If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Dick Mourdock clarifies his comments: "I didn't say God intended rape, he just intended the babies born out of rape. Got that?"   (usatoday.com) divider line 388
    More: Followup, Richard Mourdock, human beings, Indiana Senate, Susan B. Anthony List, Jennifer Psaki, American Bridge, Claire McCaskill, U.S. Senate  
•       •       •

2177 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Oct 2012 at 5:45 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



388 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-24 02:10:09 PM
Oh JTFC
 
2012-10-24 02:14:10 PM
Well, I'm convinced.

Sandwiches?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-24 02:15:31 PM
So the "I was on a mission from God" defense won't work?
 
2012-10-24 02:17:17 PM

vpb: So the "I was on a mission from God" defense won't work?


I'm farking for Jesus!

/actual MLK quote, I believe
 
2012-10-24 02:19:00 PM

"Dear Jesus.My wife and I can't make a baby. Can you please send someone to rape her?" #DesperateRepublicanPrayers

- Daniel Poehlman (@DPoem) October 24, 2012
 
2012-10-24 02:21:19 PM
"I didn't intend to punch that guy. Just for his teeth to be knocked out with my fist"
 
2012-10-24 02:30:16 PM
Funny he has to clarify them when the NRSC and Romney have already backed the original.
 
2012-10-24 02:43:43 PM

Aarontology: "I didn't intend to punch that guy. Just for his teeth to be knocked out with my fist"


No, no. "I didn't intend to punch that guy, but God meant for his teeth to be removed by my fist."
 
2012-10-24 02:46:49 PM

Shostie: Aarontology: "I didn't intend to punch that guy. Just for his teeth to be knocked out with my fist"

No, no. "I didn't intend to punch that guy, but God meant for his teeth to be removed by my fist."


lol
 
2012-10-24 02:54:51 PM
i177.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-24 03:06:15 PM
So god intended for the rape victim to conceive, then he must have wanted her to be raped in the first place. Therefor god wants women to get rape-raped.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-24 03:20:51 PM

swaniefrmreddeer: So god intended for the rape victim to conceive, then he must have wanted her to be raped in the first place. Therefor god wants women to get rape-raped.


That's why it's legitimate.
 
2012-10-24 03:47:43 PM
He works in mysterious, most times violent ways.
 
2012-10-24 03:51:42 PM
I don't see what the big deal is.

Have you read the Bible? The God that these people worship is all about rape.
 
2012-10-24 03:51:47 PM
leaving aside for a moment the philosophical implications of believing in a god that condones violent acts against his followers...did Mourdock really intend that press conference to succeed? c'mon man...I was watching it. he tried to say that his words were 'twisted' against him. while i'm sure that you could make that case in other circumstances the record seems pretty clear: he kinda/sorta seems to believe that rape babies happen because it's god's will and his press conference didn't really clear any of that up.
 
2012-10-24 03:53:18 PM
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

Rape baby
 
wee [TotalFark]
2012-10-24 04:01:29 PM
American Taliban indeed.
 
2012-10-24 04:04:08 PM
We should decriminalize rape. The poor men we're prosecuting are just fulfilling God's will.

Do you punish people who give you gifts?
 
2012-10-24 04:05:28 PM

vernonFL: [encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 190x265]

Rape baby


No dad, Joseph and I didn't sleep together, it was God who impregnated me.

/best. excuse. ever.
 
2012-10-24 04:08:00 PM
On, a serious note. How do these people keep getting elected?
 
2012-10-24 04:08:04 PM
So:

God picks a woman to get pregnant, then he starts throwing as many dicks as he can her way, until she gets pregnant, and if she insists on using condoms or some other form of birth control, he gets frustrated and makes a guy rape her to get her pregnant?

Or does he pick both the woman AND the man, but it's just her luck the dude would rather rape her than ask her out on a date?

I'm not sure how God can intend a pregnancy without also intending how that child is conceived and by whom. What exactly am I missing, Dick?
 
2012-10-24 04:14:09 PM

swaniefrmreddeer: So god intended for the rape victim to conceive, then he must have wanted her to be raped in the first place. Therefor god wants women to get rape-raped.


No, God wants women to conceive, but some women can't take a hint, so God has to resort to other means.

Just get married and pregnant as soon as you can, ladies, and God won't have to do this stuff to you anymore.
 
2012-10-24 04:15:37 PM

Pope Larry II: On, a serious note. How do these people keep getting elected?


by scaring the f*ck outta voters. that plus a lot of money from various interest groups (corporations, single issue advocacy, churches or whatnot). turns out that if you make people afraid, they'll stop thinking rationally and become easier to manipulate.
 
2012-10-24 04:21:37 PM

swaniefrmreddeer: So god intended for the rape victim to conceive, then he must have wanted her to be raped in the first place. Therefor god wants women to get rape-raped.


You forget, "God" is responsible for anything that they do want to have happen, and "Satan" or something else outside of God's control is responsible for the other parts. So, Satan raped the person, and God just decided to make it a little better, because kids always make everything better!

It is all part of the "Making things up from inferences as I go along to fit my needs" bible study.
 
2012-10-24 04:35:23 PM
Do we have free will or are you a believe in predestination?, this is not a hard question
 
2012-10-24 04:47:48 PM
Ok anyone believes this shiat can someone explain how God meant for the rape to happen but has no control over the abortion?

Free will covers abortions but not raping?
 
2012-10-24 04:49:49 PM

Corvus: Ok anyone believes this shiat can someone explain how God meant for the rape to happen but has no control over the abortion?

Free will covers abortions but not raping?


um...magic?
 
2012-10-24 05:02:00 PM

Diogenes: We should decriminalize rape. The poor men we're prosecuting are just fulfilling God's will.

Do you punish people who give you gifts?


Actually a good reading of the books of the law indicate that rapists are to marry their victims and pay the victim's father restitution. Now if the victim is married, its adultery and both rapist and victim should both be stoned to death. Why is it so difficult for you heathens to understand the simple and just rules of G_d?
 
2012-10-24 05:09:01 PM

Elzar: Diogenes: We should decriminalize rape. The poor men we're prosecuting are just fulfilling God's will.

Do you punish people who give you gifts?

Actually a good reading of the books of the law indicate that rapists are to marry their victims and pay the victim's father restitution. Now if the victim is married, its adultery and both rapist and victim should both be stoned to death. Why is it so difficult for you heathens to understand the simple and just rules of G_d?


I think i'm gonna keep hanging out with the pagans. they seem less judgmental. plus - they can cook like nobody's bidness.
 
2012-10-24 05:16:42 PM

GAT_00: Funny he has to clarify them when the NRSC and Romney have already backed the original.


Hmmm.

FTFA: Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in a statement that "Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock and Mr. Mourdock's statements do not reflect Gov. Romney's views." Romney supports abortion in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the woman is in danger. Saul said Romney still supports Mourdock.

While you might be right, GAT_00, that isn't what TFA says.
 
2012-10-24 05:17:25 PM

Weaver95: I think i'm gonna keep hanging out with the pagans.


These two?

encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2012-10-24 05:17:46 PM

Weaver95: I think i'm gonna keep hanging out with the pagans. they seem less judgmental. plus - they can cook like nobody's bidness.


That's true, in my experience as well. I'm Pagan and I make a pretty nice chili for Football Sundays, if I do say so myself.
 
2012-10-24 05:35:26 PM
The fact that the GOP still exists has forced me to believe that God really isn't paying attention to us.
 
2012-10-24 05:37:53 PM

Lando Lincoln: The fact that the GOP still exists has forced me to believe that God really isn't paying attention to us.


or that the god(s) the Republicans worship isn't the Christian one.
 
2012-10-24 05:45:15 PM
I prefer to hang out with the heathens instead of the pagans.

Pagan community has too many drama llamas.
 
2012-10-24 05:46:40 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: I prefer to hang out with the heathens instead of the pagans.

Pagan community has too many drama llamas.


I haven't actually seen any issues among the pagans I know in my local area. they seem more laid back than the evangelical Christians.
 
2012-10-24 05:48:09 PM
forcing women to have sex = wrong

forcing women to have rape babies = right

The Lord works in mysterious ways
 
2012-10-24 05:48:12 PM
god likes rape
 
2012-10-24 05:48:51 PM

Pope Larry II: On, a serious note. How do these people keep getting elected?


Indiana. The answer is Indiana.

/Believe me, I know
//Lived here all my life
 
2012-10-24 05:49:17 PM

abhorrent1: god likes rape


some gods do, yes. the Christian one doesn't.
 
2012-10-24 05:49:23 PM
Let Jesus fark you!

img515.imageshack.us
 
2012-10-24 05:49:26 PM
Dear Republicans,

Yes we understood what you meant in the first. It just still was very stupid!!!
 
2012-10-24 05:50:00 PM
What this story needs is more Hitler.
 
2012-10-24 05:50:04 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: I prefer to hang out with the heathens instead of the pagans.

Pagan community has too many drama llamas.


This!
 
2012-10-24 05:50:23 PM
images.wikia.com
Because God wills it!
 
2012-10-24 05:50:42 PM

vpb: swaniefrmreddeer: So god intended for the rape victim to conceive, then he must have wanted her to be raped in the first place. Therefor god wants women to get rape-raped.

That's why it's legitimate.


Too legit to quit?
 
2012-10-24 05:51:02 PM
Dear Farkers:

You've been trolled hard by a Christian fundie idiot.

Sincerely,

the rest of the human race
 
2012-10-24 05:51:09 PM
So let's picket the next GOP member to get cancer and seek treatment for it, because 'CANCER CELLS ARE LIFE TOO.'
 
2012-10-24 05:52:08 PM

The Republican said during a debate against Democrat Joe Donnelly on Tuesday that when a woman becomes pregnant during rape "it is something that God intended."


Your god needs to force a woman through a horrific long-term experience just to get a baby?

Way to go. Dick.


No, that's not supposed to be a comma.
 
2012-10-24 05:52:49 PM

vernonFL: I don't see what the big deal is.

Have you read the Bible? The God that these people worship is all about rape.


Or torturing a faithful follower to win a petty bet. Basically God is Mortimer from Trading Places.
 
2012-10-24 05:52:57 PM
Ya' know, when they raped Jesus....
 
2012-10-24 05:53:02 PM
Conditioned to respond like the best of Pavlov's dogs.
 
2012-10-24 05:53:12 PM

abhorrent1: god likes rape


9 out of 10 people enjoy gang-rape.
 
2012-10-24 05:53:22 PM
HE failed the first rule of holes

1. Once you find yourself in one, stop digging.
 
jvl
2012-10-24 05:53:47 PM
For the grownups here, if there are any, here is what the gibberish coming out of his mouth means:

Some people believe in predestination. Some believe in free will. And some manage to believe in both, which leads to interesting logical conclusions.

Here's how the "both" works: people have free will, but God knows how it's going to work out if he lets people make their own decisions. Usually such people believe that the end result of history is destined. So the rape is a completely evil crime made when God allowed the rapist to choose whether to act good or act evilly. The net result though, simply adds to God's plan. In this way, he is saying that if someone is raped and chooses to have a baby, then the baby is (a) good and (b) meant to be and (c) the rapist is a criminal.

But please continue hyperventilating as if he had said something truly wacko like "women can naturally abort real rape."
 
2012-10-24 05:54:54 PM
I'm thinking that by 2024, there won't be enough Americans capable of this sort of double-think to vote Republican. Now if the US can keep the Republicans from realizing this until 2025, there's a good chance that the USA might not eat itself.
 
2012-10-24 05:55:05 PM
well, guess I'll run out and find me a hot chick to give a lord loving miracle too.
 
2012-10-24 05:55:24 PM
This is what happens when people fervently hold onto beliefs without bothering to, you know, reason them through to their obscenely logical conclusions.

Can't imagine how that would be a bad trait for a congressperson.
 
2012-10-24 05:55:38 PM

Weaver95: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: I prefer to hang out with the heathens instead of the pagans.

Pagan community has too many drama llamas.

I haven't actually seen any issues among the pagans I know in my local area. they seem more laid back than the evangelical Christians.


You fared better than I did in my day, then.
 
