Democratic Convention Live Thread

[chico2663]

Obama never left them alone, they haven't been left alone for decades. We didn't 'take out' Al Qaeda, we just gave rise to another group who believes the same and uses a different name, and uses our weapons against us. Decades of intervention have shown that's all that changes, the name of the bad guys. Keep hammering em like Hillary and Trump want and we'll be fighting over there forever....which is probably what they both want, good way to keep the power they're seeking.

One thing you gotta say for the russians. They knew when to leave afghanistan alone. Fighting those ragheads is like arguing politics with brooks. You could be hammering away and they are just to ignorant to understand.

[Triple_D_Bet]

One thing you gotta say for the russians. They knew when to leave afghanistan alone. Fighting those ragheads is like arguing politics with brooks. You could be hammering away and they are just to ignorant to understand.

They figured out that you can't fight an idea with guns and expect to win when it became financially unsustainable to continue....unfortunately we seem too dumb, and have too much borrowing power, to learn our lesson. Given the people bending over backwards to stick their head in the sand about Hillary or Trump, I'm sure we'll keep doing the same as always and expect different results

[brainfreeze]

I called ISIS and Radical extremists sand monkeys, not all Muslims and normal people in the region... Read again carefully.. Just to correct you on Christians being there, that is not the case for much longer as they are getting slaughtered by the Islamic State.. Christian genocide has been going on over there for a while now and Obama did nothing..

Brainfreeze I thought you of all people would know what has happened to Christians in the middle east... If I called the Islamic Radicals sand monkeys well you'll just have to excuse me then.. I should have called them worse..

In Iraq, where Christians are being butchered in mass executions by the Islamic State, their number has plunged from one million to just 275,000 in the last 12 years alone.

+2


Islamic State militants stand behind Egyptian Christians before beheading them in a horrific video released in February. Catholic aid groups warn that Christians face being wiped out from the Middle East within ten years as increasing numbers are killed by Muslim extremists or forced to flee persecution

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz4HdUCbFDh
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Well im sure you didn't mean any harm by it, just a bad choice of words..because it could be looked at as racist and imply not just to these jihadi characters.. Like calling them camel jockies and so fourth, I just call them sorry excuses for humans ...confused. Yea though, I get what you meant now, but i hope you can see what I'm saying there...and yes I know plenty of how they're being slaughtered, or the wealthy ones with a little pull are paying the jiza tax...it's real, I know this, and yes those are the ones left there while obama let's in all the sunnis

[rkelly110]

One thing you gotta say for the russians. They knew when to leave afghanistan alone. Fighting those ragheads is like arguing politics with brooks. You could be hammering away and they are just to ignorant to understand.

[brainfreeze]

Talking about Deuteronomy 22:28-29, seems to clearly indicate father of the girl is paid? The verses before that deal with killing her if she's in a town because she didn't scream for help, but leave her alive if she's raped in the country. I assume we're talking about different verses here?

Regardless, that's what is written in the Bible that Christians place at the center of their religion. Obviously you interpret is another way and don't advocate rape-for-pay...but do you see how an outsider would read those verse and combine it with your claim to treat the Bible as God's Word and conclude that you did support it? It's the same with the Koran, and most other ancient texts. These things were written as explanations and justifications for natural phenomena and cultural norms too long ago; with science explaining the former and the latter shifting as society evolves, it's no surprise that they require heavy reinterpretation today.

If you're gonna love thyself enough to gloss over the parts of your holy document you don't agree with, should probably extend that courtesy to your neighbor as well, that's all I'm sayin

Bad interpretation trip... We would also have to understand history, and ancient history to understand. See, back then if a woman were to be getting raped she must yell for help, if she's not yelling for help than it wouldn't be looked at as rape but consent. Here's the difference as I will show.

Now we have to understand these verses which are just before the few you brought to attention.

23If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

See, there's the consequence, for both of them there... She didn't cry out.. She is just as guilty of adultery here as the man, she gave consent.


28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.


