Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: Racmanaz
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 3062 next>>
May 6, 2024 19:25:38   #
Harvey wrote:
Only fools argue religion and politics


Isn’t that exactly what you were doing?
Go to
May 6, 2024 19:25:02   #
Harvey wrote:
Your quoting from the commandants is no more than quoting common scenes- which is all those commandants are. Which Mr. Moses cherry picked and shortened from THE BOOK OF LIFE/DEATH I sure hope we never see our states under Church control as history sure proves how that worked.


So you think we should eliminate the laws of you shall not murder and you shall not steal?
Go to
May 6, 2024 19:23:44   #
pendennis wrote:
I didn't state that you had to prove your faith in "God". You have to prove the existence of a God. There's a huge chasm between faith-based belief and physical existence, and you have failed to prove a physical existence.

Believe what you want. Just don't attempt to foist your unproven claims on others who know better and rely on proven science.


No, I do not have to prove the existence of God because I’m not making the claim that God exist. I am making a faith base Declaration of my belief. Yes, I do believe there is a God but no, I do not know for sure that he exist. So no proof Is required of me That God exists
Go to
May 6, 2024 16:18:52   #
Kraken wrote:
None of us do.


You mean, none of you atheist do.
Go to
May 6, 2024 16:17:53   #
Frank T wrote:
Finally, you're right. You don't have to prove anything about your faith-based fantasies.
However, you have no right to have your religion regulate my actions.
There's a separation between church and state for a reason.


You stay finally them right? I’ve always been right on that issue. Nobody has to prove their faith or belief in anything. No such thing as the separation of church and state. My belief also says thou shall not steel and thou Shelton not murder should be removed those laws as well?
Go to
May 6, 2024 16:16:37   #
jcboy3 wrote:
Faulty logic. An unborn child is not a person because a person is born.


If the so-called fetus is not a person or alive, then why are you pro abortionist so offended by pictures of aborted fetuses?
Go to
May 6, 2024 16:09:06   #
jcboy3 wrote:
Faulty logic. An unborn child is not a person because a person is born.


I agree, you have faulty logic. The fact is, fetus means unborn offspring which means child.
Go to
May 6, 2024 16:06:39   #
jcboy3 wrote:
I guarantee, it didn’t hurt me.


That’s because you have no soul.
Go to
May 6, 2024 15:57:26   #
pendennis wrote:
To satisfy the philosophical and scientific arguments, it's incumbent on the claimant to prove his/her assertion. Claiming there is "a God (or other deity)" requires physical proof of its existence. You may well be satisfied with your article of faith, but no one else is, unless you can physically prove your point.

There is scientific evidence of The Big Bang. In fact the term "Big Bang Theory" is no longer used because the creation of the universe is no longer speculative. It's provable by physical observation; something the creation theory can't be.
To satisfy the philosophical and scientific argum... (show quote)


Wrong, I don’t have to prove a faith based belief in God.
Go to
May 6, 2024 15:54:57   #
Wyantry wrote:
According to the bible, a person is not “alive” until breath is drawn.

”It can be said with absolute certainty that ancient scripture does not consider a zygote or a fetus even to be alive, because it has not yet drawn breath.

There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that a fetus is considered to be anything other than living tissue and, according to scripture, it does not become a living being until after it has taken a breath. Among other biblical verses supporting this truth are these:

Genesis 2:7 — God ‘breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being’.
Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a living being until after taking his first breath.

Job 33:4 — God formed man, then: ‘The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.

Ezekiel 37:5&6 — ‘Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live...’.
— C. A. Farrington (Emphasis added)

