If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
The translation I read also used the term "miscarriage" and sounded like the parts about extra injuries and eyes for eyes were about further injury to the mother, not the foetus.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
The translation I read also used the term "miscarriage" and sounded like the parts about extra injuries and eyes for eyes were about further injury to the mother, not the foetus.
The Church Fathers writing say otherwise.The Didache, which predates the Gospels, does as well.
It's strange how, despite being marginalized and discriminated against sometimes for centuries, African Americans, Japanese American, Jewish Americans, Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Latino Americans, Chinese Americans, etc.... dont resort to killing people and blaming the victims for their crimes.
I wonder what the difference is between the groups i've mentioned and the group in the article above is. /s
The Church Fathers writing say otherwise.The Didache, which predates the Gospels, does as well.
Can you unpack this?
What are the Church Fathers saying. The word in the OT isn't "miscarriage"? You can somehow get the abortion meaning from the use of the word "miscarriage"?
I'm kinda picky about my Bible translations. Unless given a reason not to, I go with the NASB, especially for the OT.
Too bad Big Mac isn't around anymore. I'd be willing to go with his call.
What are the Church Fathers saying. The word in the OT isn't "miscarriage"? You can somehow get the abortion meaning from the use of the word "miscarriage"?
I'm kinda picky about my Bible translations. Unless given a reason not to, I go with the NASB, especially for the OT.
Too bad Big Mac isn't around anymore. I'd be willing to go with his call.
The RSV CE also uses miscarriage. The bottom line was if a woman got injured and the baby died, you died. The Church Fathers in their writings equated that with abortion. To think otherwise is like saying as long as you beat a women to the point she loses her baby, but not leave a mark on her, it was ok.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like that's exactly what it's saying.
A miscarriage is a dead baby.
If it's only a miscarriage, the father gets paid.
If more harm occurs it's an eye for an eye. More harm in this context being "more than a dead baby". Can't harm the baby any more than dead, so it's talking about the mother.
The "comes out early" translation makes it ambiguous, since that could be a premature birth, and more harm could be inflicted on the baby, but that's not matching up with the NASB or the RSV.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like that's exactly what it's saying.
A miscarriage is a dead baby.
If it's only a miscarriage, the father gets paid.
If more harm occurs it's an eye for an eye. More harm in this context being "more than a dead baby". Can't harm the baby any more than dead, so it's talking about the mother.
The "comes out early" translation makes it ambiguous, since that could be a premature birth, and more harm could be inflicted on the baby, but that's not matching up with the NASB or the RSV.
כב וְכִי-יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים, וְנָגְפוּ אִשָּׁה הָרָה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ, וְלֹא יִהְיֶה, אָסוֹן--עָנוֹשׁ יֵעָנֵשׁ, כַּאֲשֶׁר יָשִׁית עָלָיו בַּעַל הָאִשָּׁה, וְנָתַן, בִּפְלִלִים. 22 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
כג וְאִם-אָסוֹן, יִהְיֶה--וְנָתַתָּה נֶפֶשׁ, תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ. 23 But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Was miscarriage even used >2000 years ago? If the child was say at eight months and delivered early because the mother got in between two men fighting, the baby could survive. If it was at an earlier point in the pregnancy and died......
Can't say Islamic migrants were involved, that would be racist.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I wonder how many Christian-Arabs, Yazidis, Druze, Zoroastrians, Mizrahi or Sephardi Jews have conducted terrorist operations on civilian populations.
Since it is obviously a "race" thing and not about "value systems". /s
I think you guys cling to narratives so much that you don't even know what the other side thinks. I think you would be hard pressed to find somebody that wouldn't claim that this is a religious and cultural issue. You don't become a terrorist because you were born brown.
I think you would also be hard pressed to find people that CTP thinks exists that deny this problem. The only disagreement that seems to exist is whether we deal with this carefully and surgically, or by crapping on the entire religion and its people and hope for the best.
Some might claim that we've tried the careful and surgical approach, but they might also claim that we haven't tried a largely unregulated marketplace, so I guess when it comes down to it human beings believe what they want to believe.
I think you guys cling to narratives so much that you don't even know what the other side thinks. I think you would be hard pressed to find somebody that wouldn't claim that this is a religious and cultural issue. You don't become a terrorist because you were born brown.