2012-10-24 05:55:52 PM

Somacandra: Weaver95: I think i'm gonna keep hanging out with the pagans. they seem less judgmental. plus - they can cook like nobody's bidness.

That's true, in my experience as well. I'm Pagan and I make a pretty nice chili for Football Sundays, if I do say so myself.


mmmm.... pagan chili....
 
2012-10-24 05:55:53 PM
www.wearysloth.com
R.I.P Buck Murdock
/Hot like the cigarette ashtray in an old airplane
 
2012-10-24 05:55:53 PM
Well, at least he's consistent. Psychopathic and misogynistic, but that's true of anyone who doesn't support rape/incest/life of the mother exemptions.
People who support those exemptions are hypocritical, internally illogical, misogynist, and anti-sex.
 
2012-10-24 05:55:58 PM
What about forceful artificial insemination? I need an answer soonish.
 
2012-10-24 05:56:12 PM
Sorry, Dick. Omnipotent + Omniscient + Has a Plan = blame. You don't get to fill out a checklist.
 
2012-10-24 05:56:19 PM

Pope Larry II: On, a serious note. How do these people keep getting elected?


Have you been to a red state? Low education and High religion equals sheep slaughtered to feed the 1%.
 
2012-10-24 05:56:33 PM
well i think the rape was intended to by humanity (god)

rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape
 
2012-10-24 05:56:48 PM
Remember this, GOP

You brought this on yourself

By ousting a long time "RINO" and courting the batshiat crazy American Taliban, you have no one to blame but yourselves for all the shiat currently being fanned on your candidates.
 
2012-10-24 05:57:27 PM
I'm not taking a position pro or con. But I wonder about people who talk about life beginning at conception and how abortion of these unborn innocents is murder, but then say abortion is OK if the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest. I realize that it would be traumatic for the woman in such circumstances, but how does the status of the child change to justify abortion? If the discomfort of the mother justifies it, why is that different than if the mother just doesn't want the pregnancy? I'm just puzzled at the disconnect in logic.
 
2012-10-24 05:57:41 PM
I thought that we had free will? Now you say that God made someone rape someone else?
 
2012-10-24 05:57:41 PM

jvl: Here's how the "both" works: people have free will, but God knows how it's going to work out if he lets people make their own decisions. Usually such people believe that the end result of history is destined. So the rape is a completely evil crime made when God allowed the rapist to choose whether to act good or act evilly. The net result though, simply adds to God's plan. In this way, he is saying that if someone is raped and chooses to have a baby, then the baby is (a) good and (b) meant to be and (c) the rapist is a criminal.


You do realize that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and that people are correct to point that out, right?

Not to mention that saying God would intentionally inflict additional horror and trauma on a rape victim and then call it "good" is a wildly insulting thing to accuse any god of doing.
 
2012-10-24 05:57:54 PM

Techhell: I'm thinking that by 2024, there won't be enough Americans capable of this sort of double-think


What makes you think people are getting any smarter?
 
2012-10-24 05:58:57 PM
This "God" fellow sure is an asshole.
 
2012-10-24 05:59:30 PM
*headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk* I'd call this shiatstain a moron, but I don't want to insult the morons.
 
2012-10-24 05:59:31 PM
SHUT UP, MOURDOCK! CRAZY FOO!
 
2012-10-24 06:00:02 PM

Pope Larry II: On, a serious note. How do these people keep getting elected?


Because this guy's vote counts also.
i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-24 06:00:22 PM
A girl who farks on a very first date is anything but fussy
But a girl who aborts a babe from rape is probably a hussy

Macaca. Macaca
The Senate's hard to get.
Macaca. Macaca
And not this year, I bet.

Macaca. Macaca
Tripped up by their own mouths
Macaca. Macaca.
Yes, even in the south.


/apologies to Meredith Wilson
 
2012-10-24 06:01:10 PM
Then why did God give women's bodies the ability to shut the whole thing down?
 
2012-10-24 06:01:22 PM
"I said life is precious. I believe life is precious. I believe rape is a brutal act. It is something that I abhor. That anyone could come away with any meaning other than what I just said is regrettable, and for that I apologize," Mourdock said, according to The Indianapolis Star's account of his news conference Wednesday.

/Hmmm..really? Let's revisit your original comment and see if i misunderstood.

The Republican said during a debate against Democrat Joe Donnelly on Tuesday that when a woman becomes pregnant during rape "it is something that God intended."


No, I'm still pretty sure you're still a neocon "Christian" fundy asshole.
 
2012-10-24 06:02:23 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: abhorrent1: god likes rape

9 out of 10 people enjoy gang-rape.


Holy Frankenfark that was awfully funny.
 
2012-10-24 06:02:34 PM

I Like Bread: Then why did God give women's bodies the ability to shut the whole thing down?


the body naturally (by god) analyzes the rhythm of the dick
and if it's out of whack the baby poops out the sperm
 
2012-10-24 06:02:50 PM
I'm actually a pretty hardcore liberal, and I'm actually willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as far as what he said.

What I don't understand though is how you believe in an omnipotent god who goes "oh, hey, she's getting raped. Um... let's make her pregnant" instead of "oh, hey, she's getting raped. Let's give him a convenient massive heart attack" -- and then go and worship said god.
 
2012-10-24 06:02:57 PM

SteelPeart: Dear Farkers:

You've been trolled hard by a Christian fundie idiot.

Sincerely,

the rest of the human race


That would only be true if he wasn't serious. The problem is, he IS serious.
 
2012-10-24 06:02:58 PM
This is the same guy who sued to stop the auto bailouts. How is it ANYONE in Indiana would vote for this idiot?
 
2012-10-24 06:04:22 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-24 06:04:24 PM

wambu: I'm not taking a position pro or con. But I wonder about people who talk about life beginning at conception and how abortion of these unborn innocents is murder, but then say abortion is OK if the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest. I realize that it would be traumatic for the woman in such circumstances, but how does the status of the child change to justify abortion? If the discomfort of the mother justifies it, why is that different than if the mother just doesn't want the pregnancy? I'm just puzzled at the disconnect in logic.


It's slut shaming at it's finest.
 
2012-10-24 06:04:33 PM

Weaver95: Pope Larry II: On, a serious note. How do these people keep getting elected?

by scaring the f*ck outta voters. that plus a lot of money from various interest groups (corporations, single issue advocacy, churches or whatnot). turns out that if you make people afraid, they'll stop thinking rationally and become easier to manipulate.


/Exactly..look at the Catholic Church...fine example of manipulation, power, and greed through fear.
 
2012-10-24 06:05:05 PM

Pope Larry II: On, a serious note. How do these people keep getting elected?


Because America.
 
2012-10-24 06:06:11 PM

chuckufarlie: HE failed the first rule of holes

1. Once you find yourself in one, stop digging.


No no no, dig UP stupid.
 
2012-10-24 06:06:16 PM
Dick Moredick?

/put more men on the job!
 
2012-10-24 06:06:43 PM

Xanlexian: This "God" fellow sure is an asshole.


Pretty much.
 
2012-10-24 06:06:59 PM
Apparently every rape is sacred and if a rape is halted, God get's quite irate.
 
2012-10-24 06:08:55 PM
If it's a legimate rape, the female body has ways (i.e. pepper spray, mace, taser) to try to shut the whole thing down.
 
2012-10-24 06:09:08 PM

jvl: For the grownups here, if there are any, here is what the gibberish coming out of his mouth means:

Some people believe in predestination. Some believe in free will. And some manage to believe in both, which leads to interesting logical conclusions.

Here's how the "both" works: people have free will, but God knows how it's going to work out if he lets people make their own decisions. Usually such people believe that the end result of history is destined. So the rape is a completely evil crime made when God allowed the rapist to choose whether to act good or act evilly. The net result though, simply adds to God's plan. In this way, he is saying that if someone is raped and chooses to have a baby, then the baby is (a) good and (b) meant to be and (c) the rapist is a criminal.



If god is truly omniscient, the moment before he created humans and/or imbued them with free will, god knew exactly what would happen as a result. Even if somehow free will is outside the sphere of god's knowledge, an omniscient entity would still be aware of every possible outcome stemming from the creation of humanity, including risks of pain, suffering, etc. Sure, you can make the argument that god thought that all the warm and fuzzies are worth the risk, but that STILL makes the most horrific thing you can think of part of the plan. The only way out of that is if you define god's plan as, "I'm gonna make these humans and see what happens," with no understanding of the risks and accepting that your notion of god is neither omniscient or omnipotent. Of course, this line of thinking, like yours supposes some form of logic - something in which the devout are often extremely lacking.

What it really boils down to here is: "does it justify my the ideals I already hold?" - god's plan. "Did it piss off enough people that I'll lose votes?" - "Not god's plan and not what I meant!"
 
2012-10-24 06:10:58 PM
The reason these people have such trouble is that this world contains such brutality that it must not contain any sentient all powerful benevolent beings. Not even 1, for all-powerful means it doesn't take two to do anything.

And yet, they persist in believing in the one thing that can be proven not to exist. You can't, for example, prove that there isn't a planet of unicorns somewhere in the universe. But all-powerful benevolent beings can be proven to not exist, because their existence would negate the existence of certain other things.

If a woman is raped in a small room, you can be certain that no powerful yet benevolent beings were in that small room with her, for the very definition of a benevolent powerful being is that they use that power to prevent such things from happening. Furthermore, if a man rapes his own child, you can say that the child definitely does not have a good biological father, for the child can only have one biological father, and the very definition of a good father precludes the idea of rape.

A benevolent god would not permit a million innocent children to shiat themselves to death from dysentery. That's just so awful that any all-powerful being who observes it must not be benevolent, and any benevolent being who sees it must not be all-powerful.

So, this man's entire worldview is incorrect, and if it seems at times logically inconsistent or incoherent, it's because it must be incoherent to include such brutality and the idea of a benevolent all-powerful, all-knowing deity.
 
2012-10-24 06:11:45 PM
Why is Conservative God such a dick?
 
2012-10-24 06:12:29 PM
WWJR?
 
2012-10-24 06:12:44 PM

jvl: Here's how the "both" works: people have free will, but God knows how it's going to work out if he lets people make their own decisions. Usually such people believe that the end result of history is destined. So the rape is a completely evil crime made when God allowed the rapist to choose whether to act good or act evilly. The net result though, simply adds to God's plan. In this way, he is saying that if someone is raped and chooses to have a baby, then the baby is (a) good and (b) meant to be and (c) the rapist is a criminal.


So then how is abortion and the baby not being born is completely out of gods hands unlike the child from the rape?
 
2012-10-24 06:13:20 PM
We are all about defending families. Rape families.
 
2012-10-24 06:13:27 PM
Sorry I'm late.
 
2012-10-24 06:15:36 PM

PanicMan: Xanlexian: This "God" fellow sure is an asshole.

Pretty much.


That's why when your girlfriend comes home, sees you raping her Mom and demands, "what the fark are you doing?!", you can say, "I'm being mysterious." 

/not mine.
 
2012-10-24 06:16:00 PM

Diogenes: We should decriminalize rape. The poor men we're prosecuting are just fulfilling God's will.

Do you punish people who give you gifts?


Never look a gift rape in the mouth.
 
2012-10-24 06:16:03 PM
Oh Christ, I saw the Onion article and now this. I don't know which is...well, I just don't farking know any more.
 
2012-10-24 06:16:12 PM
Maybe the Lord intended for there to be abortions. Why do so many people claim to know what the Lord intends?
 
2012-10-24 06:16:23 PM

dahmers love zombie: [i.imgur.com image 850x296]


*Sigh* Fairly sure "forcible rape" is common legal terminology. As opposed to statutory rape, where it's considered rape regardless of the willingness of involved parties. Doesn't quite belong on the chart with the other derp.
 
2012-10-24 06:16:31 PM

fusillade762: This is the same guy who sued to stop the auto bailouts. How is it ANYONE in Indiana would vote for this idiot?


I believe I may have found the answer to your question.

/lives in Missouri so I'm asking the same think about all the Rape Akin supporters as well
 
2012-10-24 06:16:49 PM

Vodka Zombie: "Dear Jesus.My wife and I can't make a baby. Can you please send someone to rape her?" #DesperateRepublicanPrayers- Daniel Poehlman (@DPoem) October 24, 2012


That's a funny right there.