https://www.news-press.com/story/opinion/contributors/2015/10/16/bibles-truth-fetus-abortion/74001632/#
~~~~~~~~~~~

Biblical references to the beginnings of life.

”For a more direct statement on when life begins, we should look to the formation of Adam in Genesis 2—a text that has been at the heart of both Jewish and Christian understandings of humanity and the nature of human life for millennia. The author refers explicitly to the beginning of Adam’s life in verse 7:
‘Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.’
When does Adam become a living being? When God breathes the breath of life into his nostrils. On this basis, many strands of Judaism have taught for centuries that life begins at first breath.

“The Bible has more to say about the status of the entity growing in a mother’s womb.
Exodus 21: No death penalty for causing a miscarriage?

“If there’s one law about life we find consistently in the Old Testament, it is that the punishment for taking a life is death. “Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person’s blood be shed” (Genesis 9:6).
God’s law in Exodus expands this principle, assigning the death penalty for premeditated murder, striking a person mortally (second degree murder), killing a slave, kidnapping, striking a parent, or even cursing one’s parents (see Exodus 21:12-21).
However, the penalty for causing a miscarriage is significantly less severe:
‘When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.’ (Exodus 21:22-25)
A person who strikes a pregnant woman—causing her to miscarry—is not put to death. Instead, they are fined whatever amount ‘the woman’s husband demands’ (can you say: “patriarchy”) and only punished further ‘if any harm follows.’
This comes directly after the death penalty is assigned to anyone who takes a life.
It would seem, therefore, that God’s law in the Old Testament recognizes a difference between human life outside the womb (once first breath has been drawn) and the potential life status of a developing fetus.

Terminating pregnancies that result from adultery

“This final example is (admittedly) the most bizarre of the bunch.
Numbers 5:11-31 prescribes a procedure for dealing with an unfaithful wife which—in order to be fully grasped—should be read in its entirety.
Essentially, if a man suspects that his wife became pregnant through adultery, he is to bring her before a priest, along with a grain offering. The priest brings the woman before God and forces her to drink a concoction made of holy water and some dust from the tabernacle floor. Before she drinks, however, the priest messes up the woman’s hair, puts the offering in her hands, and makes her swear before God that she has not been unfaithful.
After that, the grain offering is offered and the woman drinks the bitter water. If she has been faithful, nothing happens.
But if she cheated on her husband, her uterus will drop, and the pregnancy will be lost.

“I have never heard a pro-life Christian cite this passage—and for good reason. Aside from the downright zany nature of the ritual, it would seem (based on Numbers 5) that it is (at the very least) lawful to terminate a pregnancy that results from adultery.

One could argue that the same standard should apply to pregnancies resulting from rape or incest—exceptions that are not found in some state abortion bans, and which often place undue burdens on rape victims to prove they’ve been raped.
— Rev. Dr. Dan Brockway (Emphasis added)

https://christiancitizen.us/when-does-life-begin-reckoning-with-surprising-answers-in-scripture/
b According to the bible, a person is not “alive”... (show quote)


Not very intelligent to Bear false witness of scriptures you know nothing about. I won’t go every point but maybe one or two. When it comes to Adam God created Adam as a human adult not a fetus not a baby not in the womb. He created The adult body, and then breathe the breath of life into him.
The other Misrepresentation you posted was this. You used a different interpretation.

Exodus 21:22-25 says, “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

𝐏𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐦 𝟏𝟑𝟗:𝟏𝟑-𝟏𝟔
For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.

𝐋𝐮𝐤𝐞 𝟏:𝟑𝟗-𝟒𝟓
In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would beg a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.”

𝐉𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐚𝐡 𝟏:𝟒-𝟓
Now the word of the LORD came to me, saying, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
Go to
May 6, 2024 14:48:01   #
jaymatt wrote:
But it is not the same. I, along with lots of others, do not consider a fetus as a person until it becomes viable to live outside the womb. I understand that you disagree, and that is exactly why I disallowed the subject in my writing classes.

We will just have to agree to respectfully disagree.


I like many others do believe that the unborn is a person. If that unborn is not a person then why can somebody be charged with double murder if they kill a pregnant woman?
Go to
May 6, 2024 12:00:39   #
Frank T wrote:
No dipshit. I believe science explains sunset.
Mgys


lol That’s not what you said Dipshit. Besides, I don’t need science to explain the sunset.
Go to
May 6, 2024 11:59:37   #
jaymatt wrote:
Well, that is a different question, isn't it?


Nope, It’s about somebody choosing to murder. Whether the person is in the womb or out of the womb.
Go to
May 6, 2024 11:59:04   #
Wyantry wrote:
The generalized appearance of the external physical characteristics of the population of the time of Jesus, in that area, would have been medium brown-skinned, relatively short, dark-haired, dark-eyed, with (likely) a beard. Wearing clothing common for the period: a tunic, a cloak of coarse cloth, and sandals.

”We DO know Jesus was a jew. He was born of a Jewish mother, in Galilee, a Jewish part of the world. All of his friends, associates, colleagues, disciples, all of them were Jews. He regularly worshipped in Jewish communal worship, what we call synagogues.”

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/bornliveddied.html
~~~~~~~~~~~


What did Jesus look like?