No, they're becoming terrorists because they're born muslim. The religion is rotten.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Terrorists HIJACKED their religion. Any truth to that? Way was it so easy to do? Poorly educated masses? Cultural biases? Propaganda?
They're following the example of the model Muslim, the prophet Mohammed, hellfire be upon him.
It's 45 minutes but well worth watching if you want to understand that Islam has not been hijacked and those who do not engage in jihad are actually apostates.
No, they're becoming terrorists because they're born muslim. The religion is rotten.
That pattern is obviously not consistent, or else we'd be living in complete global chaos. Again, you're just being provocative overstating your argument. Your argument is that the religion attracts the rottenness more than others, which I think nobody can or would dispute, even being especially emphatic about this.
Why do you ruin a perfectly good argument this way?
That pattern is obviously not consistent, or else we'd be living in complete global chaos.
How much chaos do you need before admitting that we're well on our way there? It's a vile ideology not in any way compatible with Western liberalism, the foundation of our culture. When >half of your people believe it's fine and dandy to throw homosexuals off buildings, there's something deeply flawed going on with it. the only way I can see it being allowed to go forward is if they radically change, (re. undergo a reformation), and that doesn't appear to be happening any time soon.
Again, you're just being provocative overstating your argument. Your argument is that the religion attracts the rottenness more than others, which I think nobody can or would dispute, even being especially emphatic about this.
No, I'm not, I'm saying Islam creates the "rottenness" more than others, because its core laws foster hatred, subjugation, and division as part of its belief structure, and by placing the absolute power of the caliphate above that of civil government.
Why do you ruin a perfectly good argument this way?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
No, I'm not, I'm saying Islam creates the "rottenness" more than others, because its core laws foster hatred, subjugation, and division as part of its belief structure, placing the absolute power of the caliphate above that of civil government.
That is the same basic argument, only with details about the caliphate. This is a much different statement than:
No, they're becoming terrorists because they're born muslim. The religion is rotten.
Do you not see the difference here? There are many people that are born muslim that aren't rotten, and while you will be quick to think of me as PC or whatever, I'm simply trying to be accurate here, because I don't think we can solve a problem like this while people are just spewing out words and ideas inaccurately here, thus clouding our focus.
So, if we think they are incompatible with modern society, perhaps they must go away. How do we do this? Do we care if we look like hypocrites?
At its rate of expansion, unless there's a substantial reformation, within 50 years it'll be either one or the other; Western society or Islam.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
That is the same basic argument, only with details about the caliphate. This is a much different statement than:
Do you not see the difference here? There are many people that are born muslim that aren't rotten, and while you will be quick to think of me as PC or whatever, I'm simply trying to be accurate here, because I don't think we can solve a problem like this while people are just spewing out words and ideas inaccurately here, thus clouding our focus.
People born in the ME, as Muslims, are ideologically "rotten", much more often than not. It is, for most intents and purposes, a regional hate group. As Richard Dawkins said, it's "a dangerous cult that is wildly intolerant of Western values".
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Look at the history of the Muslim hordes. What have they to offer? What have they contributed to the world? NOTHING. Islam breeds ignorance, hatred, and every place they go ends up being a chaotic shithole. Name ONE good thing about Muslim 'culture'. Women as property? NOPE. Tolerance? Bwa-haa-haa NO! Enlightenment? No way. Order? No. They spend most of their time trying to kill each other or others. How is Convert or die a method of religion?
I used to agree strongly that the religion was fostering the problem but nowadays I think of it more as a chicken and egg scenario. Are the idiots who believe in fairytale nonsense more likely to be violent, angry terrorists? Or are violent, angry terrorists more likely to believe in fairytale nonsense?
If you compare radical Islam to what passes as radical Christianity in the US, you see that same correlation of traits. Sexism, racism, intolerance of other people, ideas and ideals. Fondness for violence, weapons and war, lack of critical thinking skills and denial of science. Then there is the heady combination of sexual repression and sexual obsession which is really at the heart of radical Islam but still lingers strong among many of the Christians too.
The differences are that radical American Christianity has a few things that help to reign it in a bit more. Firstly it has booze, fast food, strip clubs, internet porn, Tinder (and Grindr), and Crystal Meth. Then it has the left wing people there to teach them and remind them when they are wrong. When it comes to Catholics and Anglicans, that includes their leaders abroad. Islam sadly is ruled by extremists and has far fewer recreational options afforded to its members. But remember, they are 1300 years behind the Christians so its not entirely unreasonable they still have catching up to do.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Do you not see the difference here? There are many people that are born muslim that aren't rotten, and while you will be quick to think of me as PC or whatever, I'm simply trying to be accurate here, because I don't think we can solve a problem like this while people are just spewing out words and ideas inaccurately here, thus clouding our focus.
