Sly_Wizard

I'm to this thread what a fly is to a gingko bilobo. 100% incorrect. Why does God himself need a creator? No religion that I'm aware of-- Much less Christianity-- Treats God as a materialistic being, but rather an immaterial being and, last I checked, there is no law which states that an immaterial being is subject to the laws of the material universe. In other words, to assume that God must be privy to the same laws as you or I are is fallacious. If people seem to "brush the question aside", it's because it's a nonsensical question. ...Oh, and you're making the false assumption that God appeared out of nowhere, or even had a beginning, when Christian doctrine states otherwise. Juuust saying.

Oh God, there we go again. Sure, toss a few billions to the Africans, that'll solve their problems. You know what? Why don't we just give them every penny we spend on advertising, luxury products and all entertainment. Those aren't necessary either, and it counts for hundreds, if not thousands of billions. If used correctly it will, "give a man fish will feed them for a day, give a man the knowledge of how to fish he'll be fed for life". If we operated on the 2nd part of that saying we could eventually help Africa's problems. What's your view? Throw money away on something we don't need to know and that could possibly destroy us while millions upon millions suffer and die in pain? Nice opinion, you sure care for other human beings out there :thumbsup: It's been said over and over and over - There is absolutely no way that the LHC is going to destroy the world. I think the whole "don't need to know" thing is quite laughable. Did we need to know about electricity? What about internal combustion? You can't put limits on what you think we need to find out about when you have absolutely no clue what the possible applications are. Since there's not a zero per cent chance, then it's kinda' odd to say "there is absolutely no way that the LHC is going to destroy the world". And I totally agree with the LHC being a waste of money.

A.) Cutting off an arm isn't comparable to aborting a fetus. B.) Your body/apart of your body and housed in your body are two seperate matters. An arm, for example, is fully controlled by your own body. You have absolute will over it, and if ever removed from the body will never become anything other than an arm (A rotting one, at that!) no matter how much time you give it. A fetus, however, might be dependant on the mother for sustenance, but it's certainly not a part of her body as it has the potential to operate on it's own given due time. Erm... Those rights established by God are universalist. Hence the reason why I didn't mention them, instead focusing on egalitarian rights. The first is more subjective; the second one isn't. What you wrote out isn't really a reality. All you said were "Rights are what people make them out to be" which, following that line of reasoning, means we can rescind a woman's right to vote under the argument that those specific "rights" should be reserved to men. You didn't, and still haven't, addressed the fact that rights extend beyond race, gender, religion, age, orientation etc. etc. etc. and that once they stop applying to all in favor of a select group, that they stop being "rights", turning into nothing more than "privileges". I'm not so sure where your argument is coming from, mainly because the whole "rights" versus "privileges" thing is pretty concrete. You can't promote equal rights while using the phrase "A woman's choice". It doesn't exactly fit. You have to hold men and women to the same standards, and that's either both men and women get an "opt-out-of-parenthood" clause or you make it illegal to have an abortion (Since it's illegal for a man to do the male equivilent of having an abortion, i.e., skip town). And, yet again, your body/part of your body is not the same thing as housed in your body. A fetus is not an extension of the female (It has it's own DNA plus the inherent ability to survive outside of the womb given proper developmental time), therefore it cannot be considered her body. Since it's not an extension of her body, the "I should be able to do what I want with my body" rationale becomes irrelevant. If you want to cut off your legs, no one is stopping you. It only becomes a problem when you begin to endanger the life of someone else. Like I said in my last post, biological actualities do not, never have, and never will equal a "right". Biological actualities are just that; actualities. ...And, just to be a broken record, your entire argument boils down to the fact that women are born women. You can skirt and dance around that all you like, but it's what it boils down to. *See above*

Same thing they do every night (And day), Pinky. Propogating the species.

Lovebugs are a car's worst enemy. No. Seriously. I hate the damn things. They like to all get stuck in the radiator.

