You said:
"The patriarch you refer to never married his half sister, she was never his sister, he told her to call herself his sister so they wouldn't kill him."
Then later:
...means biological sister, sister in law or adopted sister. Each is a VALID interpretation...
From wiki:
A half sibling (half brother or half sister) is a sibling with one shared biological or adoptive parent.
The issue was incest of course, so Abraham never married his biological sister.
Genesis 20:12
But indeed [she is] truly my sister. She [is] the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
The word for daughter there is 'bath,' and an acceptable translation for the word bath is adoptive daughter.
daughter
a) daughter, girl, adopted daughter, daughter-in-law, sister, granddaughters, female child, cousin
1) as polite address
So the wiki article becomes irrelevant since I am not maintaining that Sarah was Abraham's half sister, at least in the biological sense, Sarah was an adopted daughter of Abraham's father which was customary back then.
However, the kinship pattern of the Semitic chiefs listed in Genesis followed an established protocol that involved betrothal to half-sisters, so Abram may not have lied when he said that Sarai was his sister. On the other hand, there have been ancient tablets recently recovered from the ancient city of Mari that may suggest otherwise. These ancient Semite legal records show that when a woman is married to a man, she is then formally adopted by his father as a full daughter as well[6].
Flute 0/1.
Td:
"Marriage is not a right PERIOD. It isn't even a legal right, it definitely isn't an civil right "
"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not legally biding so Jill has no point at all."
Flute: Countries in the UN recognize this declaration.
Flute engages in quote mining by completely ignoring the context in which that quote was discussed. I was discussing same sex marriage in the United States and marriage is NOT a right, that UN document is not legally biding in the U.S. No mistake, just another ignorant atheist.
Flute 0/2
Flute: In response to "a cat is not capable of acting as executor of an estate." you said "People leave their stuff to the pets when they die all the time."
Maybe, but a cat is still not capable of acting as an executor of an estate.
Where is the mistake or error here? did I say a cat is capable of acting as an executor of an estate? no I did not, I said it is irrelevant that cats cannot act as an executor of an estate because people leave stuff to their pets when they die all the time.
Flute 0/3
Flute: The arguments "supporting gay marriage can be used to support incest and people marrying animals,"
When proven wrong, you just said it over and over.
Flute begs the questions, assuming I was proven wrong. Flute also engages in quote mining. I said "The logic that is used to support gay marriage can also be used to support incest and people marrying animals, and atheists have nothing but their own personal opinion as to why they shouldn't be fighting for man-animal marriages and incest marriages as well as same sex marriages." When I said "supporting gay marriage can be used to support incest and people marrying animals" it was simply a variant of that. Also there was no mistake here, flute simply asserted I was proven wrong, he did not show a shred of evidence.
Flute 0/4
TD: Consent is not required to engage in sexual acts with the pets or own the pets in the first place, so your consent point is irrelevant.
Flute: I hope you are kidding.
Saying "I hope you're kidding" is not providing evidence of me making a mistake.
Flute 0/5
Td: Bestial marriage will soon enough be federally recognized, and the issue will naturally go away.
Flute: I hope you are kidding.
Another quote mine, this was me mocking another atheist, using his own logic to prove that it supports animal man mariages.
Flute 0/6
Conclusion, flute has not provided the necessary evidence to prove a mistake on my part, thus making himself look completely ignorant, basically no change in the status quo.
Flute beats the 10 count
TD said: "Example: the word 'bath' (sic) means biological sister, sister in law or adopted sister. Each is a VALID interpretation."
Here's the bit you wrote that you have to read again: "Each is a VALID interpretation." If each of a valid interpretation, why is choose adopted sister? (which is still a half-sibling!)
Flute is simply too ignorant to tell the difference between valid interpretations and valid interpretations supported by written context and evidence. For example, Genesis 1 states:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
The word earth is 'erets,' which can be translated as the following:
a) earth
1) whole earth (as opposed to a part)
2) earth (as opposed to heaven)
3) earth (inhabitants
b) land
1) country, territory
2) district, region
3) tribal territory
4) piece of ground
5) land of Canaan, Israel
6) inhabitants of land
These are all valid interpretations of the word, but why do we choose a1 (whole earth) instead of b3?(tribal territory) because of the written and historical context states that 'erets' is talking about the whole earth not a tribal territory. Flute, being the ignorant atheist that he is, sees only valid interpretations and that is it, he is completely oblivious(due to his extreme, deep, unwavering ignorance and inability to think in a logically coherent manner) of context and historical evidence, which is the reason I choose adopted sister rather than half sister.
Besides as Chris Mackey points out, there's a perfectly good word for "sister in law" in Hebrew. (Strong's Number: 02994) Why not use it if that's what it meant?
Atheist logic strikes again, the fact that you and another ignorant atheist think it is a perfectly good word for "sister in law" is not evidence that it is. Just because they are not using what you and another ignorant atheist think they should be using is nothing but an argument from personal opinion. 'Bath' is the word that is used and adopted daughter is an acceptable translation.
Not to mention I said 'adopted daughter,' which has little to nothing to do with Sarah being a sister in law, since she can be an adopted daughter but still be a sister in law.
Flute 0/7
"While not a treaty itself, the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the meaning of the words "fundamental freedoms" and "human rights" appearing in the United Nations Charter, which is binding on all member states."
Hilarious. Exactly what I come to expect from an ignorant Christian.
Is the US a member state of the UN? Yes. Is it binding? Yes.
Atheist ignorance strikes again. Look how completely ignorant flute is as he doesn't even realize he proved himself wrong. First off here is the source of the paragraph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
Here is the paragraph right above it.
Even though not formally legally binding, the Declaration has been adopted in or influenced most national constitutions since 1948. It also serves as the foundation for a growing number of international treaties and national laws and international, regional, national and sub-national institutions protecting and promoting human rights.
See the bold, it is not formally legally binding, now let's look at Flutes paragraph.
While not a treaty itself, the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the meaning of the words "fundamental freedoms" and "human rights" appearing in the United Nations Charter, which is binding on all member states.
It says it is not a treaty. What is a treaty?
A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as: (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, exchange of letters, etc.
Looks like that marriage 'right,' is not an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. So flute proves his ignorance again, as his own source specifically states the declaration has real power. Let's see what else it says.
"the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the meaning of the words "fundamental freedoms" and "human rights"
So it was adopted only for the purposes of DEFINING the meaning of the words "fundamental freedoms" and "human rights."
That UN document of human rights is to the courts what the bible is to the courts. Both are not legally binding. Those rules do not apply to the U.S. anymore than the bible does, both are just moral guidelines. If someone happened to go against the rules in the UN Document they cannot be legally punished, just like if someone happened to go against the rules of the bible they cannot be legally punished. So saying marriage is a right because of an legally unbinding document says it is is like saying Muslims have the right to kill infidels because a legally unbinding document says it does. Here are 2 judges that agree.
Justice kennedy
(c) The overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty is not controlling
here, but provides respected and significant confirmation for the Court's determination that the penalty is
disproportionate punishment for offenders under 18. See, e.g., Thompson, supra, at 830-831, and n. 31. The
United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile penalty.
It does not lessen fidelity to the Constitution or pride in its origins to acknowledge that the express
affirmation of certain fundamental rights by other nations and peoples underscores the centrality of those
same rights within our own heritage of freedom. Pp. 21-25
Justice Scalia
Worse still, the Court says in so many
words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: "[I]n the end our
own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the
Eighth Amendment." Ante, at 9 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court thus proclaims itself sole
arbiter of our Nation's moral standards--and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports
to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures.
Flute 0/8
Conclusion, flute has not provided the necessary evidence to prove a mistake on my part, thus making himself look completely ignorant, basically no change in the status quo. Eight unanswered punches usually indicates the opponent is in trouble. Will flute throw in the towel or continue to flail about?
Looks like Flute choose to continue to flail about.
When I quoted you saying "Bestial marriage will soon enough be federally recognized, and the issue will naturally go away." That was a quote mine and not in context.
