Originally posted by Red Nemesis
TrueJedi... wait for it... "Spoiler:."
stoopidJedi
oh the hurt. Oh the unimaginable pain. Red, you have cut me to the quick.
and also: one thought on your verses: you used those to say the Bible supports slavery and genocide. The word supports is important there, because you have to remember that the Bible is actually addressing Societal realism. It doesn't support slavery in a way that PROMOTES it, it merely makes laws on what was already a societal issue.
Not disagreeing with your verses, but merely with the strictest definition of the word supports.
For instance, the U.S. government doesn't SUPPORT religion, but DOES set limits and regulations on its practice, in order to maintain 2 parts of the constitution: Freedom of Religion, and Seperation of Church and state.
lol, you got that, you BIG DUMB NEMESIS!?!?
💃 💃 💃 💃 💃
Your below-standard available intelligence (which I can only hypothesize is the origin of the stench emanating from the posterior that you use for a face) has led you to two mistakes (if not moar).
The first is one of omission (unintentional I'm sure). You have not explained how Exodus:34 11-14 (which prohibits the thought of negotiation with the victims) or Lev:26 7-9 (assuring overwhelming military slaughters) is outside of even the strictest definition of the word "support." As far as I'm aware, that passage is an order originating from Yahwe himself! He is not merely regulating the genocide of the aborigines, he is mandating it.
The second is of selective shortsightedness on the issue of slavery. These two passages (the later two I used) can only be seen as an endorsement of slavery. Genesis 9:25-27 wills the subjugation and enslavement of the Canaanites. From free men the bible instructs the formation of slaves. Moreover, Exodus 21:2-6 erects a system exquisitely designed to continue an individual's enslavement. What man could abandon his wife and family to continued bondage while he was released? By keeping the women and children bound to the master, so too is the male trapped. While the bible here does not establish the slave dynamic (that is done elsewhere [?]) it certainly legitimizes and preserves it.
sup·port (s-pôrt, -prt)
tr.v. sup·port·ed, sup·port·ing, sup·ports
1. To bear the weight of, especially from below.
2. To hold in position so as to keep from falling, sinking, or slipping.
3. To be capable of bearing; withstand: "His flaw'd heart . . . too weak the conflict to support" (Shakespeare).
4. To keep from weakening or failing; strengthen: The letter supported him in his grief.
5. To provide for or maintain, by supplying with money or necessities.
6. To furnish corroborating evidence for: New facts supported her story.
7.
a. To aid the cause, policy, or interests of: supported her in her election campaign.
b. To argue in favor of; advocate: supported lower taxes.
8. To endure; tolerate: "At supper there was such a conflux of company that I could scarcely support the tumult" (Samuel Johnson).
9. To act in a secondary or subordinate role to (a leading performer).
These all look appropriate.
And about your for instance- I would be entirely comfortable with labeling the federal government's treatment of religion as "support." Churches are granted tax-exempt status, unique legal protections, as well as unmatched interaction with both personal and public legal matters in the form of marriage (which is both a tax and legal protection). What the federal government cannot do is endorse a religion you big dummy.
💃 Besides, there exist books and creeds that condemn all 💃 dancing as the devil's work. As long as the bible stays away from regulating the dancing of animated 💃 fruit (about which there is an unusually low number of references in that text, even in the gospel according to Luke
Spoiler:) then we're cool.
disclaimer: I have no flash player so I haven't seen the video
Adults talking about a thirty year old franchise that caters to prepubescent children. Got it.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefingtonYou're right. Aside from Star Wars: Ewoks, Star Wars: Droids, Gungans, all of Episode I, the Clone Wars, and the Holiday Special, the franchise is full of adult-themed dismemberment, Satanic rituals, and blood orgies.
Really? Tell me which part of the francise caters to prepubescent children? Aside from the SW Christmas special of 1978, everything else seems pretty much PG-13. I agree there is a lack of blood but really, prepubescent?
And for the love of Christ Cookies, Red, go easy on the poor boy. He's only a Christian after all.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
You're right. Aside from Star Wars: Ewoks, Star Wars: Droids, Gungans, all of Episode I, the Clone Wars, and the Holiday Special, the franchise is full of adult-themed dismemberment, Satanic rituals, and blood orgies.And for the love of
ChristCookies, Red, go easy on the poor boy. He's only a Christian after all.
His implication was that the franchise as a whole caters to prepubescent children. You've mentioned a fraction of the entire franchise.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefingtonBut when it comes to the audience that is the wider public (movie-goers, casual watchers, television audiences) those fractions make up a large portion of the public face of Star Wars. Most off-hand references tend still towards Vader, and the Death Star, and the Force etc., but 1/3 of the entire billions-of-dollars live-action movies are childish and silly. The entire Clone Wars project (sans the 2002 animation) is marketed towards die-harders like us, or the young.
His implication was that the franchise as a whole caters to prepubescent children. You've mentioned a fraction of the entire franchise.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
But when it comes to the audience that is the wider public (movie-goers, casual watchers, television audiences) those fractions make up a large portion of the public face of Star Wars. Most off-hand references tend still towards Vader, and the Death Star, and the Force etc., but 1/3 of the entire billions-of-dollars live-action movies are childish and silly. The entire Clone Wars project (sans the 2002 animation) is marketed towards die-harders like us, or the young.
I don't think the movies or the books are suited for kids. Most of the crap may be childish and silly by your standards as an adult, but that doesn't imply that children dominate the Star Wars fan base. Hell, even the Clone Wars cartoons are questionable.
For the record, I am issuing an official warning to BoratBorat for his relentless and entirely pointless insults toward Man of Christ. There was entirely no need for your behavior. If you disagree with him, say so without calling him an idiot. It just makes you look bad and gives me reason to tell you so.
Carry on, everyone. I personally think Anakin could take Luke quite easily...
Originally posted by REXXXXYou DO realize i apologized to him right? Or did you ignore that part on purpose?
For the record, I am issuing an official warning to BoratBorat for his relentless and entirely pointless insults toward Man of Christ. There was entirely no need for your behavior. If you disagree with him, say so without calling him an idiot. It just makes you look bad and gives me reason to tell you so.
But thanks for a warning than a ban, your not as obnoxious as peach.