Since no one said anything about "suggesting we go around to all pregnant women and encourage them to have an abortion", I'm just going to ignore your comment (Since it's an obvious attempt at distorting what's meant by 'pro-abortion') (: ...What the hell does that "reproduce into another organism" mean? Nothing can do that. Now you're just playing semantics. Viability is not confined to just a fetus and is the capacity for a living thing to live on and it's own and grow under normal conditions (Without the use of external support). You can't play the "Since it's not viable it isn't alive!" card for a fetus while simultaneously denoucing the same logic when applied to a living organism of a different category. It doesn't work. A.) In the U.S., something like 98%'ish of all abortions occur for non-health and/or rape issues (If you can find a newer study with different statistics, we'll use that). The main reason why people have an abortion: Because they just don't want a kid at the moment (See previous poster's response). Why people continue to argue based on something which constitutes a fringe of a fringe of the total reasons for having an abortion is beyond me. It's, at best, highly disingenuous. B.) It's not better to be dead than alive. That logic is fundamentally flawed, since all living things have a predisposition to live. That is, nothing wants to die (Excluding those individuals with extreme mental issues). It's like... The most basic rule of life. Following your logic, we should simply kill off everyone living in extreme poverty, as it's better to be dead than it is to be alive and live a hard life. I don't know what GP is, but ummm... A women can pretty much get an abortion so long as the doctor agrees to perform the operation and she has the money to pay for it. That's it. ...And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why one should never really solely on dictionary definitions. The majority of people simply cannot recall anything before they were the age of three'ish (A few, extraordinary people can recall events from as early as one year old). Consciousness is not just about feeling pain. It's about thought, feelings (As you said), internal knowledge, self-awareness of one's own existence, etc.-- Something which babies simply don't possess. For your next performance I bet you're going to open up a dictionary and tell me that a fetus is a parasite :lol: I never said you said it. I was going over all the arguments given as to when life starts. And, I lol'ed at the last sentence. Can you say irony? I can. *See above* I never said you did. *See above the former 'see above'* 1.) Within this age of modern technology and medicine, medical reasons for abortions are almost a non-factor as they account for so few of the abortions done worldwide. 2.) Irrelevant. She shouldn't be having sex if she's unable to rear a child. Srsly. That logic won't stop me from having to pay for a child if I happen to father one. 3.) Yet again, legalized abortion is having a negative impact on the adoption rate. How many times must I say this? 4.) No. Fetuses have minimal rights prior to personhood, not no rights prior to consciousness. I lol'ed hard. You haven't used ONE non-subjective argument. Not one. You go on about how abortion should be legal because of rape and health concerns. In response, I tell you that the overwhelming majority of abortion cases are not done for the prior two reasons (98% according to the study I provided), yet you ignored it. You go on about how abortion should be legal because, if it were illegal, we'd have women falling over dead from "back alley abortions". In response, I provide you with a study from WHO and a graph which disputes both of these claims, yet you ignored it. You go on about how the world is overpopulated and how we need abortions. In response, I provide you with a study which shows that abortions do not occur in the countries with the highest population densities, yet you ignored it. You say that instead of arguing against abortion, I should be arguing for adoption. I provide you with a study which says that an increase in legalized abortion has led to a decrease in the adoption rate, yet you ignored it. Hell, you even ignored the whole point about how "rights are established upon all humans prior to birth", therefore meaning abortion cannot be a right because 1.) It's not established upon all humans and 2.) It's only conferred upon females after birth (Making it a privilege), yet you ignored it. So, please tell me, who's the one arguing subjectively? You haven't produced one iota of evidence for any of your claims, mainly because they're bullplucky. (And when I say you I'm not speaking of you in general, but rather people who argue for abortions.) And there's a difference between doing something to your body and harming a human who is being housed in your body. A big difference. The fact that a human fetus-- Much like all mammals-- Is carried to term within the mother's body is to allow for the more complete development of higher brain functions (Which is an evolutionary adaptation and why the more, for lack of a better word, "advanced" species give birth to live young). You can't turn a biological actuality into a "right".

