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 9 ... 3062 next>>
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
May 6, 2024 10:21:34   #
Triple G wrote:
Then apply criminal law to all abortions as murder tp all women and doctors as defendants plus the men involved as accessories. Without that, your argument doesn't fly.


Why would you include men unless the men supported the abortion? If the man does not support the abortion, how could it be included? I’m actually not in favor of charging women for the murder just the Doctor Who performed the abortion. But again, like I’ve said before, I’ll leave it to the voters of each state, whether I like the law or not.
Go to
May 6, 2024 10:18:46   #
Frank T wrote:
Why is it that whenever something good happens, the believers thank god. But, whenever something horrendous happens, no mention of the invisible man is made.
I had a believer ask me while looking at a sunset, how this could happen without god.
My answer was simple, "Science". She was not amused.
I asked her why her god would kill more than 5,000 people in Thailand with a Tsunami and she said that wasn''t god.
Can you at least see the inconsistencies?
So my take is that it is a choice:
1. God doesn't exist.
2. God does exist but he is not all good.
3. God does exist but he is evil.
I'm going with number 1.
Why is it that whenever something good happens, th... (show quote)


lol really? You actually believe science made the sunset? Lol I don’t think anybody anybody would be amused by that stupid answer either.
Go to
May 6, 2024 10:14:29   #
Frank T wrote:
Congratulations. That is the dumbest post on this site, ever.
Just when I think you can't get any more dumb, you rise to the occasion and prove me wrong.


The person who just responded to my comment is the dumb one. Murder is murder no matter whether the person is in the womb or not
Go to
May 6, 2024 10:04:15   #
pendennis wrote:
It's incumbent on the person who asserts the existence of a deity, to prove that existence. Yes, there are circumstances where a negative can be proven, but that's a different realm of philosophy altogether.


No it is not incumbent on anyone that inserts his belief in a God. Believe and faith do not demand evidence. However, those who Make a definitive claim that there is no God must provide evidence of such claim.
Go to
May 6, 2024 09:59:03   #
Wyantry wrote:
NO. VERIFIABLE. EVIDENCE.

Certainly not “scientific” evidence!

There is certainly no credible ”. . . scientific evidence that there could be a supernatural force or being that has created life on Earth and created the universe.”

No “proof” of ANY scientific manner.

“Belief” is not evidence.
“Belief” is not proof.
“Faith” is not objective verification of observable reality.


Wrong, there is numerous scientific evidence that there could be an intelligent agent that created life on earth and the entire universe. Life begets life and non-life begets non-life. Absolutely NO such scientific evidence to explain abiogenesis had occurred yet that is exactly what you believe right? You believe that life originated from some primordial soup yet there is not a single iota of observable scientific evidence to back that hypothesis. We could go on and on about other aspects of this issue, like the cosmological constant, irritable complexity and other issues that demands a creator or an intelligent agent. But that’s just a waste of time in futile because you’ve already made up your mind.
Go to
May 6, 2024 09:51:29   #
jaymatt wrote:
My opinion about abortion has nothing to do with religion. It's rather simple: It is a personal decision and no one else's business. There should be no laws. If someone wants one, have it. If that someone doesn't want one, don't have it. Governmental units, churches, or anyone else have no business inflicting their abortion beliefs on anyone else. I would never let my students write essays or other literary pieces on abortion because no one is ever going change anyone else's mind on the subject.

Argue on, folks.
My opinion about abortion has nothing to do with r... (show quote)


If someone wants to murder someone just because he/she wanted to, then there should be no laws infringing on that right as well, right?
Go to
May 6, 2024 09:48:51   #
steve03 wrote:
Jesus spoke to large crowds like Sermon on the Mount, and the multitudes greeted him when he entered Jerusalem. He was seen by large numbers of the populous at the time. He entered the Temple and expelled the money changers. Pictures of European Christ shows him to be tall blond and blue eyes. You would think he would stand out in Jerusalem from the other dark skin brown people? But no, the Hebrew authorities had to pay Judas to betray Christ. It does not make sense to think we have no idea what Jesus looked like. He was a normal looking middle eastern man of his time.
Jesus spoke to large crowds like Sermon on the Mou... (show quote)


Again, Nobody alive knows what Jesus looked like, I don't pretend I do as you seem to think you know. Only a fool would try to describe the physical features of Jesus. Jesus may have been white skinned, brown skinned or light or dark black skinned. He may have had blue eyes, brown eyes, green eyes. He may have been 6 ft tall, 5 foot tall or anywhere between. NONODY knows, well YOU seem to think you know.
Go to
May 6, 2024 02:11:32   #
ArtzDarkroom wrote:
lol... oh Rac, is that what you took from that?


That was the bulk of your stupid response. Also, who’s trying to force God on you and who is trying to make you live by anyone’s religion?

