Whiny Atheists

[JosephR]

I've never seen a reference to eunuchs that didn't refer to issues with reproduction. Why do you interpret eunuch in a different way? Do you have a link I could read up on?

Have you ever seen the reference to them that didnt include a religious take?

Now look if you do not wish to be in the faith what business is it of yours?

 

[JosephR]

I've never seen a reference to eunuchs that didn't refer to issues with reproduction. Why do you interpret eunuch in a different way? Do you have a link I could read up on?

Isiah choose to use eunuchs as an example..as a person of lowly standards of any other faith,the ones at hand at the time.. state your case!

 

[gcthomas]

“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose the things that please me
and hold fast my covenant,
5 I will give in my house and within my walls
a monument and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that shall not be cut off.

Isiah choose to use eunuchs as an example..as a person of lowly standards of any other faith,the ones at hand at the time.. state your case!

The quote you give strongly implies that these eunuchs will not be providing children.

So I ask again: do you have any reason to think that eunuch doesn't involve lack reproduction ability apart from your own intuition?

 

[JosephR]

The quote you give strongly implies that these eunuchs will not be providing children.

So I ask again: do you have any reason to think that eunuch doesn't involve lack reproduction ability apart from your own intuition?

you wouldn't understand,,again I say get out..I have explained it and again you wish to cast a cloud over the facts,,get out of the way...

God and the Angels need not to reproduce but this dont matter to you .

Go show and cast your doubt on evolution threads, this is a family affair and you are not involved.

 

[gcthomas]

you wouldn't understand,,again I say get out..I have explained it and again you wish to cast a cloud over the facts,,get out of the way...

God and the Angels need not to reproduce but this dont matter to you .

Go show and cast your doubt on evolution threads, this is a family affair and you are not involved.

stay out of this one ,,, I see your reason..

go find a different arena to cast doubt.

But I don't yet see your reason. Why do you consider yourself a eunuch? Don't you have an answer?

(I'm not casting doubt on evolutionary arguments here - I am just interested in the interpretation of language used in an open thread. If it's a private affair then have the discussion in private. The thread title is a clear encouragement for atheists to be involved. )

 

[gcthomas]

u dont care,,u cast doubt on anything of the bible

I'm content with much of what the bible has to say. I often attend eucharist services for work and I don't feel the need to challenge the sermons. I have priests and chaplains as friends.

So why can't you tell me about why you interpret 'eunuch' as 'foreigner'? It seems unusual to say the least an seems unbiblical to me.

Still no answer? Just the negrep?

 

[JosephR]

I answered every question unless you cant read English but you seem to be able to spew it,, i see your concern for testicles. I answered you twice every time.

There are many homosexual threads if you are obsessed with testicles.

But no thats not the case is it? when you can be honest that would be a change and be nice,

U mock scripture.. You make it about your own obsession with the male testes as Isiah did not... thanks for showing what your wolf jaws really desire.. now go and troll what you really want, to mock faith and desire male affection..

 

[gcthomas]

Enuach means a foreign person of Isreal of a different faith, In that sense YES I am that.

God Choose them,,they did not choose God ,but for the Enuach who choose to have faith in God Yes they are included. Regardless of there heritage.

Have you ever seen the reference to them that didnt include a religious take?

Now look if you do not wish to be in the faith what business is it of yours?

Isiah choose to use eunuchs as an example..as a person of lowly standards of any other faith,the ones at hand at the time.. state your case!

you wouldn't understand,,again I say get out..I have explained it and again you wish to cast a cloud over the facts,,get out of the way...

God and the Angels need not to reproduce but this dont matter to you .

Go show and cast your doubt on evolution threads, this is a family affair and you are not involved.

I answered every question unless you cant read English but you seem to be able to spew it,,

I can't see the answer in your answers above. I can see clearly that you have a firm view, but you neglected to justify even though you claim to have done so.

i see your concern for testicles. I answered you twice every time.

There are many homosexual threads if you are obsessed with testicles.

I didn't raise that concern. There are spadone and castrati eunuchs. Only one type has been castrated, so testicles is not really the issue. The desire/ability to procreate is.

But no thats not the case is it? when you can be honest that would be a change and be nice,

So disagreeing with you is dishonesty now? Hmm.

U mock scripture..

No. The scripture says eunuchs and you haven't given anyone a reason to believe your novel interpretation of the word.

