Time to blow the dust off this baby and get back to work on it :D I've got more Fundies and crackpots to add to the mix, so Fwiffo won't be all by his lonesome anymore!
posted by Grace | 6:21 PM
|
0 comments
Right-Wing Wingnuts
About Me
- Name: Grace
- Location: Galesburg, Illinois, United States
Hello. My name is Grace, I am 27 years old, and I am a freelance artist, occasional photographer, and sporadic blogger from Illinois. I try to stick to themes sometimes, but I really just blog about anything that strikes my fancy.
- Time to blow the dust off this baby and get back t...
- The Gospel of Fwiffo, Part 2
- The Gospel of Fwiffo
- In Response to the Gospel of Fwiffo
- Welcome!
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Sunday, December 31, 2006
The Gospel of Fwiffo, Part 2
Quotes from this thread. More stupidity from our beloved Bible-thumper.
2.1 "W: And also remember the bible was written by the hand of man, so it cannot be considered 100% unfallible
Fwiffo: Except, according to our religion, it was told to man by an almighty God. Now, if the Almighty was telling me something to write, wouldnt that be one hell of an incinitive to get it right? Since you know, he probably would not have let anything he didnt approve of get in there?"
2.2 "W: Not that I'm as well educated on the production history of the bible as maybe I should be, but I find it hard to believe that no human touch was put on the words, no "correction" was made to anything, no crossed wires between the author, a human being thousands of years ago, and the almighty god. That it didn't pass through any tainting hands on it's way to publication...
Or, heck, that any real divine inspiration was lost in the greater goal of control over the masses, but hey, that's for another thread
Fwiffo: First off, we have many old scrolls to go off of. They are acurate. Second, you may not understand the devotion some of these transcribers went though. Those monks in the monestaries, copying this down? If they got one word wrong= one word- they did not just throw out the whole page.... the whole chapter... they through out the entire copy of the bible and started over from Genisis 1:1. There was intense dedication to this cause.
But as said, we have those scrolls, so its irrelevent anyway."
2.3 "Vicious: Hmm, according to the Bible aren't virgins the only ones allowed to marry?
Fwiffo: Not to the best of my knowledge.
Vicious: Isn't divorce forbidden?
Fwiffo: Yes.
Vicious: What about eating red meat on Fridays?
Fwiffo: No, see Acts- the church determined that such laws were only for Jews. Restrictions against homosexuality and sexual impurity were kept.
Vicious: What about womens' rights?
Fwiffo: Considering the time period, Pauls letters were revolutionary in regards to women. Other people simply took it at face value, and did not continue the liberating trend.
Vicious: Didn't the Bible say something about interracial marriage too?
Fwiffo: No. ANything taken that way was reffering to people of other religions."
2.4 "Poster: male prostitutes
Fwiffo: Reffering specifically to men who commited gay sex in front of idols.
Link: Don’t ever take Romans 1 out of context. Almost every time people quote Romans 1 as a passage which condemns homosexuality, they stop at Romans 1:32 and then proceed to judge homosexuals and “gay bash” as hard as they possibly can. I find it absolutely amazing how people can take the Word of God out of context on this issue. If you plan to gay bash from Romans 1, don’t hold your thumb over Romans 2:1.
Fwiffo: Despite the fact that Paul is telling them not condemn this, it doesnt change the fact that homosexuality is stated as wrong in that passage.
Link: If the view of absolute condemnation of homosexuals and homosexual behaviour were supported by the Word of God, surely the Lord Jesus would have said a great deal about it and it would have been recorded in all four gospels, and blazoned in neon lights. But He said nothing…absolutely nothing… That has got to be particularly significant.
Fwiffo: Jesus never said anything about Rape either- that doesnt make it ok.
Being homosexual doesnt make you a sinner, anymore then being heterosexual makes you guilty of having sex before marraige. Its the act of gay sex that is condenmed, not the nature of your sexuality."
2.5 "Galenraff: First, a lot, and I mean a LOT, of modern religion is idolatry. The cruxifix, the virgin Mary (particularly for Catholics), the reverence of traditions, symbolism, and ritual - all of that qualifies as idolatry. So count yourself among homosexuals, drunkards, etc.
Fwiffo: Oh, I agree entirely. Unfortunatly, your now providing a blanket statement covering all Christians, and assuming they all commit idolatry. There are those who think the blanket near-worship of the Cross, and the Virgin Mary, ect. are wrong.
Galenraff: Second, the other thing I highlighted would seem to indicate that ultimately, none of that other jive matters. According to your religion, you're on the same footing as homosexuals, drunkards, etc., and are all in the warm embrace of the lord. Everyone is clean and equal, from the lord's point of view.
Fwiffo: No, everyone is dirty and equal, and made clean by Jesus Christ. But bonus points for taking the verse out of context.
Galenraff:So please stop trolling your scripture for messages of hate and exclusion when it's really not even about that anyway.
Fwiffo: Dont get me wrong- anyone who condemns homosexuals with an outright YOU SHALT ALL BURN IN HELL FOREVER BWHAHAHAHAHA is more in the wrong then any homosexual (because hey, at least they arnt claiming to be vile in Gods name), but that doesn't make the act any more right in my eyes. Modern Christians are far far far far far far far far FAR from perfect, and unfortuantly, its the loudest ones who everyone hears, and for the most p[art, the loudest ones are also the wrongest. Well meaning as they may think their being, their not. But the act of gay sex is still wrong. The world itself is wrong. If I could, Id make it my business to preach to every guy who got it wrong, but I dont have that authority. They are ALL going to answer to God eventually, so I dont know.
I think I had a point when I started that, but I suspect it was not a compelling one."
2.6 "Me: You're right. Deuteronomy covered that pretty well. If the girl was in the city, and didn't scream, she was stoned to death along with her assailant (and I don't think I have to elaborate on how horrible it is to die by stoning. What a cruel way to punish someone who didn't even do anything wrong...). If she was out in the country, she just was forced to marry the man who violated her.
Fwiffo: Total lack of comprehension here lady.
The towns were small, really, really small. There was no way to effectivly shut her up. If he killed her, he would be killed immidiatly on discovery. They would hear her screaming and come to her aid. If she didnt scream, it was consensual. There was not much of a middle ground, and there was no easy way to hide any evidence. Your trying to read a 1200 year BC document with a 20th century mindset, of COURSE it doesnt make sense to you. It makes perfect sense when you realize the circumstances they were living in.
Now, get to the married part. The man would be forever branded, and forever closly watched, and he would have to pay a massive dowry sum to the daughters family, and he would be enslaved to her. The girl could and would report any abuses, and maybe you should look up the punishments for abusing your wife."
2.7 "VP: So an unstated "no" is a "yes" in your book?
Wow. That's absolutely hugging sick.
Fwiffo: Cute, way to distort my words buddy.
Did you miss the part where they are in a ridiculously small village? There are people less then five feet away, through nothing more then a tents fabric. She can scream- even a shout will atract attention. In fact, thats what they are told to do as kids, from birth. They are in an entirly different culture, and all the nuances of our sex-crazed American life simply didnt exist."
2.8 "Galenraff: Fwiffo, could you explain that a bit more? I thought that was indeed the way the belief structure worked. So how does it work?
Simply, everyone is a dirty dirty sinner. All sins are equal in Gods eyes, and your first sin gets you sent to hell, not because God doesn't love you anymore, but because God is so holy, that he simply cannot be in the presence of sin (Probably, a better statement is that gods presence would totally destroy sin, taking whatever its attached to with it). When you accept Jesus Christ, he washes away all the sins you ever commited, and ever will commit, as long as you truly do it within your heart and soul (no 'Im just saying this to save my butt' stuff). Does that make it a bit more clear?"
2.9 "Me: Fwiffo, you're an idiot if you think that every woman who is raped screams and struggles. What if he'd bound and gagged her?
Fwiffo: With what? Stuff isn't exactly readily available in this little tiny towns. Im sure if somehow he did manage to bind and gag her, she would be given a pass.
Me: What if he had a knife to her throat and threatened to kill her if she made a sound? There are a lot of reasons why a woman wouldn't scream and struggle against her attacker.
Fwiffo: He wouldnt have a chance to kill her- as I said, there are people less then 5 feet away. There would be no chance for the guy to get away, and unless he was going to kill her anyway, it wouldnt do him any good. He'd die regardless of what he did, except the pun ishment would be harsher for the murderer.
Me: And, as for "reading an old document and trying to apply it to the 20th century" bit? Pot? Kettle? Black.
Fwiffo: Haha cute. Ill ignore that.
Me: 1. No, he did not have to pay a "massive dowry sum". He paid the girl's father thirty pieces of silver (IIRC).
Fwiffo: Which for the time, was a hell of a lot.
Me: 2. As for the rest, that is not present anywhere in the Bible - there are no verses that say the rape victim has control over her assailant, or that he is "enslaved" to her after being forced to marry him (of course not. That would be contrary to the whole "man being the head of the household and the woman being subservient to him" scriptures...), or that she could tell her family about anything else he did to her after he pretty much bought her as "spoiled goods" from her daddy. Altering "God's Word", much?
Fwiffo: Look deeper. Find other versus- he hardly had a free pass to marraige.
Me: Go read your Bible, Fwiffo. Really read it. All of it. And actually see what it says instead of overlooking the parts you don't like because they're too "dirty".
Fwiffo: I do."
Author's Note: Apparently NOT...
2.10 "VP: ...mean that you think that an unstated "no" means "yes" or not? After all, if she doesn't scream or say no, she's saying yes, right? That's what those words up there mean in that particular arrangement. Thousands of rapists have used that exact concept to try and wriggle out of being punished for their crimes. Are you saying that they were correct? That "no" means "no" only if it's explicitly, loudly stated?!
Fwiffo: Your trying to argue about different times. Its not easy to rape and kill a woman. You dont have a lot of time to gag her, you cant get her into a car and drive away, you dont have anything to drug her with, and you wont be able to get away with it because theres a large family with strong men on all four sides of your tent. Women are not so helpless that they cant kick the guy away and scream. He doesnt have a gun to kill her quickly with, all he has is a knife and he has to get really close to deliver a fatal wound, and at very best he has sword (which Im sure people will be wondering what your doing with when there isnt anybody to fight). All it takes is one shout to arrouse attention because there are people less then five feet away.
Your trying again to apply a man and a woman in a darkened apartment to a man and a woman in the middle of a little camp with people on all sides.
Get it?"
2.11 "Dustybot: I don't mean to attack you Fwiff, but you do understand that a lot of people view that statement as a major prejudice akin to saying interracial marriage is wrong, yes?
I'm not trying to sway you, that's beyond futile, but I want you to understand how statements like that effect others.
Fwiffo: How is it any different then 'sex before marraige' is wrong?"
More to come later. He spouts of this ignorance regularly.
As promised, more from our favorite psychopath. This time from this thread.
2.12 "Zodiac: Cause Clinton didn't nominate sexist, anti-environment social conservatives with previous statements suggesting that abortion rights should be overturned? You think that should get a pass just because Republicans want a favour?
