BoLS Lounge : Wargames, Warhammer & Miniatures Forum
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 52
  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    6,454

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkLink View Post
    And the first jerkass internet atheist appears.
    Why do you say I'm a jerkass? I provided sources to back up my claim that if you follow Jesus he commands you to follow the rules of the old testament, which are extremely anti-woman, pro-slavery, pro-rape, genocidal (see Numbers 31 for all of those). If you can point out where the bible commands you to not do those things, I'll be happy to read them.

    My point of bringing this up is that the bible is used to justify taking away rights from people, yet only when it is convenient for those doing the taking. It is especially ludicrous in a country that has official seperation of church and state. If you are going to use a religious text to justify oppressing people (it was done to justify slavery, then segregation, now homophobia and mysogyny), then you can't just pick and chose the bits that appeal to you now - especially when the text itself commands you to obey everything in it. Or politicians could stop doing it as an appeal to the masses and just run the country the way they're meant to.

    Using religion to justify your government is dangerous as it one day might not be your religion in charge.


    Oh and this is me being a jerkass - I find it hilarious that your reaction to seeing me say (with direct quotes from Jesus) that according to the bible you have to follow all the parts of the bible, even the ones about murdering your children if they disrespect you (Mark 7:9) or women having to marry their rapists (Deuterononmy 22:28-29 'traditional marriage'), makes me an athiest.

  2. #12

    Default

    But Gott you forget Timothy 2:11-12
    @Wildey, I thought he supposedly "Ascended"


    Country of Residence England
    Political Leanings (Conservative, Liberal, Moderate) Irrelevant as doesn't translate well
    Age late 20's

    From the clips I've seen your sitting president looked like he actually paused to think about the question not just spouted what he'd been coached to say.

    Just seen this on tumblr
    I know I’ve told this story before, but I want you all to know. I mean really really know.

    In February of 2010, my younger sister (who was 14 at the time.) was in a really bad accident. She fractured her skull, broke her eye socket, and her brain started to swell rapidly. She was put into a medical coma to keep her brain safe from the swelling and after 36 hours she had to have brain surgery because she developed a blood clot. See that tube at the top of her head in the first picture? That’s going into her head..

    She spent nearly 6 weeks in the hospital. She had to relearn a lot of basic functions like walking, and changing her clothes. But she trooped through and made it back home. For almost 2 weeks while they kept her sedated, we had no idea what we were going to do, how damaged her brain was. It was the most terrifying time in my life watching my little sister struggle to stay alive.

    She was uninsured, but with the help of a great children’s hospital, and donations from all over the world (Hey! Thanks tumblr <3) we were able to keep her initial costs very low. But the graces of good people can only go so far. She needed physical therapy, and regular check ups for a long time after her initial release from the hospital.

    My grandparents gained custody of my little sister, and they tried to get her put on my grandfather’s (private) insurance plan. She was denied because of her accident. Because she had a pre-existing condition. My family is lower middle class, and could not even consider affording the out of pocket costs of the therapy my sister needed

    Within weeks of being denied, the Affordable Healthcare Act went into effect. I encouraged my grandmother to re-apply for my sister to be insured.

    The insurance company had to cover my sister. Because of Obamacare, my little sister was able to go to her therapy. She was able to take the medications she needed, and go to the doctor for regular check ups. She was able to get the care that she needed, and she is now 17 years old, and has been medically cleared to participate in all the things a kid is supposed to do. She drives. She goes to the beach with her friends, she is going to start college soon.

    I am terrified of how different things could be for my beautiful sister if she wasn’t covered under an insurance plan. I want Obamacare. I want other families standing terrified at the foot of a hospital bed to know the person they love is more than just a profit. More than a number. They are taken care of, and they have a President that is willing to really fight to make sure they can keep that coverage.
    And another one...
    There’s no denying that President Obama was awful in the debate last night, and Jim Leherer was quite possibly the worst moderator in debate history.

    Clearly Romney won, but he won at the expense of the truth. He lied and lied and lied, and completely got away with it, unchallenged by the president or the moderator.

    I’m sure this will fire up Republican partisans who aren’t thrilled about Romney, and it will infuriate Democratic partisans who wanted their guy to fight back, just once.

    But I don’t think it makes a huge difference in the polls, especially in swing states. It probably brings a few Republicans home for Romney, but it doesn’t pull weak Obama supporters away from the president, especially since the national political discussion seems to be not that Romney wiped the floor with Obama last night, but that Romney did it by lying, misrepresenting himself and his plans, bullying everyone in sight, and just generally being a dick.

    Like I said, I’m sure that fires up people who just hate Obama no matter what, but I don’t think it does much to pull away people who weren’t already looking for something — anything — to like about Romney.

    But Obama has got to show up at the next debate, ready to brawl. If he doesn’t do that, and Romney’s lies go unchallenged again, it will definitely hurt the president.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	tumblr_mbdpliHm1f1rsbrsao1_500.jpg 
Views:	30 
Size:	65.8 KB 
ID:	2982
    Last edited by Psychosplodge; 10-05-2012 at 03:51 AM.