You make it about your own obsession with the male testes as Isiah did not... thanks for showing what your wolf jaws really desire.. now go and troll what you really want, to mock faith and desire male affection..

YOU introduced the testes into the discussion, showing just how your mind works. I have mocked nothing, just asked for the clarity you seem unable to provide.

So then you resort to juvenile insults. How old are you? Are you posting from your mother's basement? Get a grip, FJ. If you can't answer an honest question, at least admit it like a man. (Or like a eunuch, if you prefer! :chuckle

 

[Angel4Truth]

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. The Constitution is.

That is irrelevant to the fact that the nation was indeed founded on Godly principles and it was the first founding act of law.

Although the Declaration of Independence stands with the Constitution as a founding document of the United States of America, its position in U.S. law is much less certain than that of the Constitution. The Declaration has been recognized as the founding act of law establishing the United States as a sovereign and independent nation, and Congress has placed it at the beginning of the U.S. Code, under the heading "The Organic Laws of the United States of America.

 

[JosephR]

This is where we differ oh Child Of David.

God Choose you.. You had no say in the matter,, out of all nations of the world He Choose you .

Now We or I cannot change that fact nor can any man influence the mind of Yah Weh.

But What I do Choose is to partake of the Covenant of Israel.
Unless you declare Your Prophet Isiah a Liar , I can partake of the Covenant of the Lord

“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose the things that please me
and hold fast my covenant,
5 I will give in my house and within my walls
a monument and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that shall not be cut off.

If I grab ahold..
If I am grafted in
If I follow the Lord whos Sabbaths you have desecrated and made an abomination, for if I will make Holy what the Lord proclaimed I am ensured A everlasting name.


For you Son of David have made the New Moons and Sabbaths a thing that God Hates...

How have Ye Son of David made a Calf of Gold and bronze whilst Moses talked with God on the mount?

Oh Ye stiffed Necked Jew.
You have made that which is Holy a profane thing to God.
How much have ye offended God to offer ME? Yes ME salvation?

Three Million of Ye seed of Abraham Saw God and made ye a Golden calf.. Ye Fool.

Now be grafted in with me if you want,

Partake in the New Covenant heb 8:8 when the house of Israel and
Judah are joined.

Make not a strange FIRE again? The sons of Arron be killed again,, stiffed neck Jew.

I realize now this is not a ECT thread so its open to people like Thomas.. and why he can attack so open and twist the prophets words.

 

[chair]

This is where we differ oh Child Of David.

God Choose you.. You had no say in the matter,, out of all nations of the world He Choose you .

Now We or I cannot change that fact nor can any man influence the mind of Yah Weh.

But What I do Choose is to partake of the Covenant of Israel.
Unless you declare Your Prophet Isiah a Liar , I can partake of the Covenant of the Lord

“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose the things that please me
and hold fast my covenant,
5 I will give in my house and within my walls
a monument and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that shall not be cut off.

If I grab ahold..
If I am grafted in
If I follow the Lord whos Sabbaths you have desecrated and made an abomination, for if I will make Holy what the Lord proclaimed I am ensured A everlasting name.


For you Son of David have made the New Moons and Sabbaths a thing that God Hates....

You are confused about the verses.
There are two separate sections:
The first section, is about eunuchs, who can have no children:

4“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose what pleases me
and hold fast to my covenant—
5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls
a memorial and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that will endure forever.​

These Eunuchs are apparently Israelites. The next section expands the prophesy to non-Israelites:

6 And foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord
to minister to him,
to love the name of the Lord,
and to be his servants,
all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it
and who hold fast to my covenant—
7 these I will bring to my holy mountain
and give them joy in my house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and sacrifices
will be accepted on my altar;
for my house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations.”​

Two groups. The eunuchs (1) and the foreigners (2).

Not that the eunuchs symbolize foreigners.

On a separate issue: I find it quite perturbing when people point a finger at modern Jews and say things like:

How have Ye Son of David made a Calf of Gold and bronze whilst Moses talked with God on the mount?"

You may not be aware of this, but the Golden Calf incident was 3,000 years ago. Why is this relevant to anything?

And who exactly is "Son of David"? That is not a common term. Are you referring to Jesus, perhaps? He is supposedly descended from David.

 

[gcthomas]

That is irrelevant to the fact that the nation was indeed founded on Godly principles and it was the first founding act of law.

The Declaration is not a founding act of law, and it cannot be appealed to in any court, or used as precedent.