Fwiffo: Because Ginsburg was SO moderate...
Figured it would be just a little bit longer before Libs started screaming END OF TEH WORLDZOR!"
2.13 Fwiffo: "Read the bolded part. The man is a strict constructionalist. You may not like it, but it does not qualify him any less.
Of course, it doesnt matter to you, because all you see is OMG TEH EVIL CONSERVATIVE BASTARD MUST DIE BECAUSE HES CONSERVATIVE AND ALL CONSERIVATIVES ARE TEH EVIL.
And BTW< Morningstar, (and whoever else advocates shooting Sandra Day OConnor_ you disgust me. Shes an old woman who reteried after a very long tenue of service. Shut The hug Up.
Seriously, all civility here has disappeared. This is no loinger Political Discussion, this is the ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE EVIL forum."
2.14 "RP: Fine by me, i dont believe in abortion, i do care about the invornment but i want to be realizic about it. U have no right to critize us for what we believe in just as we dont have the right to do the same as. If u noticed, me and Master Fwiffo seem to be the only ones in a nice conversation, while the rest of the people in this topic have bashing conservative left and right. We havent stated Sandra should be shot.
Fwiffo: Its the way of this board. If your a Conservative, your fresh meat waiting to be killed.
Welcome to the Allspark Political Section.
Motto: We hate Republicans."
2.15 "Me: Kay, know what? All of you who are bitching and moaning about "not wanting to post here anymore" because you're being "persecuted"? If you're not adult enough to handle opposing opinions, don't get involved. If you want to moan and bellyache about not being agreed with all the time, take it elsewhere. And, if you're so certain that you don't want to post here, then LEAVE. It's not that hard. Just type another address into that nifty little bar up top and don't hit the "Back" button. Your juvenile whining certainly won't be missed, and maybe it'll give the decent conservatives and liberals a chance to have their voices heard, instead of stupid, petty bickering.
If you're not willing to do that, then grow up and learn to handle a dissenting viewpoint. On top of that, learn how to discuss differing views in a civilized, intelligent manner. All of this name-calling and whining does not serve to make you look any more intelligent.
It might also bode well if the lot of you would stop engaging in attacks against others, just because of their political leanings. You complain when people do it to you, so why engage in that sort of behaviour yourselves? Liberals, conservatives... In the end, those are just words, goddamnit. Get over it. If you want to harangue someone about something, make it about something other than "OMG UR AN EEEEVIL CONSURVATIV!!!" or "OMG UR AN EEEEVIL LIBURUL!!!" If I recall correctly, that's what's gotten numerous threads locked in the past and part of the reason why the Powers That Be were reluctant to create this subforum in the first place - people who weren't mature enough to engage in civilized discourse about religion and politics.
Myself? I don't care if you're liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, Christian, atheist, pagan, or an alien from some other planet. If you're decent towards me, I'll be decent towards you. If you're a jackass, however, then don't expect much in the way of politeness. All I ask is that you treat me in the same way that you would like to be treated - is that so hard for people to do?
It would be nice if people would learn to use proper spelling and grammar, too, but that's a touch off-topic - even if it would make posts much easier to read...
Fwiffo: Its not dissenting opionions. Its blatent Conservative/Religious/Republican BASHING. Not debating. Not listening to other peoples views. No, its flaming, bashing, and shouting down TEH EVIL CONSERVATIVES. Morningstar, in this thread alone, has called for OConnors death, and then afterwards, made a direct threat toward me. How can you debate civily when the other side is intent on demonizing you, and everything you stand for? And its not just one person, its a LOT of you. And then, when we have had enough and say so, you pretty much tell us '**** OFF and get over your Persecution complex.' Its not a Persecutiuion complex, when its actually happening. Or maybe I should tell a gay to 'Get over your persecution complex.', or a black man in pre-CivilWar south 'Get over your persecution complex.' Granted, we arn't getting beaten or hung, but its the same effect with words, here, on this board. This is a hostile enviorment to conservatives, religous people, and republicans, and if you can't see it because your none of the above, then your too blind by your own positions to be of any help, so why don't you just STFU.
-edit- And btw, I have no reason to even listen to you, because you yourself have gone out of your way to mock my beleif system. So frankly, you can shut your pie hole about the persecution complex, because your adding to it."
-Author's Note: Don't you just LOVE how the little troll has to result to personal attacks? How mature and Christian of him.-
2.16 "Me: And I've no reason to listen to a word you say, as I've caught you lying before, and will likely catch you again.
Fwiffo: If by lying, you mean assuming the best of something while you assume the worst, sure. Or having a faulty memory, which I freely admit I do.
Me: Do get over yourself, dear. I've not "gone out of my way" to mock anyone or anything. You hardly represent your belief system or your political faction, so stop behaving as if you do. I'm quite capable of maintaining civil discourse with people who identify themselves as "Christian conservatives", because they show respect to my point of view, instead of demeaning in it the manner that you do. I do it all the time at the ExC forums - the only reason it's difficult to do the same here is because there are people like you, who take personal offense at anything that is said in relation to your beliefs.
I'm fully prepared to give my full attention and respect to anyone, regardless of political faction or religious belief, who shows respect to others. In that vein, since you show no respect to me, do not expect the same favor in the future.
Fwiffo: Its a double edge sword. I will respect your point of view if you do mine- and I have rarely, if ever, seen you do that. Practice what you preach dear.
Me: Also... "shut your pie hole"? There's one I haven't heard since second grade...
Fwiffo: Meh, I didn't have anything else that wasn't offensive enough to get me banned."
-Author's Note: Again, I love how he goes out of his way to try to be offensive...-
2.17 "Wheelimus: Guess I lied, not done rambling.
You know, you say that conservatives aren't welcome here. That's funny. Because I just noted to Racer-J this...I WANT MORE CONSERVATIVES HERE. Because a 1 sided ass kicking just isn't any fun . Feel you're outnumbered and your viewpoints aren't getting told? BRING MORE PEOPLE HERE TO POST.
I've always said I want this forum to be "Real Time With Bill Maher" not "Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher
Fwiffo: Hey, I'd be for it. But this section already chased out most of the Conservatives. Where's Axaday, Skysaurus, and it looks like Lord Cryotek too? Most conservatives take a look in here, see all the bashing, and leave. I would LOVE to have a more even debate field, but take a look again and Mikes post I quoted. That stuff is here all-the-time. Is it any wonder we dont have more conservatives here?
-Edit- And also that Barineese guy who was here for a whole week before getting chased out."
2.18 "Vicious: That one was mine. What's wrong with it?
Fwiffo: The guy was asking a legitamate, theological question about what he should or should not feel sorry for and foprgiveness.
Calling it the 'Christian guilt complex[/i] was insulting IMO.
Maybe I am just too damn touchy, but the general attitude here, to me, reads as unnacceptable."
2.19 "Fwiffo: If you want another shining example Wheelimus (and I notice you never adressed the ones I gave), check out This Topic.
6 Posts In.
User: Is there anyone who works in that building who has an IQ of over 6? All I can think of when I read that transcript is "duh, the message, gotta stay on the message, I wish they'd stop askin' me these questions so I can get home and eat me some potato chi...freedom! freedom! Yes, freedom is good, freedom is good, democracy is good, goog, good, good....duh, message, gotta stay on message..."
Idiot. Absolute hugging idiot. Was his shirt buttoned up right, at least, or did Mommy have to help him dress again?
Fwiffo: This is not an argument. I dont care wether you think the White House guy was owned, this is just insulting a guy for the hell of insulting the guy.
Second page:
User: I think we can all agree that Karl Rove is guilty of being a fat, disgusting sack of jive, and that the world would be a better place if he were to die in a horrific swallowing-a-whole-roast-pig accident.
Fwiffo: Third page...
User: Don't kid yourself. If Karl Rove had the chance, he'd eat you and everyone you care about, and then get a triple bacon cheeseburger to wash it down.
Fwiffo: Are these arguments? Are there any reasons for post like these in what is trying to be a civil debate forum? NO. Now, whats wrose is that ONLY Conservatives are allowed to be the target of these attacks. Ive never seen a Conservative here call Bill Clinton a 'fat disgusting sack of jive', or anything about John Kerry and the 'world would be a better place if he were to die in a horrific swallowing-a-whole-roast-pig accident.'.
Grimlock X is right-frikken-on with his post up there. This is a hostile enviroment for Conservatives. You may not want it to be, but it is."
-Author's Note: Yet AGAIN, I love how he takes insults against KARL ROVE, and tries to pass them off as insults against conservaives and Christians as a whole...
From this thread.
2.20 "Corvus: Ah, so I take it you have no problem with the use of microwaves as a crowd control weapon?
Fwiffo: Well, until we can set phasers on stun, not really.
Zodiac: Because heaven forbid you try and think up some other way for crowd control than firing indiscriminately into crowds or using some microwave beam that could cause serious burns or blindness. Can't have that.
Fwiffo: Ok, since your the genius, YOU think of some ways to to break up a riot. I'm waiting.
Zodiac: It might require some skill or subtlety, or thinking up ways to prevent riots from happening in the first place like, oh, doing a better job of protecting civilians from "collateral damage".
Fwiffo: Because thats the only reasons Riots happen. Yep.
-edit- Clarifying... I fail to see anything wrong with a 'pain gun' as a riot control method. Its not deadly, and its better then shooting actual guns over their head, or beating people, or shocking them half to death.
If we had reports that it might kill people, yeah I'll be worried. But thats not the case. It might cause burns or blindness, if used for a long enough time under the right conditions. That seems an acceptable risk for the payoff of breaking up a potentially deadly riot. Fire it in 5-7 second bursts, and that should be plenty effective."
2.21 "TSFC: Getting burned...permanent scarring. Also, depending where the person's burned, their life is ruined and that of those around them. Is that a worthy punishment for the crime of a riot Fwiffo?
Fwiffo: Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it looked to me that the burns can only happen where there are coins in your pocket, and if the dosage is long enough. That does not sound bad at all.
TSFC: Eye damage...blindness in one or both eyes, also destroying someone's life and those around them. Is that a worthy punishment Fwiffo?
Fwiffo: Again, only if the right conditions prevail- and I'm pretty sure we have medical procedures that can fix that blindness, if it does occur. Its not like these will happen outright.
TSFC: Most people would rather die than suffer such punishments.
Fwiffo: They would rather be dead then blind and have to have a medical procedure or have a little coin shaped burn on their right leg? Are you kidding me?
And dont talk to me about burns and eyes. I went through a week of being hypersenistive to light, so that stepping out into the sun felt like knives being plunged into my eyes (and I am not exaggeratting in the least). That was a lot worse then anything it sounds like this heat ray could dish out.
TSFC: Or better yet, we shouldn't put them in the path of such possible destruction.
Fwiffo: Then, frankly, they should avoid being in a riot.
