Posts: Wyantry | Ugly Hedgehog

Racmanaz wrote:

Exactly what does what I have been taking about have anything to any particular religion?

You have been busily quoting from a text known to have been written and compiled by male religious orders . . . .

May 6, 2024 21:54:52 #

Too Little, Too Late

Texcaster wrote:

... not even a game try MAGA. Just more MAGA derangement faux equivalencies.

You are belaboring under a false impression. AGAIN.

I actually would like to see BOTH Biden and Trump sharing a cell in a SuperMax facility . . . .

May 6, 2024 21:51:55 #

Racmanaz wrote:

Combined with your stupid post. If you’re coming here responding to stupid post guess who is stupid.

Maybe BOTH (or ALL) who persist in Christian Orthodoxy . . . And support various Ayatollah-types.

Check out Panorama section of our forum.

May 6, 2024 20:49:04 #

Too Little, Too Late

Texcaster wrote:

"false equivalencies" go hand in hand with the TDS's rampant 'cognitive dissonance troops'.

Derangement syndromes go back a looong ways!

At least:
— Kennedy/Johnson (KJDS)
— Nixon (NDS)
— Ford (FDS)
— Carter (CDS)
— Reagan (RDS)
— Bush I (B1DS)
— Clinton (CDS)
— Bush II (B2DS)
— Obama (ODS)
— Trump (TDS)
— and now Biden (BDS).

They were/are ALL deranged in one form or another.

And the future does not look good either!

BDS / TDS. sheeeit, they are BOTH losers!

May 6, 2024 15:03:13 #

Frank T wrote:

A fetus or zygote is not a person. br That is a s... (show quote)

A nice answer. Rational. Well presented. Non-judgmental. Not dependent on religious orthodoxy.

So what does it really mean to be a person? Is consciousness a determining factor? What about the reaction to external stimuli (e.g. sound, movement, pain)?

At what point does a collection-of-cells become a “person”? And who decides, anyway?

Both Religiously and Scientifically (biologically) many consider “Life” begins when gametes combine and DNA strands combine. Or Conception. Prior to that it is just egg and sperm.

For millenia, in jewish orthodoxy and others, life has been considered as commencing at birth.
From the Talmudic teachings:

”Let us first establish the time that a fetus legally acquires the status equal to an adult human being. The Talmud states in part that if the ‘greater part was already born, one may not touch it, for one may not set aside one person’s life for that of another.’
Thus the act of birth changes the status of the fetus from a nonperson to a person (nefesh).
K*****g the newborn after this point is infanticide.”

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-beginning-of-life-in-judaism/
~~~~~~~~~~

Or “Life” begins when the fetus can survive on its own. Or when the mother detects movement (“quickening”).

A listing of some faiths and their position on a******n is:

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/01/16/religious-groups-official-positions-on-a******n/
~~~~~~~~~~

It seems that orthodoxy enforced upon women by a (largely) group of judgmental male-Ayatollahs is wrong.
It should be the personal decision of the woman.
And ALWAYS allowable in cases of incest, rape or to provide for the health of the mother.

May 6, 2024 13:47:22 #

Racmanaz wrote:

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

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 t***h 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-t***h-fetus-a******n/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), k*****g a s***e, 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 wh**ever 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 c***ted 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 a******n 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/

May 6, 2024 12:42:58 #

jaymatt wrote:

My opinion about a******n has nothing to do with r... (show quote)

A bit of introspection should reveal a******n is indeed a personal decision.

And should not be dictated by a bunch of mostly aged Ayatollahs in Congress and state legislatures.

Check out Film Photography section of our forum.

May 6, 2024 10:23:12 #

Racmanaz wrote:

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.

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 r****t 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/#

May 6, 2024 09:48:38 #

Why aren't YOU in Church?

Racmanaz wrote:

Such an arrogant nonsensical statements from you, ... (show quote)

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.

May 5, 2024 22:36:01 #

Why aren't YOU in Church?

Vladimir200 wrote:

You are confused and have it reversed. Not being ... (show quote)

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 ?

May 5, 2024 21:57:33 #

Racmanaz wrote:

Your comment doesn’t even make any sense at all. And you call yourself a teacher? You’re a joke not a teacher. You do realize that Judaism rejects Christ as the Messiah, right?

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 a******n 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.”

SOURCE: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/a******n-in-jewish-thought/
~~~~~~~~~~~

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

”We cannot support absolute bans on a******n—at any time point in a pregnancy—that would not allow access to a******n in lifesaving situations. Similarly, we cannot support legislation that permits “a******n on demand”—at any time point in a pregnancy—and does not confine a******n 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.

A******n 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 a******n 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 a******n 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 a******n and the beginning-of-life at:
https://www.google.com/search?q=jewish+law+on+conception+and+a******n&rlz=1C9BKJA_enUS832US833&oq=

Check out The Dynamics of Photographic Lighting section of our forum.

May 5, 2024 21:11:04 #

Too Little, Too Late

DaveO wrote:

Just think, despite all the faults this POS has, he has no interest in installing himself as pres, like the other pos, if he loses the e******n.

GIVEN that both of them are arrogant A-holes, we cannot be SURE the current Pres. will not attempt to behave like his predecessor.

Comments by Liz Peek, as quoted by Dennis (Buddy).

”The president is desperate to please both sides but is ultimately offending everyone.

“At a recent protest at the University of Alabama, both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel supporters chanted “F*** Joe Biden,” in a rare moment of unity.

“The president has brought this on himself, displaying no moral certitude but instead caving to raw political necessity. In his address, he finally spoke out against violent protests, and criticized the antisemitism that has marked the pro-Palestinian demonstrations. But he also felt compelled to couple that admonishment with equally strident condemnation of “islamophobia, or discrimination against Arab-Americans or Palestinian-Americans.” Where has that been a problem?

“Biden is scared to death that backing Israel is alienating the Arab-American and young v**ers he will need in November, and he cannot do without the massive support he and other Democrats receive from Jews. Hence, the blatant pandering and equivocation.

“With one hand, he sends weapons to Israel’s army, locked in a life-or-death battle with terror group Hamas; with the other he threatens sanctions against a unit of the IDF, based on charges of human rights violations in the West Bank that occurred prior to 2022.”

What a poor example of “leadership”.

May 5, 2024 21:01:23 #

Could A Speech End The EU?

So when exactly are you converting to Islam as a “faith”?

Because, as is abundantly obvious, that is what current immigration policies are promoting.

May 1, 2024 17:19:08 #

The Left Taking Over

TimmyKnowles wrote:

He's aligned with Natasha and Boris. He moved to Idaho because there's a Moscow there!

Comments indicating you might be a definite candidate for a “Hush-A-Bomb”.

“Hush little baby,
Don’t you cry,
You’ll learn something,
Bye and bye . . . .”

Apr 25, 2024 21:43:49 #

Trump creates a new g****r.

travelwp wrote:

Trump creates a new g****r.

It will be released in November. The name is NON BIDENARY.

NON BIDENARY ! We can HOPE.

That IS good!

Thanx!