Mourdock should STFU and move on.
 
2012-10-24 06:18:17 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com

I want to set the record straight. I thought the cop was a prostitute.
 
2012-10-24 06:18:26 PM
playingrickymorton.files.wordpress.com

This guy?
 
2012-10-24 06:19:55 PM
This is the rapiest political season I've ever seen.
 
2012-10-24 06:20:18 PM

that bosnian sniper: Oh Christ, I saw the Onion article and now this. I don't know which is...well, I just don't farking know any more.


This entire election season has made Poe's Law into Poe's Ironclad Rule of Life.
 
2012-10-24 06:21:23 PM

wambu: I'm not taking a position pro or con. But I wonder about people who talk about life beginning at conception and how abortion of these unborn innocents is murder, but then say abortion is OK if the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest. I realize that it would be traumatic for the woman in such circumstances, but how does the status of the child change to justify abortion? If the discomfort of the mother justifies it, why is that different than if the mother just doesn't want the pregnancy? I'm just puzzled at the disconnect in logic.


So I'm not really one of those people, because I think that abortion should be legal in all circumstances. However: while I do come down pretty firmly on that side of the line, in some sense I'm not that far away from it -- I'm actually way more sympathetic to the pro-life argument than I am to, say, the anti-gay-marriage or anti-Marijuana-legalization "arguments".

Basically I base that reasoning on the following. I do think that the pro-life crowd has an argument that the fetus has some right to life -- and after a few (deliberately vague) months, that's pretty strong. But of course that comes in conflict with the mother's right to make medical decisions about her body. So it's a place where two "people"'s rights come into conflict, and we have to weigh out that conflict. For pro-lifers, the fetus as wins out in that balance act. For pro-choicers, the mother wins out.

For me, at least until the infamous "late term" period, I fall onto the mother's side. However, I will admit that the margin is close. And because of this, I think that clear, reasonable choices that the mother has made like "oh, let's not use a condom" (in concert, of course, with the father) serve to waive some of the mother's right -- and that moves the scales closer to the side of the fetus. For me, it's not close enough to spill over to the other side -- but I can definitely see how it could be.
 
2012-10-24 06:24:22 PM
That's one farked-up god you Christians worship.
 
2012-10-24 06:24:23 PM

jvl: For the grownups here, if there are any, here is what the gibberish coming out of his mouth means:

Some people believe in predestination. Some believe in free will. And some manage to believe in both, which leads to interesting logical conclusions.

Here's how the "both" works: people have free will, but God knows how it's going to work out if he lets people make their own decisions. Usually such people believe that the end result of history is destined. So the rape is a completely evil crime made when God allowed the rapist to choose whether to act good or act evilly. The net result though, simply adds to God's plan. In this way, he is saying that if someone is raped and chooses to have a baby, then the baby is (a) good and (b) meant to be and (c) the rapist is a criminal.

But please continue hyperventilating as if he had said something truly wacko like "women can naturally abort real rape."


A) No on is "hyperventilating". We are pointing and laughing at a dipshiat!

B) Religious right keep saying it's not right to help the poor through the government (even though Jesus said to help the poor) because they say it is forcing others to do what is right instead of them deciding. So why is it ok to force others to do what is bibilically right about abortion and gays through the government (two things both Jesus Christ never even spoke about)?
 
2012-10-24 06:24:52 PM

swaniefrmreddeer: So god intended for the rape victim to conceive, then he must have wanted her to be raped in the first place. Therefor god wants women to get rape-raped.


Exactly. That these scumbags reveal in their more honest moments such comfort with rape shouldn't surprise any of us though; God never asked Mary for her consent either, after all.
 
2012-10-24 06:25:44 PM
If something is god's will (the conception of a baby) and it's so much god's will that a woman doesn't even get consent, wouldn't the abortion just magically fail to work? Can a person subvert the will of a being so all-powerful that a baby can be born even when the mother doesn't want to have sex with anyone?
 
2012-10-24 06:25:53 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-24 06:25:57 PM

SteelPeart: Dear Farkers:

You've been trolled hard by a Christian fundie idiot.

Sincerely,

the rest of the human race


It really bothers me that the word troll is so overused and misused these days.
 
2012-10-24 06:25:59 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: That's one farked-up god you Christians worship.


You know who is a cool person? That Jesus Christ guy. He never spoke about abortion or hating gays. In fact he talked about helping the poor and loving EVERYONE. No wonder these guys never actually seem to give a shiat about what he said.
 
2012-10-24 06:27:17 PM

machodonkeywrestler: SteelPeart: Dear Farkers:

You've been trolled hard by a Christian fundie idiot.

Sincerely,

the rest of the human race

It really bothers me that the word troll is so overused and misused these days.


Me too. Now people use it for "someone saying something stupid but they actually believe" or even "someone makes a point that makes me mad because I don't have a good answer".
 
2012-10-24 06:28:52 PM

Vodka Zombie: "Dear Jesus.My wife and I can't make a baby. Can you please send someone to rape her?" #DesperateRepublicanPrayers- Daniel Poehlman (@DPoem) October 24, 2012


If your wife isn't getting pregnant when you have sex with her, surely it is because you are raping her? And if she could then get pregnant with a rapists baby, than means she must have wanted to be raped by him.

/Akin logic
 
2012-10-24 06:28:57 PM
Maybe he's a Kant fan and is thinking of God in the transcendent form.

...lol jk this dude is retarded
 
2012-10-24 06:29:23 PM
Legitimate Rape rears it's ugly head again, rephrased, soften, so as not to stir the gentle sensibilities of God's future rape-child vessels. As Paul Ryan would say, it's for your own good God chose you to bear his child. I guess, God is rape when a child is conceived.
 
2012-10-24 06:30:18 PM
Republicans, when anyone asks you a question even tangentially related to rape, your only answer should be "Rape is bad" followed by a pivot to the economy. Don't try to explain your views, don't try to equivocate, don't try to define your own terms. Just say "rape is bad" and pivot. "Rape is bad" and pivot.
 
2012-10-24 06:30:47 PM
www.anomalousmaterial.com

Also seeking Murdoch.
 
2012-10-24 06:31:00 PM
Monday: "God demanded the birth of this baby, rape or no rape!"

Tuesday: "No you can't have any government assistance, if you couldn't afford a baby you shouldn't have had one!"

Republican logic.
 
2012-10-24 06:31:27 PM
Onion article that I thought was pure satire.

/my mistake
 
2012-10-24 06:31:43 PM

Shrugging Atlas: Corvus: You know who is a cool person? That Jesus Christ guy. He never spoke about abortion or hating gays. In fact he talked about helping the poor and loving EVERYONE. No wonder these guys never actually seem to give a shiat about what he said.

One of my favorite moments in the life of Jesus....

[i.imgur.com image 600x656]


It's crazy how these Ayn Rand worshipers call themselves "Christians" but their beliefs are the antithesis of his teachings.
 
2012-10-24 06:32:34 PM

evaned: I'm actually a pretty hardcore liberal, and I'm actually willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as far as what he said.

What I don't understand though is how you believe in an omnipotent god who goes "oh, hey, she's getting raped. Um... let's make her pregnant" instead of "oh, hey, she's getting raped. Let's give him a convenient massive heart attack" -- and then go and worship said god.


Or even "oh, hey, she's going to get raped at 3pm by... okay, he'll have a heart attack at 1pm, cool."
 
2012-10-24 06:33:42 PM
Hey, cut God some slack. It's not like he is omniscient or something.

How could he know that the baby he wants would entail a rape or even a rape-murder?

And even if he did, you can't expect the Divinity to be omnipotent.

And how many of you are perfectly benevolent and incapable of spite, cruelty or greedy for little Soul Stickers to add to your Collector's Book of Long-suffering Innocent Baby Souls? If you are not perfect, don't criticize anything that I wouldn' criticize. He certainly can't admit he is wrong. Didn't you ever see that movie with Alanis Morrisette incarnated as Irony with a capital I. What was that thing called? It had George Carlin in it as a bishop or something. Oh, yeah. Dogma. You see, if God admitted he was wrong about something, it would cause everything God made infallibly to instantly become nothing infalliably. Then it would finally make sense, which is absurd, because it never did when it was EVERYTHING.

Really.

Don't they teach kids anything in Church any more? I mean apart from "shut up and do what you're told and maybe Daddy won't have to beat the living crap out of you and rape your sisters all night long till you bang your head against the wall in hopes of becoming deaf"? They still teach that I'm sure. A dog returns to its vomit.

Because God is Total Perfection and therefore gets to pick and choose between those parts of the Universe that are His and those bits which don't really count toward His Perfect Game of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

There is no paradox or self-contradiction whatsoever in the concept of "Perfect God, Completely Farked Up Creation". We have not over-built Providence worse than Hong Kong, where they start knocking skyscrapers down before they have finished putting them up.

Shut up.

Wait until your Father gets home.
 
2012-10-24 06:33:57 PM

PanicMan: Xanlexian: This "God" fellow sure is an asshole.

Pretty much.


The Christian definition of this "god" fellow makes it seem as if it is a total ass hole.
 
2012-10-24 06:34:52 PM
Lol... Oh, please keep talking, you colossal shiat heel.
 
2012-10-24 06:34:53 PM

Pope Larry II: On, a serious note. How do these people keep getting elected?


Never underestimate the power of bigoted idiocy.
 
2012-10-24 06:34:57 PM

evaned: I do think that the pro-life crowd has an argument that the fetus has some right to life -- and after a few (deliberately vague) months, that's pretty strong [...] And because of this, I think that clear, reasonable choices that the mother has made like "oh, let's not use a condom" (in concert, of course, with the father) serve to waive some of the mother's right -- and that moves the scales closer to the side of the fetus. For me, it's not close enough to spill over to the other side -- but I can definitely see how it could be.


See, that is the problem. "Pro-life" people are also vehemently anti-birth control. You'd think a pro-life person would be in favor of birth control, so fetuses are not being made before the parent(s) is willing and ready, but they're not. They're just misogynists, plain and simple.

No right to abort an unwanted pregnancy, no right to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Hell, they're against teaching kids how to have sex (which whether you admit it or not kids are wont to do) without pregnancy, or while minimizing the risk of STI. These are the same people into slut-shaming and rape apology, against women's sexual liberation or sexual positivity of any kind whatsoever. It's misogyny, and there's no other excuse for it, and certainly no defense from a rational, human rights-based perspective.
 
2012-10-24 06:35:23 PM

Lord Jubjub: Onion article that I thought was pure satire.

/my mistake


At this rate I think he's THIS close to making that exact argument.
 
2012-10-24 06:37:18 PM
And now a message from the Republican Party:

Rape is a gift from God.

This has been a message from the Republican Party, thank you and goodnight!
 
2012-10-24 06:38:22 PM
Is your God so weak that a doctor with some pills or a small vacuum can upset his intergalactic plans or is it more that, really, all will turn out according to his plan any way - including, sometimes, abortion? God allowed man the technology to make abortions safe, did he not?
 
2012-10-24 06:38:59 PM

jvl: For the grownups here, if there are any, here is what the gibberish coming out of his mouth means:

Some people believe in predestination. Some believe in free will. And some manage to believe in both, which leads to interesting logical conclusions.

Here's how the "both" works: people have free will, but God knows how it's going to work out if he lets people make their own decisions. Usually such people believe that the end result of history is destined. So the rape is a completely evil crime made when God allowed the rapist to choose whether to act good or act evilly. The net result though, simply adds to God's plan. In this way, he is saying that if someone is raped and chooses to have a baby, then the baby is (a) good and (b) meant to be and (c) the rapist is a criminal.

But please continue hyperventilating as if he had said something truly wacko like "women can naturally abort real rape."



Grown ups know that women exist. Seems like you and Dicky could care less about their position in the matter.
 
2012-10-24 06:39:23 PM
"Well, the bad news is we haven't caught your rapist. But the good news is--you're gonna have a BAY-BEEE!!!"
 
2012-10-24 06:39:47 PM

dahmers love zombie: [i.imgur.com image 850x296]


Going into my stash. Wow. just wow.
 
2012-10-24 06:40:54 PM
Dick moredick? What kind of name is that

/// but strangely accurate
 
2012-10-24 06:41:39 PM
So the rape is caused by the rapist, but the pregnancy is caused by God.