I know : ...Henceforth why I added in the whole "Moving from feminism to female chauvinism one step at a time" thing at the end of my paragraph (But, alas, it went unread). Rights established based on gender aren't rights, no matter how you try to justify them. How can they be? Laws based on gender are not egalitarian and, last I checked, gender equality is a type of egalitarianism. Therefore, bestowing unto one gender special "rights" while simultaneously denying the other gender those same "rights" violates the simple principle of gender equality (Which I thought women were big on). Rights are held by all citizens from birth. Anything established after birth and to only a select group of individuals are privileges. So how can it be a woman's "right" to decide whether or not to kill a fetus? It can't be, mainly because she wasn't born with the power to make that choice but it given to her by the powers-that-be. However, I'll play this game. Given your rationale, could you care to explain to me why a woman's right to vote shouldn't be rescinded? If it's acceptable to grant women "rights" based on the fact that they were born women, then it should also be acceptable to grant men "rights" on the basis that they were born men. To argue otherwise is to be hypocritical. No one said that each gender should be the same, but rather equal. The entire abortion debate is built off of a gross inequality, and it's pretty easy to notice. That is, if you want to notice ;) No, actually, you will lose. You'll be hard pressed to find too many biologists who don't argue that life begins at conception. The problem you have is that you argue life doesn't begin at conception, yet you provide 1.) no concrete period as to which you believe life begins and 2.) no basis upon which you can rationally define life without it being arbitrary (It'd be like me arguing that a 3-month old isn't alive yet a 4-month old is based on nothing other than my own opinions). Viability =/= Start of life (Otherwise people on life support are dead. Which they're not given the medical definition of death.) Consciousness =/= Start of life (Otherwise people under the age of 3'ish are dead, as their ability to recall events and think critically is severly inhibited.) Sentience =/= Start of life (For nearly the same reason as consciousness. People under certain ages-- At least a year-- Aren't able to feel and/or think subjectively.) Sapience =/= Start of life (See 'consciousness'.) Being born =/= Start of life (Otherwise, someone three seconds before they're born is dead, and that just doesn't make any sense to say.) Ummm... I think that's pretty much all the objections right there, and none of them provide adequate reason to believe that life starts at any of those instances. Life is not nearly as complex as you make it out to be. It's not like... Astrophysics or something :|

Because it has no scientific basing. As I said earlier, life is a continuation from point A to Z. It doesn't start at point H with everything before then being nothing. "Viability" does not equal "Life starts here!". All viability means is that a fetus can survive outside of the womb on it's own. Nothing more and nothing more less. I doubt you'd argue that a person on life support is no longer alive for the fact that (s)he is unable to breath on his/her own. The same logic applies here. A zygote is a part of life as is a blastocyst, which is as a part of life as an embryo, which is as part of life as a fetus, which is as part of life as a baby, etc. all the way up until death. NO, a gazillion times over. Cancer is non-equatable to a fetus. Cancerous cells have NO propensity to ever grow into a human being (Or anything closely resembling a human or even to develop higher brain functions, since a lot of pro-choicers are so high on that) nor do they serve any positive biological function. The comparison of cancer to a fetus is a non-sequitur. It's non-sensical. Appeals to ridicule. Nice! [/boratvoice] No, it's not "moronic" simply because you say it is. If rights are going to be established based on gender, then we can effectively rescind all laws granting women rights on the basis of gender (The corollary to an argument needs to hold true, you know). Simply because you hate the logic doesn't make it moronic-- Especially since it's pretty solid logic to which you really have no argument against it. "Moving from feminism to female chauvinism one step at a time ;)" That's not the point. As I said above, the countries with the "lowest standards of living" don't even have the highest abortion rates (In general). In fact, the countries with the highest standard of living with the lowest population densities tend to have the greatest occurences of abortion. Currently, the world can safely house about 2x - 3x as many people as it holds, and Africa alone has the resources to provide enough food for all of them. Therefore, the argument that we need abortion because the world is overpopulated to be not only ridiculous, but unsubstantiated. ...and? Was there a point in there that I've missed? Just pointing out that legalized abortion has made it so that less kids get adopted and that makinng abortion illegal would lead to an increase in the adoption rates :P

That's not the point I'm getting at. The main pro-abortion debate boils down to the fact that women are women and men aren't women, therefore arguing that women that have a fundamental right to decide what happens to a fetus. Well... Last I checked, rights aren't-- Nor can they be-- Established based on gender. Any "right" established on the basis of gender isn't a right. It's a priviledge. And that's the very thing that early feminists argued against. 1.) Whomever I quoted said that the world was overpopulated. I was merely pointing out that it's not. 2.) The countries with the "lowest standards of living" don't even have the highest abortion rates (In general). In fact, the countries with the highest standard of living with the lowest population densities tend to have the greatest occurences of abortion. To simplify: Legalized abortion led to lower adoption rates (Especially post RvW in the U.S.). Less people looked-- And still look-- To adopt today than did pre-abortion legalization.

I remember doing something like this in high school. Only it was with popsicle sticks. Ehhh... I'm not so sure how well this'd work with paper. It's too flimsy (Unless you roll/fold it as many times as possible) :| But, yeah, a suspension bridge would be your best bet.

I have one thing to say here. Fork Tom Brady!