It all comes down to understanding the Holy Spirit, history, and scripture trip... Then we have a base understanding of the will of God, anything else is mans meddling and misunderstandings..but when it comes to the koran, I call a spade a spade.. Cheers

[Triple_D_Bet]

Bad interpretation trip... We would also have to understand history, and ancient history to understand. See, back then if a woman were to be getting raped she must yell for help, if she's not yelling for help than it wouldn't be looked at as rape but consent. Here's the difference as I will show.

Now we have to understand these verses which are just before the few you brought to attention.

23If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

See, there's the consequence, for both of them there... She didn't cry out.. She is just as guilty of adultery here as the man, she gave consent.


28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.


It all comes down to understanding the Holy Spirit, history, and scripture trip... Then we have a base understanding of the will of God, anything else is mans meddling and misunderstandings..but when it comes to the koran, I call a spade a spade.. Cheers

Right-o...I get the determination of consent (although that's pretty damn imprecise; if the girl is gagged she dies too?), with 22:26-27 being the "stay alive in the country cause nobody would have heard you" part. Regardless, 28-29 are the same: rape a virgin, pay her dad and marry her. Not exactly in line with modern ethics, and most Christians wouldn't support laws based on that...but it's there in black and white, the same as the Koran's less appealing verses.

[brainfreeze]

Right-o...I get the determination of consent (although that's pretty damn imprecise; if the girl is gagged she dies too?), with 22:26-27 being the "stay alive in the country cause nobody would have heard you" part. Regardless, 28-29 are the same: rape a virgin, pay her dad and marry her. Not exactly in line with modern ethics, and most Christians wouldn't support laws based on that...but it's there in black and white, the same as the Koran's less appealing verses.

It's not rape trip, it's not saying that " she didn't cry out " ...and the consequences of them being found, the man has to marry the chick and never can divorce, and pay the dad 50 shekels of silver, Just the way it was..

[Triple_D_Bet]

It's not rape trip, it's not saying that " she didn't cry out " ...and the consequences of them being found, the man has to marry the chick and never can divorce, and pay the dad 50 shekels of silver, Just the way it was..

The verse doesn't make any distinction between crying out or not; if she's a virgin and not betrothed, it doesn't matter if she cries out or not, that's the proscribed action. The "kill em both in the city, just the rapist in the country" scenario is explicitly only for betrothed women.

Not saying it was considered unethical at the time it was written; I'm pointing out that we consider it unethical today, and yet it's part of the "infallible" book at the center of Christianity. If you don't think that part of the bible means Christianity advocates raping unbetrothed virgins, it's only sensible to extend the same courtesy to adherents of other religions who overwhelmingly go by modern morals as well instead of what's written in their divine texts.

[brainfreeze]

The verse doesn't make any distinction between crying out or not; if she's a virgin and not betrothed, it doesn't matter if she cries out or not, that's the proscribed action. The "kill em both in the city, just the rapist in the country" scenario is explicitly only for betrothed women.

Not saying it was considered unethical at the time it was written; I'm pointing out that we consider it unethical today, and yet it's part of the "infallible" book at the center of Christianity. If you don't think that part of the bible means Christianity advocates raping unbetrothed virgins, it's only sensible to extend the same courtesy to adherents of other religions who overwhelmingly go by modern morals as well instead of what's written in their divine texts.

Man, you can be prideful trip... Just admit you were wrong here and move on, that simple. You are trying to make it say something that it's not saying. Please don't do that... They were found " together " that's what it's saying..and yes, she was a unmarried virgin...it happens everyday trip, virgins get deflowered..." With consent " ...

it does not say she was crying out " as in rape ", so why keep on? It also says " he humbled her " ...consent, not rape ..

[Jayvegas420]

Im confused tripe.
Are you trying to say that social norms are different today than they were 3000 years ago?

I base all my daily decisions on a book from 3000 years ago, this may pose a problem for me.


What should I do?

[khicks26]

Im confused tripe.
Are you trying to say that social norms are different today than they were 3000 years ago?

I base all my daily decisions on a book from 3000 years ago, this may pose a problem for me.


What should I do?

Be glad you were not a women 3000 years ago. Or one that is married to a nut bag today.

[khicks26]

Heard some shit the other day that the Jewish word for God is meant to be read backwards & has been misinterpreted by almost everyone. What the word really means is he/she.