TSFC: I've got an even better idea, let's see if your ideas work well, we'll test the Pain Wave on you, we'll wait until the screaming subsides and you catch your breath, then you can spill the beans.
Fwiffo: By merely reading the article, it doesnt sound so severe you can't move. If the goal is to get people to break up, it doesn't make sense to have imobilizing pain.
TSFC: Sometimes, you say things that make ME look sensible.
Fwiffo: Look, read the damn article. We don't even have reports of that happening- we have some safety measures being tested, and even then they don't sound so bad. They also tell you to wear sunglassess to protect your eyes- that doesn't mean walking out into sunlight is going to make you blind forever. The burn is nothing bad at all.
Sweet lord you guys are treating it like its the end of the world, and all we have is one (highly biased I might add) article, that doesn't even make it sound that bad."
2.22 "Me: So, then, I take it you're okay with helpless civilians going blind because their contact lenses melted due to the heat, and fused to their corneas.
Fwiffo: A: They won't be using it on 'helpless civilians'. They'll likly only use it after a riot has turned violent.
B: Where, in the article, does it say that?
Me: Or a child, caught in the middle of it all (and, yes, that happens), suffering second- and third-degree burns from change he had in his pockets.
Fwiffo: Please point to where it says second or third degree burns.
Me: Or, hell, someone who has metal plates in, say, their skull or thigh. What then?
Fwiffo: And where does it say that?
Me: Or someone in the crowd, wearing a pacemaker, who suffers from cardiac arrest and DIES. Ever wonder why people with pacemakers are told to stay away from microwaves, Fwiffo? It's because those microwaves can kill the pacemaker and result in permanent damage or death to the person equipped with it. And you don't have to be old to have a pacemaker, either - I've seen people as young as 12 with them, due to congenital heart diseases.
Fwiffo: Ok, the second reasonable argument I've seen.
Me: How would you feel in that case, eh? Is it "okay", then? When people are being severely wounded and killed by their own government? Would it be "okay" if you were caught up in all of that?
Fwiffo: Its a RIOT control device. It breaks up RIOTS. When it becomes, you know, a RIOT. That is what it is for. Not a demonstration, an actual RIOT.
Me: It's disgusting. Tear gas and bean bags work just fine. They just take a little more effort to deploy.
Fwiffo: What if someone is allergic to tear gas, and dies? Or what if someone with sensative eyes goes blind from it? This is all just blatenet what ifs."
2.23 "Fwiffo: Again, only if the right conditions prevail- and I'm pretty sure we have medical procedures that can fix that blindness, if it does occur.
Zodiac: In Iraq?
You are aware, of course, that these procedures to "fix" corneal burns cost thousands of dollars, aren't always guaranteed of success, and aren't available everywhere even in the developed world, right? You do know, then, that if you're a poor Iraqi civilian you're not likely to get that treatment, right?
Right?
Fwiffo: Your also not likly to have contacts, so its a moot point."
2.24 "Fwiffo: Look people, we know NOTHING about this thing except what is in the article. Let me list the facts.
fires a 95-gigahertz microwave beam at rioters to cause heating and intolerable pain in less than five seconds.
rioters were told to remove glasses and contact lenses to protect their eyes.
In another test they were also told to remove metal objects like coins from their clothing to avoid local hot spots developing on their skin.
AND THAT IS ALL.
That is IT. ALL. EVERYTHING WE KNOW. Everything ELSE in this thread is conjecture, speculation, and in my opinion, a load of paranoid crap. We dont KNOW if it can cause burns, we dont KNOW if it can cause blindness, melt contacts, or anything else. We simply... DONT KNOW.
Say it with me. WE DONT KNOW. Lets see some studies, or even some more concrete facts on this thing before you all start screaming, OK?
And also might I add, that article is biased against it, offers no dissenting opinion, or even any concrete facts against it."
-Author's note: Wow, hypocrisy! Note how he demands proof that this thing could potentially be lethal, and derides us for "not providing any". However, when the tables are turned on him, as so often happens, and we're the ones demanding proof, he claims he doesn't have to provide any because, really, it should be obvious, if only we were seeing things from his point of view. How typically Christian.-
2.1 "W: And also remember the bible was written by the hand of man, so it cannot be considered 100% unfallible
Fwiffo: Except, according to our religion, it was told to man by an almighty God. Now, if the Almighty was telling me something to write, wouldnt that be one hell of an incinitive to get it right? Since you know, he probably would not have let anything he didnt approve of get in there?"
2.2 "W: Not that I'm as well educated on the production history of the bible as maybe I should be, but I find it hard to believe that no human touch was put on the words, no "correction" was made to anything, no crossed wires between the author, a human being thousands of years ago, and the almighty god. That it didn't pass through any tainting hands on it's way to publication...
Or, heck, that any real divine inspiration was lost in the greater goal of control over the masses, but hey, that's for another thread
Fwiffo: First off, we have many old scrolls to go off of. They are acurate. Second, you may not understand the devotion some of these transcribers went though. Those monks in the monestaries, copying this down? If they got one word wrong= one word- they did not just throw out the whole page.... the whole chapter... they through out the entire copy of the bible and started over from Genisis 1:1. There was intense dedication to this cause.
But as said, we have those scrolls, so its irrelevent anyway."
2.3 "Vicious: Hmm, according to the Bible aren't virgins the only ones allowed to marry?
Fwiffo: Not to the best of my knowledge.
Vicious: Isn't divorce forbidden?
Fwiffo: Yes.
Vicious: What about eating red meat on Fridays?
Fwiffo: No, see Acts- the church determined that such laws were only for Jews. Restrictions against homosexuality and sexual impurity were kept.
Vicious: What about womens' rights?
Fwiffo: Considering the time period, Pauls letters were revolutionary in regards to women. Other people simply took it at face value, and did not continue the liberating trend.
Vicious: Didn't the Bible say something about interracial marriage too?
Fwiffo: No. ANything taken that way was reffering to people of other religions."
2.4 "Poster: male prostitutes
Fwiffo: Reffering specifically to men who commited gay sex in front of idols.
Link: Don’t ever take Romans 1 out of context. Almost every time people quote Romans 1 as a passage which condemns homosexuality, they stop at Romans 1:32 and then proceed to judge homosexuals and “gay bash” as hard as they possibly can. I find it absolutely amazing how people can take the Word of God out of context on this issue. If you plan to gay bash from Romans 1, don’t hold your thumb over Romans 2:1.
Fwiffo: Despite the fact that Paul is telling them not condemn this, it doesnt change the fact that homosexuality is stated as wrong in that passage.
Link: If the view of absolute condemnation of homosexuals and homosexual behaviour were supported by the Word of God, surely the Lord Jesus would have said a great deal about it and it would have been recorded in all four gospels, and blazoned in neon lights. But He said nothing…absolutely nothing… That has got to be particularly significant.
Fwiffo: Jesus never said anything about Rape either- that doesnt make it ok.
Being homosexual doesnt make you a sinner, anymore then being heterosexual makes you guilty of having sex before marraige. Its the act of gay sex that is condenmed, not the nature of your sexuality."
2.5 "Galenraff: First, a lot, and I mean a LOT, of modern religion is idolatry. The cruxifix, the virgin Mary (particularly for Catholics), the reverence of traditions, symbolism, and ritual - all of that qualifies as idolatry. So count yourself among homosexuals, drunkards, etc.
Fwiffo: Oh, I agree entirely. Unfortunatly, your now providing a blanket statement covering all Christians, and assuming they all commit idolatry. There are those who think the blanket near-worship of the Cross, and the Virgin Mary, ect. are wrong.
Galenraff: Second, the other thing I highlighted would seem to indicate that ultimately, none of that other jive matters. According to your religion, you're on the same footing as homosexuals, drunkards, etc., and are all in the warm embrace of the lord. Everyone is clean and equal, from the lord's point of view.
Fwiffo: No, everyone is dirty and equal, and made clean by Jesus Christ. But bonus points for taking the verse out of context.
Galenraff:So please stop trolling your scripture for messages of hate and exclusion when it's really not even about that anyway.
Fwiffo: Dont get me wrong- anyone who condemns homosexuals with an outright YOU SHALT ALL BURN IN HELL FOREVER BWHAHAHAHAHA is more in the wrong then any homosexual (because hey, at least they arnt claiming to be vile in Gods name), but that doesn't make the act any more right in my eyes. Modern Christians are far far far far far far far far FAR from perfect, and unfortuantly, its the loudest ones who everyone hears, and for the most p[art, the loudest ones are also the wrongest. Well meaning as they may think their being, their not. But the act of gay sex is still wrong. The world itself is wrong. If I could, Id make it my business to preach to every guy who got it wrong, but I dont have that authority. They are ALL going to answer to God eventually, so I dont know.
I think I had a point when I started that, but I suspect it was not a compelling one."
2.6 "Me: You're right. Deuteronomy covered that pretty well. If the girl was in the city, and didn't scream, she was stoned to death along with her assailant (and I don't think I have to elaborate on how horrible it is to die by stoning. What a cruel way to punish someone who didn't even do anything wrong...). If she was out in the country, she just was forced to marry the man who violated her.
Fwiffo: Total lack of comprehension here lady.
The towns were small, really, really small. There was no way to effectivly shut her up. If he killed her, he would be killed immidiatly on discovery. They would hear her screaming and come to her aid. If she didnt scream, it was consensual. There was not much of a middle ground, and there was no easy way to hide any evidence. Your trying to read a 1200 year BC document with a 20th century mindset, of COURSE it doesnt make sense to you. It makes perfect sense when you realize the circumstances they were living in.
Now, get to the married part. The man would be forever branded, and forever closly watched, and he would have to pay a massive dowry sum to the daughters family, and he would be enslaved to her. The girl could and would report any abuses, and maybe you should look up the punishments for abusing your wife."
2.7 "VP: So an unstated "no" is a "yes" in your book?
Wow. That's absolutely hugging sick.
Fwiffo: Cute, way to distort my words buddy.
Did you miss the part where they are in a ridiculously small village? There are people less then five feet away, through nothing more then a tents fabric. She can scream- even a shout will atract attention. In fact, thats what they are told to do as kids, from birth. They are in an entirly different culture, and all the nuances of our sex-crazed American life simply didnt exist."
2.8 "Galenraff: Fwiffo, could you explain that a bit more? I thought that was indeed the way the belief structure worked. So how does it work?
Simply, everyone is a dirty dirty sinner. All sins are equal in Gods eyes, and your first sin gets you sent to hell, not because God doesn't love you anymore, but because God is so holy, that he simply cannot be in the presence of sin (Probably, a better statement is that gods presence would totally destroy sin, taking whatever its attached to with it). When you accept Jesus Christ, he washes away all the sins you ever commited, and ever will commit, as long as you truly do it within your heart and soul (no 'Im just saying this to save my butt' stuff). Does that make it a bit more clear?"
2.9 "Me: Fwiffo, you're an idiot if you think that every woman who is raped screams and struggles. What if he'd bound and gagged her?