Flute is just outstandingly incorrect here.
Stan said the following:
Whatever. Same-sex marriage will soon enough be federally recognized, and the issue will naturally go away. Let these peasants have cake.
I responded to that with the following:
Whatever. Bestial marriage will soon enough be federally recognized, and the issue will naturally go away. Let these peasents have cake.
Thanks for proving my point stan.
0/9
And still;
Baker's Evangelical Dictionary
of Biblical Theology and Nave's Topical Bible both have Genesis 20:12 as an example of incest. Baker and Nave spent their entire lives translating the Bible into English. Do you honestly think you know better than them?
Bakers evangelical Dictionary and Nave's topical bible are not the end all authorities of translation. Your appeals to authority are irrelevant, just because 2 authorities state it is incest does not in any prove that it is nor does it take away from the FACT that adopted daughter is a valid translation of the word. Due to your utter ignorance you're confusing disagreement with a mistake. Me and 2 authorities disagree, that in no way proves I was wrong or made a mistake.
0/10
TD: "So it was adopted only for the purposes of DEFINING the meaning... "
The conversation was on the definition of marriage. So congratulations on actually reading the link I supplied.
TD: "Those rules do not apply to the U.S. anymore than the bible does,"
They are not rules. But definitions that are binding for all UN member states.
You've mixed up description with prescription, which is understandable, many people don't understand the difference.
Flute due to his complete and utter ignorance simply omits where it states quite clearly that the document is not LEGALLY BINDING, so that definition of marriage is not legally binding. Congratulations on your quote mine and blatant omission of what you can't handle.
Even though not formally legally binding, the Declaration has been adopted in or influenced most national constitutions since 1948. It also serves as the foundation for a growing number of international treaties and national laws and international, regional, national and sub-national institutions protecting and promoting human rights.
There is nothing legally binding about the document, not even the definition. It is nothing but moral guidelines, that is the way in which the U.S. is bound. This unbinding legal documents definition of marriage is no more applicable to the U.S. than the Biblical definition of marriage. Both are not legally binding, both serve as nothing but moral guidelines. Americas has only signed the ICCPR.
The United States has signed and ratified the "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" (but not the Covenant’s Optional Protocol, which would allow Americans to seek remedy through the UN for alleged rights violations by the US government). And President Carter has signed the "International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights" for the U.S., but the U.S. government and the people of the United States have not yet generated the political will necessary to ratify this Covenant. While Americans generally recognize civil and political rights as human rights, they have not always shared the same understanding with regard to economic, social and cultural rights (such as the rights to food, clothing, housing and health care).
The 5 provisions of the ICCPR
Five categories
1. Protection on individual's physical integrity (against things such as execution, torture, and arbitrary arrest).
2. Procedural fairness in law (rule of law, rights upon arrest, trial, basic conditions must be met when imprisoned, rights to a lawyer, impartial process in trial).
3. Protection based on gender, religious, racial or other forms of discrimination.
4. Individual freedom of belief, speech, association, freedom of press, right to hold assembly.
5. Right to political participation (organise a political party, vote, voice contempt for current political authority).
Two optional protocols
1. Mechanism by which individuals can launch complaints against member states.
2. Abolition of the death penalty.
So flute once again exposes his ignorance.
0/11
TD: "Here are 2 judges that agree, from Roper v Simmons." Non sequitur.
This is nothing but a baseless assertion, Flute simply assertions with no evidence that what I did was a non sequitur, and on that note, what I did was NOT a non sequitur. There, I can assert as baselessly as you can.
0/12
"Many international lawyers, in addition, believe that the Declaration forms part of customary international law... The Declaration continues to be widely cited by governments, academics, advocates and constitutional courts and individual human beings who appeal to its principles for the protection of their recognised human rights."
Atheist ignorance strikes again. It doesn't matter what international lawyers believe, it is still NOT a legally binding document. Christians believe the bible is the authority on everything, does that prove that it is? belief does not = proof. Furthermore it states quite clearly that the declaration only forms PART of customary international law, neither of which applies to America btw, so you've made NO POINT. That is nice that the declaration is cited by governments etc. who appeal to its principles for protection of their recognized human rights. Governments etc. etc. also appeal to the teachings of Jesus and things found in the bible as well, they also appeal to society too, which quite clearly stated that same sex marriage is not accepted. Furthermore, where on earth does this prove a mistake I made? marriage is still not a right since the declaration is not legally binding, you have yet to prove a mistake I made.
0/13
Td:The United States has signed and ratified the "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights"
Flute:I wonder where the ICCPR got their definitions from? Oh, the UDHR! Exactly! You're getting closer to admitting you were wrong. There's no shame in it.
Flute shows his ignorance by omitting things. The ICCPR guidelines are as follows.
The 5 provisions of the ICCPR
Five categories
1. Protection on individual's physical integrity (against things such as execution, torture, and arbitrary arrest).
2. Procedural fairness in law (rule of law, rights upon arrest, trial, basic conditions must be met when imprisoned, rights to a lawyer, impartial process in trial).
3. Protection based on gender, religious, racial or other forms of discrimination.
4. Individual freedom of belief, speech, association, freedom of press, right to hold assembly.
5. Right to political participation (organise a political party, vote, voice contempt for current political authority).
Two optional protocols
1. Mechanism by which individuals can launch complaints against member states.
2. Abolition of the death penalty.
Nothing in there about marriage you ignorant atheist.
0/14
It was an obvious non sequitur. The judges are talking about another topic.
Its relevant to the subject you ignorant atheist.
Justice kennedy
(c) The overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty is not controlling
here, but provides respected and significant confirmation for the Court's determination that the penalty is
disproportionate punishment for offenders under 18. See, e.g., Thompson, supra, at 830-831, and n. 31. The
United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile penalty.
It does not lessen fidelity to the Constitution or pride in its origins to acknowledge that the express
affirmation of certain fundamental rights by other nations and peoples underscores the centrality of those
same rights within our own heritage of freedom. Pp. 21-25
It quite clearly says that expressing certain fundamental rights by OTHER NATIONS and people underscores the centrality of those same rights within our own heritage of freedom.
Justice Scalia
Worse still, the Court says in so many
words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: "[I]n the end our
own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the
Eighth Amendment." Ante, at 9 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court thus proclaims itself sole
arbiter of our Nation's moral standards--and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports
to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures.
This was a DISSENTING OPINION which quite clearly states that taking guidance from the views of FOREIGN COURTS AND LEGISLATURES discharges the awesome responsibility of the court that proclaims itself sole arbiter of our nations moral standards. No non sequitur, just your complete and utter ignorance of the fallacy and reading comprehension.
0/15
TD>international lawyers!
TD>Biblical scholars! (That probably worked on the translation of his bible!)
Appeal to ridicule. I never said nor insinuated me > lawyers or biblical scholars, I simply said that what many lawyers believe does not = proof of anything an more than what many Christians believe = proof of anything. Furthermore I said that me disagreeing with scholars is not evidence or proof I made a mistake, since adopted daughter is still an acceptable translation of the word 'bath.' You are appealing to ridicule, take the above argument and twisting it to TD>biblical scholars and TD>internation lawyers.
Appeal to ridicule, also called the Horse Laugh[1], is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument.
Furthermore, a closer look at your 'lawyer argument,' there is a fundamental flaw. Here is the link in which it was taken.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
Many[citation needed] international lawyers, in addition, believe that the Declaration forms part of customary international law
In the bold it says CITATION NEEDED. Look what wiki has to say about the citation needed flag.
The "citation needed" link you just followed was placed there because somebody feels that the preceding statement needs an inline citation. If you cannot find a source for the statement, exercise extra caution when using the flagged information.
So flutes argument has no back up. How many is many you ignorant atheist? it can range from 5 lawyers to 500!!! Flutes ignorance is once again exposed here.
0/16
Td:Flute shows his ignorance by omitting things. The ICCPR guidelines are as follows.
Flute:Just so you don't look silly, I'll print the next part of capital letters.
