive success,
> >success, while two or three offspring, one or all could fall victim of
> >disease or accident and die, if one had a large number of offspring,
> >one could easily afford to lose a few and still enjoy reproductive
> >success In short the more offspring one has the better the chances of
> >reproductive success. A man who cannot "win" a female, could justify
> >rape on evolutionary grounds, since reproductive success is beneficial
> >in terms of evolution. His only problem, in society, is his "crime"
> >being being detected and being caught. However, if it's not reported or
> >if he can remain free, where is the moral wrong. IOW it's morally wrong
> >only if he is caught.
>
> >> possible among animals. Animal sexualness is driven by instinct: pheromones
> >> and sometime complicated instinctive signaling behaviors. Human beings
> >> evolved away from these long ago because of the requirement for community.
> >> Rape is a disorder among animals and destructive to human communities. It
> >> is wrong for humans and wrong for other animals.
>
> >This describes why rape is disadvantageous to a society, but it does
> >really explain what makes it morally wrong, since rape is often hidden
> >or unreported. When this occurs society is none the worse off.
>
> Logical fail.
Linguistic failure, too. The word "morality" derives from a word
meaning community law or customs. It does not have the strength of
the word, "ethics." To embark on a discussion of "ethics", one should
be familiar with the writings of the Greeks who invented the subject.
TCross
Free Lunch
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
I was not aware that you did consider yourself Christian. It can be hard
to tell sometimes.
>So you agree you are a burned marshmallow.
Why not.
Jesus didn't condemn homosexuality. The Pauline stuff depends on the
interpretation you put on it, but he isn't a lawgiver so I agree with
you that you shouldn't add new laws from Paul to replace the Judaic
ones. There really wasn't that much in the Old Testament either, but
bigots look for justification wherever they can.
Free Lunch
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Science has a better system of review.
Puck Greenman
You have to admit, the Jews had it sussed.
The Sabbath, the day of rest, starts at sundown, on Friday, and ends at sundown on
Saturday.
How sensible.
Face it, after a hard week's work, what you really need on Friday night, is to relax and
chill,a few jars in front of the telly, and the same for Saturday, so that you are fit and
ready for the big Saturday Night VAVAVAVOOOM!!!!!!
Please not the excessive punctuation, so that christians might also understand the wisdom
of it.
Terry Cross
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:56:06 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
Uh, beg to differ. The Mosaic laws are death on anything sexual,
including menstruation and adultery. Moses hated and feared women
like nobody else in history.
Leviticus 15:18
The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they
shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even.
Leviticus 15:33
And of her that is sick of her flowers, and of him that hath an issue,
of the man, and of the woman, and of him that lieth with her that is
unclean.
Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them
have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death;
their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 20:18
And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall
uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath
uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off
from among their people.
TCross
Ron Dean
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:31:41 -0400, Ron Dean <rd...@gmail.com> wrote in
> alt.talk.creationism:
>
>> Howard Brazee wrote:
>>> If I believe in evolution, I will do what is best to increase the
>>> survivability of mine. Working together to protect mine from rape is
>>> a smart strategy.
>>>
>> If one can rape a dozen women and have multiple offspring by
>> each, this is reproductive success. So, he ends up serving life
>> in prison. In terms of evolution, is he not still reproductive successful?
>
> derive our cultural norms from some supposed evolutionary strategy.
>
How can one speak for every individual? Unfortunately, not everyone
follows the "cultural norm".
Ron Dean
Ron Dean
Free Lunch
alt.talk.creationism:
Yet cultural norms or mores are what determine morality.
Walter Bushell
<a7027793-8c22-418f...@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.or�g
> I was joking. It amuses me that a version or imitation of the Jewish
> Sabbath-observance rules in the Old Testament are imposed by
> Christians on themselves and on their neighbours, often quoting the
> Old Testament text as backup, when the Old Testament Sabbath was and
> is SATURDAY (and Friday night).
So how do we know that the Sabbath or Sunday falls on the day we say.
Isn't possible the day we call Sunday is actually Friday, Saturday
Monday or Tuesday?