No. That's little reason to have an abortion. In fact, that reason doesn't even hold water when used by one of the two genders. Death is not preferrable to life. All living things have a predisposition to living. That is, nothing wishes to die (Save those with extreme mental issues). This is ridiculous. I can't remember who said it, but someone (Maybe it was Carl Sagan) argued that, given this rationale, it'd be okay to kill an infant up to to two or so months old given the fact that they were yet to develop an active conscious (Which, in effect, really doesn't kick in until at least you're one years old). I highly doubt you'd agree to killing an infant up to a year old, much less two months old, for the simple fact that it has yet to develop "consciousness". Okay. I hate this argument. According to WHO, a woman dies about every 8 minutes due to an illegal abortion, which correlates to 180 women a day, or 65,700 women a year. Approximately, there are about 20 million illegal abortions done per year. This means that approximately .3285% of all illegal abortions end in the death of the women. In other words, 99.6715% of all illegal abortions do NOT in the death of the female. Hell... For what it's worth, the illegal abortion rate has been declining since the late 1930's/early 1940's. Some people like to argue that the number of illegal abortions have been in decline since legalized abortion, yet they ignore the fact that the number of deaths due to illegal abortions have been in decline long before legalized abortions (And even had it's biggest decline in the years before illegal abortions). (Only for the U.S.. Sorry for you folks not in the U.S., though I surmise the statistics would be about the same.) As you can see, the biggest drops came before RvW. In fact, the drops were primarily the results of an increase in technology and medicine. To assume that making abortions illegal would reverse a trend (Or cause a new, negative trend) that began happening before legalized abortions is asinine and makes little sense. Life. Oh, and for what it's worth-- Because I know someone will undoubtedly use the "Life doesn't begin until 22 weeks!" argument-- "Viability" doesn't mean "Life starts here!". Stages of development are fairly arbitrary, because life does not suddenly begin at one stage, with everything before then being nothing. It's a continuation, from a zygote to blastocyst to an embryo to a fetus to a baby, etc.. Oh, for also what it's worth, rights are not, nor can they be, established based on gender. The fact that a woman would ever argue as much boggles my mind, as that's exactly what the early femininists argued against. If you believe that rights should be based on gender, then I'd like to remove the right for women to vote as, obviously, those should only be reserved for men. Obviously. :lol: This ummm... Isn't true. At all. Currently, the world can house about 3x as many people as it currently holds (More than that, actually) and Africa itself has the potential to provide enough food for the world many times over. In fact, some of the countries with the highest abortion rates (The U.S., the U.K. and Australia, for instance) don't have the highest population densities 168, 48, and 224, respectively. Though, Australia does have the whole Outback thing going on...). Funny thing... As it turns out, legalized abortion has had a negative effect on the adoption rate. Pretty freaky, huh? Wait... Pro-choice males can't have an abortion. So I guess their input is just as invalid as mine, huh? (Okay. I think I'm done now.)

I'll just take that as a compliment -.-

Wow... Okay. Two things here. 1.) Moral relativism is not the same as cultural relativism. Moral relativism means that all value systems are equally as valid. This ain't what cultural relativism says. Cultural relativism states that whether or not a specific action within any culture is acceptable can be determined given the nature of the culture and environment in which it lives or operates. Henceforth why it's "idiotic" to judge the laws and subsequent actions of a nomadic tribe 3,400 years ago by today's standards. It doesn't work. Sorry. 2.) Who was arguing "the necessity of God from morality"? No one. Not a single soul. It wasn't even mentioned until you bothered to bring it up. Please, tell me how the laws are "immoral"? I'd really want to hear it. No. Seriously. Go ahead and amuse me. He doesn't. *Combined the last two statements, since the responses will be virtually the same* No one is changing any rule. The nature of a person or object is within the realm of metaphysics (To be exact, ontology). Ontology does not concern itself with the actions of the person or thing, as those are merely what the person or thing does and is dealt with in a seperate branch of philosophy all together. Said again: What one does is not what one is. The nature of a person or object is mutally independent of it's actions. That is, one's nature does not inhibit one from engaging in certain actions, just as certain actions do not define one's nature. If man is indeed altruistic, yet he does something in self-interest, does that make him selfish? You effectively evaded answering this question before with a "You can't compare man to God!" response without realizing that no one is comparing man to God (So perhaps you'll answer it this time). It's an example used to highlight the fallacy in equating being to action. God is good =/= God's actions are good, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE BIBLE EXPLICITLY STATES THAT GOD BRINGS FORTH EVIL FOR HIS OWN PURPOSE!!!. The sooner you realize this, the better. And, yes, sometimes I do dislike trying to argue with non-philosophy majors because, most of the time, they argue adamantly what they don't understand. And, no, no one understands everything. But it's good to understand something (:

Whatever happened to the American civil war of 2003 (Or was it 2004)? Either way, I missed it.