READ THE ICCPR! A23. READ THE ICCPR!
Atheist ignorance strikes again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights
The United States Senate ratified the ICCPR in 1992, with 5 reservations, 5 understandings, and 4 declarations.[3] Some, such as Eleanor Roosevelt, have noted that with so many reservations, its implementation has little domestic effect.[4] Included in the Senate's ratification was the declaration that "the provisions of Article 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing",[5] and in a Senate Executive Report stated that the declaration was meant to "clarify that the Covenant will not create a private cause of action in U.S. Courts."[6]
[edit] Effect on domestic law
Where a treaty or covenant is not self-executing, and where Congress has not acted to implement the agreement with legislation, no private right of action is created by ratification. Sei Fujii v. State 38 Cal.2d 718, 242 P.2d 617 (1952); also see Buell v. Mitchell 274 F.3d 337 (6th Cir., 2001) (discussing ICCPR's relationship to death penalty cases, citing to other ICCPR cases). Thus while the ICCPR is ostensibly binding upon the United States as a matter of international law, it does not form part of the domestic law of the nation.
So Articles 1 - 27 of the covenant are NOT self executing, which includes article 23. No right to marriage you ignorant atheist, of course I knew this, I was just waiting for you to throw your haymaker before I accurately countered it. Here is more evidence to bury this ignorant atheist.
Have you ever heard someone say, "That's unconstitutional!" or "That's my constitutional right!" and wondered if they were right? You might be surprised how often people get it wrong. You might also be surprised how often people get it right. Your best defense against misconception is reading and knowing your Constitution.
Gee, I wonder what is missing from the constitution?
MARRIAGE!
In the absence of any such amendment, however, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point...
The Constitutional Topics pages at the USConstitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages. This Topic Page concerns Marriage. Though not mentioned in the Constitution, marriage has become a constitutional hot-button topic in recent years.
Marriage isn't even mentioned in the US constitution, which is more evidence it is not a right, but theres MORE!! Marriage is not talked about or listed in THE BILL OF RIGHTS EITHER!
0/17
I can't find any scholars that agree with you about Abraham's sister/wife
Your inability to find scholars does not take away from the fact that adopted sister is a valid translation of the word bath, your inability to research properly does not in anyway prove me wrong or prove I made a mistake.
0/18
How did you get the idea that adopted daughter was a valid translation of bth? From Strong. :-) Who's appealing to authority? Why leap on that translation of bth and ignore the achowth ?
This isn't even a rebuttal. The ignorant atheist flute cited 2 authorities about Genesis 20:12 being about incest. That does not in any prove that it is, it merely proves that 2 authorities think it is about incest. What the ignorant atheists forgets is that the burden of proof is ON HIM to prove I made a mistake. I asserted that the adopted daughter is a VALID interpretation of the word BATH. So this makes me in disagreement with 2 authorities, which does not prove I made a mistake.
Flute brought up me appealing to authority, this is irrelevant since I am not doing it in a fallacious way so why even bring it up? I think it is because the ignorant atheist doesn't know the difference between a fallacious appeal to authority and an fallacious appeal to authority. The word achowth is irrelevant since she can easily be an adopted half sister. No mistake, just another ignorant atheist.
0/19
No, it just says you hold your opinion higher than scholars, the people who actually translate the Bible.
Irrelevant and also incorrect. My opinion is based on strongs, which are scholars who actually translate the bible, and even if I did hold my opinion higher than scholars(I don't but I am merely proving a point)so what? that does not change the fact that adopted daughter is still a valid interpretation of the word bath and me disagreeing with 2 scholars does not prove I made a mistake.
0/20
Then please show how and why a country, a member state of the UN, does not have to follow international law.
Ignorant atheist flute displays his inability to read. It was explained quite clearly in your 17th failure to prove I made a mistake. They do not have to follow this international law because.
1. "the provisions of Article 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing"
2. "the declaration was meant to "clarify that the Covenant will not create a private cause of action in U.S. Courts."
3. "Congress has not acted to implement the agreement with legislation"
4. "the ICCPR is only ostensibly binding upon the United States as a matter of international law."
5. "it does not form part of the domestic law of the nation."
6. It is not found in the constitution
7. It is not found in the bill or fights.
So you've been proven ignorant AGAIN.
0/20
Appeal to ridicule? No. Just ridicule actually.
I explained why it was an appeal to ridicule in response to your 16th attempt to prove I made a mistake. You took my argument and twisted it in a way that appeared ridiculous and created a starw man (since I never once said nor insinuated td>lawyers or td>biblical scholars)this was explained the response to your 16th attempt to prove I made a mistake and now, in response to that, all you did was simply baselessly assert No. That is not a logical coherent rebuttal, it is just a baseless assertion and just more evidence that flute is a logically inept ignorant atheist.
0/21
In the other thread, you said "Example: the word 'bath' (sic) means biological sister, sister in law or adopted sister. Each is a VALID interpretation."
On Debunking Atheists you once said bath=sister,sister in law, or adopted sister. Not daughter. You made a small mistake.
Yes, this is a mistake as I meant adopted daughter, but it must be noted that this has nothing to do with my overall points, it was a simple mistake.
.5/22
Secondly, you have not stated WHY your valid interpretation is more correct than the scholar's valid interpretation. You stated "Each is a VALID interpretation." EACH. VALID.
Flute exposes his ignorance again. The original person that wrote Genesis 20:12 had only one meaning to the word bath. We don't know what that original meaning is, but biological sister and adopted sisters are EACH VALID INTERPRETATIONS of the word. THere is no such thing as 'more correct' either something is correct or not correct, but due to the fact that at the time we DON'T KNOW the authors original meaning of the word we can only speculate as to WHICH interpretation is the correct interpretation. I explained why my speculation should be taken over the others in my response to flutes first attempt to prove I made a mistake.
http://www.worldreligionday.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55&Itemid=104
However, the kinship pattern of the Semitic chiefs listed in Genesis followed an established protocol that involved betrothal to half-sisters, so Abram may not have lied when he said that Sarai was his sister. On the other hand, there have been ancient tablets recently recovered from the ancient city of Mari that may suggest otherwise. These ancient Semite legal records show that when a woman is married to a man, she is then formally adopted by his father as a full daughter as well[6].
Not only that, but flute due to his ignorance forgets that the burden of proof is ON HIM to prove that I made a mistake, me disagreeing with 2 other authorities on this issue does not prove I made a mistake. Flute needs to prove that 'biological daughter' is the CORRECT AND TRUE meaning of the word bath, and that is practically impossible since the original person that wrote it is dead. Two authorities that state it means 'biological daughter' does not prove the original author meant that, it merely proves that 2 authorities favor one valid interpretation over the other.
.5/23
You might want to read your link again. "the ICCPR is ostensibly binding upon the United States as a matter of international law"
Flute not only ignores and omits the evidence that was provided in the response to his 17th and 20th attempt to prove I made a mistake, he also has shown complete and utter ignorance of the word ostensibly.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ostensible
1 : intended for display : open to view 2 : being such in appearance : plausible rather than demonstrably true or real
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ostensible
1. outwardly appearing as such; professed; pretended: an ostensible cheerfulness concealing sadness.
2. apparent, evident, or conspicuous: the ostensible truth of their theories.
.5/24
Strong doesn't agree with you:
1; Marriages between persons thus related, in various degrees, which previous usage, in different conditions of society, had allowed, were forbidden by the law of Moses. These degrees are enumerated in Lev. xviii, 7 sq. The examples before the law are those of Cain and Abel, who, as the necessity of the case required, married their own sisters. Abraham married Sarah, the daughter of his father by another wife; and Jacob married the two sisters Leah and Rachel.
In the first instance, and even in the second, there was an obvious consanguinity, and only the last offered a previous relationship of affinity merely. So also, in the prohibition of the law, a consanguinity can be traced in what are usually set down as degrees of affinity merely.
Flute once again proves his ignorance as he is simply incorrect, Strong DOES agree with me.