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:21:28 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> wrote:
>
> >Evolution is scientific, but asserting without clear evidence that
> >behavior is a result of evolution is not.
>
> It would help if we actually had good statistical evidence of behavior
> differences between people of various religious beliefs.
I do believe you may be hinting about the famous statistic that way
more (even more?) people in prison are religious than the general
population. In U.S. jails for demographic and historic reasons Islam
is pretty big apparently, which may be not what you hoped for, even
not counting Gitmo.
And of course there's the anecdotal statistic that generally no one
dares to spit in the kosher food. Except the rabbi, of course.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:19:19 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
> >On Oct 12, 9:36�am, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
> >orig...@moderators.isc.or�g <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 12, 5:24�pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:12:56 -0400, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > >> Not surprising, as if one inquires
> >> > >>into Jewish culture, one also finds that they get the Sabbath day
> >> > >>wrong - they use Saturday (starting Friday night in fact) but all
> >> > >>Christians know it is Sunday.
> >>
> >> > >I'm trying to figure out whether you're making a joke, or are serious.
> >>
> >> > >the first day of the week, in honor of the Resurrection occurring on a
> >> > >Sunday.
> >>
> >> > >Many calendars still reflect this by showing Sunday as the first day
> >> > >of the week, and some Christian sects, such as Seventh-Day Adventists,
> >> > >keep the original sabbath.
> >>
> >> > >(Sabado), while Sunday is "the Lord's Day" (Domingo) instead.
> >>
> >> > Sunday as the Sabbath.
> >>
> >>
> >> I was joking. �It amuses me that a version or imitation of the Jewish
> >> Sabbath-observance rules in the Old Testament are imposed by
> >> Christians on themselves and on their neighbours, often quoting the
> >> Old Testament text as backup, when the Old Testament Sabbath was and
> >> miscounted somehow. �I do believe that you could persuade most
> >> Christians to believe it. �Maybe explain that when the Jews returned
> >> from Old Testament exile they went RIGHT AROUND THE WORLD, and so they
> >> had the wrong day, and Jesus had to come to PUT IT RIGHT.
> >
> >You don't get it yet. Christians deliberately changed the Sabbath.
> >On purpose. Knowingly. Not an accident.
> >
> >their door keys and turn on their lights so they can pretend they are
> >keeping to the old Sabbath rules. And that is a BIG difference.
> >
> >>
> >> There's a bible story where Jesus isn't so particular about the
> >> Sabbath, anyway - but that's the Saturday one, of course.
> >
> >Yes, the Gospel shows that Jesus repudiated all the pillars of
> >Judaism, including Kosher, Sabbath, animal sacrifice, racism, Temple
> >priesthood, and neighborhood stonings. It just wasn't the same Old
> >Time Religion after Jesus came to town.
>
> fact that Christians cheerfully ignore (if they aren't SDA).
But not establishing a new set of regulations including a separate
Sabbath. Incidentally if you're a non-Jewish Christian then the law
doesn't apply in the first place. Jack Chick is very clear about
that. Except I suppose when Sabbath observance or homosexuality come
up, and that's where this discussion started.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:36:00 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
> talk-o...@moderators.isc.or�g <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 12, 5:24�pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:12:56 -0400, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Not surprising, as if one inquires
> >> >>into Jewish culture, one also finds that they get the Sabbath day
> >> >>wrong - they use Saturday (starting Friday night in fact) but all
> >> >>Christians know it is Sunday.
> >>
> >> >I'm trying to figure out whether you're making a joke, or are serious.
> >>
> >I was joking.
>
> Okay. It's hard to tell on Usenet.
Which is the fun part, surely.
James A. Donald
> I'm
> sceptical of all bible "history" up to and including the exile to
> Babylon.)
We have substantial archaeological and historical evidence of Hezekiah
and everyone following him, for example the account of Herodotus, and
Sennacherib's Prism. If Hezekiah lived, then the Babylonian exile and
return happened.