 

[Traditio]

The rest are for hotels, gas stations, fast food and strip clubs. Would be nice to see a billboard with a nice secular message every now and again.

Commercial advertisements (for example, for strip clubs) sound like secular messages to me. :idunno:

 

[Angel4Truth]

The Declaration is not a founding act of law, and it cannot be appealed to in any court, or used as precedent.

Yes, it was the first founding law, and are you under the assumption falsely that laws never change?

But back to the point, all that is irrelevant to the fact that its evidence clearly that this nation was founded on Christian principles even though you dont like that fact.

 

[WizardofOz]

What I'm saying is this - the origins of the country and the opinions of founders are irrelevent. It is what you have now which is what you need to work with. And the USA has a firmly secular set of government institutions. Get used to it.

I am curious as to your position on more contemporary cases.

How about the WTC Memorial "cross"?
The Jesus statue in Montana?
Threatening to sue the school toy drive?
Nativity scene at the Florida State Capital?
The baker who wouldn't bake a same-sex marriage cake?
The (hypothetical) black restaurant owner who wouldn't serve KKK members?
Should our money say "in God we trust"?
Military medals made with taxpayer money that are in the shape of crosses
How about crosses at Arlington National Cemetery?

How many memorials, statues, etc should we be tearing down?

 

[Granite]

Yes, it was the first founding law, and are you under the assumption falsely that laws never change?

But back to the point, all that is irrelevant to the fact that its evidence clearly that this nation was founded on Christian principles even though you dont like that fact.

Actually I'm pretty sure you're mistaken. There is nothing in the Declaration about running a nation, etc., which is why we have the Constitution. And if we were founded on "Christian principles" (whatever you mean) then don't forget that both laws and nations can change.

 

[gcthomas]

I am curious as to your position on more contemporary cases.

Yay, a ten point quiz! Is there a prize?

How about the WTC Memorial "cross"?

Isn't that going to be a museum exhibit? How would a museum exhibit break the rules?

The Jesus statue in Montana?

Didn't make the news here. :carryon:

Threatening to sue the school toy drive?

Sounds like the school was violating the establishment clause in supporting an evangelical christian organisation. Don't they know the rules?

Nativity scene at the Florida State Capital?

Gov't property: they should know better. In fact they probably did and wanted to get the fuss and publicity.

The baker who wouldn't bake a same-sex marriage cake?

Broke equality laws and acted like a dufus over it. No sympathy at all.

The (hypothetical) black restaurant owner who wouldn't serve KKK members?

I'd never serve anyone in hoods! They would by intimating the owner. But if they were in ordinary clothes and not chanting KKK slogans, there would be no issue, surely.

Should our money say "in God we trust"?

No.

Military medals made with taxpayer money that are in the shape of crosses

Why do they need to be cross shaped? Not all servicemen are christian, are they? We (UK) recently changed one of our crosses into a circular design for discrimination purposes. Sounds reasonable to me.

How about crosses at Arlington National Cemetery?

Now you're getting silly. Unless the cemetery requires all plots to be marked by crosses even for muslims and jews. (They don't, do they?)

How many memorials, statues, etc should we be tearing down?

Only those that break the constitution. Is that many of them?

 

[WizardofOz]

I guess my position lies somewhere in the middle. I am not a fan of David Barton. The United States is not a Christian nation, it is simply a nation with a Christian majority. The government can not endorse a specific religion but what endorsement entails is subject to interpretation. Having the 10 Commandments posted in government buildings has never been a problem in the past despite recent whining about it.

I actually think the war memorials and the WTC "cross" are good case studies. If the statue et al is part of a memorial honoring something other than religion, then the religious connotation is nullified. A memorial cross can honor veterans and thus be secular despite the religious nature of the cross prima facie.

The examples that push the envelope in my opinion are the two examples I can think of most enshrined in our culture; "In God We Trust" on our currency and "one nation under God" in the pledge of allegiance.

Why isn't American Atheists or other like-minded groups suing the US Government for their endorsement of theism over atheism? Could it be because neither theism nor atheism are a religion and therefore not subject to 2nd Amendment restriction? :think:

Although, American Atheists did recently sue "the government tax-collection agency for discrimination, alleging that churches receive unconstitutional preferential treatment over other nonprofit organizations."

article


So I guess it's not outside the realm of possibility.

 

[WizardofOz]

Isn't that going to be a museum exhibit? How would a museum exhibit break the rules?

