"Equal rights", Atheism and Marriage.

Atheists that support same sex marriages have nothing but their own personal opinion as to why they shouldn't also be supporting man-animal marriage and incest marriage. The same logic applied to supporting same sex marriage can also be used to support man-animal marriage and incest marriage, which is as follows:

1. Same sex marriage advocates (henceforth called SSMA) seek to change the status quo(which include but not limited to everything from laws, tradition,policies etc.) that marriage recognized by the government is between a man and a women.

2. SSMA's can legally attempt and/or successfully change the status quo from(example only) "marriage recognized by the government is between a man and a women" to "marriage recognized by the government is between 2 consenting adults regardless sexual orientation."


2a. Why can't animal man marriages and incest marriages also attempt to change the status quo from "marriage recognized by the government is between a man and a women" to "marriage recognized by the government is between 2 consenting adults and/or 1 adult and an animal?"

3. The status quo that restrict incest and man animal marriages can be changed to suit their needs and wants no differently than how SSMA's are trying to change the current status quo to suit their needs and wants.

4. Any law the atheist appeals to is irrelevant because of #3.

5. The atheist asserts that marriage is a right.

6. Why shouldn't this right extend to people that want to marry their brothers, fathers, grandmothers etc?

6a. Why shouldn't this right extends to the one adult that wants to marry an animal.

7. Regarding #6, the atheist asserts the right does not extend to them because Incest marriages cause children to have birth defects.

8. #7 is erroneous and irrelevant because this issue is about marriage and not sex. Incest occurs outside of marriage as does homosexuality, sex is not the issue, the issue is marriage. Furthermore, incest does not always lead to birth defects, if both parents do not possess a bad gene the offspring will not have birth defects.

9. Regarding #6a, the atheist asserts the right does not extend to them because, laws and legal reasons(animals do not have rights, animals cannot give consent, animals cannot act as executor of estate etc. etc.)

10. #9 is irrelevant, see #3 for reason.

11. If the atheist appeals to society, (society does not accept incest, man animal marriage etc. etc.)then anyone else can appeal to society too, since society does not accept same sex marriage either.

Conclusion: The atheist has nothing but their own personal opinions, feelings, or the personal opinions and feelings of others as to why they are not fighting for #2a, #6 and #6a the same way they are fighting for same sex marriages. If the atheists personal opinion is good enough to deem same sex marriage acceptable and as a result worth fighting to change the status quo to suit the needs of same sex couples and deem incest marriage and man-animal marriage unacceptable and as a result do not fight to change the status quo to suit the needs of incest marriage and man-animal marriage then anyone elses personal opinion is good enough to deem heterosexual marriage acceptable and as a result worth fighting to keep the status quo and is also good enough to deem same sex marriage, incest marriage, man animal marriage (and all other marriage except heterosexual marriage) unacceptable.

What atheists cannot do is assert that Christians or anyone else for that matter do not have sufficient or good enough reasons to be against same sex marriages, because by their own standard they do not have sufficient or good enough reasons(personal opinions, feelings etc.) to be FOR same sex marriage or sufficient or good enough reasons to be fighting for incest marriage and man animal marriage or if the atheist chooses to assert that marriage is a right, by their own standard they do not have sufficient or good enough reasons as to why that right can't be extended(or enjoyed) to incest and man animal marriages or why incest and man animal marriages can't lobby to extend(or enjoy) that right or why they won't fight for their 'rights' the same why they fight for same sex marriage. If they do assert that they have sufficient or good enough reasons to be FOR same sex marriages then Christians and anyone else have sufficient and good enough reasons to be against it.

Note: I am not promoting incest marriage or man animal marriage, just showing how logically inconsistent atheists are.

Counter punch: BUT TD, WHY DOES THIS APPLY TO ONLY ATHEISTS?!

Because in this particular situation the atheist only has their own personal opinion to rely on. They can't appeal to society because society does not accept same sex marriages(also that constitutes as an appeal to authority) they can't appeal to the law since the law states the government only recognizes marriage between a man and a women, they can't appeal to equal rights because they have nothing but their own personal opinion as to why that right can't be extended(or enjoyed) to incest and man animal marriages or why incest and man animal marriages can't lobby to extend(or enjoy) that right or why they won't fight for their 'rights' the same why they fight for same sex marriage. They have nothing but their own personal opinion, especially on specifics like who should be married and who should not be married. As a Christian, we have something outside of our personal opinion which states quite clearly that incest, man-animal, and same sex are all sins.

An atheists failure to criticize pt 2.

Another ignorant atheist decides to engage in an intellectual battle. When asked to prove my errors, flute provides the following:

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′sə bəl)
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.