Topic: Let's Try This Again | |
---|---|
I haven’t finished it. I just wanted to point out how ludicrous this is. Is this serious or from a joke site? And you want us to read this yet you refuse to learn about human evolution or what it is. Thats not very fair. In keeping however.... Please enlighten me....you keep saying I regfuse to learn....but you show nothing.....please show..... |
|
|
|
Very interesting thread Deb
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Mon 08/11/08 07:16 PM
|
|
I want the missing links. i keep asking for the transition from a land animal to a bird. Show me the evidence!!!!!!!!! and man? to many gaps. i do not care what was here before man. Darkness covered the face of the deep. go to the hebrew on that one. The earth was without form and void. go to the hebrew on that one. yes, dinosaurs were here first. So what? show me man leaped from a monkey. too many gaps. a bird's wing........ The best of the best want that one too. where do you think I got the desire to see the secretly asked for link? from the learned and esteemed scientists themselves. But, nooooooooooooooo.............. we don't tell of that little problem, we just tell of the conjecture for evolution as though it was fact and a foregone conclusion. That is ludicrous,without excuse. Not at all anything remotely akin to faith in Jesus Christ at all. Nothing compares, as nothing can. Nothing. There, kitty cat. I lit the barbecue LOL thats all I was asking also....Lev question I must of answered four times......but still they would not listen.....and so I asked over and over as you did....show me......They say they want to explain evolution........pffttttttt I know all about it.... You have not been able to answer any of the questions that were posed concerning the Leviticus issues. When I offered to explain human evolution to you, you refused to hear it, even though I informed you that you would then have full leverage to discuss Creationism. Whose being closed minded here? |
|
|
|
I haven’t finished it. I just wanted to point out how ludicrous this is. Is this serious or from a joke site? And you want us to read this yet you refuse to learn about human evolution or what it is. Thats not very fair. In keeping however.... fair enough. start citing credible proof. that's all we want credible no way out irrefutable proof the bird's wing and the link in man cannot be provided never will be face it, you are all deluded by a pseudo-faith based, and man based delusion it is comedy. carry on. nothing poersonal |
|
|
|
Don't tell me that it took mankind BILLIONS of years to learn to wash his hands to prevent disease! Why not? All that time he thought that Gods controlled things like disease. Germs weren't discovered until men started thinking scientifically and actually investigating into the casuse of things beliving that they might have causes other than being caused a curse from the gods! So it was religious thinking that kept man in the dark for so long. We're finally out of the dark and in the light, and now you're trying to shoo eveyone back into the dark again? Shame on you. |
|
|
|
Recently, a thought captivated my mind that proves that the theory of evolution is a big hoax.
Hey everyone! Feral had a thought! Don't everyone cheer at once now. But someone better call up the National Science Foundation and tell them that their hoax has been exposed they can all go home now! and see abra.....this is so typical of you........please prove it wrong....thats all that I am asking....and also please go to the evolution one and do the same...... The author appears to not understand radiocarbon dating Deb... |
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Mon 08/11/08 07:23 PM
|
|
Krimsa wrote:
You have not been able to answer any of the questions that were posed concerning the Leviticus issues. When I offered to explain human evolution to you, you refused to hear it, even though I informed you that you would then have full leverage to discuss Creationism. Whose being closed minded here? I've actually wasted far too much time in the past trying to explain evolution to Deb. She's totally non-receptive. It's no suprise. This thread isn't an honest discussion about evolution. It's just an attempt to try to prove that her religion is right. Just read the OP. It has more in it about the Bible being right than it has about evolution being wrong. |
|
|
|
Don't tell me that it took mankind BILLIONS of years to learn to wash his hands to prevent disease! Why not? All that time he thought that Gods controlled things like disease. Germs weren't discovered until men started thinking scientifically and actually investigating into the casuse of things beliving that they might have causes other than being caused a curse from the gods! So it was religious thinking that kept man in the dark for so long. We're finally out of the dark and in the light, and now you're trying to shoo eveyone back into the dark again? Shame on you. Not to mention Deb that it was the midwives that were very often accused of being Witches and burned at the stake. Part of the concern the church had was the interference of these women during childbirth. The women very often had an understanding of basic hygiene and cleanliness and that it was important to keep the baby clean and dry. Many women were tortured and murdered by the Church as practitioners of Witchcraft for simply helping other women deliver and care for their infants. |
|
|
|
Krimsa wrote:
