ThunderJam

Just because something is not perfectly applicable throughout all of time can it not be inspired by God? As this applies to laws, cultures progress and need different things limited. Then pros!@#$%^&*ution was obviously a problem, now a problem might be gun control. Say a religion was to be formed now, and verses were written speaking against guns. The point is limiting violence, and promoting peace. In 200 years if guns no longer existed, would it prove that the verses weren't inspired by God? I don't think so (Altho this example is totally against what I beleive, since I don't think theres another God besides mine that would lay down laws today, but this is for argument's sake). Well no, it doesn't apply to Islam because their culture is still at least 200 years behind ours. A larger majority of males will interpret the sexist statements in the Qu'ran more literally because the culture they live in accepts those statements more readily. The Christian culture accepted the Bible more literally centuries ago too. Nah im with you on this one, I was just thinking ahead and seeing an argument that one of you might present to me. Although I don't think the differences are PURELY cultural, as the old laws do say different things, but I would say culture plays a large role in it. Also, saying that their way of interpretting is only temporary, and it will change over time (like you are saying christians did) I don't think makes the present actions any more acceptable. Would you agree on that? You're right, the Qu'ran goes a bit further than the Bible. Nevertheless, the point is how many Muslims use the Qu'ran to justify beating their wives, compared to how many Christians use the Bible to justify treating their wives like slaves. The cultural differences are obviously the determinant factor in how liberally and literally the Muslims or Christians follow their holy book. Yea ok. My main point was that the only factor is not "how the book is interpretted" because theres also a factor of "what the book says." If book A literally says someting of score 7 (on a 1-10 scale of "badness", 10 being awful) then its interpretation may allow believers to commit things scoring from 5-9. If Book B literally says something of a score of 4, then the followers, by interpretation, may commit acts scored from 2-6. Thats all I was trying to point out. Even with interpretation varying in each culture, theres still is worse becuz their baseline says to beat the wives, while the Christian baseline is just promoting the husband as the authority figure.

Not having guns at all, as in not being made, not existing won't work. Even though I think it is plausible to suggest that wars will be fought in the future without personal weapons such as guns (the whole concept of war will probably change as biological stuff progresses and the world becomes more interdependent on the internet). Either way, law enforcement will surely need firearms, or non-lethal projectiles. In some form, to some extent, they are going to have to exist.

No one here is going to give it to you, you need to talk to one of the server owners who has ssc slots available. I would suggest talking to Death+ and Confess+

Its too bad there not a particularly good non-ssc server. Back was ssz was around we had halo, desert storm, mystic kingdom, paintball, and flag !@#$%^&* on it. All were decently populated.

Though this is out of place (should be in the ssc board) i strangely agree with it being here. Stuff in the ssc board seems to be locked before it is sufficiently discussed oftentimes. 5000 day ban is absurd in any cir!@#$%^&*stances. BTW i went into dsb a day or two ago, dl'ed the news.txt and all i did was glance at it for liek 5 seconds... but i remember seeing the phrase "resulting in a 5000 day netban" in their most recent news post. I think the council needs to look into the extent that long netbans are being used.

They do? Wow, i must have read it wrong. You see, i thought it said to only beat women if they are rebellious and give you reason to fear them. Thus: Is a load of crap, as the man has to interpret the Quran's definition of rebellious as applying to his wife in order to beat her.Well, yes they say do it when a condition is true, but my point was that they actually say TO BEAT the wife, where as the Bible verses don't, and you can only say "well... we could intrepret this bible verse to mean.. that its justified to beat them." But they never actually say to do so. You're right, the Bible quotes don't say to beat rebellious women. Did i say they do? The Bible quotes merely allow any man to believe women are inferior and need to be "ruled over" - this is basically slavery. If you want to go a step further, one might theorise that with slavery comes the beating of slaves to enforce obedience. How else do you enforce your "rule" over your inferiors.So are we in agreement that Christianity is a step ahead of Islam in beating wives? Sure someone somewhere will always interpret something (in this case the bible for beating), but having to interpret that compared to being told to do it are two different things. One instructs you to do so, and one doesn't. How you interpret it is a matter of human judgement and fallacy, not of any fallacy in the text. If we had it removed wouldn't you be complaining about a non-original text, being altered, being slanted to fit the views of the readers? Consider these other things in the old testament that do not hold true to current-day Christians: - In Leviticus it lays down the laws of jewish kosher, refraining from eating the fat and meat of certain animals. - In Leviticus it lays the laws of being unclean during a woman's period. - In Leviticus it states how people with specific skin infections should be shunned from society. - There were laws for sacrifices that basically said to god, you've given us life even tho we sin, so im giving back to you. Usually a sacrifice was one's choicest livestock and they had to be made on a regular basis. -Also in the book of Numbers, and over half of 1st Chronicles, we are given pages of family lineages that are meaningless to us, yet it isn't taken out. Obviously there are plenty of things in the Old Testament that are not relevant to Christianity today. The doctrine of Christianity is almost solely defined in the New Testament, laid out in the the first 4 books, and then enforced by letters by influential figures such as Paul after Jesus' time. The purpose of the Old testament is for history sake. Why was Jesus needed? How did he change things from what they were before? What was said about the need of a Messiah before he came? Etc. Back to my example of faking your parents being rich in washington state. Obviously there was a reason for this (as i stated probably due to only being able to vote if you are of certain wealth status). Now that that specific indicator of voting elligibility isn't used, it doesn't mean the thought behind the Law is void. The thought is that who has a say in the government should be limited. There are rules now that define that, age laws, citizenship, absentee (is that what it's called?) voting for people who are overseas, etc. Obviously the old law doesn't directly apply, but the idea behind it is still taken into note. This is the case with "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array". Why can it not be for familial guidlines laid in the Bible, since roles in the workplace and other factors have changed the roles of the sexes at home? Now if you are still with me at this point, and can somewhat understand why it would be logical to say all the husband-wife dynamics in the Bible aren't 100% word-for-word translatable to today, you may also think "Well that applies to islam too, and their text saying to beat their wives may not apply to today either." Yea I would agree, but as we've been seeing, at least a decent amount of the muslims ARE still interpretting it as applicable to today. Whether or not it is, I can't knowledgably argue since I do not know the in's and out's of the quaran like I do the Bible.