1) daughter
a) daughter, girl, adopted daughter, daughter-in-law, sister, granddaughters, female child, cousin
1) as polite address
As you can see, strong agrees that adopted daughter is a VALID INTERPRETATION of 'bath.' Furthermore, Scholar Victor P. Hamilton agrees with me
This is a half-truth, as 20:12 indicates (although "daughter of my father" could mean adopted daughter).
Once again flute is simply too ignorant to understand the following, the burden of proof is on HIM to PROVE I made a mistake and disagreement simply does NOT = a mistake, especially on the interpretations of the ancient words, since nobody knows the original meaning there is simply no way for flute to prove I made a mistake.
.5/25
"os·ten·sible (ä sten′sÉ™ bÉ™l)
adjective
1. apparent; seeming; professed
2. clearly evident
3. ....
Etymology: Fr < ML ostensibilis < L ostendere, to show"
Webster's Unabridged Dictionary
"the ICCPR is -clearly evidently- binding upon the United States as a matter of international law"
Valid interpretation of the word.
Flue is simply too ignorant to understand that it might be a valid interpretation of the word, that valid interpretation does not describe the ICCPRs relationship to the united states. The ICCPR is not clearly evidently binding upon the United states as a matter of international because of the EVIDENCE I listed in his 20th failed attempt to prove I made a mistake.
1. "the provisions of Article 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing"
2. "the declaration was meant to "clarify that the Covenant will not create a private cause of action in U.S. Courts."
3. "Congress has not acted to implement the agreement with legislation"
4. "the ICCPR is only ostensibly binding upon the United States as a matter of international law."
5. "it does not form part of the domestic law of the nation."
6. It is not found in the constitution
7. It is not found in the bill or fights.
If it was clearly or evidently binding then a1-27 would be self executing, the declaration would be able to create a private cause of action, congress would've implemented the agreement with legislation, it would form part of the domestic law of the nation, marriage would be found in the Constitution and bill of rights. Due to flutes inability to think coherently combined with his ignorance he simply cannot see that his valid interpretation of the word does not apply to the United Staets.
.5/26
Strong's Concordance is not a translation of the Bible nor is it intended as a translation tool... Since Strong's Concordance identifies the original words in Hebrew and Greek, Strong's Numbers are sometimes misinterpreted by those without adequate training...
This is from the introduction to the revised edition of Strong's.
Strong wrote: "there was an obvious consanguinity" You ignored this.
Strong disagrees with you. "[T]here was an obvious consanguinity" between Abraham and Sarah
Flute pointed out another insignificant error, but an error non the less. Strongs is NOT a translation of the bible and Strongs does NOT agree with me, of course this means nothing. Heinrich Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius, Samuel P. Tregelle and the scholar listed above all agree that adopted daughter is a valid translation of the word 'bath'.
1/27
TD said: "especially on the interpretations of the ancient words, since nobody knows the original meaning there is simply no way for flute to prove I made a mistake."
It's good that you are willing to admit that. Thank you.
Just another frustrated atheist upset because he is too ignorant to prove his point. He proved 2 insignificant mistakes that had nothing at all to do with my overall points, yet I have 28 counts of lack of logical coherent thought and ignorance.
Conclusion, flute has not provided the necessary evidence to prove a mistake on my part, thus making himself look completely ignorant, basically no change in the status quo. Flute managed to land 2 insignificant glancing blow but the fight has not changed, TD is still completely dominating flute. Flute will no doubt continue to try and swing his arms hoping to land a lucky punch.
58 comments:
TD said: "Example: the word 'bath' (sic) means biological sister, sister in law or adopted sister. Each is a VALID interpretation."
Here's the bit you wrote that you have to read again: "Each is a VALID interpretation." If each of a valid interpretation, why is choose adopted sister? (which is still a half-sibling!)
Christian logic strikes again. You think each is a valid interpretation except when you don't like the interpretation.
As anyone with a decent grasp of logic can see, TD's ignorant comment does not qualify as a rational coherent rebuttal.
Besides as Chris Mackey points out, there's a perfectly good word for "sister in law" in Hebrew. (Strong's Number: 02994) Why not use it if that's what it meant?
I lost nothing, I only exposed your complete and utter ignorance of the word and translation. You have nothing to refute me on that you ignorant aChristian since I am using valid translations. Hilarious, I was nice to you in this thread and you did exactly as I expected you to do, be an ignorant Christian. Typical.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While not a treaty itself, the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the meaning of the words "fundamental freedoms" and "human rights" appearing in the United Nations Charter, which is binding on all member states."
Hilarious. Exactly what I come to expect from an ignorant Christian.
Is the US a member state of the UN? Yes. Is it binding? Yes.
(I peppered my response with quotes from you but I changed atheist to Christian!)
This thread was updated with more evidence of your complete and utter ignorance.
When I quoted you saying "Bestial marriage will soon enough be federally recognized, and the issue will naturally go away." That was a quote mine and not in context.
And still;
Baker's Evangelical Dictionary
of Biblical Theology and Nave's Topical Bible both have Genesis 20:12 as an example of incest. Baker and Nave spent their entire lives translating the Bible into English. Do you honestly think you know better than them?
~~~~~~~
TD: "So it was adopted only for the purposes of DEFINING the meaning... "
The conversation was on the definition of marriage. So congratulations on actually reading the link I supplied.
TD: "Those rules do not apply to the U.S. anymore than the bible does,"
They are not rules. But definitions that are binding for all UN member states.
You've mixed up description with prescription, which is understandable, many people don't understand the difference.
~~~~~~~
TD: "Here are 2 judges that agree, from Roper v Simmons." Non sequitur.
Have a nice day. It's a sunny winter's day where I am. A good day to do some house repair. :-)
Theological Discourse said...
This thread was updated with more evidence of your complete and utter ignorance.
Thanks for the update. Have a great day. :-)
And even if you don't understand description and prescription:
"Many international lawyers, in addition, believe that the Declaration forms part of customary international law... The Declaration continues to be widely cited by governments, academics, advocates and constitutional courts and individual human beings who appeal to its principles for the protection of their recognised human rights."
I said: "When I quoted you saying "Bestial marriage will soon enough be federally recognized, and the issue will naturally go away." That was a quote mine and not in context."
TD said: "Flute is just outstandingly incorrect here."
I said my quote of you was not in context and you say I was incorrect?
The United States has signed and ratified the "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights"
I wonder where the ICCPR got their definitions from? Oh, the UDHR! Exactly! You're getting closer to admitting you were wrong. There's no shame in it.
This is nothing but a baseless assertion, Flute simply assertions with no evidence.
It was an obvious non sequitur. The judges are talking about another topic.
updated again, you're 0/15.
TD>international lawyers!
TD>Biblical scholars! (That probably worked on the translation of his bible!)
Flute shows his ignorance by omitting things. The ICCPR guidelines are as follows.
Just so you don't look silly, I'll print the next part of capital letters.
READ THE ICCPR! A23. READ THE ICCPR!
:-)
2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.
3. No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
Does a man of marriageable age have the right to marry? Yes.
Does another man of marriageable age have the right to marry? Yes.
Does a woman of marriageable age have the right to marry? Yes.
As long as the intended spouses consent.
Does a cat or dog have the right to marry? Well, that is not stated.
I can't find any scholars that agree with you about Abraham's sister/wife
...he accuses Abraham of deception, to which Abraham responds that Sarah is his half-sister:
"Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife." (Gen 20:12)
It should also be noted that marriage between siblings was not forbidden until the introduction of Mosaic laws. Akerly, Ben Edward.
Updated again, your ignorance is hilarious.
Thanks for the update, I shall read it after I fix the old-man next door's roof. :-)
Gah, wood in the roof is rotten and the nails won't hold the metal sheets on anymore. I thought screws would be better but no luck. So I had to drag some heavy fencing up onto the roof to hold it down until I can fix it better.
Anyway, now I'll read your update.
Flute is just outstandingly incorrect here.
Hey, I was giving you a free point. If you don't want it...
just because 2 authorities state it is incest does not in any prove that it is nor does it take away from the FACT that adopted daughter is a valid translation of the word.