And when there's a spontaneous miscarriage following a rape related pregnancy?

I guess God just has a weird sense of humor or something.
 
2012-10-24 06:42:46 PM
I'm a little surprised by what looks to me like a general failure to understand Christian dogma with respect to "God's plan." I'm an atheist, through and through, but I understand that the people who believe this stuff (well, the serious ones, anyway; the ones who've at least heard of Aquinas) don't think of God's plan as some kind of agenda, some sequence of predestined events, but rather something much bigger than that - perhaps so big that we can't even fully comprehend its actual nature. It's big enough to allow for free will and to allow for evil, to allow each to work without intervention, and yet finally serve God's will.

Like I said, I don't believe any of this stuff but I certainly understand it, and I don't think it's facially absurd (in my opinion there are plenty of other things about Christianity and the belief in God that are facially absurd, which is why I'm an atheist).
 
2012-10-24 06:43:03 PM
So let me this straight, God wills people to die in horrific deaths (even in genocide), God wills young children to die of painful cancer, God even wills babies from cases of rape.... But yet, still doesn't will said act of rape.

cognitive dissonance is one hell of a drug....
 
2012-10-24 06:44:26 PM

Diogenes: We should decriminalize rape. The poor men we're prosecuting are just fulfilling God's will.

Do you punish people who give you gifts?


No, not all rape, just rape that results in pregnancy. THAT'S god's will.
 
2012-10-24 06:44:55 PM

that bosnian sniper: See, that is the problem. "Pro-life" people are also vehemently anti-birth control.


This I actually agree with. If Romney was like "yeah, I'd like to see abortion illegal except for rape/incest, but let's expand funding for Planned Parenthood's other services to reduce the need", I'd actually start to, I dunno, sorta respect the guy. Toss in an "let's repeal federal marijuana laws because 'states' rights' and 'the federal budget'" and a couple other things and I could actually see myself coming around to his side.

But no, I can't recall any politician making a statement like that. (Not that I necessarily would have if someone did.)
 
2012-10-24 06:46:02 PM
God should mind his business and stay out of politics. There are plenty of sports games he needs to be at, or failing that he could design some plays for Tebow.
 
2012-10-24 06:46:22 PM

jvl: Here's how the "both" works: people have free will, but God knows how it's going to work out if he lets people make their own decisions. Usually such people believe that the end result of history is destined. So the rape is a completely evil crime made when God allowed the rapist to choose whether to act good or act evilly. The net result though, simply adds to God's plan. In this way, he is saying that if someone is raped and chooses to have a baby, then the baby is (a) good and (b) meant to be and (c) the rapist is a criminal.


Yeah, I'm going to agree that this makes no sense. If the rape baby was "meant to be," then so was the rape. I can draw out the symbolic logic if you want...

On the bright side, Calvinists will be fine with the idea of someone doing an evil act as part of God's plan then being condemned for it, so you've got that going for you, which is nice.
 
2012-10-24 06:46:22 PM

jvl: For the grownups here, if there are any, here is what the gibberish coming out of his mouth means:

Some people believe in predestination. Some believe in free will. And some manage to believe in both, which leads to interesting logical conclusions.

Here's how the "both" works: people have free will, but God knows how it's going to work out if he lets people make their own decisions. Usually such people believe that the end result of history is destined. So the rape is a completely evil crime made when God allowed the rapist to choose whether to act good or act evilly. The net result though, simply adds to God's plan. In this way, he is saying that if someone is raped and chooses to have a baby, then the baby is (a) good and (b) meant to be and (c) the rapist is a criminal.

But please continue hyperventilating as if he had said something truly wacko like "women can naturally abort real rape."


And that thinking is ludicrous. God's plan includes the child being born, but not its conception? Was god was just going to magic his sperm into her, or perhaps, if the man hadn't chosen to rape her (as a result of the life and upbringing which God the omnipotent planned out for him), then god would have brought them together via seredipity, fallen in love, and advanced God's plans consensually? That's no argument, it's a farce of one; a bad joke told by a shiatty clown. People who believe this tripe tie themselves into ridiculous logic-knots trying to justify absurdity but absurdity it remains; reason cuts through it as easily as it did at Gordium for those of us not bound by the fanciful suppositions needed to support primitive fictions.

And how can god -an entity required to be both good and omnipotent- be god if it works through evil? To allow evil you can prevent is to be its accomplice, and to make due with evil you cannot stop is to be limited. A god who would do what you have outlined either would not be good, or would not be omnipotent, and thus it is no better than the pagan gods precedent Christians mocked as magical drunks and divine adulterers.
 
2012-10-24 06:46:34 PM

BMulligan: the ones who've at least heard of Aquinas) don't think of God's plan as some kind of agenda, some sequence of predestined events, but rather something much bigger than that - perhaps so big that we can't even fully comprehend its actual nature


What a perfect way to say that a plan exists without ever having to provide any details about it or proof it exists! A God we can't see doing things we can't understand, and yet it's all part of a plan! BRILLIANT
 
2012-10-24 06:47:30 PM

GhostFish: So the rape is caused by the rapist, but the pregnancy is caused by God.

And when there's a spontaneous miscarriage following a rape related pregnancy?

I guess God just has a weird sense of humor or something.


Well, if the attempts to criminalize miscarriages in places like Oklahoma are any indication, that goes back to being the woman's fault.
 
2012-10-24 06:47:55 PM

jvl: Here's how the "both" works: people have free will, but God knows how it's going to work out if he lets people make their own decisions. Usually such people believe that the end result of history is destined. So the rape is a completely evil crime made when God allowed the rapist to choose whether to act good or act evilly. The net result though, simply adds to God's plan. In this way, he is saying that if someone is raped and chooses to have a baby, then the baby is (a) good and (b) meant to be and (c) the rapist is a criminal.


OK, so I'm hardly a proper student of quantum physics, but as I understand it, a wave function can be in multiple states at once until it is observed. The act of observation collapses it to the one possibility that becomes the reality.

This seems much like that - a guy could either rape, or not, and supposedly has the free will to choose, but as soon as God observes the situation, it is decided which he will do, since God knows how it'll work out. So, in actual fact, he doesn't REALLY have free will at all.

Of course, abb3w will probably be along in a minute to tell me how wrong I am, and how I'm wrong, but that's ok.
 
2012-10-24 06:48:53 PM
Oh, so your God doesn't condone rape. He condones psychological torture and permanent physical change without any consent of the woman after rape.

That makes it all better!
 
2012-10-24 06:50:35 PM

Shrugging Atlas: Corvus: You know who is a cool person? That Jesus Christ guy. He never spoke about abortion or hating gays. In fact he talked about helping the poor and loving EVERYONE. No wonder these guys never actually seem to give a shiat about what he said.

One of my favorite moments in the life of Jesus....

[i.imgur.com image 600x656]


And that is why Troll-Jegus is Best-Jegus.
 
2012-10-24 06:51:47 PM
What if my God doesn't give a f*ck about pregnancies and abortions and just kinda sits back and watches the sh*t show? Shouldn't I not be under your legislative jackboot you theofascist poopstain?
 
2012-10-24 06:53:45 PM
Even my right wing nut-job spouse (whom I adore for his compassion and giant cock) has this to say about abortion: " I believe that sometimes abortion is necessary and that necessary means different things to different people. I'm not qualified to say what is necessary and what isn't, so I support any woman whose need for abortion is so great that she is willing to have that on her conscience. No woman gets an abortion she doesn't believe is necessary. God understands this."

This ^ is all Republican politicians should ever say about abortion at any time.
 
2012-10-24 06:53:48 PM
God knows the rape will happen, and he allows some good to come out of the evil of man by causing a pregnancy.

The kicker is that God would also know that an abortion will happen in cases where the woman chooses that route.

He knew the rape would happen. He knew the abortion would happen. So where is the good coming out of any of this?
 
2012-10-24 06:54:15 PM

theMagni: evaned: I'm actually a pretty hardcore liberal, and I'm actually willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as far as what he said.

What I don't understand though is how you believe in an omnipotent god who goes "oh, hey, she's getting raped. Um... let's make her pregnant" instead of "oh, hey, she's getting raped. Let's give him a convenient massive heart attack" -- and then go and worship said god.

Or even "oh, hey, she's going to get raped at 3pm by... okay, he'll have a heart attack at 1pm, cool."


In some ways I like my idea better. Wikipedia says there were almost 90,000 reported rapes in the US in 2008; if for the sake of easy head math, let's say 300 per day. Imagine the psychological impact that a story saying "300 people died of heart attacks the previous day while attempting rape, and none succeeded" would have. An extra 300 heart attack deaths per day would go relatively unnoticed for a bit (there are ~2,200 currently), and the connection to the sudden absence of rapes would be a lot harder to discern.

Your way has the benefit of even those... let's say, 600 people (it might take rapists a couple days to get the message) avoiding the traumatic experience, but hey, we're talking about hypotheticals here anyway.
 
2012-10-24 06:54:31 PM
playingrickymorton.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-10-24 06:54:37 PM

gadian: Even my right wing nut-job spouse (whom I adore for his compassion and giant cock)


Husband-like typing detected.
 
2012-10-24 06:54:42 PM

vpb: So the "I was on a mission from God" defense won't work?


I still like the premise of a comment made in the earlier article.

If God intended a baby to be born from rape how can you say God did not provide the knowledge of how to perform abortions to the creator of abortions? How do we know abortions are not Gods will? Who are you to say it is not Gods will since his will cannot be known?
 
2012-10-24 06:54:42 PM
The wages of sin is death. Or maybe rape and pregnancy. Or maybe rape. Or maybe rape and death. But probably not death and pregnancy.

But the Republican God is a powerful god. If he chooses to give a child to a necrophiliac and his partner, whom am I to question the workings of the Divine.
 
2012-10-24 06:57:45 PM
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-10-24 06:57:57 PM

GhostFish: God knows the rape will happen, and he allows some good to come out of the evil of man by causing a pregnancy.

The kicker is that God would also know that an abortion will happen in cases where the woman chooses that route.

He knew the rape would happen. He knew the abortion would happen. So where is the good coming out of any of this?


There's a dude getting laid I suppose....

/I'm actually sorry for that snark to the point I almost didn't make it
 
2012-10-24 06:58:46 PM
Walking around the block, I caught a lawn sign for our GOP State Rep candidate. Her campaign slogan, and I kid you not: 'With God all things are possible.' And this is for the state rep of suburban Cleveland.

I almost feel like we're this close to having teenage girls getting stoned to death.
 
2012-10-24 06:59:17 PM
So does God have a pre-set agenda of who will fark who to make babies, and if they don't naturally hook up it moves to rape to get that baby made?
 
2012-10-24 06:59:45 PM

dahmers love zombie: [i.imgur.com image 850x296]


may i borrow that...i feel like starting a facebook war before i go on vacation
 
2012-10-24 07:00:14 PM

Kazrath: How do we know abortions are not Gods will?


Reminds me of this oldie but goodie:

The area was flooding so this man climbed up on his roof. When he got to the top of his roof, he saw no one around, so he prayed to God to rescue him. Soon a guy came in a boat and offered to save him. The man on the roof explained to him that no, God was going to save him, so the man in the boat left. Then a helicopter flew over the house, dropped a ladder down and called to the man to climb up. The man on the roof politely said no thanks and explained to them that God was going to save him, so they too left. The man waited and watched the water rise. Eventually he had to swim. He kept swimming until he was so tired that he drowned. After he died, he saw God and asked Him why He hadn't saved him from the flood. To which God replied, I sent you a boat and a helicopter and you rejected them both.
 
2012-10-24 07:00:18 PM
Reposting from other thread because
www.mattbors.com
 
2012-10-24 07:00:41 PM

jvl: Here's how the "both" works: people have free will, but God knows how it's going to work out if he lets people make their own decisions.


If God already knows how everything is going to play out, why does Man constantly surprise and piss him off? From Eve and the apple to God flooding the entire planet, God is anything but omniscient.

The same argument applies to Q in Star Trek.
 
2012-10-24 07:01:23 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: gadian: Even my right wing nut-job spouse (whom I adore for his compassion and giant cock)

Husband-like typing detected.