It's funded with taxpayer money. "The planned memorial--which will at long last be unveiled this September--has received millions in federal money."

The whiners that sued alleged that "the cross is an insult to the many 9/11 victims who were not Christian and a violation of the separation of church and state; it proposes either removing the cross or setting aside an equal amount of space at the memorial to honor the sacrifices on non-Christian or non-religious victims of the attack."

And, "The WTC cross has become a Christian icon. It has been blessed by so-called holy men and presented as a reminder that their god, who couldn't be bothered to stop the Muslim terrorists or prevent 3,000 people from being killed in his name, cared only enough to bestow upon us some rubble that resembles a cross," American Atheists President David Silverman said in a statement. "It's a truly ridiculous assertion."

article

Didn't make the news here. :carryon:

It was in post #2 of this thread

Sounds like the school was violating the establishment clause in supporting an evangelical christian organisation. Don't they know the rules?

"the project at SkyView was student-initiated and student-led"
read here

Gov't property: they should know better. In fact they probably did and wanted to get the fuss and publicity.

Who wanted the to fuss and get publicity?

The Capitol rotunda is open to any group that applies through the state Department of Management Services as long as their displays follow guidelines on size and other restrictions. The Florida Nativity Scene Committee decided to use that opportunity to display the biblical scene of Jesus' birth. "We are not trying to offend anyone, but we are taking a stand for Christ in Christmas, a stand for truth and religious freedom," said Pam Olsen, who organized the event. "And what better place to do this than the heart of our state government."

There was no fuss as their display was perfectly within the rules and guidelines set by the FL State Capital.

Guess who did fuss....the ACLU and Freedom From Religion. They are the whiners.

"They may now have a right to do that, but there are better places," Simon said. "There are houses of worship and there are each of our homes if we choose to commemorate the holidays." Groups that advocate for the separation of religion and government say the display is on solid constitutional grounds because the state is not spending money on it and it has designated the Capitol rotunda as a public forum. A disclaimer was posted near the Nativity scene that said the state does not support or endorse the display, which is across the rotunda from a giant menorah that marks the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah. And it's why the state is letting the Freedom From Religion Foundation to hang a banner with its views. The banner is expected to be hung Thursday. It will depict Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and the Statue of Liberty adoring the Bill of Rights placed in a crib typically used to depict Jesus and the Nativity scene. source

What a positive message that is no way mocking the nativity :doh:

Broke equality laws and acted like a dufus over it. No sympathy at all.

I'd never serve anyone in hoods! They would by intimating the owner. But if they were in ordinary clothes and not chanting KKK slogans, there would be no issue, surely.

Isn't it their right to wear their Klan outfit at a restaurant? Wouldn't it be discriminating against their Aryan theology to refuse to serve them? You seem to have a double standard here.

Why can a baker not refuse a same-sex wedding cake but a black business owner can refuse Klansman?

Should our money say "in God we trust"?

No.

Why not? If you were to sue the US government, what would be your case? Why hasn't anyone already sued over this issue? :think:

Why do they need to be cross shaped? Not all servicemen are christian, are they? We (UK) recently changed one of our crosses into a circular design for discrimination purposes. Sounds reasonable to me.

So we should back and change all the crosses to more circular shapes? The point is, they are and were cross-shaped and no one made a stink about it. Why is that?

Now you're getting silly. Unless the cemetery requires all plots to be marked by crosses even for muslims and jews. (They don't, do they?)

Cross of Sacrifice/Canadian Cross at Arlington National Cemetery.

Why wouldn't this be a violation?

It’s true that various groups have in the past sued to prevent state or federal governments from erecting religious monuments on public property. In 2001, for example, the ACLU of Southern California sued for removal of the Mojave Desert Cross at Sunrise Rock, which stood on land that had become part of a national preserve run by the National Park Service. That long and tangled legal battle continues and is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. (Update, April 28, 2010: The high court later ruled against the ACLU in that case, allowing the cross to stand. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote: "The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm.")

here

The ACLU states that they will not sue to remove individual gravestones but is fighting against memorials similar to the Cross of Sacrifice.

Only those that break the constitution. Is that many of them?

You seem to feel more are in violation than the Supreme Court or even the ACLU seem to agree do. :think:

 

[gcthomas]

WizOz - you asked what I thought, not how I thought a court would act. I'm no lawyer, and I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of the events you raised. I am not a member of the groups you refer to. What was you point in asking me?