Im finding you to be coming off a bid absurd. Isn't us trying to back up Christianity, to give facts proving Jesus did what the Bible says, to give evidence that anything we believe happened... isn't that what your always asking us? So a site trying to answer that... is condemned by you? If no Christian site at all is to be tolerated, then no site affiliated with any other religion should be, and then all the religious people of the world wouldn't accept your websites either. If you're not willing to consider anything, this is not a debate. As to that video, the guy says some wives simply won't cooperate any other way unless beaten. They why the !@#$%^&* did the man marry her? I mean c'mon. Even if she disobeys him, he shouldn't be allowed to beat her. I see two options as a reaction to chronic disobedience: a Legal path, and a physical personal path. Either they go to therapy, get someone to help them, file a divorce, etc... or they try the man tries to handle it at home, which will usually turn to something like a beating. Sayign that beating as a last result to disobedience is acceptable is basically saying beating a wife would be better then going about it legally. If going about it legally is better, then beating should be illegal. None of these say to beat the wife, whereas the quaran quotes bak showed, and the guy in that video refers to literally say "beat them" or "scourge" them on multiple occasions. Implying that a man is in charge in the bible's case is a long jump from instructing men to beat their wives. And we've gone over this before, the context of these verses you are quoting. The excessive jewelry and such was speaking out against certain clothing trends in pros!@#$%^&*utes of the time. The one about a woman with snares as nets is referring to a prositute, many verses similar to that occur in Proverbs in which the author in old age is warning younger men against the dangers of pros!@#$%^&*utes. You commenting that it implies all women are deceitful is completely ridiculous. If you knew what it was talking about, you'd realize how absurd it would be for someone to infer all women frmo that. IT really doesn't come down to interpretation, you just want it to. Those quaran verses verbatim say to beat or scourge a woman. These do not. And like someone else said, many of these come down to old Jewish customs. Yes they are in the bible, primarily the old testament, but consider the purpose of the old testament in the bible. The old testament establishes the need for Jesus. It shows sins, it shows prophecies, and the history of the jewish people. Then comes Christ, who is what the Old testament is leading up to. Christ shows mercy to women on several occasions. He corrected many the leaders of the synagogue for falsely interpretting things and turning it to their own advantages. Because an old jewish law is in the old testament, does that mean it applies to Christians now? In many states in the US there are random laws frmo bygone days that were never abolished. Stuff like in WAshington state it is illegal to pretend your parents are rich. Who enforces that? It probly leads back to days when voting was a privilege based on your wealth. Should people living their now not be allowed to do that? This is the same as christian women having to live by rules that applied to time-and-culture specific rules of the jews.

How the !@#$%^&*... Baltimore the team that almost beat what is arguably the best team in football history last week... loses to the dolphins...

IF its 2 movies, maybe they are weaving in the ending the left out of LOTR. The part where frodo and the others come back to the shire and sarumon has taken it over and they had to reclaim it. A lot of people complained becuz that wasnt in the 3rd LOTR movie.

Yea it's business, but if you don't care about the sport you aren't going to buy a team either. Cuz you can't expect to profit by running a team if you don't know a lot about the sport.

I am fine with t3 using them because I have helped t3 before. They have tiles and stuff from me. It's more of the fact that someone is distributing them without my permission, thats wat i want to stop.

I don't know if you still watch these boards creatix, but t3 gauntlet recently began using the explode2 that you had that i said was mine. I asked them where they got it, and they said subspacedownloads and they thought the people from complex had uploaded it. What is going on?