:D I get told that my descriptions of him are sometimes indicitive that I must not love or respect him very much. So, I feel I must clarify that even though he's a complete nut-job, sometimes racist, birther, gun nut, he's got some...er...finer points.
 
2012-10-24 07:01:47 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: I almost feel like we're this close to having teenage girls getting stoned to death.


Reefer Madness!!
 
2012-10-24 07:02:57 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: If it's a legimate rape, the female body has ways (i.e. pepper spray, mace, taser) to try to shut the whole thing down.



Colt.45 semi-automatic. Nature's 911.
 
2012-10-24 07:04:36 PM

jvl: Derp.


For one thing, if what you said is true then God is complicit in countless instances of rape across history and continues to be.

Second, taking the question of predestination out of it which leads to all sorts of ethical questions related to the nature and ends of a deity, the question is over the woman has the right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. The correlative to what you claim is that if a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy, it is also good and adds to God's plan, if the question of God's plan is so open-ended to be dependent upon the sum of human activity as a function of free will.

The other correlative, of course, is that a man's choice to rape a woman must be inherently good and adds to God's plan, one way or another. You don't remove "good" and degrees of perfection from creation for one act of evil only to add them later and claim the whole is still greater or more perfect than the sum of its parts (read, Boethius). So yes, in that case, you are still making the claim, and working from the hidden premise, that rape is good and part of God's plan.

Third, what are you saying here? The man has agency to rape a woman, but the woman has no agency to terminate the pregnancy? If free will is the ultimate arbiter of human activity, the woman has license to terminate her pregnancy as an act of free will -- just as much if not more than the man's agency to rape her in the first place. If the question is legal rights and responsibilities, and agency to act through free will, set against the social consequences of that act, typified by criminalizing activity and punishing those that commit the act, why ought the rapist have agency where the victimized woman has not?
 
2012-10-24 07:05:52 PM

dletter: swaniefrmreddeer: So god intended for the rape victim to conceive, then he must have wanted her to be raped in the first place. Therefor god wants women to get rape-raped.

You forget, "God" is responsible for anything that they do want to have happen, and "Satan" or something else outside of God's control is responsible for the other parts. So, Satan raped the person, and God just decided to make it a little better, because kids always make everything better!

It is all part of the "Making things up from inferences as I go along to fit my needs" bible study.


You know, I'll never understand how Christians think of themselves as monotheists. So many of them ascribe so much power and control to Satan that he must be considered a secondary deity of some sort.
 
2012-10-24 07:06:21 PM

Weaver95: abhorrent1: god likes rape

some gods do, yes. the Christian one doesn't.


Sure he does. He explicitly allows sex slaves.
 
2012-10-24 07:07:07 PM

nekulor: Why is Conservative God such a dick?


Because it's a bunch of assholes telling others what god thinks, instead of reiterating any teachings of examples of god, such as Jesus. This is the perfect example of a wolf in christian clothing, which should not reflect on christians as a whole, as this sort of thing typically does on fark.
 
2012-10-24 07:08:57 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: This is the perfect example of a wolf in christian clothing, which should not reflect on christians as a whole, as this sort of thing typically does on fark.


Let me know when the Christian voting block starts to reject people like this, rather than support them.
 
2012-10-24 07:09:14 PM

Flappyhead: chuckufarlie: HE failed the first rule of holes

1. Once you find yourself in one, stop digging.

No no no, dig UP stupid.


If you are that deep by the time you find yourself in a hole, it is to late.
 
2012-10-24 07:10:59 PM

mediablitz: Sure he does. He explicitly allows sex slaves.


It does seem strange when you forget that the bible is a compilation of books, assembled by ancient politicians. If you care about the facts, however, it's fairly easy to discern what books should be ignored, and what ignored books should have been included. *protip* start with Jesus and cut and paste from there.
 
2012-10-24 07:13:35 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: mediablitz: Sure he does. He explicitly allows sex slaves.

It does seem strange when you forget that the bible is a compilation of books, assembled by ancient politicians. If you care about the facts, however, it's fairly easy to discern what books should be ignored, and what ignored books should have been included. *protip* start with Jesus and cut and paste from there.


*better protip* Ignore all of it. The collective fantasy stories of an ancient society of goat-herders has no relevance to real life.
 
jvl
2012-10-24 07:17:09 PM

Martian_Astronomer: jvl: Here's how the "both" works: people have free will, but God knows how it's going to work out if he lets people make their own decisions. Usually such people believe that the end result of history is destined. So the rape is a completely evil crime made when God allowed the rapist to choose whether to act good or act evilly. The net result though, simply adds to God's plan. In this way, he is saying that if someone is raped and chooses to have a baby, then the baby is (a) good and (b) meant to be and (c) the rapist is a criminal.

Yeah, I'm going to agree that this makes no sense. If the rape baby was "meant to be," then so was the rape. I can draw out the symbolic logic if you want...



I'm not Calvinist, so I have trouble wrapping my head around the concept of every little detail of the universe being intended, as opposed to the larger strokes.
 
2012-10-24 07:17:31 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: It does seem strange when you forget that the bible is a compilation of books, assembled by ancient politicians. If you care about the facts, however, it's fairly easy to discern what books should be ignored, and what ignored books should have been included. *protip* start with Jesus and cut and paste from there.


If you care about the facts, you should be ignoring the Bible completely.
 
2012-10-24 07:18:05 PM

that bosnian sniper: Third, what are you saying here? The man has agency to rape a woman, but the woman has no agency to terminate the pregnancy? If free will is the ultimate arbiter of human activity, the woman has license to terminate her pregnancy as an act of free will -- just as much if not more than the man's agency to rape her in the first place. If the question is legal rights and responsibilities, and agency to act through free will, set against the social consequences of that act, typified by criminalizing activity and punishing those that commit the act, why ought the rapist have agency where the victimized woman has not?


To be fair, he doesn't really: it's not like rape is legal or condoned by society (except in prisons, apparently).
 
jvl
2012-10-24 07:19:00 PM

Freudian_slipknot: jvl: Here's how the "both" works: people have free will, but God knows how it's going to work out if he lets people make their own decisions. Usually such people believe that the end result of history is destined. So the rape is a completely evil crime made when God allowed the rapist to choose whether to act good or act evilly. The net result though, simply adds to God's plan. In this way, he is saying that if someone is raped and chooses to have a baby, then the baby is (a) good and (b) meant to be and (c) the rapist is a criminal.

You do realize that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and that people are correct to point that out, right?


It makes perfect Philosophical sense. Keep in mind I don't belong to that particular school of philosophy...

Not to mention that saying God would intentionally inflict additional horror and trauma on a rape victim and then call it "good" is a wildly insulting thing to accuse any god of doing.

Good things from bad acts? That's life.
 
2012-10-24 07:22:34 PM
God can do anything he wants, and I personally am the person who will decide what he is and is not responsible for!
 
jvl
2012-10-24 07:23:54 PM

Corvus: A) No on is "hyperventilating". We are pointing and laughing at a dipshiat!


Oh you optimist! Wait for it! Here it comes!

RevMercutio: Grown ups know that women exist. Seems like you and Dicky could care less about their position in the matter.

that bosnian sniper: jvl: Derp.


Ah, that's better! It's always nice to know even a mere discussion of schools of Philosophy on Fark will lead to accusations of gibberish and women-hating. Well done!
 
2012-10-24 07:26:20 PM
By the way Romney's stance was the same on abortion only weeks ago. In fact his stance was even if the mother's life was in danger she shouldn't get an abortion.
 
jvl
2012-10-24 07:26:30 PM

Mugato: jvl: Here's how the "both" works: people have free will, but God knows how it's going to work out if he lets people make their own decisions.

If God already knows how everything is going to play out, why does Man constantly surprise and piss him off? From Eve and the apple to God flooding the entire planet, God is anything but omniscient.

The same argument applies to Q in Star Trek.


You know, this really does make a lot more sense if talk about Q rather than God.
 
2012-10-24 07:27:10 PM
Thank god society has finally progressed in this country to the point where expressing backwards, asinine religious dogma is actually considered an embarrassing, career ending gaffe. We are about 20 years away from an atheist President and about 40 away from religion being a sad anachronism confined to the f***ing Ozarks.
 
2012-10-24 07:27:29 PM

SteelPeart: Dear Farkers:

You've been trolled hard by a Christian fundie idiot.

Sincerely,

the rest of the human race


It's not trolling when the speaker means what he says. Plus, he is inches from being elected to the U.S. Senate (well maybe feet or yards now, but no matter). Sorry that you don't find this to be meaningful.
 
2012-10-24 07:27:39 PM

jvl: Good things from bad acts? That's life.


Right but then how abort the abortion. Isn't that part of "god's plan" too? Or somehow that's under the radar?
 
2012-10-24 07:28:11 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: *better protip* Ignore all of it. The collective fantasy stories of an ancient society of goat-herders has no relevance to real life.


mediablitz: If you care about the facts, you should be ignoring the Bible completely.


Gosh darn it, you're just so cute. Yep, the rules Jesus laid out have no relevance for our lives..it's just so typical for farkers who hate the possibility that there's a god and he might want you to live in a way that you don't feel like living it. Just one universe, where the laws just happened to work out to have the ability to form complex life.. and it's entirely bullshiat that there was an intelligence behind it. Chances are, you don't know much about physics.. because the odds against this whole thing happening are beyond staggering.

Please feel free to trot out the "well if it wasn't perfect for forming life, then life wouldn't be there to realize it" derp, because it is only one single universe after all, and the odds are infinitely against you.
 
2012-10-24 07:28:27 PM
The Bible makes note of children conceived against God's wishes.
It's arguably the cause for the flood in Genesis.

So did God intend those pregnancies just to piss himself off?
 
jvl
2012-10-24 07:28:28 PM

intelligent comment below: Everyone is missing the big picture here. If you are murdered then that was also God's will. The person who killed you should not be guilty of anything. In fact they are just messengers of God, doing his work on Earth


Nope. In the Calvinist School, the murder is part of the plan, but the murderer still had free will and is therefore still guilty of doing the devil's work.
 
2012-10-24 07:29:53 PM

Tommy Moo: Thank god society has finally progressed in this country to the point where expressing backwards, asinine religious dogma is actually considered an embarrassing, career ending gaffe. We are about 20 years away from an atheist President and about 40 away from religion being a sad anachronism confined to the f***ing Ozarks.


I don't know if in this country we are. Religion is too much of an identity to a big portion of the US population. I have meet right wingers who call themselves religious and think we shouldn't do things because "the bible says" (which it usually doesn't) and never actually go to church. They just like to think they are part of the group.
 
jvl
2012-10-24 07:30:36 PM

Corvus: jvl: Good things from bad acts? That's life.

Right but then how abort the abortion. Isn't that part of "god's plan" too? Or somehow that's under the radar?


Well, I tend to be biologically minded and think it isn't murder until you have more neurons than a rat, so I might not be the right person to ask.

But for those who are anti-abortion, then yes the abortion is part of the plan in exactly the same way a rape is. A bad act caused by someone with freewill who understood the choice and is therefore evil.
 
2012-10-24 07:30:39 PM
A thought experiment (paraphrased from Hitchens)

If God is all powerful, then he must be able to create another god with its own universe with every ability and power he himself posesses except for the ability to know that the first God exists.

In this case, how can God be sure he wasn't created in just this fashion?

If he can't be sure, then he isn't omniscient.

If he can't create another god with these conditions, then he isn't omnipotent.

This proves that one cannot be both omniscient AND omnipotent at the same time.

The god-as-omnipotent/omniscient worldview is incoherent and corrupt. These people deserve neither respect nor tolerance.
 
2012-10-24 07:30:59 PM

jvl: intelligent comment below: Everyone is missing the big picture here. If you are murdered then that was also God's will. The person who killed you should not be guilty of anything. In fact they are just messengers of God, doing his work on Earth

Nope. In the Calvinist School, the murder is part of the plan, but the murderer still had free will and is therefore still guilty of doing the devil's work.


But magically the Abortion isn't part of the plan. God has a blind spot for abortions.
 