What proof do you have to back up your claim? Is it the many liberal & tolerant islamic democracies in the 43 odd countries where the majority are muslims? Or maybe its those islamic countries where women have equal rights? Or where homosexuals are not executed?
What filter do you suggest to keep the 'bad' guys away? Is there a more discriminating filter you can propose? Or while your 'PC' tendencies and intentions get the better of you, your fellow citizens pay the price?
How does your mind reconcile the fact that some of the terrorists in london, paris and brussels were full citizens of those countries, born and bread in those countries, and still did what they did.
Or are you going to spew the usual victim-blaming, and islamophobia bs?
(
Last edited by Hawkeye_a; Mar 22, 2016 at 05:09 PM.
)
Look at the history of the Muslim hordes. What have they to offer? What have they contributed to the world? NOTHING. Islam breeds ignorance, hatred, and every place they go ends up being a chaotic shithole. Name ONE good thing about Muslim 'culture'. Women as property? NOPE. Tolerance? Bwa-haa-haa NO! Enlightenment? No way. Order? No. They spend most of their time trying to kill each other or others. How is Convert or die a method of religion?
Actually Islamic scholars were quite productive in early mathematics (I think they invented Zero) and what passed for science 600 years ago.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Y'all really need to watch the video. I was talking to the facilitator of the Bible study I attend. She runs a company that does seminars on Islam. I told her about Bill Warner's videos and she now uses them in her presentations.
I used to agree strongly that the religion was fostering the problem but nowadays I think of it more as a chicken and egg scenario. Are the idiots who believe in fairytale nonsense more likely to be violent, angry terrorists? Or are violent, angry terrorists more likely to believe in fairytale nonsense?
If you compare radical Islam to what passes as radical Christianity in the US, you see that same correlation of traits. Sexism, racism, intolerance of other people, ideas and ideals. Fondness for violence, weapons and war, lack of critical thinking skills and denial of science. Then there is the heady combination of sexual repression and sexual obsession which is really at the heart of radical Islam but still lingers strong among many of the Christians too.
The differences are that radical American Christianity has a few things that help to reign it in a bit more. Firstly it has booze, fast food, strip clubs, internet porn, Tinder (and Grindr), and Crystal Meth. Then it has the left wing people there to teach them and remind them when they are wrong. When it comes to Catholics and Anglicans, that includes their leaders abroad. Islam sadly is ruled by extremists and has far fewer recreational options afforded to its members. But remember, they are 1300 years behind the Christians so its not entirely unreasonable they still have catching up to do.
You are using FICTIONAL STEREOTYPES as the basis of your comparison between Christian wack jobs and Muslims. You need to stay away from pop media.
People born in the ME, as Muslims, are ideologically "rotten", much more often than not. It is, for most intents and purposes, a regional hate group. As Richard Dawkins said, it's "a dangerous cult that is wildly intolerant of Western values".
Thank you for making this distinction. Saying that muslim religious ideologies are rotten is much different than saying that all muslims themselves are rotten. Do you see what I'm harping on here?
What proof do you have to back up your claim? Is it the many liberal & tolerant islamic democracies in the 43 odd countries where the majority are muslims? Or maybe its those islamic countries where women have equal rights? Or where homosexuals are not executed?
What filter do you suggest to keep the 'bad' guys away? Is there a more discriminating filter you can propose? Or while your 'PC' tendencies and intentions get the better of you, your fellow citizens pay the price?
How does your mind reconcile the fact that some of the terrorists in london, paris and brussels were full citizens of those countries, born and bread in those countries, and still did what they did.
Or are you going to spew the usual victim-blaming, and islamophobia bs?
I might have misunderstood. Are you making the distinction between people being born 'rotten' vs being corrupted with a 'rotten' ideology? If so i totally agree.
What i would be interested in hearing from anyone, is policy prescriptions to mitigate the threat? How would you distinguish good from bad?
And It is painfull obvious to me that islam in general and thus it's adherents are at odds with western liberalism. There are fundamentalist in all religions, the orthodox, etc... yet none of them feel the need to kill civilians at this rate.