How did you get the idea that adopted daughter was a valid translation of bth? From Strong. :-) Who's appealing to authority? Why leap on that translation of bth and ignore the achowth ?
Me and 2 authorities disagree, that in no way proves I was wrong or made a mistake.
No, it just says you hold your opinion higher than scholars, the people who actually translate the Bible.
This is nothing but a baseless assertion,
No. No, it wasn't.
It doesn't matter what international lawyers believe, it is still NOT a legally binding document.
International lawyers use, make and define international law. Why don't you think your country has to follow international law?
Furthermore it states quite clearly that the declaration only forms PART of customary international law, neither of which applies to America btw, so you've made NO POINT.
Then please show how and why a country, a member state of the UN, does not have to follow international law.
How is your Justice kennedy & Justice Scalia not a non sequitur?
TD>international lawyers!
TD>Biblical scholars!
Appeal to ridicule? No. Just ridicule actually.
Furthermore I said that me disagreeing with scholars is not evidence or proof I made a mistake, since adopted daughter is still an acceptable translation of the word 'bath.'
In the other thread, you said "Example: the word 'bath' (sic) means biological sister, sister in law or adopted sister. Each is a VALID interpretation."
On Debunking Atheists you once said bath=sister,sister in law, or adopted sister. Not daughter. You made a small mistake.
Secondly, you have not stated WHY your valid interpretation is more correct than the scholar's valid interpretation. You stated "Each is a VALID interpretation." EACH. VALID.
Thus while the ICCPR is ostensibly binding upon the United States as a matter of international law, it does not form part of the domestic law of the nation.
You might want to read your link again. "the ICCPR is ostensibly binding upon the United States as a matter of international law"
updated again you ignorant atheist.
TD said: "My opinion is based on strongs, which are scholars who actually translate the bible,"
Strong doesn't agree with you:
1; Marriages between persons thus related, in various degrees, which previous usage, in different conditions of society, had allowed, were forbidden by the law of Moses. These degrees are enumerated in Lev. xviii, 7 sq. The examples before the law are those of Cain and Abel, who, as the necessity of the case required, married their own sisters. Abraham married Sarah, the daughter of his father by another wife; and Jacob married the two sisters Leah and Rachel.
In the first instance, and even in the second, there was an obvious consanguinity, and only the last offered a previous relationship of affinity merely. So also, in the prohibition of the law, a consanguinity can be traced in what are usually set down as degrees of affinity merely.
Thanks for the update,
The quote of Strong was from the Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature.
:-)
"os·ten·sible (ä sten′sÉ™ bÉ™l)
adjective
1. apparent; seeming; professed
2. clearly evident
3. ....
Etymology: Fr < ML ostensibilis < L ostendere, to show"
Webster's Unabridged Dictionary
"the ICCPR is -clearly evidently- binding upon the United States as a matter of international law"
Valid interpretation of the word.
updated again you ignorant atheist.
Strong's Concordance is not a translation of the Bible nor is it intended as a translation tool... Since Strong's Concordance identifies the original words in Hebrew and Greek, Strong's Numbers are sometimes misinterpreted by those without adequate training...
This is from the introduction to the revised edition of Strong's.
Strong wrote: "there was an obvious consanguinity" You ignored this.
Strong disagrees with you. "[T]here was an obvious consanguinity" between Abraham and Sarah
Again, thanks for the update, mate. :-)
TD said: "especially on the interpretations of the ancient words, since nobody knows the original meaning there is simply no way for flute to prove I made a mistake."
It's good that you are willing to admit that. Thank you.
Updated again, 28 counts of your ignorance and inability to think coherently to your 2 insignificant errors that did not disprove any of my original points.
Just another frustrated atheist upset because...
I'm not upset. :-) It's a sunny warm winter's day. The next-door neighbour's wife baked me a cake! It's a great day!
If it was clearly or evidently binding then a1-27 would be self executing,
Not necessarily. There's a problem with one clause in that statement.
the declaration would be able to create a private cause of action,
Please show how, thank you.
congress would've implemented the agreement with legislation,
That does not follow.
it would form part of the domestic law of the nation,
International laws are in the realm of, well, international laws. By definition, they are not _domestic_ laws.
marriage would be found in the Constitution and bill of rights.
That does not follow. Many articles of law are not in your constitution or Bill of Rights.
Due to flutes inability to think coherently combined with his ignorance he simply cannot see that his valid interpretation of the word does not apply to the United Staets.
*cough* While "adopted daughter" might be a valid interpretation of the word, that interpretation does not describe Abraham's relationship with Sarah.
Have a nice day.
That doesn't even qualify as a rational response.
Not necessarily. There's a problem with one clause in that statement.
baseless assertion.
Please show how, thank you.
What does this even mean? the law states the declaration does not create a private cause of action, if it was clearly or evidently binding it would, that is what legal rights do you ignorant atheist.
That does not follow.
For something to be a right or a law it must be in legislation you ignorant atheist.
International laws are in the realm of, well, international laws. By definition, they are not _domestic_ laws.
Exactly, good job, since it is not a domestic law.
That does not follow. Many articles of law are not in your constitution or Bill of Rights.
irrelevant regarding the topic at hand.
*cough* While "adopted daughter" might be a valid interpretation of the word, that interpretation does not describe Abraham's relationship with Sarah.
Except the huge difference between that and the United states you ignorant atheist, is that we can see why your valid interpretation does not accurately describe the United states(the evidence I posted), due to the original writer being dead, we cannot see why one valid interpretation does not apply. How ignorant are you? your response doesn't even constitute an update.
Exactly, good job, since it is not a domestic law.
Thank you, you're half-way there.
Thank you, you're half-way there.
What on earth are you talking about now flute? if you have a point I suggest you post it, other wise stop commenting.
My point? Okay, here is a summery;
Abraham relationship was incestuous but before YHWH had given a prohibition on incest. "truly my sister"
And you are less of an authority on the matter than Strong, Nave, Baker, etc...
People being able to marry is a right, recognized by the UN, as well as morally, although not a domestic law of your country.
And you are less of an authority on the matter than various international lawyers.
That the arguments "supporting gay marriage can be used to support incest and people marrying animals" is false. Homosexuality is not illegal. Incest and bestiality are. There is no equivalence.
Thanks.
Abraham relationship was incestuous but before YHWH had given a prohibition on incest. "truly my sister"
And you are less of an authority on the matter than Strong, Nave, Baker, etc...
me being less of an authority does not mean the authorities are right. I am certainly less of an authority than biologists but it looks like I was right when I said birds didn't evolve from dinos.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm
The point of course is that because I disagree with authorities does not = a mistake. Your burden of proof was supposed to prove I made a mistake, you did not.
People being able to marry is a right, recognized by the UN, as well as morally, although not a domestic law of your country.
And you are less of an authority on the matter than various international lawyers.
1. It is not a law, thus not a right.
2. How many lawyers believed that flute?
3. What lawyers believe does not = proof, Christians believe in God, does that mean God exists flute? or do you only apply that logic when you feel like it.
That the arguments "supporting gay marriage can be used to support incest and people marrying animals" is false. Homosexuality is not illegal. Incest and bestiality are. There is no equivalence.
1. These laws can be changed to suit the needs of incest and same sex marraige couples no differently than laws can be changed to suit the needs of same sex couples. The atheist has nothing but their own personal opinion as to why they're fighting for one and not the other.
Homosexual marriages are illegal as well as bestiality and incest marriages. You have no point.
I am certainly less of an authority than biologists but it looks like I was right when I said birds didn't evolve from dinos.
I don't remember that subject coming up.
The point of course is that because I disagree with authorities does not = a mistake.
Here's some wiki:
On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, the fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.
These laws can be changed to suit the needs of incest and same sex marraige couples no differently than laws can be changed to suit the needs of same sex couples.
(see other thread)
I don't remember that subject coming up.
