jekyl_hyde's Thread of Bullshit - Fandom Forums
Fandom Forums

Go Back   Fandom Forums > The Trashbin > Hall of Fail

Hall of Fail Some of the stupidest threads you will ever find are located here.

Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 05-11-2012, 01:18 PM   #23
Writing speed: snail
Numinous's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Porto, Portugal
Posts: 4,782
Thanks: 8,384
Thanked 11,563 Times in 3,932 Posts
Numinous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of light
Re: jekyl_hyde's Thread of Bullshit

i've tried to not go too deep into the religious side of this argument, because some would just bash and troll.
If you don't to head that way, you should avoid saying that gay marriage shouldn't be because marriage should be religious. By doing that, how can we not delve into the religious backing of that? Of course not all people are that respectful toward others' beliefs, but I just present rebuttal when I see any inaccuracy.

Originally Posted by jekyl_hyde View Post
you've provided some keen examples to counter my arguments. my rebuttal is that we are humans, and we're not perfect.
So... you're okay with gay marriage now or not? I'm confused.

also, you have to look at the context of the events.

Foe example, Lot. Before he headed to and settled in Sodom, Lot was a man stature in many ways. He was rich, had a beautiful wife (by the standards in that time), had numerous children (he was a rockefeller in that day in age). After Sodom, what little time he did live, his live was changed drastically.
Psst, here's the context given by the Second Epistle of Peter:

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless 8 (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.
You can see that the context of the elevation is the events linked to the smiting of Sodom and Gomorrah's and the angels tidbit. It even alludes to that in the next segment:

10 This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh and despise authority. Bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to heap abuse on celestial beings; 11 yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not heap abuse on such beings when bringing judgment on them from the Lord.
Furthermore, this elevation of Lot paints the others' actions as "lawless deeds" that Lot was tormented by, but it never says Lot also did such "deeds", so I'm lead to assume that we're either to ignore the incest and drunken sex Lot practiced or that they're not "lawless deeds".

just because i don't agree with same sex marriage, how does that make me a hater of a gay person? if that were the case, i would ostracize two of my workers, and i would have no doings with several of my own family members.
You're arguing favorably for restricting them from the same rights you enjoy and they're entitled to have by ethical corollaries. Like ACt said, you may not hate gays but you clearly see a problem with them.

liberals scream seperation of church and state. yet they don't want it. marriage was a religious concept.
Liberals? Don't you mean anyone with a sense of constitutionality? But see how you typed "was" instead of "is"? Marriage is secular now, much like Christmas and Easter.

and num, who's to say that the earliest couples didn't believe in religion? pagan gods came from somewhere.
First of all, religion is defined as an organized body of beliefs and rituals practiced by a group of people. It is known that such a thing only occurred back when humans started to settle in the Neolithic.

Before that you could have worshiping of natural phenomena (that's how many pagan gods came to be, by the way) and idols, but there's evidence of ritualistic burials and union of people. That said religions came after marriage, the only thing I can say is that marriage is definitely a byproduct of ritualism but, again, religions don't hold the monopoly on that

the bible teaches the first man and woman were adam and eve, a common assumption accepted by the scientific community until the last... 20-25 years.
Wut. The scientific community (as in, the community based on empiricism and created after the Renaissance) never accepted such a thing. You could argue that didn't have a rebuttal until Darwin and fellow evolution proposers back in the early XIX century (which, by the way, is almost two centuries, not two decades), but that's not the same thing as accepting.