[Triple_D_Bet]

Man, you can be prideful trip... Just admit you were wrong here and move on, that simple. You are trying to make it say something that it's not saying. Please don't do that... They were found " together " that's what it's saying..and yes, she was a unmarried virgin...it happens everyday trip, virgins get deflowered..." With consent " ...

it does not say she was crying out " as in rape ", so why keep on? It also says " he humbled her " ...consent, not rape ..

Hah, I can certainly be prideful! But I like to think I admit when I'm wrong, I've certainly done it round here often enough. In this case, there's not much to be wrong about; the verse specifies the action (lay hold of her, and lie with here" in your version), making no distinction between consent or no consent. With no distinction made, there is no other action described here to be followed if consent was not given. As written, the verse simply states that pre-marital sex with an unbetrothed virgin (consensual or otherwise) is handled as described.

Considering the preceding verses make an explicit distinction between cases and make some effort to respect consent (as you yourself pointed out and agree with), the same distinction could have easily be made here, but it wasn't. There's simply no other way to interpret those words literally.

I'm not trying to change your mind here freezer, I'm simply pointing out that those verses permit raping unbetrothed virgins, so long as you have the shekels. Interestingly enough, the penalty for rape in this manner is 50 shekels, but the penalty for falsely questioning a woman's virginity is 100 shekels...not the same weights we'd give those actions nowadays, and my point is that the bible (and most other religious texts) are full of similar examples. Condemning others for what their book says when your book says similarly distasteful things doesn't make much sense.

[Triple_D_Bet]

Im confused tripe.
Are you trying to say that social norms are different today than they were 3000 years ago?

I base all my daily decisions on a book from 3000 years ago, this may pose a problem for me.


What should I do?

Switch books and start following the Art of War; much more relevant today, and much more respected in modern culture

[brainfreeze]

Hah, I can certainly be prideful! But I like to think I admit when I'm wrong, I've certainly done it round here often enough. In this case, there's not much to be wrong about; the verse specifies the action (lay hold of her, and lie with here" in your version), making no distinction between consent or no consent. With no distinction made, there is no other action described here to be followed if consent was not given. As written, the verse simply states that pre-marital sex with an unbetrothed virgin (consensual or otherwise) is handled as described.

Considering the preceding verses make an explicit distinction between cases and make some effort to respect consent (as you yourself pointed out and agree with), the same distinction could have easily be made here, but it wasn't. There's simply no other way to interpret those words literally.

I'm not trying to change your mind here freezer, I'm simply pointing out that those verses permit raping unbetrothed virgins, so long as you have the shekels. Interestingly enough, the penalty for rape in this manner is 50 shekels, but the penalty for falsely questioning a woman's virginity is 100 shekels...not the same weights we'd give those actions nowadays, and my point is that the bible (and most other religious texts) are full of similar examples. Condemning others for what their book says when your book says similarly distasteful things doesn't make much sense.

That's a blatant lie now, but whatever man... On you, I've shown where if a woman were being raped " they cry out " that's not in the verse you are reffering to and are there for adding your own interpretation...up to you to do so, you will believe what you want, but in both verses it's self explanatory.. Neither women cried out and " both were humbled " one was marry making her guilty of adultery, the other was a unmarried virgin making her guilty of premarital sex, and the punishment was getting married and paying dad 50 pieces of silver ...end of story, see it how you will

[Jayvegas420]

Id pay the silver before i got married again!

[brainfreeze]

As while we are here I will show the difference of new and Old Testament to you and chico... We see what the penalty was for that woman being caught with another man (adulterous), they were both stoned...now here in the New Testament, let's see what Jesus does with this adulterous woman...
John 8
. 3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.


I imagine when when he was stooping down ...he was writing their sins in the sand, gives me chills..

[Jayvegas420]

Starting to get a better understanding about why you are single freezer!

[brainfreeze]

Heard some shit the other day that the Jewish word for God is meant to be read backwards & has been misinterpreted by almost everyone. What the word really means is he/she.

Yea ..that's jewish kabbal talk. God is pure masculine, He is " Our Father " hollow be His name...