We do not have much written evidence for what Jesus physically looked like. None of the writings that make up the collection now known as the New Testament describe Jesus’s facial or bodily features. This lack of detail is not surprising given what we know of how people in the first centuries of the ancient Mediterranean described themselves. When required to identify themselves on official documents like contracts, people referred to visible scars as a means of differentiating themselves from others, rather than a physical feature like eye color, height, or hair (“Demetrios son of Apollinarus, with a scar on his left cheek,” for instance, rather than “Demetrios with the thick eyebrows” or “Demetrios with the dark brown eyes”).

People were most commonly described in terms of their relationships to other people and places, not as individuals. The relationship of a son to his father, for instance, was much more significant than what that son might have looked like. The same is true about the place the son was from. “Jesus son of Joseph” and “Jesus of Nazareth” are therefore common descriptors for Jesus.

Despite the lack of physical descriptions of Jesus, we can make several essential, foundational statements about his physical appearance. Most importantly, Jesus had brown skin. Jesus was a Jewish man from the region of Galilee in the first century CE. As a Jewish man from first-century Galilee, he would have had dark skin, dark hair, dark eyes, and, likely, a shortish beard.

Jesus’s brown skin should not come as a surprise. It should be a commonly recognized fact. The white Jesus looking calmly, through blue eyes, towards the viewer, arms outstretched in blessing, has and continues to cause untold human damage. That Jesus has serious racist and anti-Semitic consequences.

Writings about Jesus continue to be called upon as sources of authority in the most important and controversial debates of our time. Many people understand Jesus in relationship to God. If humanity is made in God’s image, what does it mean that Jesus is continually imaged – completely incorrectly – as white? What does it mean that power and authority are continually imaged – completely incorrectly – as white? Jesus’s teachings about oppression, about the rights of the marginalized, about love and justice, can never be realized, or understood at all, when Jesus is white. White Jesus needs to exit, stage right.

Understanding what Jesus looked like enables us to see that representations of Jesus – representations dating as far back as the fourth and fifth centuries CE – are not concerned with historical accuracy. These representations create and communicate ideas about Jesus that have more to do with their own time and place, not Jesus’s. They say much more about the people who made them and their reasons for making them.


What about his clothing?

The first-century CE Jewish man, Jesus of Nazareth, likely had a spare wardrobe: a tunic reaching down to about his knees or just below, a large rectangular cloak worn over the tunic, wrapped loosely around the body, a belt, and leather sandals. Jesus’s students would have dressed similarly, as Jesus instructs them to spread his teaching with minimal provisions: “He charged them to take nothing for the road except a staff only; no bread, no leather pouch, no money in their belts, but to wear sandals and not to put on two tunics” (Mark 6:8-9). While the cloak is not mentioned here, it should be assumed. To be without a cloak was essentially to be naked, and as it usually doubled as a blanket, it would also mean you would be very cold at night.

As a man who honoured the God of Israel, Jesus’s cloak would have had a hem decorated with distinctive edges, the fringes or tzitzit that marked the corners of a Jewish man’s outer garment, or tallit.”


https://earlychristiantexts.com/what-did-jesus-look-like/#
b The generalized appearance of the external phys... (show quote)


Again, all that is irrelevant to the fact that NOBODY alive knows what Jesus look like. I don’t care about generalizations that doesn’t mean he fell into that category. Your argument is just foolishness.
Go to
May 6, 2024 10:53:08   #
Frank T wrote:
A fetus or zygote is not a person.
That is a starting point. If this collection of cells has no developed brain and is merely a collection of cells, how can it be a person?
If this collection of cells cannot survive outside the body of its host organism, it is not a person.
Just so you understand, I am not pro-abortion or anti-abortion. My position is simply, it's none of my business, and it isn't yours either.
Women should be able to control their own bodies. It is the most basic level of freedom.
A fetus or zygote is not a person. br That is a s... (show quote)


Wrong, The word fetus in Latin means unborn offspring, and offspring means child so therefore the fetus as you call, is an unborn child which is a person. A fetus and zygote it’s just terms to describe the development of the unborn child. Just as an infant a toddler, a juvenile adult and a senior citizen are all terms to describe the development of the bourne human being. They are all human and all a person.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 3062 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.