Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsAncient HistoryMedieval PeriodBritish HistoryWhat IfArchaeology
War History
War HistoryWorld War IIUS Civil War
HistoryKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

History Forum / General / Ancient History / August 2007



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Sound of Trumpet - 15 Aug 2007 20:38 GMT
http://www.cityside.org.nz/node/300

Bible Scholar urges End of Biblical Studies - Hector Avalos

Avalos' new book, "The End of Bible Studies", is due out in July 2007.
Here's the blurb: "In this radical critique of his own academic
speciality, biblical scholar Hector Avalos calls for an end to
biblical studies as we know them. He outlines two main arguments for
this surprising conclusion. First, academic biblical scholarship has
clearly succeeded in showing that the ancient civilisation that
produced the Bible held beliefs about the origin, nature, and purpose
of the world and humanity that are fundamentally opposed to the views
of modern society. The Bible is thus largely irrelevant to the needs
and concerns of contemporary human beings. Second, Avalos criticises
his colleagues for applying a variety of flawed and specious
techniques aimed at maintaining the illusion that the Bible is still
relevant in today's world. In effect, he accuses his profession of
being more concerned about its self-preservation than about giving an
honest account of its own findings to the general public and faith
communities. Dividing his study into two parts, Avalos first examines
the principal sub-disciplines of biblical studies (textual criticism,
archaeology, historical criticism, literary criticism, biblical
theology, and translations) in order to show how these fields are
still influenced by religiously motivated agendas despite claims to
independence from religious premises. In the second part, he focuses
on the infrastructure that supports academic biblical studies to
maintain the value of the profession and the Bible. This
infrastructure includes academia (public and private universities and
colleges), churches, the media-publishing complex, and professional
organisations such as the Society of Biblical Literature. In a
controversial conclusion, Avalos argues that our world is best served
by leaving the Bible as a relic of an ancient civilisation instead of
the "living" document most religionist scholars believe it should be.
He urges his colleagues to concentrate on educating the broader
society to recognise the irrelevance and even violent effects of the
Bible in modern life."

This follows on from his article last year on SBL:

Hector Avalos on SBL
Avalos, PhD Harvard 1991, was a fundamentalist child evangelist. Now
he's a militant atheist, the faculty adviser to the Iowa State
University Atheist and Agnostic Society. He's executive director of a
group affiliated with the Council for Secular Humanism that seeks to
debunk religion. He was a fundamentalist Christian and now he's a
fundamentalist atheist. He preached and practiced faith healing from
age 7 to 17 and became an atheist in college.
LC - 15 Aug 2007 21:12 GMT
> Bible Scholar urges End of Biblical Studies

Excellent.
Think of all the *productive* use that time could be put to.
bob young - 16 Aug 2007 05:33 GMT
> > Bible Scholar urges End of Biblical Studies
>
> Excellent.
> Think of all the *productive* use that time could be put to.

Absolutely.  And those poor Islamic kids, learning parrot fashion from the
koran whilst bobbing their heads backwards and forwards doing a wonderful
impression of idiots in a mental ward.

And they wonder why there are Atheists around ~
Uncle Vic - 15 Aug 2007 22:36 GMT
> Hector Avalos on SBL
> Avalos, PhD Harvard 1991, was a fundamentalist child evangelist. Now
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> fundamentalist atheist. He preached and practiced faith healing from
> age 7 to 17 and became an atheist in college.

He must have realized "faith healing" is a scam, which pretty much
starts the gears a-turnin'.

I love that term, "militant atheist".  Annie Gaylor, get your gun!

--
Uncle Vic
#2011
raven1 - 16 Aug 2007 03:58 GMT
> "In this radical critique of his own academic
>speciality, biblical scholar Hector Avalos calls for an end to
>biblical studies as we know them.