2012-10-24 07:31:08 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: BMulligan: the ones who've at least heard of Aquinas) don't think of God's plan as some kind of agenda, some sequence of predestined events, but rather something much bigger than that - perhaps so big that we can't even fully comprehend its actual nature

What a perfect way to say that a plan exists without ever having to provide any details about it or proof it exists! A God we can't see doing things we can't understand, and yet it's all part of a plan! BRILLIANT


Okay, look - I personally think that a belief in God (the Christian God in particular, but really any generic theistic deity), absent proof, is absurd. The notion of faith as used in a religious context is, I think, nonsensical. The whole thing strikes me from to top bottom as a second-rate fairy tale, and I can't understand why so many people seem to find it so easy to believe.

However, that said, if there were a God, wouldn't you expect him (or it, or whatever) to be a God we can't see doing things we can't understand, in pursuit of a plan that we can't comprehend? I mean, really, isn't that kind of the very definition of "God?" Once one accepts the existence of God, all the rest of that just sort of seems to follow.
 
2012-10-24 07:31:53 PM

jvl: Corvus: jvl: Good things from bad acts? That's life.

Right but then how abort the abortion. Isn't that part of "god's plan" too? Or somehow that's under the radar?

Well, I tend to be biologically minded and think it isn't murder until you have more neurons than a rat, so I might not be the right person to ask.

But for those who are anti-abortion, then yes the abortion is part of the plan in exactly the same way a rape is. A bad act caused by someone with freewill who understood the choice and is therefore evil.


Well then if it's part of God's plan, just like the rape, then the whole argument is wrong.
 
jvl
2012-10-24 07:34:23 PM

Tamater: This proves that one cannot be both omniscient AND omnipotent at the same time.


You're attempting to reason through a belief system? I'm pretty sure that's not going to work. Particularly when dealing with a system which *nowhere* touches on the subject of where God came from.

Remind me again where the universe came from? This too suffers from the "limit on the observable evidence" problem.
 
2012-10-24 07:34:55 PM

Tamater: A thought experiment (paraphrased from Hitchens)

If God is all powerful, then he must be able to create another god with its own universe with every ability and power he himself posesses except for the ability to know that the first God exists.

In this case, how can God be sure he wasn't created in just this fashion?

If he can't be sure, then he isn't omniscient.

If he can't create another god with these conditions, then he isn't omnipotent.

This proves that one cannot be both omniscient AND omnipotent at the same time.

The god-as-omnipotent/omniscient worldview is incoherent and corrupt. These people deserve neither respect nor tolerance.


Except that these monkeypoo-slinging morons are only attesting to what they THINK God can do, not what he actually is able to do, if such an entity exists. Meta explanations are not actually explanations in a house of cards called faith.
 
2012-10-24 07:35:06 PM
I'm glad we have people like Dick to tell us what God thinks and how that should drive public policy.
 
2012-10-24 07:37:31 PM

jvl: Tamater: This proves that one cannot be both omniscient AND omnipotent at the same time.

You're attempting to reason through a belief system? I'm pretty sure that's not going to work. Particularly when dealing with a system which *nowhere* touches on the subject of where God came from.

Remind me again where the universe came from? This too suffers from the "limit on the observable evidence" problem.


I agree. And yet, the answer to where the universe came from is not required to understand the universe in which we find ourselves and certainly does not suggest that we require a mythical story to explain it. Unless of course we are feeble-minded enough to require just that.
 
2012-10-24 07:37:53 PM

jvl: Ah, that's better! It's always nice to know even a mere discussion of schools of Philosophy on Fark will lead to accusations of gibberish and women-hating. Well done!


...so would you care then to answer my allegation, founded in Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy, how an intrinsic good or more perfect outcome can result from an act of evil and/or imperfection? Creation is inherently a subtractive process.
 
2012-10-24 07:38:12 PM

Tamater: This proves that one cannot be both omniscient AND omnipotent at the same time.


There's nothing in the Bible that suggests that God is either. Quite the opposite actually.
 
2012-10-24 07:38:37 PM

Tamater: A thought experiment (paraphrased from Hitchens)

If God is all powerful, then he must be able to create another god with its own universe with every ability and power he himself posesses except for the ability to know that the first God exists.

In this case, how can God be sure he wasn't created in just this fashion?

If he can't be sure, then he isn't omniscient.

If he can't create another god with these conditions, then he isn't omnipotent.

This proves that one cannot be both omniscient AND omnipotent at the same time.

The god-as-omnipotent/omniscient worldview is incoherent and corrupt. These people deserve neither respect nor tolerance.


This is frighteningly close to the same reasoning one would employ to "prove" that something cannot be both a wave and a particle.

Seriously, I slept through all my philosophy classes and yet I still retained enough to understand that the Aristotelian logic you're using is not the only internally consistent system of logic one can postulate.
 
2012-10-24 07:40:11 PM

coeyagi: Tamater: A thought experiment (paraphrased from Hitchens)

If God is all powerful, then he must be able to create another god with its own universe with every ability and power he himself posesses except for the ability to know that the first God exists.

In this case, how can God be sure he wasn't created in just this fashion?

If he can't be sure, then he isn't omniscient.

If he can't create another god with these conditions, then he isn't omnipotent.

This proves that one cannot be both omniscient AND omnipotent at the same time.

The god-as-omnipotent/omniscient worldview is incoherent and corrupt. These people deserve neither respect nor tolerance.

Except that these monkeypoo-slinging morons are only attesting to what they THINK God can do, not what he actually is able to do, if such an entity exists. Meta explanations are not actually explanations in a house of cards called faith.


Faith in and of itself is bankrupt. These people need to be stopped or the rest of us will never survive.

It's simply evolution in action.
 
jvl
2012-10-24 07:40:29 PM

Corvus: Well then if it's part of God's plan, just like the rape, then the whole argument is wrong.


I just want you to know, my brain hurts every time you make me try to explain Calvinist Philosophy. My round brain just doesn't fit in that square hole.

In the Calvinist view, wildly evil acts like the Holocaust are part of the plan. The plan takes you to the predestined outcome. It doesn't make the acts good. It doesn't mean you don't try to stop the acts since, if you stop them, then that too was part of the destiny.

It's the old philosophical question: if you had a time machine and a gun, should you kill Hitler? Would we still get to the moon? Would democracy eventually triumph over fascism and communist totalitarianism? Would we still get Jersey Shore?

/ ow ow ow
 
2012-10-24 07:41:19 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Gosh darn it, you're just so cute. Yep, the rules Jesus laid out have no relevance for our lives..


I don't need "rules" to live a moral life. the "rules" Jesus "laid out" were stolen from MUCH older religions, and just regurgitated.

And when did the entire Bible cease being the "word of God"? Why the need to cherry pick, if it is all "the word of God"?

You a la carte Christians who get in SUCH a tizzy when someone uses logic against you are SO CUTE!!!
 
2012-10-24 07:42:18 PM

Mugato: Tamater: This proves that one cannot be both omniscient AND omnipotent at the same time.


There's nothing in the Bible that suggests that God is either. Quite the opposite actually.


And yet, these people will defend that idea with their lives.
 
jvl
2012-10-24 07:42:53 PM

that bosnian sniper: ...so would you care then to answer my allegation, founded in Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy, how an intrinsic good or more perfect outcome can result from an act of evil and/or imperfection? Creation is inherently a subtractive process.


Since Calvin lived after Boethius, I'll let him explain it his own damn lazy self, as it was meant to be.
 
2012-10-24 07:44:23 PM

BMulligan: Tamater: A thought experiment (paraphrased from Hitchens)

If God is all powerful, then he must be able to create another god with its own universe with every ability and power he himself posesses except for the ability to know that the first God exists.

In this case, how can God be sure he wasn't created in just this fashion?

If he can't be sure, then he isn't omniscient.

If he can't create another god with these conditions, then he isn't omnipotent.

This proves that one cannot be both omniscient AND omnipotent at the same time.

The god-as-omnipotent/omniscient worldview is incoherent and corrupt. These people deserve neither respect nor tolerance.

This is frighteningly close to the same reasoning one would employ to "prove" that something cannot be both a wave and a particle.

Seriously, I slept through all my philosophy classes and yet I still retained enough to understand that the Aristotelian logic you're using is not the only internally consistent system of logic one can postulate.


Except one can use empirical evidence from the physical world to prove or disprove one argument, whereas one must simply postulate and bullshiat from a pulpit and hope to sway enough rubes as confirmation bias that they "proved" the other.
 
2012-10-24 07:44:49 PM
I was once raped in the butt and 9 hours later I pushed a little turd out.
 
2012-10-24 07:45:07 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: LouDobbsAwaaaay: *better protip* Ignore all of it. The collective fantasy stories of an ancient society of goat-herders has no relevance to real life.

mediablitz: If you care about the facts, you should be ignoring the Bible completely.

Gosh darn it, you're just so cute. Yep, the rules Jesus laid out have no relevance for our lives..it's just so typical for farkers who hate the possibility that there's a god and he might want you to live in a way that you don't feel like living it. Just one universe, where the laws just happened to work out to have the ability to form complex life.. and it's entirely bullshiat that there was an intelligence behind it. Chances are, you don't know much about physics.. because the odds against this whole thing happening are beyond staggering.

Please feel free to trot out the "well if it wasn't perfect for forming life, then life wouldn't be there to realize it" derp, because it is only one single universe after all, and the odds are infinitely against you.


And don't forget that God raped Joseph's wife in order to give us the gift of Jesus. So, in that respect Mourdock is right, God loves rape babies.
 
2012-10-24 07:46:23 PM
Here's how I would try to explain my position if I believed what Dick does (for the record, I am completely pro-choice): God says "Hey, the next time this woman has sex, she will get pregnant!" That way the rape is totally not God's fault or intention.
 
2012-10-24 07:46:27 PM

mediablitz: a la carte Christians


ah, like it's an insult to point out that I've done research. Great comeback bro!
 
2012-10-24 07:47:23 PM

MikeMc: And don't forget that God raped Joseph's wife in order to give us the gift of Jesus. So, in that respect Mourdock is right, God loves rape babies.


You may want to reread that chapter.. you've got pretty much everything wrong.
 
2012-10-24 07:48:22 PM

Weaver95: did Mourdock really intend that press conference to succeed?


He's venturing out of the echo chamber for the first time.
 
2012-10-24 07:49:12 PM

Tamater: The god-as-omnipotent/omniscient worldview is incoherent and corrupt. These people deserve neither respect nor tolerance.


I'm not going to speak to Hitchens' thought experiment (as I in part agree with it), but I will comment on one thing. The question of a God that is omnipotent and/i> omniscient is easily solved by supposing that God is not omnibenevolent.

Which is the Calvinist position, and as such renders any supposition about works of good, evil, or destination immediately and inherently suspect and relative. If God is not omnibenevolent, how can one assume God's plan as such is inherently good?
 
2012-10-24 07:49:51 PM

coeyagi: Except one can use empirical evidence from the physical world to prove or disprove one argument, whereas one must simply postulate and bullshiat from a pulpit and hope to sway enough rubes as confirmation bias that they "proved" the other.


That's correct, but it doesn't alter the logic. Simply because the evidence is unavailable doesn't mean that the conclusion isn't true.

Again, remember that I don't believe this stuff, I'm just saying that there's a logically consistent way to understand the whole "rape baby/God's plan" thing provided that one begins with a belief in the existence of God. Smart people have grappled with these problems and there is a rich body of scholarly theology on the subject.
 
2012-10-24 07:50:50 PM

Tamater: Mugato: Tamater: This proves that one cannot be both omniscient AND omnipotent at the same time.


There's nothing in the Bible that suggests that God is either. Quite the opposite actually.

And yet, these people will defend that idea with their lives.


You have to be omniscient and omnipotent if you want to be God these days.
If you're not then you end up looking like Zeus, or Odin, or Yahweh, or Amun-Ra.

In other words, just the biggest fish in the pond.
 
2012-10-24 07:51:39 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: MikeMc: And don't forget that God raped Joseph's wife in order to give us the gift of Jesus. So, in that respect Mourdock is right, God loves rape babies.

You may want to reread that chapter.. you've got pretty much everything wrong.


You're so cute. Really.
 
2012-10-24 07:52:10 PM

Mugato: Tamater: This proves that one cannot be both omniscient AND omnipotent at the same time.