Doesnt all come down to tv tho, thats the problem. Theres almost no effective way to prevent a kid from being exposed to the hip-hop, gang culture, Whether it be on tv, radio, online, music, or in rea life. And half the time, parents are the problem. In low minority families, the parents often never get past their teenage mentality. I know plenty of black families (not tryin to be racist, but the people THAT I KNOW in this situation are mostly bkack) that the parents are just as stupid and shallow as the kids. When you have 30 year old single parents of ghetto families that still act like a teenager, the kids don't even have a chance to become any different lol.

I think it plays a role. It wouldnt be the WHY people shoot people, but I think it makes the idea of guns more appealing/acceptable to some people. I mean as far as a national mindset goes, America is obsessed with shallow pop culture. If some thugs are treated like gods as part of that culture, doesn't that wear off on society? Obviously not everyone, but i don't think it can be ignored either.

After the sean taylor death, a black columnist for fox sports wrote a collumn about the hip-hop culture indirectly glorifying violence, etc. Obviously very controversial, but I think to some extent its true. Even if their work doesnt promote it, people view figures in the industry as role models, even though in their lives they are gun-toting punks. Poses a little bit of a problem lol.

Sever my point was that those ideas do not continue to exist because of their benefits. Each of those ideas (war, pedophila, etc) can have negative or positive outcomes. However in their cases, even if they result negatively, the next generation will still be drawn to them. It's not like genetic mutations where you can apply "If you don't need a feature, you lose it." War, pedophilia do not hinge on helping the species in order to be passed down the the next generation. If there were only two people left on earth, war over population obviously wouldn't be good, but the people could still be drawn to kill each other if they got in a serious fight over something.

The argument that homosexuality has gentic benefits hinges on the idea that homosexuality is a mutation in human genes or behavior. I believe that claim was meant to be in a survival of the fittest sense, saying like "well if homosexuality put us at a disadvantage, the mutation would ahve died out by now." Murder, pedophilia, war, etc can't be inserted into this argument because they arent genetic or behavioral mutations. Like say people had the idea of war to gain territory, and they failed at war. In this case war would have been a "bad mutation." However 200 years later, a completely separate group of people could have had the same idea (Im talking like cavemen level). The death of one group did not stop the mutation. War, murder, pedophilia are not somethign that would stop if they put the people at a disadvantage. The whole thing about the advantages only applies in genetics because of the hereditary nature of the traits.

Wow xter and root you guys are ridiculous. You both bash ds and then get in an argument with yourselves that has absolutely no point.

Agreed, altho if your one of the people saying they want us buying them for tax reasons, then i guess you could argue that leaving those chemicals in keeps people giving them more money. Still doing that is pretty low....

Next kame will announce that he is starting a new infantry zone project, or continuing and old project, talk about it for 3 days, then drop off the face of the earth for another 4 months. The cycle continues Welcome back kame

Losa he never said he supports us not getting rid of it. He simply says that he thinks the reality is that It wont happen.

Yea ive kinda become disinterested with the latest hype phones. I got a chocolate last year for the holidays, and its been so buggy that im never gonna get the latest craze phone again. Going back to a decent flip phone for next year.

Well me even saying this won't matter cuz your going to say the bible is stories but... Coming back from death was conquering death and thus satan in a sense. He resisted Satan while he spent time in the wilderness. He cast demons out of several people, which defeating something from satan.

Anyway i just got off a 30 mins phone convo with a girl talking about this teacher that shes pissed at. Our AP Literature teacher has never emphasized needing to have w/e book we are reading with us at class (currently Hamlet) since he always has extras in the room if you don't have it. Basically she doesnt usually bring her book on tues or thurs because on those days she also has to bring in two extra textbooks for other classes. So her backpack is full, and she just uses one of the books on the shelf in the classroom. So today we come in to class, he says get out your books, and procedes to ask us 5 questions for a quiz. We had maybe 2 mins to answer each question at most. They were simple like "In Act X scene X what is so and so's first line." Didn't test knowledge of the book, no interpretation, just simple quoting and sayign stuff straight out of the book. The teacher wouldnt let my friend use her book, so she failed. Turns out the quiz was worth 15 points, which will bring my friend down from a B to a C. Thing is he has never been frustrated with people who don't bring books, never says "make sure you have it tomoro," just lets people use his. When she brought this up to him cuz she thought it was unfair, he says it was in my sylabus at the begining of the year taht you need to have it. She checked the sylabus, it doesnt say that. Long story made short: teachers don't grade on stuff that accurately shows students understanding of the course material. Another thing I've always said about my AP classes is this: On AP tests, a score of like 75% is a top grade. However in our classes we tack practice AP problem sets, and they count for a grade. Say we get 70% on the practice set of problems, thats a very very good score, FOR AN AP EXAM, but for normal school thats a C, and not so good. So you can esily go thru an AP class getting awful grades, but do well on the AP exam... so many teachers just suck at making their grades reflect the right things.