Also, genetic Adam and Evene have nothing to do with the Biblical Adam and Eve, starting with the fact the genetic ones differ by some good hundreds of thousands of years.

i personally know of an atheist who thinks that neanderthals didn't have some form of religion. i call it b.s. Well, he may have a point the human brain has always sought answers. religion, throughout all of history answered those questions (some accurately, others not so much).
Except Neanderthals were extinct before the Neolithic happened. I keep bringing that age up tied with religion because it was by settling and creating an hierarchy that religion was possible, before that humans were hunter-gatherers and nomads to boot, records so far indicate they didn't have the time to organize their beliefs like the Neolithic humans had. Of course humans and probably Neanderthals sought answers before that age, but they only had beliefs, not religion.

modern day science (physics), was from people who believed in pagan gods and people who feared Allah.
Science is independent of theological belief, so it's not surprising at all that happens.

yet there are still questions that scientists can't answer i.e. how can a cube of ice with a coefficient of friction of .01 come to a complete stop on a smooth surface in under ten feet?
I think you partially answered that question, friction. A friction of 0.01, albeit small, is still there. I can't tell with certainty the other factors in place of such stop since you don't specify the conditions in place. Is there any other force in the place (wind, vibrations, even accumulated carbon dioxide)? If the place is hotter than the ice, the latter's smoothness will be altered and raises the coefficient of friction, the inclination of the surface can also play a role and the force applied (and even its directionality) can influence how the friction will influence the motion of the cube of ice.

I don't know how is this unanswerable until you give me the specifics that can prove that theoretically it shouldn't happen but happens anyway.

why is the human body, which is designed to live forever (mitosis), die?
Except it ISN'T designed to live forever for the simple fact DNA replication isn't perfect. Our DNA telomers (the ends of the chain) are always cut in mitosis due to the mechanisms in place for replication only reading a certain sequence to start said replication, so all the bases before that specific sequence are lost forever after mitosis. In smaller words, our DNA shrinks every time cells go under mitosis, to the point vital genes are axed and we die.

There are other factors in place: too much oxidation inside the cells will harm them and the DNA within, along with mutations and fuck-ups by the cellular mechanisms. So mitosis for laymen might seem a key for immortality, but what happens is exactly the opposite.

@ mal

Don't worry about not checking the Hebrew, I always do that before forming my opinion on a specific verse. I agree, there's controversy over the verses and I acknowledge the non-rape-of-angels version as equally valid, it's only my understanding that leads me to agree more with the "rapey" version.

As I quoted above the Second Epistle of Peter, it seems that it was believed in Early Christianity that they wanted to taint the angels, but since that's someone else's opinion on that, I won't back up my understanding with it. There are two keywords here, yada and ra'a. The first is in Genesis 19:5 and means "know". Like you said, it could be interpreted as acquaintance or intimacy depending on who you ask. But there's ra'a, which is in Genesis 19:7. In later versions of the Bible, they translate as:

6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing.
Ra'a can indeed mean "wicked", but it was more used as "hurt" or "afflict". So, in that sense, the passage can be read as "No, my friends. Don't afflict such a thing." That indicates Lot's townsfolk didn't want just to acknowledge the angels, they wanted something more, justifying why Lot offered his daughters. Again, this is highly debatable and both our interpretations have a good reason to be.

By the way, I said "angels rectums" as a tongue-in-cheek thing, because I agree with you in that the people in Sodom and Gomorrah weren't the depraved homosexuals many seem to think and probably were just pagans that had a special emphasis on sexual rituals.

About the drunken incest, I meant strictly in the context of the Second Epistle of Peter, as I explained above. Of course Lot didn't know what happened nor intended to do so, but the author of the epistles knew and didn't allude to them while separating Lot from the "lawless deeds". You could argue it's the daughters fault, but it bugs me that they aren't mentioned and Lot still is part of it, willing or not.
My writings and ramblings:

Water of Ocean Darkest Chapters: 1 - 2
Weaver Chapters: 0 - 1 - 2 - 3

Numinous is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Numinous For This Useful Post:
Miburo (07-29-2012)

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Naruto Questionnaire Thread Nexus Naruto Series 0 01-12-2008 12:58 AM
The Offical Mangkeyou Sharingan thread. Anbu-Kakashi Naruto Manga 6 01-07-2008 07:47 PM
This thread fails. doubleself Spam Zone 9 01-02-2008 06:33 PM
Sony is awesome thread sasuke_power Gaming 5 11-01-2006 10:57 AM

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.