Hezekiah was a theocratic religious radical, who may have adjusted
history to support the centralizing changes he made to religion, and
indeed, there is a curious and striking lack of historical and
archaeological evidence for biblical events pre Hezekiah, consistent
with such a religious rewrite. But after and including Hezekiah, the
substantial independent historical evidence of major biblical events
such as the crucifixion of Christ, is such that religious rewrites of
history cannot have been too severe.
James A. Donald
> There are some exceptions. I've been told that Irish "wives" raising
> the next generation were the reason that the Vikings converted to
> Christianity.
When the mongols conquered the middle east, they collected large
numbers of women. The sons of those women turned out more loyal to
Islam, than to the Kahn, resulting in extremely serious problems a
generation later.
Christopher A. Lee
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> ...the
>substantial independent historical evidence of major biblical events
>such as the crucifixion of Christ, is such that religious rewrites of
>history cannot have been too severe.
What "substantial independent historical evidence of major biblical
events such as the crucifixion of Christ" do you imagine there is?
This has been done to death long ago, and there is none otherwise it
would have been given just as long ago.
All there is, is a standard list of writers' names, as if the names
were the evidence.
When cites are dragged out of the people who never bothered to look,
the only mention of Jesus is an obvious Christian forgery in a volume
written by a Jew. None of the other stuff even mentions Jesus.
And instead of addressing this they resort to all sorts of personal
falehoods.
Why didn't you bother to check this before embarrassing yourself
again?
You would have been the first.
Ever.
Bill Snyder
<pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article
><a7027793-8c22-418f...@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.or?
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> I was joking. It amuses me that a version or imitation of the Jewish
>> Sabbath-observance rules in the Old Testament are imposed by
>> Christians on themselves and on their neighbours, often quoting the
>> Old Testament text as backup, when the Old Testament Sabbath was and
>> is SATURDAY (and Friday night).
>
>So how do we know that the Sabbath or Sunday falls on the day we say.
>Isn't possible the day we call Sunday is actually Friday, Saturday
>Monday or Tuesday?
Sure. It's also possible that the color you've been taught to
call "green" looks totally different to you than the color that I
call "green" looks to me. Did you miss sophomore year, or what?
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Lawrence Watt-Evans
talk-o...@moderators.isc.or�g <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>I do believe you may be hinting about the famous statistic that way
>more (even more?) people in prison are religious than the general
>population.
Is that still true if you adjust for education?
(I honestly don't know; I'm curious.)
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> On Oct 12, 1:44 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>> But those parts that are inconvenient (pork), no longer
>> apply.
>
>
> None of it applies, of course, because Christianity is not Judaism.
>
How can an infallible being change its mind?
Or are you saying that God doesn't actually believe any of the
morality he lays out and is willing to impose different restrictions
on different people?
--
Sean O'Hara <http://www.diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
New audio book: As Long as You Wish by John O'Keefe
<http://librivox.org/short-science-fiction-collection-010/>
Mike Schilling
> In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Terry Cross
> declared:
>> On Oct 12, 1:44 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>
>>> But those parts that are inconvenient (pork), no longer
>>> apply.
>>
>>
>> None of it applies, of course, because Christianity is not Judaism.
>>
>
> How can an infallible being change its mind?
>
> Or are you saying that God doesn't actually believe any of the
> morality he lays out and is willing to impose different restrictions
> on different people?
Think of it as religious federalism. Christianity thinks that God
incorporated all of its practices and beliefs under a holy 14th
Amendment, but that's an idiosyncratic view.
Greg Goss
>> There's a bible story where Jesus isn't so particular about the
>> Sabbath, anyway - but that's the Saturday one, of course.
>
>Yes, the Gospel shows that Jesus repudiated all the pillars of
>Judaism, including Kosher, Sabbath, animal sacrifice, racism, Temple
>priesthood, and neighborhood stonings. It just wasn't the same Old
>Time Religion after Jesus came to town.
Everything except those rules about gays from the old testament.
Those still apply, according to the fundies.
--
apart from one noisy guy up in Canada, no-one wants
a three-cylinder tissue box on bicycle tires.