There's a difference between an opinon and an opinion passed off as fact. Right. And that's exactly the problem. You ignore the biggest and most pertinent of facts; culture. It's a different culture, so of course the laws are going to be different. To judge laws from another culture as idiotic because they don't conform to whatever view you hold (3,400 years later, mind you) is, as you would say, idiotic. I'd like to call that Western snobbery at it's finest. I'm fairly sure I can go to some Middle Eastern, African or even Asian countries, show them some of the laws you abide by and they'd consider them idiotic. No, God is not whatever you judge him to be. You're still not understanding anything I wrote out. You can say whatever you want to about God's actions-- Right or wrong. Fair or unfair-- But it doesn't change his nature (Being good and all-loving). It's really not that hard to understand, ya' know? I said once before that I shouldn't argue with non-philosphy majors, and this is the reason why. The nature of a being-- Any being-- Is not affected by his or her actions. Here, let's take the phrase "humans are selfless". This does not mean that humans will not occassionally do things to benefit themselves (Because they do, and we know they do), but rather that-- At the core-- They are altruistic and care moreso for the well-being of others than they do themselves. Here... Let me break this down Runescape style. Zammy is evil. Zammy does something which can be considered good. Does that make Zammy good? Sara is good. Sara does something which can be considered evil. Does that make Zammy evil? To answer both of these question, no, it doesn't. It merely means that Zammy's an evil being who happened to do something good while Sara is a good being who happened to do something evil. Your objections seems to be something along the lines of "You are what you do", but this is incorrect. Ummm... Excuse me, but I do believe the Bible (Once again, not concerned with what other religions say as I'm not a pantheist) says that not only is God vengeful but he also brings forth evil for his own will (I believe I said that earlier. Can't remember if it was to you or to someone else). The Bible also happens to say that God is good. You take this to be some sort of contradiction when it is not. Judging of one's actions is not the same thing as the judging of one's nature.

What? I'm thking you missed the point. You made a claim about God, more specifically that He's, in essense, the embodiment of all we don't know and nothing further (i.e., "filler", or a "God of the gaps", so to speak). One which A.) is unsubstantiated and B.) has no basis in Christian doctrine (I'm not going to deal with what other religions say on the matter, because I'm not a pantheist). What are you talking about? That's really not what I was doing nor the point attempting to be made. Ha ha! If it were as simple as that, all things would be true. Reason and logic are not infallible tools which lead to one, ultimate truth. ...Logic. And reason... No. It really isn't. How do you figure? I have gained this by philosophy; that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law."-- Aristotle Following your logic, the only reason you adhere to certain laws is because you've been scared into following them by the governing powers that be-- Not because you're thinking for yourself. I don't understand what you're saying/asking. Care to restate that in a way I can make sense of? :| I'm not so sure you understand what logic and reason are. For one, they are not limited to the betterment of mankind. You seem to forget that even Hitler was able to form a logical argument for his eugenics programs using human reason. Even more importantly than that, they don't exist indepently of religion. Even though you never explicitly said it, atheism/agnosticism is no more inherently (il)logical than is theism. It's all a matter of how you derive your conclusions. Henceforth why two people can arrive at two seperate, but valid, conclusions given the same information. I have. Perhaps you should learn what reason is :wall: That's not exactly what I'm saying (Nor was it the point I was trying to make). The fact that people have done evil based on a Holy Scripture speaks more to the character of the man than it does the validity of the text. I mean... If I were to read the Declaration of Independence and conclude that only men were entitled to be free and rescinded the rights of all women in the U.S., does it mean that the document is inherently flawed? No. It means that my understanding of the text is flawed.

It seems to me that your gripe is solely based on the punishment handed down by God. Right or wrong (Hah!)?