Fwiffo: With what? Stuff isn't exactly readily available in this little tiny towns. Im sure if somehow he did manage to bind and gag her, she would be given a pass.
Me: What if he had a knife to her throat and threatened to kill her if she made a sound? There are a lot of reasons why a woman wouldn't scream and struggle against her attacker.
Fwiffo: He wouldnt have a chance to kill her- as I said, there are people less then 5 feet away. There would be no chance for the guy to get away, and unless he was going to kill her anyway, it wouldnt do him any good. He'd die regardless of what he did, except the pun ishment would be harsher for the murderer.
Me: And, as for "reading an old document and trying to apply it to the 20th century" bit? Pot? Kettle? Black.
Fwiffo: Haha cute. Ill ignore that.
Me: 1. No, he did not have to pay a "massive dowry sum". He paid the girl's father thirty pieces of silver (IIRC).
Fwiffo: Which for the time, was a hell of a lot.
Me: 2. As for the rest, that is not present anywhere in the Bible - there are no verses that say the rape victim has control over her assailant, or that he is "enslaved" to her after being forced to marry him (of course not. That would be contrary to the whole "man being the head of the household and the woman being subservient to him" scriptures...), or that she could tell her family about anything else he did to her after he pretty much bought her as "spoiled goods" from her daddy. Altering "God's Word", much?
Fwiffo: Look deeper. Find other versus- he hardly had a free pass to marraige.
Me: Go read your Bible, Fwiffo. Really read it. All of it. And actually see what it says instead of overlooking the parts you don't like because they're too "dirty".
Fwiffo: I do."
Author's Note: Apparently NOT...
2.10 "VP: ...mean that you think that an unstated "no" means "yes" or not? After all, if she doesn't scream or say no, she's saying yes, right? That's what those words up there mean in that particular arrangement. Thousands of rapists have used that exact concept to try and wriggle out of being punished for their crimes. Are you saying that they were correct? That "no" means "no" only if it's explicitly, loudly stated?!
Fwiffo: Your trying to argue about different times. Its not easy to rape and kill a woman. You dont have a lot of time to gag her, you cant get her into a car and drive away, you dont have anything to drug her with, and you wont be able to get away with it because theres a large family with strong men on all four sides of your tent. Women are not so helpless that they cant kick the guy away and scream. He doesnt have a gun to kill her quickly with, all he has is a knife and he has to get really close to deliver a fatal wound, and at very best he has sword (which Im sure people will be wondering what your doing with when there isnt anybody to fight). All it takes is one shout to arrouse attention because there are people less then five feet away.
Your trying again to apply a man and a woman in a darkened apartment to a man and a woman in the middle of a little camp with people on all sides.
Get it?"
2.11 "Dustybot: I don't mean to attack you Fwiff, but you do understand that a lot of people view that statement as a major prejudice akin to saying interracial marriage is wrong, yes?
I'm not trying to sway you, that's beyond futile, but I want you to understand how statements like that effect others.
Fwiffo: How is it any different then 'sex before marraige' is wrong?"
More to come later. He spouts of this ignorance regularly.
As promised, more from our favorite psychopath. This time from this thread.
2.12 "Zodiac: Cause Clinton didn't nominate sexist, anti-environment social conservatives with previous statements suggesting that abortion rights should be overturned? You think that should get a pass just because Republicans want a favour?
Fwiffo: Because Ginsburg was SO moderate...
Figured it would be just a little bit longer before Libs started screaming END OF TEH WORLDZOR!"
2.13 Fwiffo: "Read the bolded part. The man is a strict constructionalist. You may not like it, but it does not qualify him any less.
Of course, it doesnt matter to you, because all you see is OMG TEH EVIL CONSERVATIVE BASTARD MUST DIE BECAUSE HES CONSERVATIVE AND ALL CONSERIVATIVES ARE TEH EVIL.
And BTW< Morningstar, (and whoever else advocates shooting Sandra Day OConnor_ you disgust me. Shes an old woman who reteried after a very long tenue of service. Shut The hug Up.
Seriously, all civility here has disappeared. This is no loinger Political Discussion, this is the ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE EVIL forum."
2.14 "RP: Fine by me, i dont believe in abortion, i do care about the invornment but i want to be realizic about it. U have no right to critize us for what we believe in just as we dont have the right to do the same as. If u noticed, me and Master Fwiffo seem to be the only ones in a nice conversation, while the rest of the people in this topic have bashing conservative left and right. We havent stated Sandra should be shot.
Fwiffo: Its the way of this board. If your a Conservative, your fresh meat waiting to be killed.
Welcome to the Allspark Political Section.
Motto: We hate Republicans."
2.15 "Me: Kay, know what? All of you who are bitching and moaning about "not wanting to post here anymore" because you're being "persecuted"? If you're not adult enough to handle opposing opinions, don't get involved. If you want to moan and bellyache about not being agreed with all the time, take it elsewhere. And, if you're so certain that you don't want to post here, then LEAVE. It's not that hard. Just type another address into that nifty little bar up top and don't hit the "Back" button. Your juvenile whining certainly won't be missed, and maybe it'll give the decent conservatives and liberals a chance to have their voices heard, instead of stupid, petty bickering.
If you're not willing to do that, then grow up and learn to handle a dissenting viewpoint. On top of that, learn how to discuss differing views in a civilized, intelligent manner. All of this name-calling and whining does not serve to make you look any more intelligent.
It might also bode well if the lot of you would stop engaging in attacks against others, just because of their political leanings. You complain when people do it to you, so why engage in that sort of behaviour yourselves? Liberals, conservatives... In the end, those are just words, goddamnit. Get over it. If you want to harangue someone about something, make it about something other than "OMG UR AN EEEEVIL CONSURVATIV!!!" or "OMG UR AN EEEEVIL LIBURUL!!!" If I recall correctly, that's what's gotten numerous threads locked in the past and part of the reason why the Powers That Be were reluctant to create this subforum in the first place - people who weren't mature enough to engage in civilized discourse about religion and politics.
Myself? I don't care if you're liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, Christian, atheist, pagan, or an alien from some other planet. If you're decent towards me, I'll be decent towards you. If you're a jackass, however, then don't expect much in the way of politeness. All I ask is that you treat me in the same way that you would like to be treated - is that so hard for people to do?
It would be nice if people would learn to use proper spelling and grammar, too, but that's a touch off-topic - even if it would make posts much easier to read...
Fwiffo: Its not dissenting opionions. Its blatent Conservative/Religious/Republican BASHING. Not debating. Not listening to other peoples views. No, its flaming, bashing, and shouting down TEH EVIL CONSERVATIVES. Morningstar, in this thread alone, has called for OConnors death, and then afterwards, made a direct threat toward me. How can you debate civily when the other side is intent on demonizing you, and everything you stand for? And its not just one person, its a LOT of you. And then, when we have had enough and say so, you pretty much tell us '**** OFF and get over your Persecution complex.' Its not a Persecutiuion complex, when its actually happening. Or maybe I should tell a gay to 'Get over your persecution complex.', or a black man in pre-CivilWar south 'Get over your persecution complex.' Granted, we arn't getting beaten or hung, but its the same effect with words, here, on this board. This is a hostile enviorment to conservatives, religous people, and republicans, and if you can't see it because your none of the above, then your too blind by your own positions to be of any help, so why don't you just STFU.
-edit- And btw, I have no reason to even listen to you, because you yourself have gone out of your way to mock my beleif system. So frankly, you can shut your pie hole about the persecution complex, because your adding to it."
-Author's Note: Don't you just LOVE how the little troll has to result to personal attacks? How mature and Christian of him.-
2.16 "Me: And I've no reason to listen to a word you say, as I've caught you lying before, and will likely catch you again.
Fwiffo: If by lying, you mean assuming the best of something while you assume the worst, sure. Or having a faulty memory, which I freely admit I do.
Me: Do get over yourself, dear. I've not "gone out of my way" to mock anyone or anything. You hardly represent your belief system or your political faction, so stop behaving as if you do. I'm quite capable of maintaining civil discourse with people who identify themselves as "Christian conservatives", because they show respect to my point of view, instead of demeaning in it the manner that you do. I do it all the time at the ExC forums - the only reason it's difficult to do the same here is because there are people like you, who take personal offense at anything that is said in relation to your beliefs.
I'm fully prepared to give my full attention and respect to anyone, regardless of political faction or religious belief, who shows respect to others. In that vein, since you show no respect to me, do not expect the same favor in the future.
Fwiffo: Its a double edge sword. I will respect your point of view if you do mine- and I have rarely, if ever, seen you do that. Practice what you preach dear.
Me: Also... "shut your pie hole"? There's one I haven't heard since second grade...
Fwiffo: Meh, I didn't have anything else that wasn't offensive enough to get me banned."
-Author's Note: Again, I love how he goes out of his way to try to be offensive...-
2.17 "Wheelimus: Guess I lied, not done rambling.
You know, you say that conservatives aren't welcome here. That's funny. Because I just noted to Racer-J this...I WANT MORE CONSERVATIVES HERE. Because a 1 sided ass kicking just isn't any fun . Feel you're outnumbered and your viewpoints aren't getting told? BRING MORE PEOPLE HERE TO POST.
I've always said I want this forum to be "Real Time With Bill Maher" not "Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher
Fwiffo: Hey, I'd be for it. But this section already chased out most of the Conservatives. Where's Axaday, Skysaurus, and it looks like Lord Cryotek too? Most conservatives take a look in here, see all the bashing, and leave. I would LOVE to have a more even debate field, but take a look again and Mikes post I quoted. That stuff is here all-the-time. Is it any wonder we dont have more conservatives here?
-Edit- And also that Barineese guy who was here for a whole week before getting chased out."
2.18 "Vicious: That one was mine. What's wrong with it?
Fwiffo: The guy was asking a legitamate, theological question about what he should or should not feel sorry for and foprgiveness.
Calling it the 'Christian guilt complex[/i] was insulting IMO.
Maybe I am just too damn touchy, but the general attitude here, to me, reads as unnacceptable."
2.19 "Fwiffo: If you want another shining example Wheelimus (and I notice you never adressed the ones I gave), check out This Topic.
6 Posts In.
User: Is there anyone who works in that building who has an IQ of over 6? All I can think of when I read that transcript is "duh, the message, gotta stay on the message, I wish they'd stop askin' me these questions so I can get home and eat me some potato chi...freedom! freedom! Yes, freedom is good, freedom is good, democracy is good, goog, good, good....duh, message, gotta stay on message..."
Idiot. Absolute hugging idiot. Was his shirt buttoned up right, at least, or did Mommy have to help him dress again?
Fwiffo: This is not an argument. I dont care wether you think the White House guy was owned, this is just insulting a guy for the hell of insulting the guy.
Second page:
User: I think we can all agree that Karl Rove is guilty of being a fat, disgusting sack of jive, and that the world would be a better place if he were to die in a horrific swallowing-a-whole-roast-pig accident.
Fwiffo: Third page...