Atheist logic strikes again. The authorities said birds evolved from dinos, I said they didn't, the authorities were wrong, the point is that just because authorities say something does not make it true.
Here's some wiki:
On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, the fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.
Here is some more evidence of your ignorance of logical thought.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
It should be noted that even a good Appeal to Authority is not an exceptionally strong argument. After all, in such cases a claim is being accepted as true simply because a person is asserting that it is true. The person may be an expert, but her expertise does not really bear on the truth of the claim. This is because the expertise of a person does not actually determine whether the claim is true or false. Hence, arguments that deal directly with evidence relating to the claim itself will tend to be stronger.
You're so incredibly ignorant that you think that just because authorities say something that means it is true. Hardly. Once again, disagreeing with authorities does not = a mistake, for something to be a mistake you must prove I was wrong, and you cannot do that if you don't know the right answer. The faster you get that through your ignorant atheist brain the better.
The authorities said birds evolved from dinos, I said they didn't,
Well, you didn't say that to me, but please continue.
the authorities were wrong
No, another authority said they might be wrong. And apparently, it's not worth listening to authorities because the authority might be wrong.
the point is that just because authorities say something does not make it true.
"Comprehensively Critical Rationalism" is one long long road.
"The second form, citing a source who is actually an authority in the relevant field, carries more subjective, cognitive weight. A person who is recognized as an expert authority often has greater experience and knowledge of their field than the average person, so their opinion is more likely than average to be correct."
By the way, you used an Appeal to Authority to try to knock down Appeal to Authority! :-)
No, another authority said they might be wrong. And apparently, it's not worth listening to authorities because the authority might be wrong.
You're so ignorant you're confusing 'its not worth listening to authorities' with 'what authorities say are true.' No where did I say it is not worth listening to authorities, I simply said that authorities opinion does not = truth you ignorant atheist.
By the way, you used an Appeal to Authority to try to knock down Appeal to Authority! :-)
Nothing wrong with that you ignorant atheist. Authorities opinion does = proof or truth. You're confusing supporting an opinion with an authority and proof. You seem to forget that you're supposed to PROVE I made a mistake. Citing some authorities that agree with your position is not proof I made a mistake. For you to prove I made a mistake you must prove the original word was biological sister and not adopted sister. Without the original writer you cannot do that, all you can do is speculate, and speculation does not = proof of an error you ignorant atheist.
Without the original writer you cannot do that, all you can do is speculate, and speculation does not = proof of an error you ignorant atheist.
Are you saying that you are only speculating and have no proof that you are right?
Authorities opinion does = proof or truth.
?
Are you saying that you are only speculating and have no proof that you are right?
That is what I've been saying, glad you finally caught on, it's only been about what? like a week?
?
What part of that is so hard to understand? what lawyers believe does not = proof anymore than what Christians believe = proof. Proof is independent of opinion and belief.
Are you saying that you are only speculating and have no proof that you are right?
That is what I've been saying, glad you finally caught on, it's only been about what? like a week?
If that is what you are saying, then why say I'm wrong?
If you have no proof that you are right, why do you not use the language of speculation?
Why claim your statements about Abraham's incest are not incorrect but my statements are. Especially when so many authorities disagree with you.
Then you've changed your position from positive assertions to possible assertions.
And if possible assertions make one ignorant, I await your admission of your ignorance.
Thank you.
If that is what you are saying, then why say I'm wrong?
Because you are, you have not proven a mistake or proven I am wrong you ignorant atheist. Do you not understand that? do you not comprehend the burden of proof? are you that incredibly ignorant and pathetic? you are supposed to be PROVING my mistakes, so you are WRONG when you give an assertion that does not prove my mistake.
If you have no proof that you are right, why do you not use the language of speculation?
How ignorant are you? you continually forget that YOU must PROVE I AM WRONG. That is your goal, that is the burden of proof, every assertion and every argument you make in this thread is to be taken as you attempting to PROVE I made a mistake, just like every argument in a murdercase given by the prosecution is take as an attempt to PROVE that the defendent murdered someone. So when you given an argument that fails to prove I made a mistake YOU ARE WRONG. How ignorant are you?
Why claim your statements about Abraham's incest are not incorrect but my statements are. Especially when so many authorities disagree with you.
Where on earth did I claim by statements about Abraham incest are not incorrect? where? where did I say my statements about Abraham are right? where? I say yoru statements are WRONG because they do not PROVE my mistake. You obviously cannot get that through your ignorant head. So many authorities? I cited 3 authorities as well citation at the beginning of this thread that states it was a common practice back then for fathers to adopt their sons wives. Four authorities for me. You have what? 2? even if you had a thousand or one million, the opiniions of authorities do not = proof and without the original intent of the writer you have no proof I made a mistake.
Then you've changed your position from positive assertions to possible assertions.
What on earth are you even talking about? where did I make a positive assertion regarding the incest line of discussion? SHOW ME?
And if possible assertions make one ignorant, I await your admission of your ignorance.
No, possible assertions don't make one ignorant, using possibility assertions to PROVE A MISTAKE makes one ignorant.
Because you are, you have not proven a mistake or proven I am wrong you ignorant atheist. Do you not understand that? do you not comprehend the burden of proof? are you that incredibly ignorant and pathetic? you are supposed to be PROVING my mistakes, so you are WRONG when you give an assertion that does not prove my mistake.
Sorry if you don't understand the question, I must have phrased it unclearly.
If you have no proof that you are right, why do you not use the language of speculation?
YOU must PROVE I AM WRONG. That is your goal, that is the burden of proof,
And you said before that no-one can prove you wrong because no-one really knows what the writers meant. So why not use the language of speculation? If you continue to make positive assertions, shouldn't the burden of proof by upon you?
where did I say my statements about Abraham are right?
Are your statements incorrect then?
the opiniions of authorities do not = proof and without the original intent of the writer you have no proof I made a mistake.
So you have no proof you are right but still assert I am wrong. Why? Because of your opinions?
where did I make a positive assertion regarding the incest line of discussion? SHOW ME?
Just quickly, here some of the positive assertions from the discussion.
-"The patriarch you refer to never married his half sister, she was never his sister"
-"Sarah was not Abraham half sister."
-"She is called a 'half sister' because back then when a woman is married to a man, she is then formally adopted by his father as a full daughter as well."
-"It does not change the fact that Sarah was adopted and there was no incest. "
-"Sarah was Abrahams adopted sister on his fathers side."
-etc...
Thanks for the response,
Flute.
If you have no proof that you are right, why do you not use the language of speculation?
There is no need for me to use the language of speculation whatever that even means. All I need to do is prove that you're wrong and I don't need to use the language of speculation for that.
And you said before that no-one can prove you wrong because no-one really knows what the writers meant. So why not use the language of speculation? If you continue to make positive assertions, shouldn't the burden of proof by upon you?
Where have I made a positive assertion you ignorant atheist? stop trying to shift the burden of proof, it is ON YOU you ignorant atheist, now either prove my mistake or be quiet.
Are your statements incorrect then?
I don't know if they're incorrect or not, now answer the question, where did I say I was right?
So you have no proof you are right but still assert I am wrong. Why? Because of your opinions?
How ignorant are you. YOU ARE COMPLETLEY IGNORANT. You obviously cannot grasp the fact of the following.
1. This entire thread you are supposed to be trying to prove me wrong.
2. Every argument you make in this thread is taken as an argument to prove me wrong, just like every argument in a courtroom made by the prosecutor is taken to 'prosecute' the defender.
3. Every argument you have made in this thread you have failed to prove me wrong(with the exception of 2 insignificant mistakes)
4. Because of #3 every argument you have made in this thread is WRONG.
You being the ignorant pathetic atheist you are cannot tell the difference between 1-4 and 'saying your interpretation of the word 'bath' is wrong.' Typical ignorant atheist.
-"The patriarch you refer to never married his half sister, she was never his sister"
-"Sarah was not Abraham half sister."
-"She is called a 'half sister' because back then when a woman is married to a man, she is then formally adopted by his father as a full daughter as well."
