The God question-part one

r u really that dumb? or just ignorant........

Scientists , mathemiticians want to disprove God / religion......There basis is the big bang..........

Something cannot be created from nothing........we know that.....even a reasonable person knows that.....Therefore, from the scientific/mathematical view point, they will NEVER EVER EVER EVER be able to disprove it........never........

Think now.......by now u should be thinking the big bang surely could never have happened, based of atoms, gases etc etc colliding..........

Therefore there could only be one alternative......u tell me what that could be,,..

Now who created God.........we are only designed to think about creation in this physical world.........the statement about something cannot be created from nothing only applies in this physical world.......

When we discuss God, we are talking about the spiritual world......the laws about something from nothing DO NOT necessarily apply for the spritual world.........I do not know who created God........but where the statement about creation from nothing applies to this physical world, it doesnt necessarily apply to God as a God is in a spiritual world............

Our brain arent designed to know about this in the spiritual sense, only in the physical sense, and no matter how much u look at it, it is impossible the world came from a big bang

Do u understand now?

Someone asked me the other day if I could ask Jesus one question what would it be????....since there was nothing apparently on my "BLANK FACE", i responded with...."hey jesus, when you were growing your hair out, and you were right in the middle of the annoying, can't do anything with my hair phase, did you style it like Justin Bieber or did you, being Jesus, originate the Tom Brady????

The "BLANK FACE" on that idot was priceless

This might help.read and learn......Social security, retirement pension and health insurance are all concepts that came up along with industrialization. Before that, the only safeguard against starvation in old age or while being too sick to work was to have a family that could and would care for you.

In pre industrialized societies, having a daughter means raising a child that will eventually leave your household to live with the family of her husband (at least in a patriarchy - in a matriarchy it's the other way round) and will therefore not contribute to your old age pension. In such societies, it is only reasonable to ask for compensation.

The bible leaves no doubt that women were/are to be treated as property. As such they either belong to their parents or their husbands and enjoy virtually no rights nor freedom, especially not when it comes to their own sexuality. In other words: Considering wifes to be property has the side effect of making it socially acceptable for their respective owner to decide upon when they must or must not have sex, without asking for consent.

The "biblical society" was a patriarchy and men were most concerned about illegitimate children. You cannot blame them for this though. Given the agricultural state of the middle east, the idea of feeding children that were not your own must have been a nightmare.

Without pregnancy test or contraceptives being available at that time, the only way of making sure that you are not marrying an already pregnant woman was to insist on her being a virgin. A woman that had lost her virginity was therefore pretty much off the marriage market.

So, with these premises in mind, what does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 actually mean in it's historical context?

When a man had raped an unmarried/young woman in old Israel, he had literally turned her into "damaged goods". She would not have been able to find a "respectable" husband afterwards and therefore she would also not have been able to start a family of her own. The implication of this being that the crime deprived her of any chances to gain what was then considered to be social security, health insurance or old-age pension.

As much as any feminist today must shiver with the mere thought of a woman being sold to her rapist, this is not what it was seen as in those days, at all. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 describes a law suit where the cause of action is not so much the violation itself but the consequences it bears on the victim's future. Namely, the financial loss she could be expected to suffer by not being able to start a family for her own support. The court rule is an attempt to make the violator pay damage repair by forcing him into a marriage and (most importantly) denying him the right to divorce, which he normally would have had (Deut. 24:1-2). In other words: what we see as adding insult to injury today was actually putting the woman in a very strong legal position back then. She became financially secured in a way she could not have archived by a regular marriage.

Now, one could of course point out the insanity of forcing a woman to live with an abusive husband. This, however, is only insane by modern day standards. In biblical times, women generally did not pick their husbands themselves. The idea of a love marriage is a relatively new concept in western societies and has only been around since the romantic era. Before that, marriage was typically arranged by the family and about support, political influence or financial benefit.
In ancient Palestine, a woman's consent was not a requirement to anything. The rule of thumb simply was: you married whom your family picked and you had sex when your husband decided to have it. Women were not emancipated and thinking of domestic violence as a crime did not cross anybody's mind (including the women's - compare it to the situation in poor Arabic countries, where women, subject to the same treatment, do not rebel either). Whether or not it was ok to force a woman into having sex pretty much was only a question of whether or not you were married to her.

So, what's the conclusion here? The laws in the bible were created by a bronze age society for a bronze age society which, given the circumstances and available resources, had to set their priorities differently than we do today. The kind of harm, we can nowadays easily compensate with modern medicine or insurance systems, was often a matter of life and death back then.
Biblical law is in no way suitable for us to build our morality on any longer. We cannot use it as a guide, let alone as a guide that should be followed literally. At best it can teach us what society looked like in ancient times, but quoting Deut. 22:28 -29 as an example for cruelty against women, when it was, in fact, meant to and even accomplished the exact opposite, is a gross misrepresentation. Quote mining is a tactic, commonly employed by theists and one should not embarrass oneself by stepping down to that level.

my girlfriends mother was one of morrie's caretakers........ 

Did she say the same thing as I did the first time she saw Albom? Look at the giant ears on that man?

timmy ---

sorry i assumed you were from alabama when you said "roll tide".......you know what they say about assuming...........

what you think about this ravens - chiefs game???

I spent 7 years there and my daughter is a Freshman RMFT'er to the tune of almost 30 dimes a year. My son is at the U of Minnesota and it's damn near the same. Ouch.

The game? Baltimore plays to a level of its competition. They're QB is easy to read and their defense is suspect at times. For KC, having Weiss pull what he did showed in their performance last weekend and you know how these prima donna pro players are....

That's my opinion as a bettor. As a fan, who cares? It's irrelevant.  Your hometown boys are in a whole different strata....

Your take?

By the way, when you say the word "data", do you say "date-er?"

c'mon timmy,,,would a boston bred dude have a cub as his avatar?  I actually moved to Boston less then 3 months ago, my loyalties lie with the bears and the cubbies (go ahead --- i'm pretty fucking used to the cubs jokes ), that's why i wasn't really offended when you called me a masshole,,,,,or when that other dude made fun of my accent........ 

i like the ravens a little bit, don't know about a lot a bit.........still looking at this weekend - but i believe i will be on the packers................

hey little buddy,,,don't they teach you 7th graders about plagerizing...........

https://www.onyxbits.de/content/atheist-dont-make-insanely-stupid-argument

at least give the credit where credits due...............

fucking clown.........

nice,,,,,,,good for you bro

couple questions:

1.) Did they give full-ride scholarships for golf at the school you attended

2.) Did you have "fans" at your golf tournaments?  Do people come out and watch college tournaments?

3.) Do you work in a golf related field nowadays?

Never a sport I could get into, played a few times (not to mention took a golf class in college  ), could drive it pretty well (but never knew where it was going), could putt a little, but had so much trouble using irons.................