User: Don't kid yourself. If Karl Rove had the chance, he'd eat you and everyone you care about, and then get a triple bacon cheeseburger to wash it down.
Fwiffo: Are these arguments? Are there any reasons for post like these in what is trying to be a civil debate forum? NO. Now, whats wrose is that ONLY Conservatives are allowed to be the target of these attacks. Ive never seen a Conservative here call Bill Clinton a 'fat disgusting sack of jive', or anything about John Kerry and the 'world would be a better place if he were to die in a horrific swallowing-a-whole-roast-pig accident.'.
Grimlock X is right-frikken-on with his post up there. This is a hostile enviroment for Conservatives. You may not want it to be, but it is."
-Author's Note: Yet AGAIN, I love how he takes insults against KARL ROVE, and tries to pass them off as insults against conservaives and Christians as a whole...
From this thread.
2.20 "Corvus: Ah, so I take it you have no problem with the use of microwaves as a crowd control weapon?
Fwiffo: Well, until we can set phasers on stun, not really.
Zodiac: Because heaven forbid you try and think up some other way for crowd control than firing indiscriminately into crowds or using some microwave beam that could cause serious burns or blindness. Can't have that.
Fwiffo: Ok, since your the genius, YOU think of some ways to to break up a riot. I'm waiting.
Zodiac: It might require some skill or subtlety, or thinking up ways to prevent riots from happening in the first place like, oh, doing a better job of protecting civilians from "collateral damage".
Fwiffo: Because thats the only reasons Riots happen. Yep.
-edit- Clarifying... I fail to see anything wrong with a 'pain gun' as a riot control method. Its not deadly, and its better then shooting actual guns over their head, or beating people, or shocking them half to death.
If we had reports that it might kill people, yeah I'll be worried. But thats not the case. It might cause burns or blindness, if used for a long enough time under the right conditions. That seems an acceptable risk for the payoff of breaking up a potentially deadly riot. Fire it in 5-7 second bursts, and that should be plenty effective."
2.21 "TSFC: Getting burned...permanent scarring. Also, depending where the person's burned, their life is ruined and that of those around them. Is that a worthy punishment for the crime of a riot Fwiffo?
Fwiffo: Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it looked to me that the burns can only happen where there are coins in your pocket, and if the dosage is long enough. That does not sound bad at all.
TSFC: Eye damage...blindness in one or both eyes, also destroying someone's life and those around them. Is that a worthy punishment Fwiffo?
Fwiffo: Again, only if the right conditions prevail- and I'm pretty sure we have medical procedures that can fix that blindness, if it does occur. Its not like these will happen outright.
TSFC: Most people would rather die than suffer such punishments.
Fwiffo: They would rather be dead then blind and have to have a medical procedure or have a little coin shaped burn on their right leg? Are you kidding me?
And dont talk to me about burns and eyes. I went through a week of being hypersenistive to light, so that stepping out into the sun felt like knives being plunged into my eyes (and I am not exaggeratting in the least). That was a lot worse then anything it sounds like this heat ray could dish out.
TSFC: Or better yet, we shouldn't put them in the path of such possible destruction.
Fwiffo: Then, frankly, they should avoid being in a riot.
TSFC: I've got an even better idea, let's see if your ideas work well, we'll test the Pain Wave on you, we'll wait until the screaming subsides and you catch your breath, then you can spill the beans.
Fwiffo: By merely reading the article, it doesnt sound so severe you can't move. If the goal is to get people to break up, it doesn't make sense to have imobilizing pain.
TSFC: Sometimes, you say things that make ME look sensible.
Fwiffo: Look, read the damn article. We don't even have reports of that happening- we have some safety measures being tested, and even then they don't sound so bad. They also tell you to wear sunglassess to protect your eyes- that doesn't mean walking out into sunlight is going to make you blind forever. The burn is nothing bad at all.
Sweet lord you guys are treating it like its the end of the world, and all we have is one (highly biased I might add) article, that doesn't even make it sound that bad."
2.22 "Me: So, then, I take it you're okay with helpless civilians going blind because their contact lenses melted due to the heat, and fused to their corneas.
Fwiffo: A: They won't be using it on 'helpless civilians'. They'll likly only use it after a riot has turned violent.
B: Where, in the article, does it say that?
Me: Or a child, caught in the middle of it all (and, yes, that happens), suffering second- and third-degree burns from change he had in his pockets.
Fwiffo: Please point to where it says second or third degree burns.
Me: Or, hell, someone who has metal plates in, say, their skull or thigh. What then?
Fwiffo: And where does it say that?
Me: Or someone in the crowd, wearing a pacemaker, who suffers from cardiac arrest and DIES. Ever wonder why people with pacemakers are told to stay away from microwaves, Fwiffo? It's because those microwaves can kill the pacemaker and result in permanent damage or death to the person equipped with it. And you don't have to be old to have a pacemaker, either - I've seen people as young as 12 with them, due to congenital heart diseases.
Fwiffo: Ok, the second reasonable argument I've seen.
Me: How would you feel in that case, eh? Is it "okay", then? When people are being severely wounded and killed by their own government? Would it be "okay" if you were caught up in all of that?
Fwiffo: Its a RIOT control device. It breaks up RIOTS. When it becomes, you know, a RIOT. That is what it is for. Not a demonstration, an actual RIOT.
Me: It's disgusting. Tear gas and bean bags work just fine. They just take a little more effort to deploy.
Fwiffo: What if someone is allergic to tear gas, and dies? Or what if someone with sensative eyes goes blind from it? This is all just blatenet what ifs."
2.23 "Fwiffo: Again, only if the right conditions prevail- and I'm pretty sure we have medical procedures that can fix that blindness, if it does occur.
Zodiac: In Iraq?
You are aware, of course, that these procedures to "fix" corneal burns cost thousands of dollars, aren't always guaranteed of success, and aren't available everywhere even in the developed world, right? You do know, then, that if you're a poor Iraqi civilian you're not likely to get that treatment, right?
Right?
Fwiffo: Your also not likly to have contacts, so its a moot point."
2.24 "Fwiffo: Look people, we know NOTHING about this thing except what is in the article. Let me list the facts.
fires a 95-gigahertz microwave beam at rioters to cause heating and intolerable pain in less than five seconds.
rioters were told to remove glasses and contact lenses to protect their eyes.
In another test they were also told to remove metal objects like coins from their clothing to avoid local hot spots developing on their skin.
AND THAT IS ALL.
That is IT. ALL. EVERYTHING WE KNOW. Everything ELSE in this thread is conjecture, speculation, and in my opinion, a load of paranoid crap. We dont KNOW if it can cause burns, we dont KNOW if it can cause blindness, melt contacts, or anything else. We simply... DONT KNOW.
Say it with me. WE DONT KNOW. Lets see some studies, or even some more concrete facts on this thing before you all start screaming, OK?
And also might I add, that article is biased against it, offers no dissenting opinion, or even any concrete facts against it."
-Author's note: Wow, hypocrisy! Note how he demands proof that this thing could potentially be lethal, and derides us for "not providing any". However, when the tables are turned on him, as so often happens, and we're the ones demanding proof, he claims he doesn't have to provide any because, really, it should be obvious, if only we were seeing things from his point of view. How typically Christian.-
posted by Grace | 12:00 AM
|
0 comments
Saturday, December 30, 2006
The Gospel of Fwiffo
I am going to write this down. Every time you say anything about any of the following: The Iraqi War (or any war), any attacks, any case of murder, any case of wrongdoing happening to ANYONE, or any political move of any sort, this quote will come back to haunt you.
You may want to consider retracting that. ~Master Fwiffo
Huh. Maybe he should have kept that in mind when he was making HIS posts... Except, instead of just ONE quote, I'm going to document every instance of his stupidity (on the 'Spark, at least).
Posted here so you can all marvel at the stupidity that parades itself around as "compassionate, conservative Christianity".
Also, just so he can never say, "Well, I never said that!"
All quotes in alternating italics/bold italics are written by people other than Fwiffo. His quotes are in good ol'-fashioned plain text. I've also taken the liberty to mark who made the quotes, and who was quoting quotes, and quoting quoted quotes.... Yeah, I'll stop being confusing and let you read now.
Oh, btw... These quotes are from this thread
1. "Quote: PK = While the bible isn't the end all be all human guidebook, it is a great source of wisdom and a great source for teaching proper human behavior. If you think otherwise, then perhaps you should read it.
Quote: LF = Well, while I'm not too sure about Kuno, I have read the Bible, and I found little "moral" about it. Unless, of course, you consider the (God-sponsored!)murder, rape, and pillaging of neighboring tribes to be "moral".
Fwiffo: And your credibility goes from beievable to Not. Please show me where we have some God-sponsered raping and pillaging please. Umm, yeah not there. Pillaging, yes, I do seem to remember many times where God specifically said do NOT take the goods... And whenever Israel disobeyed, they got punished.....
Murder? Define murder. It could be veiwed as punishment, or casulties of war, ect. But rape and pillaging? Come on!
Quote: LF = Also, I fail to see what is so "immoral" about boiling a goat kid in its mother's milk. But, hey, it's one of the commandments, right up there alongside "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not commit adultery", so it must be important. Right?
Fwiffo: Go look up commandments again. You quoted one of the laws, and said it was one of the commandments. Right. And would you want to boil a goat kid in its mothers milk? That just sounds disgusting...."
2. "Quote: Fwiffo = Go look up commandments again. You quoted one of the laws, and said it was one of the commandments. Right. And would you want to boil a goat kid in its mothers milk? That just sounds disgusting....
Quote: Mphage = Exodus 34, the second set of commandments, the replacement set for the ones MOses broke, the ones the covnent was actually FORMED on. She quoted number 10.
You have read the Bible, right?
Fwiffo: After review, I find that you are right- in a sense. Relevent passage is here:http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search...34;&version=31;
These do not rank with the ten commandments. Rather, they are part of the law, and while they are commandments, they are not at all ranked with the Ten, which is what she implied.
Though, it is kind of odd to see the Young goat in the mothers milk along with the others there. It was probably a cultural thing referencing other nearby civilizations at the time.
-edit- Oh, and your DEAD WRONG about the replacement set. These extra commandments were given *after* the Lord recarved the Ten Commandments onto the new stones."
3. "Quote: Fwiffo = And your credibility goes from beievable to Not. Please show me where we have some God-sponsered raping and pillaging please. Umm, yeah not there. Pillaging, yes, I do seem to remember many times where God specifically said do NOT take the goods... And whenever Israel disobeyed, they got punished.....Murder? Define murder. It could be veiwed as punishment, or casulties of war, ect. But rape and pillaging? Come on!
Quote: RDS = you just proved the great Flaw of the bible. Its all subject to your personal Beliefs.
Fwiffo: It is, but that would rather seem to me as a great flaw of humanity, seeing as just about anything could be interpreted any thousands of ways. Add to the fact that we're working from translations (of which not everything is perfectly accurate), and that adds to the confusion.