Another article you didn't bother to read...
--

"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Nosterill - 16 Aug 2007 14:18 GMT
On Aug 15, 8:38 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
wrote:
> http://www.cityside.org.nz/node/300
>
> Bible Scholar urges End of Biblical Studies - Hector Avalos

Detailed study of the bible does tend to lead to atheism. Stick to
selected passages chosen for you by the church if you want to keep
your faith - even better, just listen to what other people tell you
and don't question anything.
J.LyonLayden - 16 Aug 2007 17:28 GMT
Yup nothingness willed itself into somethingness, just like the wet
rags birthed maggots in the 1700s.
But even though nothingness is then necessarilly an omnipotent power,
let's not call it a god because then we'd have to be accountable for
our actions.
Cj - 16 Aug 2007 21:31 GMT
> Yup nothingness willed itself into somethingness, just like the wet
> rags birthed maggots in the 1700s.
> But even though nothingness is then necessarilly an omnipotent power,
> let's not call it a god because then we'd have to be accountable for
> our actions.

Nonsense!
Cj
Mike Painter - 17 Aug 2007 05:16 GMT
> Yup nothingness willed itself into somethingness, just like the wet
> rags birthed maggots in the 1700s.
> But even though nothingness is then necessarilly an omnipotent power,
> let's not call it a god because then we'd have to be accountable for
> our actions.

WHICH IS WHY THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO GO TO COLLAGE. yOU MIGHT LEARN. (Too
lazy to retype after hitting caps lock)
Michael Gray - 17 Aug 2007 08:53 GMT
>> Yup nothingness willed itself into somethingness, just like the wet
>> rags birthed maggots in the 1700s.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>WHICH IS WHY THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO GO TO COLLAGE. yOU MIGHT LEARN. (Too
>lazy to retype after hitting caps lock)

He would get pasted at collage.
Not a pretty picture.
veritas - 18 Aug 2007 05:00 GMT
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 04:16:33 GMT, "Mike Painter"
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> He would get pasted at collage.
> Not a pretty picture.

If we ended Biblical Studies what in the hell would we have to talk
about?  That would kill many a conversation.  That can't happen.  I
thought a collage was something you put together on paper, like
flowers and stuff.  Why would anyone GO to a collage?  Ken
Martin Edwards - 18 Aug 2007 09:30 GMT
>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 04:16:33 GMT, "Mike Painter"
>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> thought a collage was something you put together on paper, like
> flowers and stuff.  Why would anyone GO to a collage?  Ken

Yes, to stick something else on it.

Signature

Corporate society looks after everything.  All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions.  -From “Rollerball”