There's nothing in the Bible that suggests that God is either. Quite the opposite actually.




Jeremiah 1:5 ESV

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."

Psalm 139:4

Even before a word is on my tongue,
behold, O LORD, you know it altogether.



1 John 3:20 ESV

For whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.


Jeremiah 29:11 ESV

For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.
______________________________


Really? NONE? NOTHING?
 
2012-10-24 07:52:27 PM
Is this the guy that Lugar got primaried for? The dude whose idea of bi-partisanship is "Democrats crossing over to the Republican side?"
 
2012-10-24 07:54:07 PM

that bosnian sniper: Tamater: The god-as-omnipotent/omniscient worldview is incoherent and corrupt. These people deserve neither respect nor tolerance.

I'm not going to speak to Hitchens' thought experiment (as I in part agree with it), but I will comment on one thing. The question of a God that is omnipotent and/i> omniscient is easily solved by supposing that God is not omnibenevolent.

Which is the Calvinist position, and as such renders any supposition about works of good, evil, or destination immediately and inherently suspect and relative. If God is not omnibenevolent, how can one assume God's plan as such is inherently good?


Whether he is omnibenevolent or not (which I also don't think is possible), that doesn't invalidate or solve the thought experiment proposed.
 
2012-10-24 07:54:19 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Chances are, you don't know much about physics.. because the odds against this whole thing happening are beyond staggering.


LMAO. Saying that WHILE saying someone ELSE knows nothing about physics.

You sound angry, confused, and stupid. Yep, Christian indeed!
 
2012-10-24 07:54:55 PM

Corvus: LouDobbsAwaaaay: That's one farked-up god you Christians worship.

You know who is a cool person? That Jesus Christ guy. He never spoke about abortion or hating gays. In fact he talked about helping the poor and loving EVERYONE. No wonder these guys never actually seem to give a shiat about what he said.


He didn't attach any political considerations to charity either.
 
2012-10-24 07:55:12 PM

BMulligan: coeyagi: Except one can use empirical evidence from the physical world to prove or disprove one argument, whereas one must simply postulate and bullshiat from a pulpit and hope to sway enough rubes as confirmation bias that they "proved" the other.

That's correct, but it doesn't alter the logic. Simply because the evidence is unavailable doesn't mean that the conclusion isn't true.

Again, remember that I don't believe this stuff, I'm just saying that there's a logically consistent way to understand the whole "rape baby/God's plan" thing provided that one begins with a belief in the existence of God. Smart people have grappled with these problems and there is a rich body of scholarly theology on the subject.


The argument that coeyagi made is based on semantics, not empirical observations - i.e., what it means to be omniscient or omnipotent (and what that would imply in turn). If his logic is internally consistent, and if the meanings he's gone with are appropriate, then that's that. The only way he could be wrong is if we were to retroactively change the meanings of the words.
 
2012-10-24 07:55:44 PM

Tamater: Whether he is omnibenevolent or not (which I also don't think is possible), that doesn't invalidate or solve the thought experiment proposed.


Like I said, I'm not responding to the thought experiment. Just using your comment as a springboard.
 
2012-10-24 07:56:25 PM

Techhell: I'm thinking that by 2024, there won't be enough Americans capable of this sort of double-think to vote Republican. Now if the US can keep the Republicans from realizing this until 2025, there's a good chance that the USA might not eat itself.


In 1970, when I was attending a segregated High School in North Carolina, I was positive that in 40+ years that sort of racism would be eliminated.

Not only has it not happened, but the school system in Wake County is now being newly re-segregated, and I can see it only getting worse from here on out, especially if RomneyRyan win.
 
2012-10-24 07:57:33 PM

mediablitz: Really? NONE? NOTHING?


Well no, because he was obviously lying in your quotes because he didn't know Eve would eat that apple, he wouldn't have to throw plagues on Egypt, there wouldn't have been a war in heaven, he wouldn't have to flood the planet and the list goes on and on.
 
2012-10-24 07:58:14 PM

Biological Ali: BMulligan: coeyagi: Except one can use empirical evidence from the physical world to prove or disprove one argument, whereas one must simply postulate and bullshiat from a pulpit and hope to sway enough rubes as confirmation bias that they "proved" the other.

That's correct, but it doesn't alter the logic. Simply because the evidence is unavailable doesn't mean that the conclusion isn't true.

Again, remember that I don't believe this stuff, I'm just saying that there's a logically consistent way to understand the whole "rape baby/God's plan" thing provided that one begins with a belief in the existence of God. Smart people have grappled with these problems and there is a rich body of scholarly theology on the subject.

The argument that coeyagi made is based on semantics, not empirical observations - i.e., what it means to be omniscient or omnipotent (and what that would imply in turn). If his logic is internally consistent, and if the meanings he's gone with are appropriate, then that's that. The only way he could be wrong is if we were to retroactively change the meanings of the words.


I didn't make the argument about omniscient / omnipotent. Try again and don't edit the thread.
 
2012-10-24 07:58:37 PM

that bosnian sniper: Tamater: Whether he is omnibenevolent or not (which I also don't think is possible), that doesn't invalidate or solve the thought experiment proposed.

Like I said, I'm not responding to the thought experiment. Just using your comment as a springboard.


Word
 
2012-10-24 08:01:07 PM

coeyagi: Biological Ali: BMulligan: coeyagi: Except one can use empirical evidence from the physical world to prove or disprove one argument, whereas one must simply postulate and bullshiat from a pulpit and hope to sway enough rubes as confirmation bias that they "proved" the other.

That's correct, but it doesn't alter the logic. Simply because the evidence is unavailable doesn't mean that the conclusion isn't true.

Again, remember that I don't believe this stuff, I'm just saying that there's a logically consistent way to understand the whole "rape baby/God's plan" thing provided that one begins with a belief in the existence of God. Smart people have grappled with these problems and there is a rich body of scholarly theology on the subject.

The argument that coeyagi made is based on semantics, not empirical observations - i.e., what it means to be omniscient or omnipotent (and what that would imply in turn). If his logic is internally consistent, and if the meanings he's gone with are appropriate, then that's that. The only way he could be wrong is if we were to retroactively change the meanings of the words.

I didn't make the argument about omniscient / omnipotent. Try again and don't edit the thread.


My bad; got that mixed up in the long strings of comments. I meant Tamater.
 
2012-10-24 08:07:23 PM

Tamater: BraveNewCheneyWorld: MikeMc: And don't forget that God raped Joseph's wife in order to give us the gift of Jesus. So, in that respect Mourdock is right, God loves rape babies.

You may want to reread that chapter.. you've got pretty much everything wrong.

You're so cute. Really.


I must have missed the part where god asked Mary for permission to knock her up (and more or less spiritually cuckold her husband).
 
2012-10-24 08:08:53 PM
This kind of thing is not surprising. They would also say that their derp-god doesn't intend for men to have sex with men; he only intends for them to die horribly of AIDS afterward.

Bringing up the child of the man who raped you, dying of a horrific disease--these are the divine workings of the will of the derp-god. Give them a little more latitude and they'll bring back the old derp god wants black men who sleep with white women to dangle from trees thing too. Next stop: witches and heretics burn.

That's where you end up with people like Mourdock and Akin.
 
2012-10-24 08:10:10 PM

intelligent comment below: Getting mad after you make a bad choice doesn't mean a God wouldn't let you make that choice


No, God is constantly getting pissed off at humans and punishing them. Getting all surprised and pissed off at your creations' behavior is not indicative of being omniscient or omnipotent.
 
myc
2012-10-24 08:12:12 PM
api.ning.com

/Fark has been slacking off lately
 
2012-10-24 08:14:12 PM

vpb: swaniefrmreddeer: So god intended for the rape victim to conceive, then he must have wanted her to be raped in the first place. Therefor god wants women to get rape-raped.

That's why it's legitimate.


So, if I commit rape and results in pregnancy, it was the will of God, so I shouldn't go to jail? Alright then, multiple raping without condoms, because I don't want to be in jail with those rapists that can't procreate!
 
2012-10-24 08:16:37 PM
Blessed are the raped, for they will be given children by God.
 
2012-10-24 08:19:32 PM

intelligent comment below: I don't see where he is constantly getting pissed off and punishing them but I guess if you believe it rains tomorrow because God's angry then you can blame everything on him


What do you call the Flood? The plagues of Egypt? Adam and Eve? That's all the Bible is, God being pissed and punishing people.
 
2012-10-24 08:19:34 PM

Weaver95: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: I prefer to hang out with the heathens instead of the pagans.

Pagan community has too many drama llamas.

I haven't actually seen any issues among the pagans I know in my local area. they seem more laid back than the evangelical Christians.


Well that wouldn't be hard would it?
 
2012-10-24 08:23:22 PM

mayIFark: Pope Larry II: On, a serious note. How do these people keep getting elected?

Never underestimate the power of bigoted idiocy.


It's because they only hear what they want to hear. Something like this:

Stupid politician: "Babies conceived in rape are the will of god! Aborting them is wrong! The mothers should consider them gifts! But I'm not saying rape is the will of god, just the babies!"

What they hear: "Babies [static] are the will of god! Abortion [static] is wrong! [static] the will of god [static] babies!"

You can pretty much do the same thing for any statement by any politician anywhere, any time. People just don't hear any words that they don't like, or anything at all by a politician they don't like. If Obama is talking they hear NOTHING but [static]. When these rape-happy politicians are speaking, they''re literally not hearing "rape", just soothing white noise. Their brains filter out all the bad, mean, or thought-provoking words, and leave only the happy, yup-yup words they understand.
 
2012-10-24 08:26:22 PM

kg2095: Weaver95: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: I prefer to hang out with the heathens instead of the pagans.

Pagan community has too many drama llamas.

I haven't actually seen any issues among the pagans I know in my local area. they seem more laid back than the evangelical Christians.

Well that wouldn't be hard would it?


One of my best friends is a pagan. He's about as laid back and good of a human being as one can get.
 
2012-10-24 08:28:30 PM

Mugato: intelligent comment below: I don't see where he is constantly getting pissed off and punishing them but I guess if you believe it rains tomorrow because God's angry then you can blame everything on him

What do you call the Flood? The plagues of Egypt? Adam and Eve? That's all the Bible is, God being pissed and punishing people.


Old Testament God was kind of a jerk.
 
2012-10-24 08:29:22 PM
He works in mysterious ways
 
2012-10-24 08:30:30 PM

ChaoticLimbs: The reason these people have such trouble is that this world contains such brutality that it must not contain any sentient all powerful benevolent beings. Not even 1, for all-powerful means it doesn't take two to do anything.

And yet, they persist in believing in the one thing that can be proven not to exist. You can't, for example, prove that there isn't a planet of unicorns somewhere in the universe. But all-powerful benevolent beings can be proven to not exist, because their existence would negate the existence of certain other things.

If a woman is raped in a small room, you can be certain that no powerful yet benevolent beings were in that small room with her, for the very definition of a benevolent powerful being is that they use that power to prevent such things from happening. Furthermore, if a man rapes his own child, you can say that the child definitely does not have a good biological father, for the child can only have one biological father, and the very definition of a good father precludes the idea of rape.

A benevolent god would not permit a million innocent children to shiat themselves to death from dysentery. That's just so awful that any all-powerful being who observes it must not be benevolent, and any benevolent being who sees it must not be all-powerful.

So, this man's entire worldview is incorrect, and if it seems at times logically inconsistent or incoherent, it's because it must be incoherent to include such brutality and the idea of a benevolent all-powerful, all-knowing deity.


This is something that Christians do not seem to understand. I think they are taught from a young age that it is a sin to question god and so they don't.
 
2012-10-24 08:31:36 PM

Fart_Machine: Mugato: intelligent comment below: I don't see where he is constantly getting pissed off and punishing them but I guess if you believe it rains tomorrow because God's angry then you can blame everything on him

What do you call the Flood? The plagues of Egypt? Adam and Eve? That's all the Bible is, God being pissed and punishing people.

Old Testament God was kind of a jerk.


Sure but even in the new Testament he had a son and let him be tortured to death for some reason that still was never made clear to me.
 
2012-10-24 08:32:12 PM
goodmenproject.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com
 
2012-10-24 08:35:26 PM

Corvus: It's crazy how these Ayn Rand worshipers call themselves "Christians" but their beliefs are the antithesis of his teachings.