[grease lightnin]

Yea ..that's jewish kabbal talk. God is pure masculine, He is " Our Father " hollow be His name...

Hallowed be His name. Not hollow

[brainfreeze]

Hallowed be His name. Not hollow

Correct ...why not put the whole thing up here
Matthew 6:9-13 (KJV)
Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11Give us this day our daily bread.
12And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

[brainfreeze]

[chico2663]

Im confused tripe.
Are you trying to say that social norms are different today than they were 3000 years ago?

I base all my daily decisions on a book from 3000 years ago, this may pose a problem for me.


What should I do?

sort of like dealing with the farmers almanac

[chico2663]

Starting to get a better understanding about why you are single freezer!

Wonder which abortion clinic freezer is going to shoot up.

[chico2663]

i thought breitbart didn't like politics but now they think they are kingmaker!

[Triple_D_Bet]

That's a blatant lie now, but whatever man... On you, I've shown where if a woman were being raped " they cry out " that's not in the verse you are reffering to and are there for adding your own interpretation...up to you to do so, you will believe what you want, but in both verses it's self explanatory.. Neither women cried out and " both were humbled " one was marry making her guilty of adultery, the other was a unmarried virgin making her guilty of premarital sex, and the punishment was getting married and paying dad 50 pieces of silver ...end of story, see it how you will

It's not a question of interpretation freezer; if a law makes no distinction between crying out or not, consent or no, than logically and legally, it doesn't matter if it happened, any more than it matters what position they did it in. Believing the verse applies only to situations limited by context the verse doesn't provide (but could have provided, as was done in immediately preceding verses) is your choice, but isn't rational. Particularly in that light, accusing other religions of being at fault because their books have similar verses which most of their followers don't adhere to is being hypocritical and irrational, despite the good intentions or lack of knowledge that might inform that accusation.

As while we are here I will show the difference of new and Old Testament to you and chico... We see what the penalty was for that woman being caught with another man (adulterous), they were both stoned...now here in the New Testament, let's see what Jesus does with this adulterous woman...
John 8
. 3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.


I imagine when when he was stooping down ...he was writing their sins in the sand, gives me chills..

Could have been...but I prefer to think he was doodling a stick figure reenactment of the alleged scene. I like to think the guy had a sense of humor, and there's about as much evidence to support my version as anything else

It's certainly nice of Jesus to effectively pardon her, but considering he also said the law of moses still stands, it's not very consistent of him. To be fair though, it was probably a lot harder for him to keep a consistent message with all the stuff he had going on (trying to start a new religion within a hostile religious community ruled by a hostile foreign power, and he couldn't even bang a hooker to get some relief, not with all those dudes following him around)

[Triple_D_Bet]

Hallowed be His name. Not hollow

Nod, as in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows...hasn't been around as long, but same general message, and it's a fair bet in another 2,000 years it'll be just about as relevant as the bible is today

[brainfreeze]

It's not a question of interpretation freezer; if a law makes no distinction between crying out or not, consent or no, than logically and legally, it doesn't matter if it happened, any more than it matters what position they did it in. Believing the verse applies only to situations limited by context the verse doesn't provide (but could have provided, as was done in immediately preceding verses) is your choice, but isn't rational. Particularly in that light, accusing other religions of being at fault because their books have similar verses which most of their followers don't adhere to is being hypocritical and irrational, despite the good intentions or lack of knowledge that might inform that accusation.



Could have been...but I prefer to think he was doodling a stick figure reenactment of the alleged scene. I like to think the guy had a sense of humor, and there's about as much evidence to support my version as anything else

It's certainly nice of Jesus to effectively pardon her, but considering he also said the law of moses still stands, it's not very consistent of him. To be fair though, it was probably a lot harder for him to keep a consistent message with all the stuff he had going on (trying to start a new religion within a hostile religious community ruled by a hostile foreign power, and he couldn't even bang a hooker to get some relief, not with all those dudes following him around)

Ive shown you other wise, and anyone is able to see " there's no rape " in the scripture you provided. All the context talk and twisting and typing isn't going to make it say rape. Now it's up to you to stubbornly forget what I've told you, and follow the incorrect teaching you've absorbed. All your will to do so...