Michael Gray - 18 Aug 2007 11:12 GMT
>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 04:16:33 GMT, "Mike Painter"
>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>thought a collage was something you put together on paper, like
>flowers and stuff.  Why would anyone GO to a collage?  Ken

~~~~~~~~~VOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Right over the top of your pathetically tiny little mind.
veritas - 18 Aug 2007 20:11 GMT
> >> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 04:16:33 GMT, "Mike Painter"
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Michael, your sense of humor is like your sense of history. Nil.  Ken
Budikka666 - 19 Aug 2007 23:33 GMT
> > On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 04:16:33 GMT, "Mike Painter"
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> If we ended Biblical Studies what in the hell would we have to talk
> about?

Do you *seriously* believe the Bible is all there is to talk about?
If that's the case I am truly sorry for you.

What *is* there to talk about in the Bible that hasn't already been
done to death?

Budikka
veritas - 20 Aug 2007 03:29 GMT
> > > On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 04:16:33 GMT, "Mike Painter"
>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

It was really late last night when I wrote that.  I was tired.  After
arguing about Paul and the aspostles on a forum with the insulter and
others, it was just a joking remark.  I didn't even mean to make this
a conversation.  The illogical rape thing brought me back.  Still
don't think you can make a true valid logical sentence from it.  But I
was just joking when I said what in the world would we talk about.  Ken
Michael Gray - 20 Aug 2007 04:43 GMT
>> > On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 04:16:33 GMT, "Mike Painter"
>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>What *is* there to talk about in the Bible that hasn't already been
>done to death?

It's frauds, esp the entire New testament.
VtSkier - 17 Aug 2007 12:39 GMT
>> Yup nothingness willed itself into somethingness, just like the wet
>> rags birthed maggots in the 1700s.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> WHICH IS WHY THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO GO TO COLLAGE. yOU MIGHT LEARN. (Too
> lazy to retype after hitting caps lock)

or to run your spell check.
Actually the wrong word is spelled right.
Libertarius - 17 Aug 2007 05:06 GMT
> On Aug 15, 8:38 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> your faith - even better, just listen to what other people tell you
> and don't question anything.

===>And BEWARE,
THINKING CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR FAITH! -- L.

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

veritas - 19 Aug 2007 03:57 GMT
On Aug 16, 11:06 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
wrote:
> > On Aug 15, 8:38 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
> > wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

Somehow, that does not seem to be, for some reason to be good advice.
However that does seem to be the case with theologists, they tend to
not believe the Bible after close examination.  Hmmmm.    Ken
Matt Giwer - 17 Aug 2007 06:42 GMT
> On Aug 15, 8:38 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
> wrote:
>> http://www.cityside.org.nz/node/300
>> Bible Scholar urges End of Biblical Studies - Hector Avalos

> Detailed study of the bible does tend to lead to atheism. Stick to
> selected passages chosen for you by the church if you want to keep
> your faith - even better, just listen to what other people tell you
> and don't question anything.

    Stick to the selected passages. Never read them in context. When in doubt refer
to the "What is really means" companion volume.

Signature

The US supported Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, Chang Kai Cheq, and a host of
other dictators around the world. Is it any surprise the US supports Israel?
    -- The Iron Webmaster, 3852
 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
 Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12

asteropaeus - 19 Aug 2007 21:28 GMT
I know that habit of yours.....do you really want to share it with all of us

>> On Aug 15, 8:38 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
>> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>    Stick to the selected passages. Never read them in context. When in doubt refer
>to the "What is really means" companion volume.
arclein - 17 Aug 2007 07:34 GMT
On Aug 15, 12:38 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
wrote:
> http://www.cityside.org.nz/node/300
>
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
> fundamentalist atheist. He preached and practiced faith healing from
> age 7 to 17 and became an atheist in college.

Regardless of individual belief systems, the critical value of
biblical studies is in preparing a student to interpret the entire
canon of western literature and art.  It may be the final irony to
create a civilization with no deep grasp of its own culture.

They did this in China under Communism. The result is a rapid growth
of ad hoc religions and Christianity.  A more appropriate course of
action is to engage in these studies not as a quote book to support a