Terry Cross
> In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Terry Cross
> declared:
>
> > On Oct 12, 1:44 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> >> But those parts that are inconvenient (pork), no longer
> >> apply.
>
> > None of it applies, of course, because Christianity is not Judaism.
>
> How can an infallible being change its mind?
>
> Or are you saying that God doesn't actually believe any of the
> morality he lays out and is willing to impose different restrictions
> on different people?
The Jews were wrong -- dead wrong. Killing each other and everyone
else within reach did not make the Jews holy. Jesus repudiated
Judaism utterly. The Father of Jesus is not the Jehovah of the Old
Testament.
TCross
thomas p.
There is no independent, historical evidence for the crucifixion of Christ,
the census at the time of the birth of Christ, the slaughter of the male
babies at the same time, the earthquake in Jerusalem at the time of Christ's
crucifixion - just to name a few "major biblical events" not substantiated.
Cory Albrecht
Gee, and here I thought the Marcionite heresy had been stamped out by
the 400s CE. Matthew 5:17.
William December Starr
Terry Cross <tcro...@hotmail.com> said:
Now there's an interesting statement.
-- wds
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Terry Cross
> declared:
>
> > On Oct 12, 1:44 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> >> But those parts that are inconvenient (pork), no longer
> >> apply.
>
> > None of it applies, of course, because Christianity is not Judaism.
>
> How can an infallible being change its mind?
>
> Or are you saying that God doesn't actually believe any of the
> morality he lays out and is willing to impose different restrictions
> on different people?
To be reasonably fair, God doesn't say that all of his commandments
constitute natural morality. Obedience /to/ his commandments
constitutes morality. If he tells you to stand on your head and tells
me to hop on one leg, that is what each of us should do. (If we're
believers, which I am not. Or, rather, if God exists, which he does
not. If you see what I mean.) No one should censure you for not
hopping, or me for standing upright.
If our father tells you to sweep the yard and tells me to lay the
table for supper, that's what we should be doing.
James A. Donald
> > substantial independent historical evidence of major
> > biblical events such as the crucifixion of Christ,
> > is such that religious rewrites of history cannot
> > have been too severe.
Christopher A. Lee
> What "substantial independent historical evidence of
> major biblical events such as the crucifixion of
> Christ" do you imagine there is?
Cornelius Tacitus.
> When cites are dragged out of the people who never
> bothered to look, the only mention of Jesus is an
> obvious Christian forgery in a volume written by a
> Jew.
You are an ignorant moron. No one ever quotes the
obvious forgery, except people as ignorant as yourself.
That Jesus the man existed is undeniable. What is
highly improbable is that Jesus the man was also Christ
the God. To deny the historical existence of Jesus the
man is ludicrous, and a sign of a fanatical belief in
some religion that views itself as at war with
Christianity, such as Gaia worship or communism.
Cornelius Tacitus, Annals 15:44
Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most
exquisite tortures on a class hated for their
abominations, called Christians by the populace.
Christus, from whom the name had its origin,
suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of
Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators,
Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous
superstition, thus checked for the moment, again
broke out not only in Judaea, the first source
of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things
hideous and shameful from every part of the
world find their centre and become popular.
Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who
pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an
immense multitude was convicted, not so much of
the crime of firing the city, as of hatred
against mankind.
Josephus, the antiquities, Book 20, Ch. 9, Par. 1
... the younger Ananus, who had been appointed
to the high priesthood, was rash in his temper
and unusually daring. He followed the school of
the Sadducees, who are indeed more heartless
than any of the other Jews, as I have already
explained, when they sit in judgment. Possessed
of such a character, Ananus thought that he had
a favourable opportunity because Festus was dead
and Albinas was still on the way. And so he
convened the judges of the Sanhedrin, and
brought before them the brother of Jesus, the
one called Christ, whose name was James, and
certain others, and accusing them of having
transgressed the law delivered them up to be
stoned. Those of the inhabits of the city who
were considered the most fair-minded and who
were strict in observance of the law were
offended at this. They therefore secretly sent
to King Agrippa urging him, for Ananus had not
even been correct in his first step, to order
him to desist from any further such actions.