You have not been able to answer any of the questions that were posed concerning the Leviticus issues. When I offered to explain human evolution to you, you refused to hear it, even though I informed you that you would then have full leverage to discuss Creationism. Whose being closed minded here? I've actually wasted far too much time in the past trying to explain evolution to Deb. She's totally non-receptive. It's no suprise. This thread isn't an honest discussion about evolution. It's just an attempt to try to prove that her religion is right. Just read the OP. It has more in it about the Bible being right than it has about evolution being wrong. Right |
|
|
|
I want the missing links. i keep asking for the transition from a land animal to a bird. Show me the evidence!!!!!!!!! and man? to many gaps. i do not care what was here before man. Darkness covered the face of the deep. go to the hebrew on that one. The earth was without form and void. go to the hebrew on that one. yes, dinosaurs were here first. So what? show me man leaped from a monkey. too many gaps. a bird's wing........ The best of the best want that one too. where do you think I got the desire to see the secretly asked for link? from the learned and esteemed scientists themselves. But, nooooooooooooooo.............. we don't tell of that little problem, we just tell of the conjecture for evolution as though it was fact and a foregone conclusion. That is ludicrous,without excuse. Not at all anything remotely akin to faith in Jesus Christ at all. Nothing compares, as nothing can. Nothing. There, kitty cat. I lit the barbecue LOL thats all I was asking also....Lev question I must of answered four times......but still they would not listen.....and so I asked over and over as you did....show me......They say they want to explain evolution........pffttttttt I know all about it.... You have not been able to answer any of the questions that were posed concerning the Leviticus issues. When I offered to explain human evolution to you, you refused to hear it, even though I informed you that you would then have full leverage to discuss Creationism. Whose being closed minded here? Are you kidding me.........I answered 4 different times.... She probably began to menstruate at about 10-12 years of age. The onset of menstruation was celebrated, because it showed that the girl had passed from childhood into womanhood. At puberty she was introduced to the special customs that Jewish women followed, particularly those relating to menstruation. During her menstrual period, a Jewish woman was relieved of many of her normal duties. She was not required to draw and carry water from the well. She did not have to serve food to members of the family. She did not have to go to the marketplace. She did not have sexual intercourse. The days of her menstrual period were regarded as a time out, a time for herself. On these days, relieved of a number of her duties, she had time to think and rest. Special rules guarded her privacy and rest at this time. They were called the ‘purity laws’. These laws made it impossible for members of her family to demand that she do her normal tasks. There were purity laws for men as well: men washed themselves and changed their clothes whenever they had a sexual emission. After her menstrual cycle, a woman was required to bathe herself from head to toe in a special pool of clean water, called a mikveh. Each small community would have its mikveh, and towns and cities had large numbers of them, some public, some private. The mikveh pool had to be designed and built a special way, so that it had enough headroom under water to allow complete immersion a supplementary tank for gathering clean rain water a small pool at the entrance for washing hair, hands and feet before entering the main pool (in 2 Samuel 11:1-5 Bathsheba is bathing herself after her monthly period when David sees her). The purpose of the monthly bathing in the mikveh was for physical and spiritual cleanliness. The washing of the body was a tangible way for a woman to renew herself, refreshing mental, emotional and physical energies. It was a ritual that periodically gave a woman the feeling of a fresh start. The rules of ritual cleanliness meant that most people were obliged to wash themselves, wash their clothes, and put on clean clothes at frequent intervals. There is no doubt that the hygiene that resulted from the purity laws was beneficial to the health of the whole population. Where mothers maintain personal cleanliness, there is much less infant mortality, and so the cleanliness of Jewish women benefited the whole population. It is difficult to say whether the laws regarding cleanliness arose from a conscious connection between cleanliness and good health, or an intuitive one. Indeed, Jews at the time (and now) would state that the ritual purity laws were obeyed not for their logic but because they were part of being a Jew. MARRIAGE The first of God’s commands in the Bible concerns the propagation of the human species: ‘be fruitful and multiply’ (Genesis 9:7). Jews believed it was their duty to marry as early in life as possible. For a woman, marriage plans could be made at the onset of puberty. For a man, 18 years was the recommended age. Any person who had passed the age of 20 without being married was not carrying out the will of God. A man might postpone marriage in order to study the Torah, but only in very rare instances were people permitted to remain unmarried for life. Who chose the husband? The whole family joined in the selection of an appropriate husband for a girl, but her wishes were certainly taken into account (Genesis 24:5, 8). Even the feelings of a female war captive were, to some extent, respected; she was given a month to mourn for her lost family before being forcibly married to her captor (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). If it seems strange to us that the choice of a husband was a matter for the whole family to determine, we must remember the young woman was allying herself not only with