system of belief, but as a source book to western literature, culture
and ethical system.

There is a reason that we no longer practice infanticide, or put
criminals into the bear pit.

arclein
http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.com
veritas - 18 Aug 2007 20:52 GMT
> On Aug 15, 12:38 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 64 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

We still practice infanticde, it's called abortion.  And who says we
no longer put criminals into the bear pit?  What part of the U.S. do
you live in anyway?  Ken
Al Klein - 19 Aug 2007 04:59 GMT
> We still practice infanticde, it's called abortion.

And we still practice rape, it's called lovemaking.

Signature

%randsig:F:\Program Files\SigChanger\atheism.txt%

veritas - 19 Aug 2007 05:21 GMT
> > We still practice infanticde, it's called abortion.
>
> And we still practice rape, it's called lovemaking.
>
> --
> %randsig:F:\Program Files\SigChanger\atheism.txt%

I don't want to go there.  Abortion is stopping a child from being
born.  We just get to it earlier now.  I don't really care if someone
calls it alright or not. I don't have an opinion, as I'm never going
to have one. (It would be a first.)  But the end result is still
infanticde so we do still practice it.  Why didn't you mention the
bear pit?  You must be from around here.  Ken
The Chief Instigator - 19 Aug 2007 07:56 GMT
>> > We still practice infanticde, it's called abortion.

>> And we still practice rape, it's called lovemaking.

>I don't want to go there.  Abortion is stopping a child from being
>born.  We just get to it earlier now.  I don't really care if someone
>calls it alright or not. I don't have an opinion, as I'm never going
>to have one. (It would be a first.)  But the end result is still
>infanticde so we do still practice it.  Why didn't you mention the
>bear pit?  You must be from around here.  Ken

I appreciate your making me that much more thankful that I spent the vast
majority of my first decade at the *right* (non-OKC) end of the Turner
Turnpike.

Signature

  Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com)  Houston, Texas
   chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php  (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
               LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
              NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 6 vs. Chicago, 7:35

Al Klein - 19 Aug 2007 21:08 GMT
>> > We still practice infanticde, it's called abortion.

>> And we still practice rape, it's called lovemaking.

>I don't want to go there.  Abortion is stopping a child from being
>born.

Lexically impossible, since it's not a child UNTIL it's born.

child
noun
a person between birth and full growth

>I don't really care if someone calls it alright or not. I don't have an opinion

Then why are you discussing it?

>But the end result is still infanticde

1) That's an opinion you said you didn't have.

2) infant
noun
a very young child (birth to 1 year) who has not yet begun to walk or
talk

So it can't be infanticide.
veritas - 20 Aug 2007 03:20 GMT
> >> > We still practice infanticde, it's called abortion.
> >> And we still practice rape, it's called lovemaking.
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> So it can't be infanticide.

It just that I can logically justify that abortion and infanticde are
locked together, but you can't (this is an opinion) logically put rape
and lovemaking on the same level.  Ken
Al Klein - 20 Aug 2007 04:40 GMT
>> >> > We still practice infanticde, it's called abortion.
>> >> And we still practice rape, it's called lovemaking.
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>It just that I can logically justify that abortion and infanticde are
>locked together

No, you can, as Ms. Raymond has pointed out, redefine words to make it
appear so.

>, but you can't (this is an opinion) logically put rape
>and lovemaking on the same level.

They're on the same relative level as infanticide and abortion -
non-equivalences.  As such, they ARE equivalences.  QED.
Michael Gray - 19 Aug 2007 05:40 GMT
>> We still practice infanticde, it's called abortion.
>
>And we still practice rape, it's called lovemaking.

And it is also called Christian Marriage 'Duty', and Priestly
'instruction' of choir boys.
veritas - 19 Aug 2007 06:00 GMT
> >> We still practice infanticde, it's called abortion.
>
> >And we still practice rape, it's called lovemaking.
>
> And it is also called Christian Marriage 'Duty', and Priestly
> 'instruction' of choir boys.

>From your bitterness I take it you were a choir boy. Sue them, they
have blood money.  As for Christian Marriage Duty, well, I do my
duty.  Being brought up around Baptists, I think you better keep an
eye out for the "youth ministers" from the arrests I've seen in the
bible belt.  Ken
Christopher A.Lee - 19 Aug 2007 07:06 GMT
>> We still practice infanticde, it's called abortion.
>
>And we still practice rape, it's called lovemaking.

And we still practice grape, it's called a bunch of us.
Michael Gray - 19 Aug 2007 09:04 GMT
>>> We still practice infanticde, it's called abortion.
>>
>>And we still practice rape, it's called lovemaking.
>
>And we still practice grape, it's called a bunch of us.

I have not heard that 'joke' since, erm, since 1964, I believe.    ;)
veritas - 19 Aug 2007 09:39 GMT