I might have misunderstood. Are you making the distinction between people being born 'rotten' vs being corrupted with a 'rotten' ideology? If so i totally agree.
I might have misunderstood. Are you making the distinction between people being born 'rotten' vs being corrupted with a 'rotten' ideology? If so i totally agree.
I originally said, "No, they're becoming terrorists because they're born muslim. The religion is rotten." I never said the people are. Being born into "rottenness" is the issue.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I originally said, "No, they're becoming terrorists because they're born muslim. The religion is rotten." I never said the people are. Being born into "rottenness" is the issue.
Yup, i realize that.
Now since we're all agreed on something, which is a landmark in itself, lets discuss what should be done. And, as the title says, are we doing enough.
In 2015 there were 452 terrorist suicide attacks around the world. 450 were by muslims. (1 was a kurdish man who was probably muslim. 1 was by a woman in turkey who was also probably muslim.)
No, not as long as Obama is in office. Has he ever said "Islamic terrorist"?
What difference does it make whether he uses this term or references them as "ISIL"? At the end of the day we are talking about the same population, and everybody knows what the I in ISIL stands for.
This is just stupid. Let's focus on what really matters: defeating them (Islamic terrorists, ISIL, ISIS, whatever you prefer to call it), rather than trying to score more points for team red.
HOW FAR would you go to 'defeat them' ? What do you mean defeat? How many would you be willing to kill? How many places would you go to get it done? Do you want to have some sort of limiting 'rules' to that end?
There are people who could make this point but since you perfectly fit a whole mess of the stereotypes you are talking about, you can't.
Ha, my guess was that BadOshKosh was either going to reply about liberals or you being emotional. I'm starting to get inside his head, and that scares me
PARIS (AP) -- The Islamic State group has trained at least 400 fighters to target Europe in deadly waves of attacks, deploying interlocking terror cells like the ones that struck Brussels and Paris with orders to choose the time, place and method for maximum chaos, officials have told The Associated Press.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Ha, my guess was that BadOshKosh was either going to reply about liberals or you being emotional. I'm starting to get inside his head, and that scares me
YOU think you are a mind reader too?? Bwa-haa-haa! How about commenting on the subject? You are quick to attack but slow to actually think and respond.
(
Last edited by BadKosh; Mar 24, 2016 at 09:30 AM.
)
I do not want war. What i would like to see is first and foremost is policy changes.
1. I think it is time for the western world to withdraw from the UN Refugee Convention thus stopping the outsourcing of our immigration and border protection to foreign agents. Each sovereign state is capable of determining the number and definition of what they deem "refugees". The entire purpose of the refugee convention was to give people who didnt have a place to find refuge (Jewish displaced persons after world war 2) a way to do so. However it is now a shambolic loophole for terrorists and illegal economic migrants.
(Notice, i did not say stop taking refugees. But it should be upto each nation to be able to determine the limit of their generosity, and who constitutes a refugee, and what level of asylum they will award)
2. Illegal immigrants will never be settled(permanent residence or citizenship) in the country whose immigration and border laws they violated (thus making them criminals). They should be detained or deported, and blacklisted for violating laws of the country.
3. Countries should be able to implement a "Temporary Protection Visa"(TPV) scheme for refugees if they want to offer refugee but deny a pathway to residency/citizenship. The TPV has a fixed term length with an option to renew, and if laws are violated, the individual will be deported immediately.
What has happened with Merkel(and much of western Europe) is she has done the exact opposite, thus encouraging illegal immigration, compromising Europe's borders and putting the lives and culture of the indigenous populations of Europe in harm's way. IMHO
IMHO, because of the influx and violation of the integrity of Europe's borders, I think it would be prudent for the UK to exit the EU primarily to be able to retain and enforce it's sovereign borders.
I think Europe's policy towards illegal migrants at the expense of it's own population is a travesty. Australia as of 2012 ended the people smuggling trade and illegal migration with some of the policies mentioned above, and lo and behold there have been 0 new arrivals since late 2012 (all this despite the incompetent "left" lobbying for the opposite). Instead of Europe which has turned into a chaotic incoherent mess, we ought to look at the examples of "boutique" countries such as Switzerland, Israel, Singapore and Japan. IMHO
(
Last edited by Hawkeye_a; Mar 24, 2016 at 11:26 AM.
)