I don't think that counts as a 'flaw of the bible' though."
4. "Quote: Fwiffo = -edit- Oh, and your DEAD WRONG about the replacement set. These extra commandments were given *after* the Lord recarved the Ten Commandments onto the new stones.
Quote: Mphage= Scripture to back that up please.
Fwiffo: Though I only quoted one, this link holds the best answer to the question of the two ten-commandments:
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tentab.html"
5. "Quote: LF = Murder is the deliberate taking of another human life, out of malice. That's pretty simple.
Deut. 20:13: "13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword"
Deut. 20:17: "17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee"
Sounds and awful lot like murder to me. Notice it makes no distinction between soldiers and civilians - it's a "Kill them all!" sort of deal.
Fwiffo: Several things: A) God is the ultimate Judge. If people have done enough evil, then God can punish them as he chooses.
B) On Every male, generally in old testment times, 'every male' meant 'every male of fighting age'.
C) All those yada-ites listed were, acording to biblical texts, extremely immoral. Maybe, just maybe, they deserved it?
Quote: LF = Now, you want rape and pillaging? Have a gander:
Pillaging:
also includes murder here) Num. 21:35: "35 So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive: and they possessed his land."
Num. 31:9-11: " 9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. 10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. 11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts."
Deut. 20:14: "14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee."
Fwiffo: Hrm, I guess this one I'll back down on. I could invoke the 'spoils of war' idea, but why bother?
Quote: LF = Rape: Deut. 20:10-14: "10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. 14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."
Tell me, tell me, that that is not rape, I dare you.
Fwiffo: Give me the *right* verse, and I'll get back to you, because Deuteronomy 20:10-14 tells them to ask for peace from the city first. Heck, you even quoted Deut 14 above."
6. "Quote: Mphage = Heh. That's an assertion of what MAY be, and does not address my request for a scripture to back it up. It's an excuse in otherwords, apologetics. I'm not asking for what someone thinks "Might be the case", which relies on their interpretation of what the scripture is actually saying, I'm asking for you to back up your statement with actual scripture.
Fwiffo: I can back it up with the first verse of that chapter, where God specifically says he'll write what was on the tablets before Moses broke them.
But the bible is ultimatly open to endless interpretation regardless.
Quote: Mphage = It's said that God wrote the Bible, but man actually penned it. Same thing is completely likely for what is meant in verse 1, verse 28 doesn't specify who did the writing, it is simply said "he" - note that it's a lesser form of this word, lowercased and subservient.
Fwiffo: Isn't that your own brand of interpretation, which you just railed against? Maybe God told moses to put these on the same stone tablets, maybe Moses hammered out the original 10 and spoke these by word, or maybe... ect. ect. ect.
And isn't it a kindof trivial point overall?"
7. "Quote: Fwiffo = Several things: A) God is the ultimate Judge. If people have done enough evil, then God can punish them as he chooses.
B) On Every male, generally in old testment times, 'every male' meant 'every male of fighting age'.
C) All those yada-ites listed were, acording to biblical texts, extremely immoral. Maybe, just maybe, they deserved it?
Quote: Mphage = Mmmm, trying to justify murder... mmmmmmmmm.
Fwiffo: Question: Is putting a (for example) baby-murdering scumball to death under our legal code murder? If you think it is, then yes. If you think its not, then no.
Quote: Fwiffo = Give me the *right* verse, and I'll get back to you, because Deuteronomy 20:10-14 tells them to ask for peace from the city first. Heck, you even quoted Deut 14 above.
Quote: Mphage = Deutoronomy 21:10-14, she was 1 chapter off, and had been quoting heavily from chapter 20. Sheesh, give her a break.
Fwiffo: Well *i* didn't know. Looking at that passage, I think a lot of the problem here is shes using old king James, which A) isnt very accurate, and B) is hard to read. Heres the passage in NIV.
When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hand, and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beutiful women, and desire her, and would take her for your wife, you shall bring her home to your house. She shall pull off the clothes of her captivity (Fwiff note: Metophorical in a sense, IE not be a captive anymore), and she shall shave her head and trim her nails (Fwiff note: If I understand correctly, a sign of being accepted into the Jewish culture), and mourn her father and mother a full month (Fwiffo note: Again, IIUC, during this period you can't do anything to her in any sense), after that, you may go to her and she shall be your wife. And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall set her free, but you certanly shall not sell her for money, you shall not treat her brutally, because you have humbled her.
Fwiffo: Not nearly as bad, is it? Certanly not rape."
8. "Quote: Fwiffo = Question: Is putting a (for example) baby-murdering scumball to death under our legal code murder? If you think it is, then yes. If you think its not, then no.
Quote: VP = What are their 'crimes'? Murder is murder.
Fwiffo: If they were one of the Yada-Ites, the more likly then not, they were involved in children-sacrifices, general whoring of everybody, ect. I doubt God would have killed them without a good reason. But, hey, your all cynics, so I guess your right.
Quote: Fwiffo = Not nearly as bad, is it? Certanly not rape.
Quote: VP = Again with the assertations of 'well this ACTUALLY means...' Stop trying to change the Bible to fit what makes it seem fluffier to you.
This post also brought to you by MPhage, Inc. and the letter 3.
Fwiffo: No, its reading a better translated version, and adding what I know about Jewish culture into the mix. Remember, these books were written thousands of years ago, for completly diffrent cultures. These meanings would have been *very* diffrent. We look at these and go OMG bad, but no real study of the bible can be complete without a wealth of knowledge of the times.
Disclaimer: No, I do not pretend to be an expert on the times. This stuff I only know because my pastor is very thorough on researching all this kind of stuff before he teaches it."
Note the "Fundie" logic, the twisting of the facts, the denial of Scripture because it wasn't from a "perfect" translation, etc, etc, etc...
Don't you just love these sort of idiots?
EDIT: And we have more Fwiffo quotes! Yay! This post is going to grow to be gargantuan... Maybe I should make a second one soon XD
These posts are from this thread.
9. "Fwiffo: Yes, because people organizing to act politically on their beleifs is SUCH a bad thing.
How is this any diffrent from a Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay, Pro-Business, or Pro-Anything Orginization is beyond me.
OH NOES! THEIR CHRISTIANS! THEY WANT A THEOCRACY WHERE IF THEYY DONT WORSHIP GOD, THEY DIE! OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!!1111111
And on another note, that article *certanly* wasn't biased against Christianity in any way. Uh-uh."
10. "Quote: Fwiffo = How is this any diffrent from a Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay, Pro-Business, or Pro-Anything Orginization is beyond me.
Quote: TCM = It's different because they're attempting to force their ancient mythological insanity on the rest of the country, and that is *extremely* dangerous.
Fwiffo: Arn't you trying to force your godless, baby-killing agenda on us? How is that any diffrent from our 'ancient mythological insannity'? (which if you told me that in person, I would have socked you in the face)
Even if these guys got to power (which they arn't any more then MoveOn.Org or the extreme wing of NOW is, and I noticed nobody here is bitching about them), they arn't going to make a theocracy, outlaw other religions or athiesm or anything else.
This is just an excuse to bash Christianity again, which I notice is happening more and more on this board. I assume then I can start digging up stories of say, the MBLA, and make blanket statements about you?"
11. "Quote: Fwiffo = Arn't you trying to force your godless, baby-killing agenda on us? How is that any diffrent from our 'ancient mythological insannity'? (which if you told me that in person, I would have socked you in the face)
Quote: TCM = Wow. Thanks for proving my point.
Fwiffo: Apparently, you missed it. Now excuse me, I need to go dig up some extremes from your side and start throwing blankets."
12. "Quote: Fwiffo = Apparently, you missed it. Now excuse me, I need to go dig up some extremes from your side and start throwing blankets.
Quote: TCM = Let's see, you're a believe in ancient myths, accuse people who understand scientific fact to be "baby killers" and then threaten to "sock me" if I had pointed these things out to you in person.
Fwiffo: If I said what I wanted to say, I would get banned for flaming. Let me just say I strongly object to you labeling my beleifs ancient myths, as much as you do getting called a baby-killer. GET IT? And your STILL missing the point, which is pulling out the extremes of the faction and making blanket statements is a BAD thing.
Quote: TCM = Sadly, I don't think you're alone in your convictions, and that terrifies me to no end. People like you need to be stopped before they DO gain actual power. I'm not the bad guy here. YOU are.
Fwiffo: 'Oh look at me, Im so innocent EVIL RELIGION EVIL RELIGION!' Please.
Now I better step out of this before I start flaming. Its obvious this is just a Christian bashing party based on the words of a few nutcases. Go on and have your fun."
13. "Quote: TB = Fwiffo, they're ancient myths, just because you believe them to be true doesn't mean they aren't. Your well within your rights to believe them to be true, and maybe they are, if archaeologists ever find any evidence to at least support their validity then I'll happily accept them myself
Fwiffo: Since you asked so nicely, while we;re not going to find evidence that Moses actually talked to a burning Bush, a surprising amount of archelogical evidence supports at very least, every city, every ethnic group, and every fall of a society (though methods may be in question) has actually happened.
Of course, the following links are far from unbiased, but its a start.
http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibarch.htm
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/archeology.html
http://www.souldevice.org/christian_archeology.html
http://www.gospelcom.net/faithfacts/maps_a.html "
And, from this thread:
14. "Quote: kizudarake = Also, try to get a definitive answer as to which version of the bible is the True Bible. KJV? NIV? Catholic? JW? Mormon? Is the old testament the only valid part, as the Judaism says? Is the Qoran valid?
Fwiffo: The Christian Bible is the Old and New Testements. KJV and NIV are diffrent translations of the same books- the 'True' bible is the original hebrew and greek. Unless your being nitpicky, there is no diffrence other then readability between NIV and KJV. Note: He COMPLETELY disregards what he has said about the KJV Bible before (that it was a "bad translation", "Flawed", and "inaccurate")
I dont know if or how the Catholic bible is diffrent then the other two.
JW and Mormons are spinoff cults.
Judaism and Islam are diffrent religions entirely.
According to the average Protestant Christian, the DEFINITIVE bible is any accurate translation of the Old and New testements. Is that the answer you want?"
15. "Quote: kizudarake = But how do we know that the protestant christians have it right?
Fwiffo: Thats a matter of faith. You have to determine that for yourself.
Quote: kizudarake = And if they're right, how do we know which translation is accurate?
Fwiffo: On the whole, all the major translations are fairly accurate Note: He's AGAIN contradicting himself!, NIV and NKJV being the ones most people use. If you want to get down and gritty, find a bible that cross-references with the greek and hebrew.
You see to be under the impression that there are major differences between the versions. There isn't. Most of it is just word arangment and eye candy. One may read ''You shall not kill others' the other may read 'Thou shalt not murder.' While there is a slight difference, its hardly something of criticall importance."
16. "Quote: kizudarake = Even a slight wording change can mean a major difference in meaning. Go translate a sentence in Babelfish to spanish, and then translate it back to english, for an example.