her husband, but with his whole family too. The couple would not form a nuclear family in the modern sense, for these were virtually unknown in ancient society, but become part of a larger family. Thus the girl’s family had to be sure that she was marrying someone whose family and way of life would be compatible with hers. She would probably be living and working with these people for the rest of her life. The qualities that a Jewish woman looked for in a husband were: someone a few years older than herself, and of the same social standing a student of the Hebrew Scriptures, for scholarship meant that a man was intelligent, prepared to work, and able to reason and think someone possessing enough money and goods to be able to give her status, comfort and security someone whose family was reputable, with no scandal or bad blood associated with his family someone physically attractive, because Jews believed that a happy sex life was one of the greatest gifts God gave to a married couple. The qualities that a Jewish man looked for in a wife were: Jewish descent, because transmission of ‘Jewishness’ was through the Jewish mother someone from a respectable family, since family characteristics could be transmitted to succeeding generations the daughter of a man who was learned and had studied a girl about the same age as the man or younger someone known for her good sense, good behavior and kindliness if possible, someone who was physically beautiful, but an intelligent mind and a cheerful personality were in the long run even more important. A Jewish family tried to provide each daughter with a dowry, which was property handed over by her family at the time of her marriage, and afterwards owned by the wife. It was her share of the family inheritance, enough to act as an income for her should she be abandoned or widowed. Whether there was sufficient to do this for every woman, we do not know. In neighboring Mesopotamia, the dowry could be inherited only by the woman’s sons, not by any of her husband’s family. This was a precaution against the dowry being used to enrich the husband’s family. Much of Jewish law is based on Mesopotamian law, so Jewish families probably had a similar practice regarding dowries. In some cases, a bride-price was expected. This was compensation paid to the bride's family for the loss of their daughter and the services she could have provided to her family, had she remained with them. The bride-price was paid by the groom's family. Naturally, the amount depended on the wealth and status of the family. BIRTH Hebrew women gave birth in their own tents or houses. During labor they were surrounded by other women: a midwife, their relatives and friends, and female servants of the family. They would certainly have seen other women give birth, so they knew what to expect and what to do. Hebrew women gave birth in a squatting position, above a hole hollowed out of the ground. On either side of the hole were bricks or stones for the woman to stand on. She was supported at her back and under her arms by other women, either midwives or family members. As soon as the baby was born its umbilical cord was cut, then it was washed and wrapped in long bands of cloth (swaddling bands) which held the limbs of the baby firmly, though not tightly. It was obvious to the ancient Israelites that the central task of women, one that could not be taken over by anyone else, was childbirth. It was also obvious that women suffered in the process of giving birth. The explanation for this, according to Genesis, was that the original balance of creation had been disturbed: in an ideal world (that is, the Garden of Eden) birth would not bring suffering. A woman who gives birth has the status of a Niddah (a menstruant) whois both ritually impure and off-limits as far as intimate activity to her husband. The act of giving birth induces a special nidus state unrelated to the uterine bleeding that normally separates husband and wife. This special nidus extends for seven days after the birth of a son and fourteen days after the birth of a daughter. Since it is most unusual for a woman to stain for less than two weeks after childbirth, this special nidus has little practical application, except in some cases of cesarean delivery. The ritual after the end of the period is the same as in normal Niddah status: immersion in a mikveh. During the time of the Beis HaMikdash (Holy Temple) there was an obligation to bring a korban (offering) forty days after the birth of a boy or eighty days after the birth of a girl. As to why the purification for the birth of a female is longer, the belief is that this is because since a female herself is capable of producing life, she is capable of imparting more ritual purity as well as impurity. WHICH WAS DONE ON PAGE 47 OF ORIGINAL THREAD.......NOW ANSWER MINE |
|
|
|
Not to mention Deb that it was the midwives that were very often accused of being Witches and burned at the stake. Part of the concern the church had was the interference of these women during childbirth. The women very often had an understanding of basic hygiene and cleanliness and that it was important to keep the baby clean and dry. Many women were tortured and murdered by the Church as practitioners of Witchcraft for simply helping other women deliver and care for their infants. Yeah really. No one wants to go back to those days. Let's just keep on moving forward shall we? Onward Christian Soldier Debbie! Forward! Not backward! Let's move toward true non-jugemental brotherly love like Jesus suggested. Don't you like the suggestions that Jesus made? Brotherly love Deb. Let's give that a shot for a while. |
|
|
|
That does not even address Leviticus Deb and was probably taken from some Jewish historical website.