-"It does not change the fact that Sarah was adopted and there was no incest. "
-"Sarah was Abrahams adopted sister on his fathers side."
Please show me where I said those were the correct and right interpretations of the word 'bath'. You being completely ignorant and pathetic cannot tell the difference between explaining my position and what I believe and telling you my position and what I believe are correct and right.
Typical ignorant atheist, once again exposes his inability to tell the difference between 2 simple concepts.
There is no need for me to use the language of speculation whatever that even means.
If you don't know what it means, how do you know you don't have to use it?
(Christians often complain that
scientists use the language of speculation.)
Where have I made a positive assertion you ignorant atheist?
I've given you a short list of some of the positive assertions you have made.
stop trying to shift the burden of proof, it is ON YOU you ignorant atheist, now either prove my mistake
You made positive assertions. The burden of proof lies with you. What proof would you accept?
now answer the question, where did I say I was right?
Do you think you are wrong? Do you often make positive statements that you don't believe are correct?
Every argument you make in this thread is taken as an argument to prove me wrong, just like every argument in a courtroom made by the prosecutor is taken to 'prosecute' the defender.
I'm not trying to prosecute you. Do you think all your opinions are right until proven wrong? Even if there's no evidence that you are right?
You being completely ignorant and pathetic cannot tell the difference between explaining my position and what I believe and telling you my position and what I believe are correct and right.
Are you honestly telling me you don't think you are correct and right? After telling everyone how wrong they were? Really? Am I to assume when you make positive assertions that you may not believe them?
Go down the list of your statements, reread the past threads. Filled with positive assertions where speculation would be required.
You even go so far as the declare your opinion fact!
"It does not change the fact that Sarah was adopted and there was no incest."
~Flute.
Flute definitely is ruling this argument.
TD is pwned.
This proves beyond a doubt that christians are blinded by their blind faith and dogma.
TD can't stand to see his idiotic belief go up in the smoke of reason.
If you don't know what it means, how do you know you don't have to use it?
(Christians often complain that
scientists use the language of speculation.)
I have an idea of what it means you ignorant atheist and there is no need for me to use it, I don't need to speculate or use the language of speculation to prove you're wrong. Christians complain about scientists, ok whoopdie do, I don't need to use that lanaguage to explain my position nor prove to you that you're wrong.
I've given you a short list of some of the positive assertions you have made.
Yes and you can't tell the difference between explaining ones position and saying my position is right. So ignorant.
Do you think you are wrong? Do you often make positive statements that you don't believe are correct?
Ignorant, you still can't answer the question. Ignorant, I layed out my position I never said that position was right you ignorant atheist. Not my fault you're too pathetic to tell the difference.
I'm not trying to prosecute you. Do you think all your opinions are right until proven wrong? Even if there's no evidence that you are right?
DING DING DING ignorant flute proves he doesn't understand the burden of proof. You can't even understand the analogy, hahahah. Do you even know what a prosecutor is and what they do in the courtroom? how ignorant are you? they don't literally try to prosecute people hahaha they build the case against the client. Man you are soooooo ignorant hahahhaha. I do not think my opinions are right until proven wrong you ignorant athesit. What I do know is you are ignorant as to what the burden of proof is. You have a burden of proof to prove I made a mistake, you obviously don't understand that you ignorant atehist.
Are you honestly telling me you don't think you are correct and right? After telling everyone how wrong they were? Really? Am I to assume when you make positive assertions that you may not believe them?
Ignorant flute just cannot understand the difference between telling him he is wrong because his argument has not proved my mistake and explaining my position, nor can he not tell the difference between
1. This entire thread you are supposed to be trying to prove me wrong.
2. Every argument you make in this thread is taken as an argument to prove me wrong, just like every argument in a courtroom made by the prosecutor is taken to 'prosecute' the defender.
3. Every argument you have made in this thread you have failed to prove me wrong(with the exception of 2 insignificant mistakes)
4. Because of #3 every argument you have made in this thread is WRONG.
You being the ignorant pathetic atheist you are cannot tell the difference between 1-4 and 'saying your interpretation of the word 'bath' is wrong.' Typical ignorant atheist
Go down the list of your statements, reread the past threads. Filled with positive assertions where speculation would be required.
Poor ignorant pathetic flute, can't tell the difference between explaining my position and saying my position is right and the other ones are wrong. He can't tell the difference between the 2, It doesn't surprise me him being an atheist and all. All of those positive statements were explaining my position, they were not stating my position was right. So flute is just too ignorant to understand that.
"It does not change the fact that Sarah was adopted and there was no incest."
1. I said this no where in this thread.
2. This is a quote mine obviously taken out of context.
Your appeals to ridicule and attempts to make my pointing out the valid interpretation of scripture seem stupid mean nothing. It does not change the fact that sarah was adopted and there was no incest.
Looks like I was talking about VALID INTERPRETATION, it is a FACT that Sarah was adopted is a VALID interpretation. You're so completely ignorant that you have to quote mine from other threads in a feeble attempt to prove a point.
Hey you ignorant atheist, because you're so incredibly ignorant I suggest reading up on the burden of proof and how it works.
http://www.answers.com/topic/burden-of-proof
The responsibility of proving a disputed charge or allegation.
It is your responsibility to prove that I made a mistake. Just like in a courtroom the responsibility of the prosecutors is to build a case against he client, and every argument they make is taken as an argument against the client. Every argument you make in this thread is taken as an argument to attempt to prove I made a mistake. When you FAIL to prove I made a mistake that makes your argument WRONG, so when I say you are WRONG that means you FAIL to prove I made a mistake, just like the prosecutors are WRONG when they FAIL to prove the defendent murdered someone. I know this analogy goes over your ignorant atheist head but you should really learn it and study it.
I have an idea of what it means you ignorant atheist and there is no need for me to use it, I don't need to speculate or use the language of speculation to prove you're wrong. Christians complain about scientists, ok whoopdie do, I don't need to use that lanaguage to explain my position nor prove to you that you're wrong. (emphases added)
Part of your "valid interpretation" argument was that I can't prove you wrong because no-one knows what the word really meant. And now you are saying you don't need the language of speculation to prove I'm wrong.
Yes and you can't tell the difference between explaining ones position and saying my position is right. So ignorant.
If I made several statements,
say "John is eight foot tall", "It is a fact that John is eight foot tall" and "You're stupid, John is over seven foot tall",
and then tried to say "I wasn't saying John was eight foot tall, I was just explaining my position!",
you would quite rightly call me up on it.
DING DING DING ignorant flute proves he doesn't understand the burden of proof. You can't even understand the analogy, hahahah. Do you even know what a prosecutor is and what they do in the courtroom? how ignorant are you? they don't literally try to prosecute people hahaha they build the case against the client. Man you are soooooo ignorant hahahhaha.
I am aware both of the concept of "burden of proof" and what a prosecutor is.
Webster:
a: to bring legal action against for redress or punishment of a crime or violation of law b: to institute legal proceedings with reference to (prosecute a claim)
I don't not think a conversation is analogous to a courtroom. You may disagree, that is only my opinion. If you wish to believe a conversation is analogous to a courtroom, then please do.
What proof would you require to "prove" you are wrong? Are your beliefs non-falsifiable?
Thanks,
Have a great day,
~Flute.
Part of your "valid interpretation" argument was that I can't prove you wrong because no-one knows what the word really meant. And now you are saying you don't need the language of speculation to prove I'm wrong.
Ignorance, you're still struggling. You being an atheist it doesn't surprise me. You still can't tell the difference between "Flute your argument does not prove a mistake therefore it is wrong" and "It is a valid interpretation of the word". Here, let me simplify it for your ignorant atheist brain.
Regarding the incest line of discussion, when I said you're wrong, it was referring to your failed attempts to prove my mistake. It was not referring to your interpretation of the word.
If I made several statements,
say "John is eight foot tall", "It is a fact that John is eight foot tall" and "You're stupid, John is over seven foot tall",
and then tried to say "I wasn't saying John was eight foot tall, I was just explaining my position!",
you would quite rightly call me up on it.