Fwiffo: Your right, but there are no major doctrinal diffrences in the versions, and besides, all these translations were carefully done, not half-hazzard jobs. The best bible you can get is one that cross-references the greek and hebrew." Note: Need I point out his contradictions even further? This is really starting to get old, Fwiff.
17. "Quote: Mike M = On the contrary, the difference between "Thou shalt not kill" and "though shalt not murder" is pretty big.
Fwiffo: I think Ive had this conversation before somewhere...
But in general, if your just reading the bible through for the first time, its not that big of a diffrence. Kill others, murder you still get the idea that killing=bad.
If your going into deep, die-hard studying however thats where differences can arrise. But the overrall message of the book remains the same."
Aaaand, there we have it. There will be a second thread opening for this eventually. When I have more quotes to post :) Ciao!
You may want to consider retracting that. ~Master Fwiffo
Huh. Maybe he should have kept that in mind when he was making HIS posts... Except, instead of just ONE quote, I'm going to document every instance of his stupidity (on the 'Spark, at least).
Posted here so you can all marvel at the stupidity that parades itself around as "compassionate, conservative Christianity".
Also, just so he can never say, "Well, I never said that!"
All quotes in alternating italics/bold italics are written by people other than Fwiffo. His quotes are in good ol'-fashioned plain text. I've also taken the liberty to mark who made the quotes, and who was quoting quotes, and quoting quoted quotes.... Yeah, I'll stop being confusing and let you read now.
Oh, btw... These quotes are from this thread
1. "Quote: PK = While the bible isn't the end all be all human guidebook, it is a great source of wisdom and a great source for teaching proper human behavior. If you think otherwise, then perhaps you should read it.
Quote: LF = Well, while I'm not too sure about Kuno, I have read the Bible, and I found little "moral" about it. Unless, of course, you consider the (God-sponsored!)murder, rape, and pillaging of neighboring tribes to be "moral".
Fwiffo: And your credibility goes from beievable to Not. Please show me where we have some God-sponsered raping and pillaging please. Umm, yeah not there. Pillaging, yes, I do seem to remember many times where God specifically said do NOT take the goods... And whenever Israel disobeyed, they got punished.....
Murder? Define murder. It could be veiwed as punishment, or casulties of war, ect. But rape and pillaging? Come on!
Quote: LF = Also, I fail to see what is so "immoral" about boiling a goat kid in its mother's milk. But, hey, it's one of the commandments, right up there alongside "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not commit adultery", so it must be important. Right?
Fwiffo: Go look up commandments again. You quoted one of the laws, and said it was one of the commandments. Right. And would you want to boil a goat kid in its mothers milk? That just sounds disgusting...."
2. "Quote: Fwiffo = Go look up commandments again. You quoted one of the laws, and said it was one of the commandments. Right. And would you want to boil a goat kid in its mothers milk? That just sounds disgusting....
Quote: Mphage = Exodus 34, the second set of commandments, the replacement set for the ones MOses broke, the ones the covnent was actually FORMED on. She quoted number 10.
You have read the Bible, right?
Fwiffo: After review, I find that you are right- in a sense. Relevent passage is here:http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search...34;&version=31;
These do not rank with the ten commandments. Rather, they are part of the law, and while they are commandments, they are not at all ranked with the Ten, which is what she implied.
Though, it is kind of odd to see the Young goat in the mothers milk along with the others there. It was probably a cultural thing referencing other nearby civilizations at the time.
-edit- Oh, and your DEAD WRONG about the replacement set. These extra commandments were given *after* the Lord recarved the Ten Commandments onto the new stones."
3. "Quote: Fwiffo = And your credibility goes from beievable to Not. Please show me where we have some God-sponsered raping and pillaging please. Umm, yeah not there. Pillaging, yes, I do seem to remember many times where God specifically said do NOT take the goods... And whenever Israel disobeyed, they got punished.....Murder? Define murder. It could be veiwed as punishment, or casulties of war, ect. But rape and pillaging? Come on!
Quote: RDS = you just proved the great Flaw of the bible. Its all subject to your personal Beliefs.
Fwiffo: It is, but that would rather seem to me as a great flaw of humanity, seeing as just about anything could be interpreted any thousands of ways. Add to the fact that we're working from translations (of which not everything is perfectly accurate), and that adds to the confusion.
I don't think that counts as a 'flaw of the bible' though."
4. "Quote: Fwiffo = -edit- Oh, and your DEAD WRONG about the replacement set. These extra commandments were given *after* the Lord recarved the Ten Commandments onto the new stones.
Quote: Mphage= Scripture to back that up please.
Fwiffo: Though I only quoted one, this link holds the best answer to the question of the two ten-commandments:
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tentab.html"
5. "Quote: LF = Murder is the deliberate taking of another human life, out of malice. That's pretty simple.
Deut. 20:13: "13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword"
Deut. 20:17: "17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee"
Sounds and awful lot like murder to me. Notice it makes no distinction between soldiers and civilians - it's a "Kill them all!" sort of deal.
Fwiffo: Several things: A) God is the ultimate Judge. If people have done enough evil, then God can punish them as he chooses.
B) On Every male, generally in old testment times, 'every male' meant 'every male of fighting age'.
C) All those yada-ites listed were, acording to biblical texts, extremely immoral. Maybe, just maybe, they deserved it?
Quote: LF = Now, you want rape and pillaging? Have a gander:
Pillaging:
also includes murder here) Num. 21:35: "35 So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive: and they possessed his land."
Num. 31:9-11: " 9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. 10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. 11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts."
Deut. 20:14: "14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee."
Fwiffo: Hrm, I guess this one I'll back down on. I could invoke the 'spoils of war' idea, but why bother?
Quote: LF = Rape: Deut. 20:10-14: "10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. 14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."
Tell me, tell me, that that is not rape, I dare you.
Fwiffo: Give me the *right* verse, and I'll get back to you, because Deuteronomy 20:10-14 tells them to ask for peace from the city first. Heck, you even quoted Deut 14 above."
6. "Quote: Mphage = Heh. That's an assertion of what MAY be, and does not address my request for a scripture to back it up. It's an excuse in otherwords, apologetics. I'm not asking for what someone thinks "Might be the case", which relies on their interpretation of what the scripture is actually saying, I'm asking for you to back up your statement with actual scripture.
Fwiffo: I can back it up with the first verse of that chapter, where God specifically says he'll write what was on the tablets before Moses broke them.
But the bible is ultimatly open to endless interpretation regardless.
Quote: Mphage = It's said that God wrote the Bible, but man actually penned it. Same thing is completely likely for what is meant in verse 1, verse 28 doesn't specify who did the writing, it is simply said "he" - note that it's a lesser form of this word, lowercased and subservient.
Fwiffo: Isn't that your own brand of interpretation, which you just railed against? Maybe God told moses to put these on the same stone tablets, maybe Moses hammered out the original 10 and spoke these by word, or maybe... ect. ect. ect.
And isn't it a kindof trivial point overall?"
7. "Quote: Fwiffo = Several things: A) God is the ultimate Judge. If people have done enough evil, then God can punish them as he chooses.
B) On Every male, generally in old testment times, 'every male' meant 'every male of fighting age'.
C) All those yada-ites listed were, acording to biblical texts, extremely immoral. Maybe, just maybe, they deserved it?
Quote: Mphage = Mmmm, trying to justify murder... mmmmmmmmm.
Fwiffo: Question: Is putting a (for example) baby-murdering scumball to death under our legal code murder? If you think it is, then yes. If you think its not, then no.
Quote: Fwiffo = Give me the *right* verse, and I'll get back to you, because Deuteronomy 20:10-14 tells them to ask for peace from the city first. Heck, you even quoted Deut 14 above.
Quote: Mphage = Deutoronomy 21:10-14, she was 1 chapter off, and had been quoting heavily from chapter 20. Sheesh, give her a break.
Fwiffo: Well *i* didn't know. Looking at that passage, I think a lot of the problem here is shes using old king James, which A) isnt very accurate, and B) is hard to read. Heres the passage in NIV.
When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hand, and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beutiful women, and desire her, and would take her for your wife, you shall bring her home to your house. She shall pull off the clothes of her captivity (Fwiff note: Metophorical in a sense, IE not be a captive anymore), and she shall shave her head and trim her nails (Fwiff note: If I understand correctly, a sign of being accepted into the Jewish culture), and mourn her father and mother a full month (Fwiffo note: Again, IIUC, during this period you can't do anything to her in any sense), after that, you may go to her and she shall be your wife. And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall set her free, but you certanly shall not sell her for money, you shall not treat her brutally, because you have humbled her.
Fwiffo: Not nearly as bad, is it? Certanly not rape."
8. "Quote: Fwiffo = Question: Is putting a (for example) baby-murdering scumball to death under our legal code murder? If you think it is, then yes. If you think its not, then no.
Quote: VP = What are their 'crimes'? Murder is murder.
Fwiffo: If they were one of the Yada-Ites, the more likly then not, they were involved in children-sacrifices, general whoring of everybody, ect. I doubt God would have killed them without a good reason. But, hey, your all cynics, so I guess your right.
Quote: Fwiffo = Not nearly as bad, is it? Certanly not rape.
Quote: VP = Again with the assertations of 'well this ACTUALLY means...' Stop trying to change the Bible to fit what makes it seem fluffier to you.
This post also brought to you by MPhage, Inc. and the letter 3.
Fwiffo: No, its reading a better translated version, and adding what I know about Jewish culture into the mix. Remember, these books were written thousands of years ago, for completly diffrent cultures. These meanings would have been *very* diffrent. We look at these and go OMG bad, but no real study of the bible can be complete without a wealth of knowledge of the times.
Disclaimer: No, I do not pretend to be an expert on the times. This stuff I only know because my pastor is very thorough on researching all this kind of stuff before he teaches it."
Note the "Fundie" logic, the twisting of the facts, the denial of Scripture because it wasn't from a "perfect" translation, etc, etc, etc...
Don't you just love these sort of idiots?
EDIT: And we have more Fwiffo quotes! Yay! This post is going to grow to be gargantuan... Maybe I should make a second one soon XD
These posts are from this thread.
9. "Fwiffo: Yes, because people organizing to act politically on their beleifs is SUCH a bad thing.
How is this any diffrent from a Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay, Pro-Business, or Pro-Anything Orginization is beyond me.
OH NOES! THEIR CHRISTIANS! THEY WANT A THEOCRACY WHERE IF THEYY DONT WORSHIP GOD, THEY DIE! OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!!1111111
And on another note, that article *certanly* wasn't biased against Christianity in any way. Uh-uh."
10. "Quote: Fwiffo = How is this any diffrent from a Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay, Pro-Business, or Pro-Anything Orginization is beyond me.
Quote: TCM = It's different because they're attempting to force their ancient mythological insanity on the rest of the country, and that is *extremely* dangerous.