These are the questions. Why can she not touch "holy objects" until she has been atoned for the sin of childbirth? Why does she now need to pay a priest for this sin when presumably childbirth was never a sin before god determined it was in Leviticus 12? Why is she to be considered unclean immediately following birth? Why does she need to pay a priest for this atonement? And the big one, why is this "cleansing period" twice as long if she gives birth to a female child? |
|
|
|
I c in todays society the Tower of babel. Who's knowledge turned them evil as did Nimrod. The languages were scattered then to where this coming together of mankinds thinking has not happened untill the last 50 years really. Just as Daniel said. Now once again this Tower is being built to the heavens with man saying we do not need Elohim for we are. The language barrier has been broken and all the thoughts of mankind blended together to make everybody happy.
The same basic theme is thier " we do not need a creator" Blessings...Miles |
|
|
|
resurrection of Sodom and Gomorrah, miles.
|
|
|
|
deb:
The explanation for this, according to Genesis, was that the original balance of creation had been disturbed: in an ideal world (that is, the Garden of Eden) birth would not bring suffering. TRIBO: sorry deb it says he will greatly increase her pain, this would mean that there would have been pain even if she had not fallen, to what degree it does not state but there would have been some. |
|
|
|
What are we trying again
Someone pass the mashed potatoes and carrots |
|
|
|
Well like I asked in your other thread,... After you've denounced all the intellectual thinkers in your society and have them all under house arrest and have outlawed the teaching of science in schools what's next? Do you plan on burning witches at the stake? What are you going to do with the Jews? Muslims? Atheists? Oh my! Will you hang the pantheists? What will you do when you finally return to the dark ages? Will you be happy then? I know it's hard abra....but let's stay on topic here.... That is on topic. Why do you think the fundamentalist lunatic fringe of ANY dogmatic religion are frightening to people? |
|
|
|
I apologize for misquoting. The passage I meant was Matthew 22: 37-39. It is also said earlier in Matthew 7:12.
|
|
|
|
I heard that there is a theory that god is a figment of people's imagination.
That they use god as an emotional crutch and try to convert all the freethinkers in the world to a sick cult. But that's ok, I think I will stick with Darwin and his boys/girls. Im sure that the discovery of the Cradle of Civilisation back to 12,000 BC is before 4000BC. (isnt it?) |
|
|
|
From National Geographic
Human fossils found 38 years ago in Africa are 65,000 years older than previously thought, a new study says—pushing the dawn of "modern" humans back 35,000 years. New dating techniques indicate that the fossils are 195,000 years old. The two skulls and some bones were first uncovered on opposite sides of Ethiopia's Omo River in 1967 by a team led by Richard Leakey. The fossils, dubbed Omo I and Omo II, were dated at the time as being about 130,000 years old. The new findings, published in the February 17 issue of the journal Nature, establish Omo I and II as the oldest known fossils of modern humans. The prior record holders were fossils from Herto, Ethiopia, which dated the emergence of modern humans in Africa to about 160,000 years ago. "The new dating confirms the place of the Omo fossils as landmark finds in unraveling our origins," said Chris Stringer, director of the Human Origins Group at the Natural History Museum in London. The 195,000-year-old date coincides with findings from genetic studies on modern human populations. Such studies can be extrapolated to determine when the earliest modern humans lived. The findings also add credibility to the widely accepted "Out of Africa" theory of human origins which holds that modern humans (later versions of Homo sapiens) first appeared in Africa and then spread out to colonize the rest of the world. 160,000 years old ... is that older than 4000 BC? |
|
|