    However the process of robo-insemination is far too complex for the human mind!
    A knee high fence, my one weakness

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkLink View Post
    And the first jerkass internet atheist appears. I can tell this thread is going to go real well .?
    I'm not an atheist (agnostic) and I'm certainly not anti-theist, that doesn't change the fact Gott is absolutely right. Christianity has evolved a lot since then, but if you are going to take a literal approach to the Bible over some things you can't object when people point out this means being pro-rape and anti-woman because it does. You either pick and mix what you want to live your life by, accept that Christianity has evolved since then, or you accept that God encourages you tp rape unbelievers and keep women out of authority.


    It is actually one reason why I'm more fond of the Catholic Church, they at least have made theological efforts to reconcile these issues (feminism, science etc) starting in the nineteenth century and have done a credible job of doing so. The US 'bat sh*t crazy nutjob' approach to religion really doesn't do much for me.

    Great Britain
    Conservative (in the real sense of the word, not the modern 'ignorant, bigoted, hypocritical, sexist lunatic cretin' sense of the word)
    25
    DPhil (Archaeology) BA (Art History)

    Incumbent presidents often seem to lose the first debate, it doesn't seem to make that much of a difference. Romney certainly won convincingly, in the long run I doubt it will have much impact unless Obama continues to perform poorly in future debates. Personally I found Romney rather lacking in substance, he did a good job of attacking Obama but not so well in articulating the practicalities of his own policies, but then perhaps that wasn't the forum for it.

    I liked McCain, I would have voted for Mccain had I been an American (up to the point his running mate who shall remain nameless blew the image of being a smart, sophisticated woman in her first non-scripted interview). I would not vote for Romney. Not sure I'd vote for Obama either mind you.
    Ask not the EldarGal a question, for she will give you three answers, all of which are puns and terrifying to know. Back off man, I'm a feminist. Ia! Ia! Gloppal Snode!

  4. #14

    Default

    Great Britain
    Fairly Central, but completly disillusioned with Liberal Democrats, Consrvatives or Republicans
    24
    MEng (Aeronautical Engineering), PhD (in progress, Bio-nano tribology)

    I would consider myself, if I had a vote firmly in the Obama camp. He just seems better.

    I've heard from a lot of comments online that Romney just spouted lies, but no one ever called him on any of them


    Also in the political world comes this;

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19842704

    If this is how Politics work in the US, i'm really glad i've got nothing to do with it
    Autarch, Shas'o, Chaos Lord and Decadant Lord of the Webway. And a Doctor!
    http://drlove42.blogspot.com/

  5. #15

    Default

    That's actually quite sick, daemonising someone to such an extent for not fitting their narrow world view of normal

    However the process of robo-insemination is far too complex for the human mind!
    A knee high fence, my one weakness

  6. #16

    Default

    @Psycho

    Keep in mind that things like the picture you posted are entirely propaganda. For example, CNN actually ran a debate clock and Obama actually spoke for 3 minutes longer than Romney. This actual fact was not questioned by Time when they reran the article:

    http://entertainment.time.com/2012/1...ts-the-agenda/

    Regarding the list of "Facts" - well, FactCheck.org (about the only group who actually does so anymore) actually gives a run down of most of the "facts" used and how they actually compare with reality. While good arguments can be made regarding some of the "facts" which are disputed, it does a fair job of actually addressing the numbers and figures which are thrown about.

    http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious...-declarations/

    Everything else in the pictorial cliff note is largely irrelevant. The second blurp is editorializing from someone who didn't bother to check the facts (as linked above) and is obviously solidly in Obama's back pocket. The first blurp - while an interesting sob story is irrelevant as well, in so much as they state that charity has taken care of their sister to a large extent already (my long time contention of what should happen) and they presume that what they say would hold true always (Romney believes in keeping in place a mechanism to insure pre-existing conditions). Not to mention, situations like that also are covered under existing state and Federal programs.

    The US 'bat sh*t crazy nutjob' approach to religion really doesn't do much for me.
    I think they prefer to be called Evengelicals. I am not religious, however I hold strongly the opinion that people should be allowed to believe what they want to up until the point that they burn buildings and stone people in the streets. That said, old religions are a complicated bit.

    With a proper religion (hard to specify - but generally one which has their own network of churches, a seminary of sorts to train up pastors and such and a governing body to set dogma and practices) they deal with the issues between the OT and NT in a fairly clear and simple manner. Catholics can trace their position back to Thomas Aquinas where he sets out a difference between moral law (the 10 commandments) and everything else. They follow that the moral law is still in place, but that Christ fulfilled the ceremonial aspects of the law (all the stuff about sacrifices and what not). The various civil aspects only applied within the OT kingdom of Israel (things like how much a slave should be bought for for example). Other proper churches have similar positions, but they are set forth clearly in their dogmatic teachings (Lutherans have Luther's Catechism for example, Anglicans have the 39 Articles).