The law of Moses did still stand...and He came to fulfill it, " He was the sacrifice " ..

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.


He fulfilled it on the cross... He died for our sins. I'm done now, have a good night vegas, trip, chico ...God loves you.

John 3:16
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

[chico2663]

Brain sorry for being a deek to you. In high school I was voted most likely to be assassinated by his friends. It was embarrassing to be at the awards for the baseball team and to have my coach say that in front of the school. But it is a cross that i have had to carry. So sorry again

[Roadtrip635]

The PGA Tour reveals the World Golf Championship event was moving to Mexico after being at Trump National Doral in Miami since 2007


http://poststar.com/news/world/golf-...143dc4573.html

[chico2663]

yahweh?

[Triple_D_Bet]

Ive shown you other wise, and anyone is able to see " there's no rape " in the scripture you provided. All the context talk and twisting and typing isn't going to make it say rape. Now it's up to you to stubbornly forget what I've told you, and follow the incorrect teaching you've absorbed. All your will to do so...


The law of Moses did still stand...and He came to fulfill it, " He was the sacrifice " ..

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.


He fulfilled it on the cross... He died for our sins. I'm done now, have a good night vegas, trip, chico ...God loves you.

John 3:16
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Shrug...freezer, if that passage doesn't cover rape as you say, then the only conclusion is that raping an unbetrothed virign isn't covered by the law at all. Is that really any better?

Despite it never saying that's what he meant, "fulfilling it" by dying on the cross is a clever interpretation, I'll give you that. The problem with that though: if dying on the cross means he fulfilled them, and the reprehensible parts of the law no longer apply, does that mean (in your opinion) the 'good' parts of the law were thrown out too? Does God no longer care about murder, lying, respecting your elders etc?

Night freezer...the flying spaghetti monster, who boiled for your sins, loves you as well (or at least he cares enough to have created the universe in such a way that's it's impossible to prove he doesn't love you)

[Jayvegas420]

The Sun loves you too

[brainfreeze]

Shrug...freezer, if that passage doesn't cover rape as you say, then the only conclusion is that raping an unbetrothed virign isn't covered by the law at all. Is that really any better?

Despite it never saying that's what he meant, "fulfilling it" by dying on the cross is a clever interpretation, I'll give you that. The problem with that though: if dying on the cross means he fulfilled them, and the reprehensible parts of the law no longer apply, does that mean (in your opinion) the 'good' parts of the law were thrown out too? Does God no longer care about murder, lying, respecting your elders etc?

Night freezer...the flying spaghetti monster, who boiled for your sins, loves you as well (or at least he cares enough to have created the universe in such a way that's it's impossible to prove he doesn't love you)

The law still stands... If you like the Pharisees don't believe in Christ, you will have to stand (by the law) for your sins in the end...and you will be convicted of them. If you believe in Christ, His blood pays for your sins... He is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world.

By believing, we die, (and are born again) to a new life and gifted the Holy Spirit to help with the walk...the pure path.


and vegas the sun doesn't love you... you stay in it to long you will get skin cancer, if we look at it to long..well, you get the idea. Good night fellas

[Triple_D_Bet]

The law still stands... If you like the Pharisees don't believe in Christ, you will have to stand (by the law) for your sins in the end...and you will be convicted of them. If you believe in Christ, His blood pays for your sins... He is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world.

By believing, we die, (and are born again) to a new life and gifted the Holy Spirit to help with the walk...the pure path.


and vegas the sun doesn't love you... you stay in it to long you will get skin cancer, if we look at it to long..well, you get the idea. Good night fellas

Sooooo....Jesus dying on the cross 'fulfills' the law, but the law still stands...just not the bits about slavery, multi-fabric clothing, or stoning people in general? Are we taking "fulfill" to mean "invalidates any portions that might not coincide with norms at the time which the reader evaluates the Bible?"

Sure, spending too much time in the Sun gets you cancer....which means you die sooner and go to super heaven (it's like the christian heaven, but better, cause if we don't need to prove our claims why the hell not??). That's how much the sun loves ya!