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 02:06:06 -0400, Christopher A.Lee
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> I have not heard that 'joke' since, erm, since 1964, I believe.    ;)

I am ashamed to say I have never heard that joke.  If I did it slipped
my memory.  One thing I didn't get that Al Klein said was the rape
part.  If the woman says yes of her own free will, I have been led to
believe that is not rape.  I certainly hope my assumption is true. So
why would rape be called lovemaking.  Maybe my sense of humor has left
me at this late hour.  Ken
L. Raymond - 19 Aug 2007 09:50 GMT
>> Christopher A.Lee

>>>>> We still practice infanticde, it's called abortion.

>>>>And we still practice rape, it's called lovemaking.

>>>And we still practice grape, it's called a bunch of us.

>> I have not heard that 'joke' since, erm, since 1964, I believe.    ;)

> I am ashamed to say I have never heard that joke.  If I did it slipped
> my memory.  One thing I didn't get that Al Klein said was the rape
> part.  If the woman says yes of her own free will, I have been led to
> believe that is not rape.  I certainly hope my assumption is true. So
> why would rape be called lovemaking.  Maybe my sense of humor has left
> me at this late hour.  Ken

It's not a joke, he's simply echoing you.  If you can redefine abortion
to be infanticide, he's certainly free to redefine rape to be
lovemaking.  It's just as valid as your effort.

Signature

L. Raymond

Michael Gray - 19 Aug 2007 12:39 GMT
>>> Christopher A.Lee
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>to be infanticide, he's certainly free to redefine rape to be
>lovemaking.  It's just as valid as your effort.

I may well have made a grave mistake.

I had previously and publicly classified the ill-named 'veritas' as a
willful simpleton.
I now realise the she is an involuntary simpleton.
veritas - 19 Aug 2007 19:53 GMT
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 03:50:36 -0500, "L. Raymond"
>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Michael, your posts make less sense than ever.  Is insults all you can
add to these conversations? As before, bet you wouldn't say that to my
face. Like I said, I don't need to insult to make you look like the
fool you are, you do it well enough. Keep your umbrella open in case
it rains.  If you would like to see a simpleton, look in the mirror.
veritas - 19 Aug 2007 19:48 GMT
> >> Christopher A.Lee
> >>>>> We still practice infanticde, it's called abortion.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> --
> L. Raymond

I don't believe that abortion can just as well be called infanticide,
and forcing a woman to allow you to have intercourse are in the same
ballpark.  Abortion is infanticide, you just don't have to kill a
crying baby.  Lovemaking and rape are at the opposite ends of the sex
spectrum.  It's not as valid as my effort.  He had to be joking.  Ken
L. Raymond - 19 Aug 2007 20:07 GMT
>>> I am ashamed to say I have never heard that joke.  If I did it slipped
>>> my memory.  One thing I didn't get that Al Klein said was the rape
>>> part.  If the woman says yes of her own free will, I have been led to
>>> believe that is not rape.  I certainly hope my assumption is true. So
>>> why would rape be called lovemaking.  Maybe my sense of humor has left
>>> me at this late hour.  Ken

>> It's not a joke, he's simply echoing you.  If you can redefine abortion
>> to be infanticide, he's certainly free to redefine rape to be
>> lovemaking.  It's just as valid as your effort.

> I don't believe that abortion can just as well be called infanticide,
> and forcing a woman to allow you to have intercourse are in the same
> ballpark.  

Sure they are.  They're both instances of redefining words to suit your
agenda.  Abortion has a very specific meaning, as does infanticide, and
the two do not overlap.  When you insist one is equivalent to the other,
you are doing the same thing as a rapist who redefines rape to be
lovemaking.  

And we notice what you've done in your response. You refer to your own
error as two words, but suggest Mr, Klein is referring to the action of
rape, rather than arbitrarily swapping meanings as you did.  That's
dishonest.

> Abortion is infanticide, you just don't have to kill a
> crying baby.  

No, abortion is terminating a pregnancy before there is even a baby.
Infanticide is the killing of a baby that's been born and can survive
outside of a woman's body.

>It's not as valid as my effort.  He had to be joking.  

It was identical to what you did.  

Signature

L. Raymond

Al Klein - 20 Aug 2007 01:35 GMT
>> >> Christopher A.Lee
>> >>>>> We still practice infanticde, it's called abortion.
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>and forcing a woman to allow you to have intercourse are in the same
>ballpark.  Abortion is infanticide

Since an infant is already born (by definition) and abortion is of a
fetus not yet born (by definition), they can't be the same thing.  So
rape and lovemaking are related in the same way.

>He had to be joking.

No, the utter stupidity of your kind is no joking matter, it's utter
depravity.
veritas - 20 Aug 2007 03:38 GMT
> >> >> Christopher A.Lee
> >> >>>>> We still practice infanticde, it's called abortion.
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Again the insults.  Why must you people go there?  There is a good
portion of this country who believe that abortion and infantcide is
exactly one and the same.  I personally am not one of them, but
nevertheless, the results are the same, no baby.  That's like saying
shooting someone and blowing them up in their car is different.  No,
it isn't, the result is the same, a dead person.  You just handled it
different.  If you don't consider a fetus a live human, great, I don't
care.  But the rape and lovemaking doesn't pass the test for a valid
logical statement. (I'm 54 by the way, a Republican district
chairman.)  Which doesn't make my stand on abortion make me anymore
popular with the christians.  Ken
--
"Truth does not give a damn what we conceive.  We survive or perish
according to our ability to discern the truth and act upon it." -
Ken   www.veritasnovel.com
Al Klein - 20 Aug 2007 04:49 GMT
>There is a good portion of this country who believe that abortion and infantcide

You asked for logic - Argumentum ad Numeram is a logical fallacy.

>I personally am not one of them, but nevertheless, the results are the same, no baby.

And, as Ms. Raymond pointed out, suicide and murder result in the same
thing - no life.

>That's like saying shooting someone and blowing them up in their car is different.

It's like saying someone dying of old age and shooting them is the
same - no life.  You're arguing results, remember?

>  No, it isn't, the result is the same, a dead person.

And your claiming that the reason abortion and infanticide are the
same is THE RESULT!  So ... is it the same if the result is the same,
or is it different if the result is the same?  (It's difficult to keep
things straight when you're arguing from a logically faulty position,
isn't it?  You have to change sides when the logic changes.)

>If you don't consider a fetus a live human

It's alive and it's human (human is an adjective, not a noun), but
it's not a person.  This is a legal issue, not a logical issue or a
semantic issue.

>But the rape and lovemaking doesn't pass the test for a valid
>logical statement.

The result is the same, and that's your argument - the result.  Did
you forget?

>(I'm 54 by the way, a Republican district chairman.)

Whoopie for you.  So you're a young kid and you're on the losing side.
Budikka666 - 21 Aug 2007 00:20 GMT
> > >> >> Christopher A.Lee
> > >> >>>>> We still practice infanticde, it's called abortion.
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> exactly one and the same.  I personally am not one of them, but
> nevertheless, the results are the same, no baby.

I think it's pretty pathetic that someone who labels himself "veritas"
which means "truth", is so given to distortion.  It isn't a "baby" or
an "infant", it's an embryo or a fetus until it is born.

>  That's like saying
> shooting someone and blowing them up in their car is different.

No you're distorting it further.  If someone shot an adult and the
newspapers reported that a baby had been shot, would you consider that
the same thing?  Because *that's* the kind of distortion in which
you're indulging yourself, and you cannot hide it from atheists with
these lame (non-)comparisons.

>  No,
> it isn't, the result is the same, a dead person.  You just handled it
> different.

Now your poor grammar is showing.  It's not a matter of handling it
differently, it's a matter of putting a aggravatory "spin" on it
either deliberately or through laziness or lack of caring.  It's a
matter of what lately has come to be called "framing" and the so-
called pro-life hypocrites are masters of it.

>  If you don't consider a fetus a live human, great, I don't
> care.  But the rape and lovemaking doesn't pass the test for a valid
> logical statement. (I'm 54 by the way, a Republican district
> chairman.)  Which doesn't make my stand on abortion make me anymore
> popular with the christians.  Ken

Someone in such a responsible position needs to be far more guarded
with their tongue than you appear capable.

And I guess I missed something so I'm not even going to comment on
your "rape and lovemaking" juxtaposition.

Budikka
veritas - 21 Aug 2007 06:05 GMT
> > > >> >> Christopher A.Lee
> > > >> >>>>> We still practice infanticde, it's called abortion.
[quoted text clipped - 73 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

I do not use a guarded tongue even in politics.  I simply tell it as I
see it.  You are right, I am not capable of "guarding my tongue" if I
have an opinion, I say it. I glad you are not going to comment on Al's
"rape and lovemaking" because all you could do was insult me or
disagree with me.  You can't come up with a syllogism that proves the
statement.  It won't prove.  I tried it, and I have studied logic for
a long time.  I don't even see how or why anyone would take umbrage
with it.  Ken
--
"Truth does not give a damn what we conceive.  We survive or perish
according to our abiltiy to discern the truth correctly and act upon
it." - Ken   www.veritasnovel.com
Budikka666 - 21 Aug 2007 22:20 GMT
[snipped previous]
> I do not use a guarded tongue even in politics.  I simply tell it as I
> see it.  You are right, I am not capable of "guarding my tongue" if I
> have an opinion, I say it.

So it's fine for *you* to trample all over other people and their
feelings but as soon as someone says something *you* don't like,