    Issues arise though when you have the charismatic evangelists who have no religious affiliation and little actual education in the matter (most are unable to read the original sources as well - which means that many of the subtle differences in words like law and love are lost on them).

    The pro-rape is largely a mess as it is attempting to look at bronze age life through the lens of modern society. What we see as rape now is not too far and away from date night back then. It is a harsh view - but they were harsh times when an entire village could be wiped out without much more than a virus or a bad harvest. Girls were a commodity to be bought and sold (not uncommon at all) and slavery existed among all sexes. The tradition continued to some extent into recent times, and even arranged marriages are seen as rape by some strict feminists. However, without JDate - it wasn't easy for a maid to find a husband and that was key to the survival of the small tribes of the period.

    The rest of the pro-genocide, anti-woman bits are similar as well. When they used to lay siege to cities - that is the sort of things which were done (killing the men and boys and taking the women). While women are forbade from being in leadership roles within the church as well as a number of other bits and bobs throughout the OT and NT - much of that falls under ceremonial laws by dogmatic reasoning (which is addressed above).

    One often referenced segment from the NT is found in Ephesians 5 - the old "Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." However, that alone is out of context with the whole of what is being addressed - which is a "Christian Marriage". It starts out "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." That is, husbands should submit to their wives and wives to their husbands. Some might read that as compromise - generally a good thing (as someone who has been married nearly 25 years...there is a lot of submitting going on). It follows up with "In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body." That sounds a lot to me like old school chivalry and gentlemanly behavior. While not too popular amongst some, it hardly is an anti-woman stance and many woman would be happy to have as much.

    Granted, when you are dealing with charismatics - what I tend to refer to as the "crazy christians" you never know for sure what you are going to get. They tend to cherry pick bits and pieces from the Bible as much as those who detract from it.

    However, going back to the original spark in the fire pit - the quote is actually "fulfill" not "fruition". This is an important aspect of the words which are accredited to Christ and the source of the understanding of what was going on. The Greek word used ends up being in reference to filling (as to fill an order) and the translated word fulfill was chosen as to fulfill a contract. The contract which was being fulfilled was that of the OT covenant (which would cover the OT ceremonial and civil laws by most real church understandings). That is to say - the terms of the agreement are complete. It would not be much different from you taking out a loan and me paying the balance for you. The loan is fulfilled and you are in the clear. You no longer need to sacrifice a goat once a year.

    Though that is a bit of a diversion to the debate I guess...

  7. #17
    Chapter-Master
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Isle of Man
    Posts
    12,046

    Default

    Country of Residence: Isle of Man
    Political Leanings: Other
    Age: 27
    Education: Ancient History Degree

    Whatever happened in the debate, it doesn't alter the fact that Romney continually lies, slanders, and looks down on other people. His 47% comment, which he has finally said was wrong, he also described as 'inelegantly stated' i.e. it is true, but I am sorry you heard me say it. Tax dodging, I have draft dodging too, seriously anti-women, anti equality in general, I think it is dreadful that anyone could consider voting for him.
    Twelve monkeys, eleven hats. One monkey is sad.

  8. #18

    Default

    The picture is clearly just a joke, the first line of text tells you that, plus the fact checking at the bottom lol.

    With regards Religion, I think the message of Dogma is important, It's religion, not faith that's an issue.

    However the process of robo-insemination is far too complex for the human mind!
    A knee high fence, my one weakness

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Psychosplodge View Post
    That's actually quite sick, daemonising someone to such an extent for not fitting their narrow world view of normal
    Is it?

    http://articles.philly.com/2012-10-0...ll-high-school

    The WoW is bit is stupid. However, the article above is sick. If a political campaign thinks it might have a go at trying to compare a candidate to the orc they play online...whatever. However, when a teacher in a school attacks and mocks a student for wearing a shirt which supports a political candidate they are against - that is sick...a level of sickness which isn't uncommon.

    http://www.salisburypost.com/News/05...-suspended-qcd

    However, as opposed to candidates who should have a long understanding of political attacks:


  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Psychosplodge View Post
    The picture is clearly just a joke, the first line of text tells you that, plus the fact checking at the bottom lol.[/I]
    One of the problems though is that jokes and facts are often times confused by today's youthful voters...

    A surprisingly large chunk of the population actually turn to the Daily Show for news and opinion reporting (roughly 200,000 in the 18-35 demographic). Not for entertainment - news and editorial opinion. While I get a kick out of the show and watch it a few times a week - I also understand what it is, and Stewart has repeatedly stated that he is a comedy show...not a news show (generally following gross misstatements of facts). Unfortunately, there is no requirement to check sources be those who view things online before they go to the voting booth - so I wouldn't be surprised if a portion of the people who see the picture take it as facts and not otherwise.

 

 
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •