Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
Society and History / Re: Incels General Thread
« Last post by Askold on Today at 03:03:10 am »
Maybe it is less about who the character is and more about the Smash bros character as different versions of Mario and Link are there?
22
Society and History / Re: Incels General Thread
« Last post by Art Vandelay on Today at 02:34:37 am »
Not to mention, Link is both an Incel Tears user and doesn't know what an incel is. I feel like that's also worth noting.
23
Society and History / Re: Incels General Thread
« Last post by Askold on Today at 02:17:17 am »
I don't know all of those characters but I notice that many of the MGTOW and Incel characters are villains. Which may have something to do with why they can't get a date. And some like Luigi canonically have a girlfriend and Bowser even has kids.

Also, a tip: Maybe if you didn't kidnap women and trying to force them to marry they would not consider you a dangerous creep.

Other than that, the only theme I see is that any female looking character is automatically considered not to be Incel. Except for that space-dragon. I think I read somewhere that Ridley is a female dragon thingy.
24
Preaching and Worship / Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
« Last post by Art Vandelay on Today at 12:06:52 am »
Like that makes a difference, you just made clear God's the abortionist in chief but it's ok because reasons, reasons including "collateral damage of massacres, no biggie."
Not to mention, unless God's not actually all powerful, "collateral damage" is only a thing because he chooses it to be a thing.
25
Like that makes a difference, you just made clear God's the abortionist in chief but it's ok because reasons, reasons including "collateral damage of massacres, no biggie."
26
Society and History / Re: Incels General Thread
« Last post by Art Vandelay on October 14, 2018, 07:54:37 pm »
Is there any sort of logic behind it, or are the characters just dumped into categories at random?

What the fuck am I saying? Of course they are.
27
Preaching and Worship / Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
« Last post by Jacob Harrison on October 14, 2018, 06:07:16 pm »
Quote
Finally, just as there are different emphases in the genealogies, so too there are different explanations for the dissimilarities between them. Matthew traces his genealogy through David’s son Solomon, while Luke traces his genealogy through David’s son Nathan. It may be that Matthew’s purpose is to provide the legal lineage from Solomon through Joseph, while Luke’s purpose is to provide the natural lineage from Nathan through Mary.

Mary? The patriarchal old Israelites insisted that Messiah's came from a paternal Davidic line.

Or it could be that the two different authors didn't talk to each other and produced different excuses  genealogies. Occam's razor m8.

Quote
It could also be that Matthew and Luke are both tracing Joseph’s genealogy— Matthew, the legal line, and Luke, the natural line. As such, the legal line diverges from the natural in that Levirate Law stipulated if a man died without an heir his genealogy could legally continue through his brother (Deuteronomy 25:5–6). Obviously, the fact that there are a number of ways to resolve dissimilarities rules out the notion that the genealogies are contradictory.

Yeah, but guys the main problem ain't the brother-it's the mother. I have little doubt that Jacob buys all that virgin birth hooey, problem is-if he does it doesn't matter who Jacob's parents were, that legal line he's talking about is a patrilineal line, through the fathers. If the kid had a mum but not a dad then it doesn't matter who his stepdad was "natural lines" not withstanding.

Let it not be left unsaid that the "number of ways" to resolve the dissimilarities rely on hypotheticals that aren't explicitly there in the text. If you say X. Y and Z you haven't resolved the dissimilarities you've merely hypothesized that they aren't there because of new information you've no evidence for existing.

Quote
It should be noted that Luke's list is composed of males (with the exception of Mary).Therefore she was clearly a descendant of David and Abraham. Today Jewish descent has to be through the mother - something which those Jews who use this objection must find hard to answer? Gen.3:15 describes the Messiah as the seed of the woman; it is fitting, therefore, that Messiah's matrilineal genealogy should be provided, and that his Messianic descent (i.e. as the seed of Abraham and David) should be shown through his mother's line. It should be remembered too that the daughters of Zelophehad had inheritance rights and were allowed to trace their inheritance, showing that it is not an immutable Divine principle that inheritance cannot go through women (consider Num.26:33; 27:1-7; 36:2-11).

There are other examples of this. Jair's father was of the tribe of Judah (1 Chron.2:22); yet in Num.32:41 he is described as " the son of Manasseh" , showing that his mother must have been of the tribe of Manasseh. His descent was reckoned for some reason through his mother rather than his father. 1 Chron.2:34 records that Sheshan " had no sons, but daughters" . According to the Jewish objection that genealogy cannot be reckoned through the woman, Sheshan would have no subsequent genealogy. However, he is described in 1 Chron.2:31 as having a son, presumably from the fact that he gave his daughter in marriage to his Egyptian servant (1 Chron.2:34). Thus his seed was still reckoned through a woman. Hiram is described as " the son of a woman of the daughters of Dan" (2 Chron.2:14). Other examples of this could be given.

http://www.aletheiacollege.net/dbb/5-3-1jewish_objections_to_the_ancestry_of_jesus.htm

Y'know, it's really convenient that Jewish tradition is relevant when it "explains" a contradiction in the Bible but irrelevant when it proves that the Bible orders abortion in certain cases.

This article debunks your claim that the bible orders abortion. https://www.catholic.com/qa/does-numbers-5-mean-abortion-is-ok
Your understanding of "debunked" is on the same level as your understanding of "proof" and "truth," cloud cuckoo land!

Quote
As strange as this matter is in the Old Testament, it also has no real attestation from the biblical period. It's never mentioned again in the Bible, and it's mentioned by only a few historical figures and writings—but always as something that they have heard about, never about an actual case they witnessed. 

Pish, tosh and bollocks.

Quote
What the Bible says about Abortion

Abortion is not murder. A fetus is not considered a human life.

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23
Fruit departing from her is referring to her giving a premature birth, which is in other bible translations. In fact “life for life” means if there is harm to the mother or the baby.
Quote
The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old.

And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. -- Leviticus 27:6

Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons.

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16
https://wels.net/faq/bible-passages-used-to-support-abortion/
Quote
God sometimes approves of killing fetuses.

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. -- Numbers 31:15-17
(Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.)
Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. -- Hosea 9:14
Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16
Your taking those verses out of context. In those situations God ordered for everyone to be killed including newborn babies but that does not mean that it is ok to murder newborn babies in other situations. Same thing applies for fetuses.
Quote
God sometimes kills newborn babies to punish their parents.

Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. -- 2 Samuel 12:14
In that specific situation, it was GOD killing the baby for a specific reason which was to punish David and Bathsheba for their sin. That does not mean that he allows human mothers to kill their babies. Abortion is a human act not Gods punishment for sin.
Quote
God sometimes causes abortions by cursing unfaithful wives.

The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28
Already addressed this. https://www.catholic.com/qa/does-numbers-5-mean-abortion-is-ok
Quote
God's law sometimes requires the execution (by burning to death) of pregnant women.

Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. -- Genesis 38:24
It was Judah who ordered that to happen, not God.
28
Preaching and Worship / Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
« Last post by Tolpuddle Martyr on October 14, 2018, 04:51:54 pm »
Quote
Finally, just as there are different emphases in the genealogies, so too there are different explanations for the dissimilarities between them. Matthew traces his genealogy through David’s son Solomon, while Luke traces his genealogy through David’s son Nathan. It may be that Matthew’s purpose is to provide the legal lineage from Solomon through Joseph, while Luke’s purpose is to provide the natural lineage from Nathan through Mary.

Mary? The patriarchal old Israelites insisted that Messiah's came from a paternal Davidic line.

Or it could be that the two different authors didn't talk to each other and produced different excuses  genealogies. Occam's razor m8.

Quote
It could also be that Matthew and Luke are both tracing Joseph’s genealogy— Matthew, the legal line, and Luke, the natural line. As such, the legal line diverges from the natural in that Levirate Law stipulated if a man died without an heir his genealogy could legally continue through his brother (Deuteronomy 25:5–6). Obviously, the fact that there are a number of ways to resolve dissimilarities rules out the notion that the genealogies are contradictory.

Yeah, but guys the main problem ain't the brother-it's the mother. I have little doubt that Jacob buys all that virgin birth hooey, problem is-if he does it doesn't matter who Jacob's parents were, that legal line he's talking about is a patrilineal line, through the fathers. If the kid had a mum but not a dad then it doesn't matter who his stepdad was "natural lines" not withstanding.

Let it not be left unsaid that the "number of ways" to resolve the dissimilarities rely on hypotheticals that aren't explicitly there in the text. If you say X. Y and Z you haven't resolved the dissimilarities you've merely hypothesized that they aren't there because of new information you've no evidence for existing.

Quote
It should be noted that Luke's list is composed of males (with the exception of Mary).Therefore she was clearly a descendant of David and Abraham. Today Jewish descent has to be through the mother - something which those Jews who use this objection must find hard to answer? Gen.3:15 describes the Messiah as the seed of the woman; it is fitting, therefore, that Messiah's matrilineal genealogy should be provided, and that his Messianic descent (i.e. as the seed of Abraham and David) should be shown through his mother's line. It should be remembered too that the daughters of Zelophehad had inheritance rights and were allowed to trace their inheritance, showing that it is not an immutable Divine principle that inheritance cannot go through women (consider Num.26:33; 27:1-7; 36:2-11).

There are other examples of this. Jair's father was of the tribe of Judah (1 Chron.2:22); yet in Num.32:41 he is described as " the son of Manasseh" , showing that his mother must have been of the tribe of Manasseh. His descent was reckoned for some reason through his mother rather than his father. 1 Chron.2:34 records that Sheshan " had no sons, but daughters" . According to the Jewish objection that genealogy cannot be reckoned through the woman, Sheshan would have no subsequent genealogy. However, he is described in 1 Chron.2:31 as having a son, presumably from the fact that he gave his daughter in marriage to his Egyptian servant (1 Chron.2:34). Thus his seed was still reckoned through a woman. Hiram is described as " the son of a woman of the daughters of Dan" (2 Chron.2:14). Other examples of this could be given.

http://www.aletheiacollege.net/dbb/5-3-1jewish_objections_to_the_ancestry_of_jesus.htm

Y'know, it's really convenient that Jewish tradition is relevant when it "explains" a contradiction in the Bible but irrelevant when it proves that the Bible orders abortion in certain cases.

This article debunks your claim that the bible orders abortion. https://www.catholic.com/qa/does-numbers-5-mean-abortion-is-ok
Your understanding of "debunked" is on the same level as your understanding of "proof" and "truth," cloud cuckoo land!

Quote
As strange as this matter is in the Old Testament, it also has no real attestation from the biblical period. It's never mentioned again in the Bible, and it's mentioned by only a few historical figures and writings—but always as something that they have heard about, never about an actual case they witnessed. 

Pish, tosh and bollocks.

Quote
What the Bible says about Abortion

Abortion is not murder. A fetus is not considered a human life.

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23

The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old.

And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. -- Leviticus 27:6

Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons.

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16

God sometimes approves of killing fetuses.

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. -- Numbers 31:15-17
(Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.)
Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. -- Hosea 9:14
Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16

God sometimes kills newborn babies to punish their parents.

Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. -- 2 Samuel 12:14

God sometimes causes abortions by cursing unfaithful wives.

The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

God's law sometimes requires the execution (by burning to death) of pregnant women.

Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. -- Genesis 38:24
29
Society and History / Re: Incels General Thread
« Last post by Skybison on October 14, 2018, 12:46:12 pm »


1)IT stands for Incel tears, a subredddit for mocking Incels if anyone didn't know

2)The hell...   

3) Why isn't Mario an Incel? (Princess Peach is always cucking him with Bowser)
30
Preaching and Worship / Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
« Last post by Jacob Harrison on October 14, 2018, 11:47:12 am »
But if you look at the preceding verses, it's clearly talking to Ahaz.  He's the "you" who is going to be given a sign.  How could Jesus's birth be a sign TO HIM?

Because it was a sign about the House of David since Jesus is a descendant of David.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10