that's a crime.  Okay.  Gotcha.  One rule for you.  A different rule
for all those upon whom you look down.

> I glad you are not going to comment on Al's
> "rape and lovemaking" because all you could do was insult me or
> disagree with me.

Okay.  Gotcha.  It's okay for you to disagree with others, but they
better not disagree with you.  Now I know with which ilk to class
you.  Thanks.

>  You can't come up with a syllogism that proves the
> statement.  It won't prove.  I tried it, and I have studied logic for
> a long time.  I don't even see how or why anyone would take umbrage
> with it.  Ken

What you are is a complete dunce.  You wilfully cannot see the
comparison, and here you are freely insulting everyone and anyone
whilst whining pitifully when they insult you.

Let me educate you. A selfish, arrogant, clueless, hypocritical
heartless, moronic, bitch is what you are.

Now go and LIE, after I gave you every single chance to get yourself
straight, that all I did is insult you.

I wash my hands of you and it's going to take some washing to get the
dirt you represent off of me.

Budikka
veritas - 22 Aug 2007 11:24 GMT
> [snipped previous]
>
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>
> Budikka

You are so far out of reality, it really is sad.  I feel sorry for
you, you stupid bastard.( I don't HAVE to be nice, I just usually am),
but I don't take that sh.t from anyone tough guy. You sissy boy. I
will say it to your face as well as say it on here if you like.
veritas - 22 Aug 2007 22:48 GMT
> [snipped previous]
>
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>
> Budikka

Butthead, as usual, you have no clue what is going on, or the answer.
Give it up.
Al Klein - 19 Aug 2007 21:14 GMT
>>> Christopher A.Lee
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>to be infanticide, he's certainly free to redefine rape to be
>lovemaking.  It's just as valid as your effort.

The fact that the analogy is disgusting to him probably escaped him.
"Veritas", indeed!
veritas - 20 Aug 2007 03:17 GMT
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 03:50:36 -0500, "L. Raymond"
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

In fact it surprised me that you would use that metaphor as an
answer.
  I give you this in logical categorical statement: All abortions
result in no baby to raise, All infantcides result in no baby to
raise, therefore, all abortions and infantcides produce no baby to
raise, same purpose, different timing,
  Now, can you give a logical statement in any form, QL, or SL
statements, any sentence that would make the rape statement a logical
statement?  I've looked and I must have missed it working it out. His
effort is logically invalid. I can't work it out, the truth tree
equation says the rape statement is invalid.  Help me out here.  The
analogy is disusting but did not escape me, I just wondered why the
logic escaped him.  Ken
Al Klein - 20 Aug 2007 04:37 GMT
>   I give you this in logical categorical statement: All abortions
>result in no baby to raise, All infantcides result in no baby to
>raise, therefore, all abortions and infantcides produce no baby to
>raise, same purpose, different timing,

All successful contraception results in no baby to raise.  All
homosexual sex results in no baby to raise.

Therefore abortions, contraception and homosexual sex are all the same
thing.

>   Now, can you give a logical statement in any form, QL, or SL
>statements, any sentence that would make the rape statement a logical
>statement?

Yes:  Infanticide is to abortion as rape is to lovemaking.

Next time you ask for logic, don't ask a teacher of logic.  (That's a
bit of logic.)
Michael Gray - 20 Aug 2007 04:50 GMT
>>>> Christopher A.Lee
>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>The fact that the analogy is disgusting to him probably escaped him.
>"Veritas", indeed!

Quite.
Perhaps she chose to hide behind this moniker out of delusional
wishful thinking.
She has succeeded in prostituting the Latin.
Jim Higgins - 19 Aug 2007 12:33 GMT
>> We still practice infanticde, it's called abortion.
>
> And we still practice rape, it's called lovemaking.

You people cross post all over on a topic that is very OFF topic here.
How much do you self-important dorks think people in the groups you are
spamming care for you trash opinions.

Get a life spammers.

Note: other groups clipped.
asteropaeus - 19 Aug 2007 21:32 GMT
What is it you do not understand?....If the girl in question likes it...

or if your own moral-system..does approve with it?

>> We still practice infanticde, it's called abortion.
>
>And we still practice rape, it's called lovemaking.
Budikka666 - 19 Aug 2007 23:36 GMT
> > On Aug 15, 12:38 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
> > wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 68 lines]
> no longer put criminals into the bear pit?  What part of the U.S. do
> you live in anyway?  Ken

No, infanticide would be murder.  No one aborts an infant.  There are
*embryos* which are terminated, however.  But that's not infanticide.

The only bare pit is the basis for running society as a theocracy.

Budikka
veritas - 20 Aug 2007 03:59 GMT
> > > On Aug 15, 12:38 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
> > > wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 77 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