It seems you semi-grasped the point being made. And ummm... I know. Two things. 1.) You fail to realize that laws are "archaic" only with the passing of time. 2.) You fail to understand what was meant by essential character, so let's try this again. God is what He is. His actions do not change that. For example, humans are typically seen as evil creatures. However, simply because man is an evil creature does not mean that all of his actions are evil nor can he do good. It simply means that his nature is one of evil. The inverse is true for God. Simply because He is good and all-loving does not mean he can not commit evil (If you want to call it that) nor does it mean he is any less good or loving for doing so. Hell, even the Bible and Quran both attest to this fact (God/Allah makes evil for His own purpose). Double hell... You play Runescape. I know for a fact there are instances of Sara doing what would be considered evil and Zammy doing what would be considered good. I do believe we've gone over this point before. Twice, if not three times. In this very thread no doubt. The laws are still there. Jesus simply fulfilled them (He did not abolish them). The laws will remain until the day Jesus returns and Heaven and Earth are washed away. Pretty simple, really. What nonsense? You continue to make value judgments concerning a system of laws because it does not conform to what you personally deem as right and wrong. That's great for you buuut... What you think of any particular law/commandment is irrelevant. I happen to think quite a few current laws we have are idiotic, but that doesn't make them so now does it?

(I gotta' say, when it comes to religion and philosophy, I have a fairly strong dislike for the English in this regard.) Or not. That may be your explanation, but it's by no means correct nor indicative of the truth. ...Oh! I almost forgot. Let's play a little game. It's called "Spot the logical fallacy". 3K if you can spot the logical fallacy in the above quoted four sentences. Ummm... How about... No? The same thing I said above holds true here. That may be your understanding of God but that in no way, shape or form even closely embodies the truth. Simply because you want to play the God of the gaps game doesn't make it so. And just doubly no. I wish I could write no gazillion times, because I would. I just don't have that much time on my hands. A.) You can break down almost all of nature using nothing but numbers. Pythagoras figured this out about 2500 years ago. Galileo expounded on it. Sir Isaac Newton even more. And almost all of modern physics is based on this fact. Really, there's nothing "beautiful, startling and thrilling" about that and B.) It's impossible for God to be considered rude when speaking of nature, as to do so would be to argue that he imposes himself on nature. Unfortunately for you, last I checked, God is closer to supernatural (Above nature) than He is unnatural (Not of nature). Reason tells us that freedom is bad. Reason tells us it's okay to lie, cheat and steal. Reason tells us that it's okay to be mass murderers. Reason tells us that extorting others for personal use is perfectably acceptable. Reason tells me that you fail to understand that reason is limited by itself and provides no gauge of what is right and what is wrong; what is good and what is evil; what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, etc. etc. etc. Well, of course it wouldn't. That's not what faith is. Which says more about the inherent evilness of man than it does the 'Holy Texts' (Whatever you define that as). "Truly, if there is evil in this world it lies within the hearts of men."-- Edward D. Morrison, Tales of Phantasia Goodness doesn't come from man. Evil does, however.

I don't even have to read all that stuff concerning the OT, because it is what it is. Those were the governing laws set forth by God at the time, like 'em or not. However, there is one thing I must respond to. Luke 19: 11-27 = Parable. I hope you know realize that a parable is not to be taken literally and is often used to illustrate a point-- This case being that those who are dilligent in their faithfulness will be rewarded (With the kingdom of Heaven); those who are not or are faithless will die. This is not a commandment to kill any non-Christian. It's rather asinine to believe otherwise. What's all this talk about "niceness" (I really must have missed something). As I said above, God's essential character-- That he is good and all-loving-- Is not changed by the actions he engages in. The sooner everyone realized this, the better (:

And, seeing as how you're judging by today's standards, whether or not you find ancient Biblical law to be nice becomes a moot point. Wait wait wait! The laws you deem as "archaic" are only as such because you happen to live approximately 3,400 years after their inception. If you happened to live in the year 1400(ish) BC, you would find the laws no more archaic than you find the laws of today. Anywho... Care to explain how it's playing to the time period. The direct implication here is that God suddenly decided to change his mind concerning the law. However, last I checked, there was the whole "Not a letter shall pass away from the law until both Heaven and Earth pass away" (Matthew 5:18) thing. Ummm... Yeah. Those were the punishments for certain crimes. It's no different than some of the sentences rendered today (Lethal injection anyone?). I'm sorry, but what are these "nice rules" you continue to mention? The sooner you realize that God being both good and all-loving is not changed by His actions, the better.

Miami won, 52 - 7. That's all I care about. The rest of the ACC be damned (:

"If a woman is man enough to hit a man, she's man enough to get hit by a man." That's what I always say. ...Though I'd never actually hit a female.

In the spirit of gender equality, it's not. ...Not that I'd ever hit a woman. I'm just saying.