“Keep your gods, but do not make me live by your religion or anybody else's.”
Go to
May 6, 2024 00:34:59   #
ArtzDarkroom wrote:
What do you call a person that doesn't care if there is/are god(s)?

Quoting Bible versus is like quoting dialog from popular Cinema/Comic book heroes, and to me perhaps just as important, but it doesn't influence how I live. It is entertainment, cultural debris, historic anachronism in today's world. Keep your gods, but do not make me live by your religion or anybody else's.


What is wrong with you? Who is quoting the Bible??
Go to
May 5, 2024 22:42:20   #
Wyantry wrote:
Some persons have a psychological need to believe in unsubstantiated god or gods.
Others do not.


On one side are the religious ‘believers’ who adhere to the propaganda promoted by various churches and faiths. Presuppositions based on “documentation” written by men. And “faith”.
No verifiable evidence!

On the other side are the religious ‘deniers’ who reiterate there is no proof of the existence of any unsubstantial all-powerful, directive intelligence.
No verifiable evidence!

The only rational position seems to be Agnosticism “I am not SURE” — questioning all “evidence” due to:
No verifiable evidence!

How can any person actually KNOW in this lifetime ?
b Some persons have a psychological need to belie... (show quote)


Such an arrogant nonsensical statements from you, your response is full errors in this representations. 80%+ of the world population, including 51% of scientists believe in some sort of deity, whether it’s a God or some other physical entity. And you’re wrong about science, there is plenty of scientific evidence that there could be a supernatural force or being that has created life on Earth and created the universe. It’s not proof, but it does lead to some form of supernatural intelligence outside of our physical reality. We could go on and on and neither one of us will convince one another.
Go to
May 5, 2024 22:00:07   #
Wyantry wrote:
Facts may not penetrate to your conscious mind, but there is Old Testament and Talmud evidence (predating the bible) concerning Jewish beliefs about the ‘beginning-of-life’.

”Jewish law does not share the belief common among abortion opponents that life begins at conception, nor does it legally consider the fetus to be a full person deserving of protections equal those accorded to human beings. In Jewish law, a fetus attains the status of a full person only at birth. Sources in the Talmud indicate that prior to 40 days of gestation, the fetus has an even more limited legal status, with one Talmudic authority (Yevamot 69b) asserting that prior to 40 days the fetus is “mere water.” Elsewhere, the Talmud indicates that the ancient rabbis regarded a fetus as part of its mother throughout the pregnancy, dependent fully on her for its life — a view that echoes the position that women should be free to make decisions concerning their own bodies.”


From The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (Orthodox Union) https://aish.com/abortion-in-jewish-law/ :

We cannot support absolute bans on abortion—at any time point in a pregnancy—that would not allow access to abortion in lifesaving situations. Similarly, we cannot support legislation that permits “abortion on demand”—at any time point in a pregnancy—and does not confine abortion to situations in which medical (including mental health) professionals affirm that carrying the pregnancy to term poses real risk to the life of the mother.

“As people of faith, we see life as a precious gift granted to us and maintained within us by God. Jewish law places paramount value on choosing life and mandates – not as a right but as a responsibility – safeguarding our own lives and the lives of others by behaving in a healthy and secure manner, doing everything in our power to save lives, and refraining from endangering others. This concern for even potential life extends to the unborn fetus and to the terminally ill.

Abortion on demand – the “right to choose” (as well as the “right to die”) – are thus completely at odds with our religious and halachic values. Legislation and court rulings that enshrine such rights concern us deeply on a societal level.

Yet that same mandate to preserve life requires us to be concerned for the life of the mother. Jewish law prioritizes the life of the pregnant mother over the life of the fetus such that where the pregnancy critically endangers the physical health or mental health of the mother, an abortion may be authorized, if not mandated, by Halacha (Jewish law) and should be available to all women irrespective of their economic status.
Legislation and court rulings-federally or in any state-that absolutely ban abortion without regard for the health of the mother would literally limit our ability to live our lives in accordance with our responsibility to preserve life.”
(Emphasis added)
~~~~~~~~~~~

See also references to Judaic religious thoughts on abortion and the beginning-of-life at:
https://www.google.com/search?q=jewish+law+on+conception+and+abortion&rlz=1C9BKJA_enUS832US833&oq=
b Facts may not penetrate to your conscious mind,... (show quote)


You are delusional as usual. None of what you posted was even part of my argument. You sure have this habit of wasting your time on long drawn out responses that have nothing to do with my arguments
Go to
May 5, 2024 21:58:15   #
Harvey wrote:
Not a chance of that happening for me I still go to meetings.


Well that’s great, wish you well. I’m sure it’s a long and difficult task.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 3062 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.