The names are changed to protect the guilty or innocent, but the
result is the same. No baby to raise.  Shoot someone, or blow them up
in their car, they still are not here anymore.  His rape statement is
invalid, my statement is a logical statement, as I showed below. Ken
veritas - 20 Aug 2007 04:07 GMT
> > > > On Aug 15, 12:38 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
> > > > wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 84 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Or I guess above.  Somewhere on here. Ken
brique - 20 Aug 2007 05:34 GMT
> > > > > On Aug 15, 12:38 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
> > > > > wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 86 lines]
>
> Or I guess above.  Somewhere on here. Ken

So, baby dying from some illness is 'infanticide'...... right..... is that
the same logic?
veritas - 20 Aug 2007 18:06 GMT
> > > > > > On Aug 15, 12:38 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 127 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Only if you hold a pillow over it's face so that it can't breath.  But
then the cause of death is not illness.  People have been sentenced to
jail in this country for letting babies die because their religion
doesn't allow them to go to doctors.  So, if you allow a baby to die
like that, it's 'infanticide'.  Ken
Budikka666 - 21 Aug 2007 00:34 GMT
> > veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 137 lines]
> doesn't allow them to go to doctors.  So, if you allow a baby to die
> like that, it's 'infanticide'.  Ken

Only if it's a child between birth and 18 years of age (or whatever
the age of majority is).  Again, you're hell-bent on persisting in
using terms as loosley as you can on a topic that is highly
controversial.

I wonder why that is?

Budikka
veritas - 21 Aug 2007 05:48 GMT
> > > veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 148 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

I don't care if it's a baby or a fetus.  The both actions are taken
for the same reason. To be rid of a child.  What does that have to do
with forcing someone to have intercourse or have consenual sex with a
person?  It is not even in the same ballpark.  What is so hard to
understand about that?  Ken
Budikka666 - 21 Aug 2007 11:02 GMT
> > > > veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 154 lines]
> person?  It is not even in the same ballpark.  What is so hard to
> understand about that?  Ken

The fact is that you are now deliberately misusing words rather than
having the honesty to admit that you were wrong in your choice of
words regarding abortion.  Rather than address that, you're now making
an issue out of a comparison you evidently completely misunderstood
and are determined to continue to misunderstand rather than find the
honesty to actually address the situation.

I'd compare your behavior here with George Bush's behavior over his
Iraq blunder, but then you would deliberately misunderstand that and
use it to make more excuses.

The facts are these:
1.  You've been misusing terms when talking about abortion.
2.  Your misuse of terms in describing stages of development in human
growth is as culpable as someone who conflated the terms for rape and
lovemaking.
3.  This has been explained to you now in the simplest possible way.
4.  If you continue your dishonesty without even acknowledging the
problem, you will deserve whatever you get and my patience with you
will terminate.  I fell sorry for you.

Budikka
veritas - 22 Aug 2007 23:11 GMT
> > > > > veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 179 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

I would try and believe you but you wouldn't know the truth or a
logical statement if it slapped you in the face.  Its been explained
to me and explained to me.  I have explained to you and explained to
you why and how you are wrong.  There is no dishonesty here, you are
simply mistaken in your beliefs.  My patience with you has already
left me.  You simply don't get it, even when I go over and over it.
However, I am sorry that you fell sorry for me. I hope you didn't hurt
yourself badly.
brique - 21 Aug 2007 08:50 GMT
> > > > > > > On Aug 15, 12:38 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 91 lines]
> > > > > > > There is a reason that we no longer practice infanticide, or put
> > > > > > > criminals into the bear pit.

arcleinhttp://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.com-Hidequotedtext-

> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> doesn't allow them to go to doctors.  So, if you allow a baby to die
> like that, it's 'infanticide'.  Ken

You misunderstand your own comment, which was:

"The names are changed to protect the guilty or innocent, but the
result is the same. No baby to raise.  Shoot someone, or blow them up
 in their car, they still are not here anymore."

baby dies of illness, its not there anymore...... and according to your
formula, that makes it the same as shooting them or blowing them up.
veritas - 22 Aug 2007 08:47 GMT
> > > veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 191 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Did you kill them with the illness?  If you didn't then you didn't do
anything.  Keep thinking, use logic.  Ken
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.