What on earth are you even talking about? how do you know I would rightly call you on it? can you read minds? your ignorant response is not a refutation at all.
I am aware both of the concept of "burden of proof" and what a prosecutor is.
Your post facto proof that you know what a prosecutor and burden of proof means nothing, especially after you said "I'm not trying to prosecute you." hahaha.
I don't not think a conversation is analogous to a courtroom. You may disagree, that is only my opinion. If you wish to believe a conversation is analogous to a courtroom, then please do.
It is analogous, you're supposed to be proving I made an error, prosecutors are supposed to be 'prosecuting' the client. Every argument prosecutors make is taken as a 'prosecution' agaisnt hte client. Every argument you make is taken as an attempt to prove my mistake. When prosecutors give an argument that attemtps to prosecute the client and that argument fails, that argument is wrong as it does not meet the burden of proof. When you give an argument that attempts to prove i made a mistake and that argument fails, that argument is wrong as it does not meet the burden of proof. You're just too ignorant to understand that.
What proof would you require to "prove" you are wrong? Are your beliefs non-falsifiable?
Find the original meaning the author used for the word. That is the only way to prove my interpretation is wrong. If you claim my belief is non falsifiable the same goes with the other side as they are speculating as much as me. You really have a difficult time grasping speculation don't you?
TD said: "...when I said you're wrong, it was referring to your failed attempts to prove my mistake. It was not referring to your interpretation of the word."
You appear determined to skate the line between trifling word-play and dishonesty.
A christian once told me that in the beginning incest was allowed because Adam and Eve's children had to marry each other. That because Adam and Eve were perfect, there would be no birth defects. Then after awhile, when the population was large enough and the risks of birth defects became an issue, God no long allowed it.
I'm not sure where Abraham fits into that argument but I thought I'd share it, I found it to be an intriguing explanation.
You appear determined to skate the line between trifling word-play and dishonesty.
I'm sorry, was this a refutation? you seem to be having difficulties separating assumptions with actual valid refutation. The latter requires valid evidence, the former does not.
Kerri Love said...
A christian once told me that in the beginning incest was allowed because Adam and Eve's children had to marry each other. That because Adam and Eve were perfect, there would be no birth defects. Then after awhile, when the population was large enough and the risks of birth defects became an issue, God no long allowed it.
I'm not sure where Abraham fits into that argument but I thought I'd share it, I found it to be an intriguing explanation.
Theologians like Strong think Abraham was before the prohibition against incest. And that Cain and Able married sisters out of necessity. So it may have been always wrong but still necessary.
Strong wrote:
Marriages between persons thus related, in various degrees, which previous usage, in different conditions of society, had allowed, were forbidden by the law of Moses. These degrees are enumerated in Lev. xviii, 7 sq. The examples before the law are those of Cain and Abel, who, as the necessity of the case required, married their own sisters. Abraham married Sarah, the daughter of his father by another wife; and Jacob married the two sisters Leah and Rachel.
In the first instance, and even in the second, there was an obvious consanguinity, and only the last offered a previous relationship of affinity merely. So also, in the prohibition of the law, a consanguinity can be traced in what are usually set down as degrees of affinity merely.
"Regarding the incest line of discussion, when I said you're wrong, it was referring to your failed attempts to prove my mistake. It was not referring to your interpretation of the word."
But when you make statements like: -
"you're being ignorant again. The patriarch you refer to never married his half sister, she was never his sister, he told her to call herself his sister so they wouldn't kill him."
"Stan once again shows his ignorance. Sarah was not Abraham half sister.
Genesis 12"
"there was no incest at all,"
"It does not change the fact that sarah was adopted and there was no incest. You have no point, now in your own words you ignorant atheist."
"Genesis is quite clearly talking a about adoption "
"I am not maintaining that Sarah was Abraham's half sister"
"Sarah was an adopted daughter of Abraham's father which was customary back then."
- you are stating your interepation as fact. You later admit that these statements are not fact. But no evidence will do for but "Find the original meaning the author used for the word." Why the dishonesty? And why call everyone who disagrees with ignorant when you're in the same boat?
--------------
"What on earth are you even talking about? how do you know I would rightly call you on it? can you read minds? your ignorant response is not a refutation at all."
Sorry, when I said "you would quite rightly call me up on it.", I should have said "Anyone paying attention would quite rightly call me up on it."
"Your post facto proof that you know what a prosecutor and burden of proof means nothing, especially after you said "I'm not trying to prosecute you." hahaha."
I am not trying to prosecute you. You are the one who has the idea that your statements are facts until proven wrong. If you think an attempt to discuss is prosecuting you, or analogous to prosecuting you, it is only in your head.
And why would an ex post facto proof mean nothing? What are you trying to say?
"It is analogous, you're supposed to be proving I made an error, ... When you give an argument that attempts to prove i made a mistake and that argument fails, that argument is wrong as it does not meet the burden of proof. You're just too ignorant to understand that."
Followed by:
"Find the original meaning the author used for the word. That is the only way to prove my interpretation is wrong. "
I understand now. You believe what you believe and nothing bar magic will convince you otherwise.
"If you claim my belief is non falsifiable the same goes with the other side as they are speculating as much as me. You really have a difficult time grasping speculation don't you?"
Little credence is given to a statement that can not be shown to be false.
By the way, according to Wiki, a half sister is a sibling with one shared biological or adoptive parent.
So when you say: "Sarah was an adopted daughter of Abraham's father which was customary back then." It is incest anyway.
- you are stating your interepation as fact. You later admit that these statements are not fact.
There you go again, arguing from personal opinion, just because you personally think I am stating my interpretation as fact doesn't make it so. How can I admit to something I never claimed in the first place? explain that to me? or do you enjoy begging the question like the ignorant atheist that you are?
You're simply too ignorant to understand the difference between stating ones position and saying that position is fact. My position definitely states that no incest took place, now PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THAT POSITION IS FACT. Show me.
Sorry, when I said "you would quite rightly call me up on it.", I should have said "Anyone paying attention would quite rightly call me up on it."
Am I not part of anyone? who is anyone you ignorant atheist?
I am not trying to prosecute you. You are the one who has the idea that your statements are facts until proven wrong.
care to prove this assertion? Since I have neither said nor insinuated my statements are facts until proven wrong.
If you think an attempt to discuss is prosecuting you, or analogous to prosecuting you, it is only in your head.
HAHAHA I never even said you were prosecuting me. How ignorant are you. You saying "I am not trying to prosecute you" was evidence that you didn't were too ignorant to grasp a simple analogy.
And why would an ex post facto proof mean nothing? What are you trying to say?
Saying you understand the analogy after the fact when before you clearly didn't means nothing. Post facto proof.
I understand now. You believe what you believe and nothing bar magic will convince you otherwise.
Awww now the ignorant atheist is frustrated by how reality works.
Little credence is given to a statement that can not be shown to be false.
Good, then it works the other way around.
By the way, according to Wiki, a half sister is a sibling with one shared biological or adoptive parent.
So when you say: "Sarah was an adopted daughter of Abraham's father which was customary back then." It is incest anyway.
Ignorance. Still can't grasp the concept of adoption huh?
Er, if Mr X had an adopted sister, is it okay for Mr X to marry said adopted sister?
TD said: "Ignorance. Still can't grasp the concept of adoption huh?"
I ask: "Are you saying that IF she was adopted marrying her wasn't incest?"
Flute said: " You believe what you believe and nothing bar magic will convince you otherwise."
TD replied: "Awww now the ignorant atheist is frustrated by how reality works."
I ask: "YOu say magic is the only way you change your beliefs?"
TD said: "My position definitely states that no incest took place, now PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THAT POSITION IS FACT. Show me. "
I say "Many times you state your position as fact. Anyone can read back over the two threads."
I say "Many times you state your position as fact. Anyone can read back over the two threads."
You seem to be struggling with the same concept as flute, which is the inability to tell the difference between me saying "Incest did not take place" and me saying "It is a fact that incest did not take place"
Post a Comment