Fwiffo: Arn't you trying to force your godless, baby-killing agenda on us? How is that any diffrent from our 'ancient mythological insannity'? (which if you told me that in person, I would have socked you in the face)
Even if these guys got to power (which they arn't any more then MoveOn.Org or the extreme wing of NOW is, and I noticed nobody here is bitching about them), they arn't going to make a theocracy, outlaw other religions or athiesm or anything else.
This is just an excuse to bash Christianity again, which I notice is happening more and more on this board. I assume then I can start digging up stories of say, the MBLA, and make blanket statements about you?"
11. "Quote: Fwiffo = Arn't you trying to force your godless, baby-killing agenda on us? How is that any diffrent from our 'ancient mythological insannity'? (which if you told me that in person, I would have socked you in the face)
Quote: TCM = Wow. Thanks for proving my point.
Fwiffo: Apparently, you missed it. Now excuse me, I need to go dig up some extremes from your side and start throwing blankets."
12. "Quote: Fwiffo = Apparently, you missed it. Now excuse me, I need to go dig up some extremes from your side and start throwing blankets.
Quote: TCM = Let's see, you're a believe in ancient myths, accuse people who understand scientific fact to be "baby killers" and then threaten to "sock me" if I had pointed these things out to you in person.
Fwiffo: If I said what I wanted to say, I would get banned for flaming. Let me just say I strongly object to you labeling my beleifs ancient myths, as much as you do getting called a baby-killer. GET IT? And your STILL missing the point, which is pulling out the extremes of the faction and making blanket statements is a BAD thing.
Quote: TCM = Sadly, I don't think you're alone in your convictions, and that terrifies me to no end. People like you need to be stopped before they DO gain actual power. I'm not the bad guy here. YOU are.
Fwiffo: 'Oh look at me, Im so innocent EVIL RELIGION EVIL RELIGION!' Please.
Now I better step out of this before I start flaming. Its obvious this is just a Christian bashing party based on the words of a few nutcases. Go on and have your fun."
13. "Quote: TB = Fwiffo, they're ancient myths, just because you believe them to be true doesn't mean they aren't. Your well within your rights to believe them to be true, and maybe they are, if archaeologists ever find any evidence to at least support their validity then I'll happily accept them myself
Fwiffo: Since you asked so nicely, while we;re not going to find evidence that Moses actually talked to a burning Bush, a surprising amount of archelogical evidence supports at very least, every city, every ethnic group, and every fall of a society (though methods may be in question) has actually happened.
Of course, the following links are far from unbiased, but its a start.
http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibarch.htm
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/archeology.html
http://www.souldevice.org/christian_archeology.html
http://www.gospelcom.net/faithfacts/maps_a.html "
And, from this thread:
14. "Quote: kizudarake = Also, try to get a definitive answer as to which version of the bible is the True Bible. KJV? NIV? Catholic? JW? Mormon? Is the old testament the only valid part, as the Judaism says? Is the Qoran valid?
Fwiffo: The Christian Bible is the Old and New Testements. KJV and NIV are diffrent translations of the same books- the 'True' bible is the original hebrew and greek. Unless your being nitpicky, there is no diffrence other then readability between NIV and KJV. Note: He COMPLETELY disregards what he has said about the KJV Bible before (that it was a "bad translation", "Flawed", and "inaccurate")
I dont know if or how the Catholic bible is diffrent then the other two.
JW and Mormons are spinoff cults.
Judaism and Islam are diffrent religions entirely.
According to the average Protestant Christian, the DEFINITIVE bible is any accurate translation of the Old and New testements. Is that the answer you want?"
15. "Quote: kizudarake = But how do we know that the protestant christians have it right?
Fwiffo: Thats a matter of faith. You have to determine that for yourself.
Quote: kizudarake = And if they're right, how do we know which translation is accurate?
Fwiffo: On the whole, all the major translations are fairly accurate Note: He's AGAIN contradicting himself!, NIV and NKJV being the ones most people use. If you want to get down and gritty, find a bible that cross-references with the greek and hebrew.
You see to be under the impression that there are major differences between the versions. There isn't. Most of it is just word arangment and eye candy. One may read ''You shall not kill others' the other may read 'Thou shalt not murder.' While there is a slight difference, its hardly something of criticall importance."
16. "Quote: kizudarake = Even a slight wording change can mean a major difference in meaning. Go translate a sentence in Babelfish to spanish, and then translate it back to english, for an example.
Fwiffo: Your right, but there are no major doctrinal diffrences in the versions, and besides, all these translations were carefully done, not half-hazzard jobs. The best bible you can get is one that cross-references the greek and hebrew." Note: Need I point out his contradictions even further? This is really starting to get old, Fwiff.
17. "Quote: Mike M = On the contrary, the difference between "Thou shalt not kill" and "though shalt not murder" is pretty big.
Fwiffo: I think Ive had this conversation before somewhere...
But in general, if your just reading the bible through for the first time, its not that big of a diffrence. Kill others, murder you still get the idea that killing=bad.
If your going into deep, die-hard studying however thats where differences can arrise. But the overrall message of the book remains the same."
Aaaand, there we have it. There will be a second thread opening for this eventually. When I have more quotes to post :) Ciao!
posted by Grace | 12:59 AM
|
0 comments
In Response to the Gospel of Fwiffo
Just to demonstrate how ignorant Fwiffo's commentary is, I posted one of his comments (his "explanation" of Deut.21:10-14 - yes, a male Fundie, justifying rape.... Watch him do cartwheels!) at another board I frequent. And, boy howdy, were the responses fun.
1. "Cerise = after that, you may go to her and she shall be your wife.
Not, you shall ask her if she wants to be your wife and allow her the chance to say no.
No choice, no consent = rape. No matter what time period you are in, no matter what your status, no matter what your religion. No choice = no consent."
2. "MM = I find it interesting the word "humbled" is also used in place of "rape" in Deuteronomy (KJV) as well as being used in this passage.
Deuteronomy 22:24
Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
Deuteronomy 22:29
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
The above two passages are part of the notorious rape laws."
3. "Quote: Cerise = after that, you may go to her and she shall be your wife.
Not, you shall ask her if she wants to be your wife and allow her the chance to say no.
No choice, no consent = rape. No matter what time period you are in, no matter what your status, no matter what your religion. No choice = no consent
SaH: Most definitely, this particular passage is condoning forced "marriage", i.e. rape. It basically says, giver her a chance to mourne a short while, then rape her. Keep her around and continue to rape her as long as it pleases you. Toss her to the wind at your own whim.
Oh, but don't sell her, that would be immoral."
4. Quote: SaH = It basically says, giver her a chance to mourne a short while, then rape her. Keep her around and continue to rape her as long as it pleases you. Toss her to the wind at your own whim.
Oh, but don't sell her, that would be immoral.
MM: Right. Unfortunately, that last part about not selling her might "sound" kinder, it actually isn't.
The woman would be a stranger in this land. Likely young, as women married young, so a virgin girl would have been early teens. She would be an orphan among people who had orphaned her by murdering her parents, extended family and friends. Therefore, she would have had no family to take her in once she was turned out or support her in any way. Once taken as a "wife" she would no longer have the one thing that would grant her the "security" of a home and potential for creating children- her virginity. Once she was not a virgin, she would be unlikely to be considered as a wife by anyone else. As a foreigner among people who deemed her race to be worty of genocide, she is likely a second class citizen at best. I doubt that she would have been entitled to alimony or any type of financial support, even if they did those things back then. "Selling" her would have at least put her in a household with a roof over her head and perhaps provided the opportunity to raise a family as someone else's wife or concubine. Remember, having children, more specifically sons, was the best way a woman could be assured of being taken care of in old age or in the event her husband died. Also, having a husband, even if taken she was taken against her will, would have provided her with an extended in-law family to care for her in the event of her husband's death.
Being "set free" after being taken as a wife, would have left her with less than nothing. Likely the sad outcome for a woman-child in this situaiton would have been street begging, prostitution or stealing."
Notice how all of these people (all ex-Christians) have a better grasp of the REALITY of that verse than "compassionate conservative" Fwiffo.
1. "Cerise = after that, you may go to her and she shall be your wife.
Not, you shall ask her if she wants to be your wife and allow her the chance to say no.
No choice, no consent = rape. No matter what time period you are in, no matter what your status, no matter what your religion. No choice = no consent."
2. "MM = I find it interesting the word "humbled" is also used in place of "rape" in Deuteronomy (KJV) as well as being used in this passage.
Deuteronomy 22:24
Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
Deuteronomy 22:29
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
The above two passages are part of the notorious rape laws."
3. "Quote: Cerise = after that, you may go to her and she shall be your wife.
Not, you shall ask her if she wants to be your wife and allow her the chance to say no.
No choice, no consent = rape. No matter what time period you are in, no matter what your status, no matter what your religion. No choice = no consent
SaH: Most definitely, this particular passage is condoning forced "marriage", i.e. rape. It basically says, giver her a chance to mourne a short while, then rape her. Keep her around and continue to rape her as long as it pleases you. Toss her to the wind at your own whim.
Oh, but don't sell her, that would be immoral."
4. Quote: SaH = It basically says, giver her a chance to mourne a short while, then rape her. Keep her around and continue to rape her as long as it pleases you. Toss her to the wind at your own whim.
Oh, but don't sell her, that would be immoral.
MM: Right. Unfortunately, that last part about not selling her might "sound" kinder, it actually isn't.
The woman would be a stranger in this land. Likely young, as women married young, so a virgin girl would have been early teens. She would be an orphan among people who had orphaned her by murdering her parents, extended family and friends. Therefore, she would have had no family to take her in once she was turned out or support her in any way. Once taken as a "wife" she would no longer have the one thing that would grant her the "security" of a home and potential for creating children- her virginity. Once she was not a virgin, she would be unlikely to be considered as a wife by anyone else. As a foreigner among people who deemed her race to be worty of genocide, she is likely a second class citizen at best. I doubt that she would have been entitled to alimony or any type of financial support, even if they did those things back then. "Selling" her would have at least put her in a household with a roof over her head and perhaps provided the opportunity to raise a family as someone else's wife or concubine. Remember, having children, more specifically sons, was the best way a woman could be assured of being taken care of in old age or in the event her husband died. Also, having a husband, even if taken she was taken against her will, would have provided her with an extended in-law family to care for her in the event of her husband's death.
Being "set free" after being taken as a wife, would have left her with less than nothing. Likely the sad outcome for a woman-child in this situaiton would have been street begging, prostitution or stealing."
Notice how all of these people (all ex-Christians) have a better grasp of the REALITY of that verse than "compassionate conservative" Fwiffo.
posted by Grace | 12:58 AM
|
0 comments
Monday, August 22, 2005
Welcome!
Welcome to Idiot Christians/Right Wing Wingnuts, where the stupidity so often displayed by the Religious Right is displayed for all to see!
Yeah, so I'm vindictive. What of it?
Enjoy!
Yeah, so I'm vindictive. What of it?
Enjoy!
posted by Grace | 12:43 AM
|
0 comments