She farkin hated Christians, Her last public speech was cursing Reagan for being a nationalist and a Christian.
 
ecl
2012-10-24 08:36:04 PM

Mugato: Fart_Machine: Mugato: intelligent comment below: I don't see where he is constantly getting pissed off and punishing them but I guess if you believe it rains tomorrow because God's angry then you can blame everything on him

What do you call the Flood? The plagues of Egypt? Adam and Eve? That's all the Bible is, God being pissed and punishing people.

Old Testament God was kind of a jerk.

Sure but even in the new Testament he had a son and let him be tortured to death for some reason that still was never made clear to me.


It's because you masturbate.
 
2012-10-24 08:39:45 PM

kg2095: Well that wouldn't be hard would it?


I'm pretty sure a battalion of Marines standing buck naked at attention in the middle of a combat zone would be more laid back than an evangelical.
 
2012-10-24 08:40:14 PM
Had this exact "semantics" conversation with an "independent" today. I wanted to laugh at her, if she weren't in charge of signing my paychecks.

Though I did make it clear that she was rationalizing rape.
 
2012-10-24 08:40:50 PM
To be perfectly honest, I've always felt that anyone who claims to be "pro-life" because "life begins at conception", yet supports exceptions for race/incest/health of the mother, to be the definition of hypocritical.

If you believe, despite the mountain of scientific evidence that says otherwise, that an egg that has been fertilized for a microsecond is the same thing as a 3-year-old human, then discarding that egg, no matter the situation, is akin to murdering an innocent victim, which is wrong.

In reality, people that claim to be "pro-life" because "life begins at conception" but support the exceptions are actually likely pro-life because they believe abortions are something only bad people, sluts, sinners, and liberals do, and that offends them, so we should legislate based on their morality. But, in those rare occasions where something awful happens to an otherwise good, Christian person... well, we can let it slide THIS ONCE but you should probably pray harder next time.

I can respect someone who honestly believes life begins at conception and rejects abortion fully. I 100% fully disagree with them, find them to be ignorant of science and likely mentally deficient, and will fight them unceasing on every front, but at least they operate on a logical principle based on deeply held beliefs.
 
2012-10-24 08:43:10 PM

intelligent comment below: So far that's 3 things in about 4,000 years

You said constantly getting pissed off


You haven't read the bible.
 
2012-10-24 08:43:51 PM
I certainly wouldn't try to claim that rape was "God's will" (especially since I don't believe in God), but I would think that the only morally consistent view on the "pro-life" side is to outlaw abortion for all cases except the life of the mother. Luckily, I am pro-choice.
 
2012-10-24 08:47:06 PM
Just a heads-up Farkers, I'm calling dibs on "Republican Rape Babies" for a band name.
 
2012-10-24 08:47:10 PM

Pappas: To be perfectly honest, I've always felt that anyone who claims to be "pro-life" because "life begins at conception", yet supports exceptions for race/incest/health of the mother, to be the definition of hypocritical.


I agree with that. Is abortion murder? I don't know or care. Therefore I'm pro-choice by default. But if you believe that it is murder, why would you give a pass under rape or incest? It's not the kid's fault how he was conceived. In the lunatic pro-life crowd, at least guys like Santorum are consistent.
 
2012-10-24 08:48:08 PM
canitbesaturdaynow.com
 
2012-10-24 08:52:38 PM

MikeMc: Just a heads-up Farkers, I'm calling dibs on "Republican Rape Babies" for a band name.


Dibbs!

Dammit. Well at least let me play bass.
 
2012-10-24 08:52:47 PM

zedster: Do we have free will or are you a believe in predestination?, this is not a hard question


Both.

HA, that was easy.
 
2012-10-24 08:54:16 PM

evaned: This I actually agree with [...] But no, I can't recall any politician making a statement like that. (Not that I necessarily would have if someone did.)


Nor I. Personally, I would prefer abortions not occur, but concede that's the right of the woman if she gets pregnant and would choose to terminate the pregnancy. I also understand the first, best line of defense against abortion is to have a sex-positive, sexually educated, populace with free access to birth control for men and women. People have the right to abstain if they so choose, but on the other hand if they choose to have and enjoy sex yet don't want children, they should damn well have the means to prevent unwanted pregnancy and know how to put those means to most effective use. Especially in circumstances in which birth control also acts as a prophylactic measure against sexually-transmitted infection (read, condoms, male and female).

People aren't going to stop screwing. That's never, ever going to happen, and pushing abstinence-only is tantamount to pissing in a fan. What can be done is making sure when people do screw, unwanted pregnancy won't result.
 
2012-10-24 08:54:54 PM

Pappas: To be perfectly honest, I've always felt that anyone who claims to be "pro-life" because "life begins at conception", yet supports exceptions for race/incest/health of the mother, to be the definition of hypocritical.


And even though I'm not in that camp, I think you're wrong (or, can be wrong even if you tend to be right in practice), and I've already explained why earlier in this thread: if you say the fetus is a little mini-human with rights, then it immediately becomes a balancing act between the rights of the fetus and mother; it's not at all unreasonable to say that a deliberate choice to engage in an activity that has a reasonable probability of producing a pregnancy means that the mother waives some of her rights thus moving the balance in favor of the fetus.

I think it's a much bigger hipocracy to be (as someone else pointed out) anti-abortion and anti-birth control.
 
2012-10-24 08:56:26 PM

intelligent comment below: ilambiquated: intelligent comment below: So far that's 3 things in about 4,000 years

You said constantly getting pissed off

You haven't read the bible.


What else is there?


Haha this is going to be a fun game. You are some kind of clever!!
 
2012-10-24 08:59:18 PM

vernonFL: I don't see what the big deal is.

Have you read the Bible? The God that these people worship is all about rape.


Yeah, no kidding.
 
2012-10-24 09:00:26 PM

Diogenes: We should decriminalize rape. The poor men we're prosecuting are just fulfilling God's will.

Do you punish people who give you gifts?


And I still won't be able to get any pooty.
 
2012-10-24 09:00:52 PM

Pappas: To be perfectly honest, I've always felt that anyone who claims to be "pro-life" because "life begins at conception", yet supports exceptions for race/incest/health of the mother, to be the definition of hypocritical.


I don't have a problem with exceptions for health of the mother. If you consider abortion to be murder (which is illegal killing), well, there are laws that allow you to kill someone in self-defense. That's basically what would be happening with an abortion. So I don't see any hypocrisy there. For rape/incest (you meant "rape" rather than "race", didn't you?) it would seem like hypocrisy.

On the other hand, it would be a fun experiment if we could go up to the people who take that pro-life stance, and force them to personally look after a baby for 9 months, without the ability to ever leave its side, or give it to another person. I suspect a lot of them would change their minds by the end of the process. Not that I'd ever be that cruel to the babies.
 
2012-10-24 09:02:29 PM
It's so refreshing when religious people are open and honest about their beliefs instead of trying to conceal or spin them because they know the majority of people will think they are wackjobs. Please keep on speaking your mind, especially about things that will alienate 51% of the population.
 
2012-10-24 09:03:39 PM
Scary thing is, this moran is making these comments to appeal to thousands of people who would agree with him and vote him into office.

THOSE are the ones you need to worry about.
 
2012-10-24 09:04:27 PM

Corvus: Ok anyone believes this shiat can someone explain how God meant for the rape to happen but has no control over the abortion?

Free will covers abortions but not raping?


Heck, God did it with his own son. Ok, so the abortion was late-term by about 33+ years.
 
2012-10-24 09:05:22 PM
Same liberals from 50 years ago. Same tired old inflammatory rape rhetoric...

"I'm Norma McCorvey, the former Jane Roe of the Roe vs. Wade decision that brought 'legal' child killing to America.

"I was persuaded by feminist attorneys to lie; to say that I was raped, and needed an abortion. It was all a lie.

"Since then, over 50 million babies have been murdered. I will take this burden to my grave.

"Please, don't follow in my mistakes. DO NOT vote for Barack Obama. He murders babies."
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/jane-roe-of-roe-v.-wade-airs-anti-ob a ma-ad-in-florida
 
2012-10-24 09:08:21 PM

Weaver95: Lando Lincoln: The fact that the GOP still exists has forced me to believe that God really isn't paying attention to us.

or that the god(s) the Republicans worship isn't the Christian one.


From all the evidence I've seen, the god(s) represented in Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom would have be the closest manifestation of the GOP god.
 
2012-10-24 09:08:45 PM
Mourdock should resign. Like now.

There is no apology acceptable for this kind of bullshiat. The e-mail servers should be crashing with the demand.
 
2012-10-24 09:10:03 PM

chuckufarlie:

Sure but even in the new Testament he had a son and let him be tortured to death for some reason that still was never made clear to me.


It's a classic human sacrifice myth:

1. Original Sin (the apple story), all mankind is cursed and hated by God blah blah
2. God changes his mind, maybe humans having knowledge is okay
3. Humans are cursed by the Original Sin still, but God can't go against God's Will.
4. God loves sacrifices, but God doesn't value humans enough for their sacrifice to impress God.
5. God creates God2 in human form
6. God2 does some human stuff, sets into motion his sacrifice.
7. God2 is tortured and killed, pleasing God.
8. God revokes God's Original Sin curse, to the joy of God and also God2
9. God is angry at God for making things so complicated and creates organized religion

Baptism is in there too for some factions.
 
2012-10-24 09:10:32 PM

WorldCitizen: So does God have a pre-set agenda of who will fark who to make babies, and if they don't naturally hook up it moves to rape to get that baby made?


A member of my extended family told me this today. If a woman gets raped and pregnant it's because the rapist rejected Jesus earlier in life. If he hadn't rejected Jesus then the couple would have fallen in love and gotten married and that exact baby still would have been born.

I asked him why teen pregnancy is considered to be a bad thing then, since God wanted that exact baby to be born at that exact time, and he didn't have an answer.
 
2012-10-24 09:11:59 PM

FrailChild: Same liberals from 50 years ago. Same tired old inflammatory rape rhetoric...


So something that Murdock said is "rape rhetoric by liberals"?

/Not sure if trolling or just stupid
 
2012-10-24 09:14:05 PM

Techhell: I'm thinking that by 2024, there won't be enough Americans capable of this sort of double-think to vote Republican. Now if the US can keep the Republicans from realizing this until 2025, there's a good chance that the USA might not eat itself.


See, the tough part is that they're procreating so fast because they're being raped by their brothers, fathers and uncles and choosing not to abort that "miracle of life" fetus. Idiocracy is happening in America, that's for sure.
 
2012-10-24 09:14:20 PM

feffer: WorldCitizen: So does God have a pre-set agenda of who will fark who to make babies, and if they don't naturally hook up it moves to rape to get that baby made?

A member of my extended family told me this today. If a woman gets raped and pregnant it's because the rapist rejected Jesus earlier in life. If he hadn't rejected Jesus then the couple would have fallen in love and gotten married and that exact baby still would have been born.

I asked him why teen pregnancy is considered to be a bad thing then, since God wanted that exact baby to be born at that exact time, and he didn't have an answer.


That's pretty messed up.
 
2012-10-24 09:15:18 PM

FrailChild: Same liberals from 50 years ago. Same tired old inflammatory rape rhetoric...

"I'm Norma McCorvey, the former Jane Roe of the Roe vs. Wade decision that brought 'legal' child killing to America.

"I was persuaded by feminist attorneys to lie; to say that I was raped, and needed an abortion. It was all a lie.

"Since then, over 50 million babies have been murdered. I will take this burden to my grave.

"Please, don't follow in my mistakes. DO NOT vote for Barack Obama. He murders babies."
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/jane-roe-of-roe-v.-wade-airs-anti-ob a ma-ad-in-florida


Not an Obama fan but stop spreading the BS and let women decide what's best for them.
 
2012-10-24 09:15:24 PM
New Onion article: "God Distances Self From Christian Right":

Calling Mourdock's comments "the last straw," the Lord Our Maker explained that while in the past there have been a few areas where He and the religious right have been in agreement, more often than not in recent years He and Christian conservatives have grown "actually quite far apart" on a wide range of issues.
 
2012-10-24 09:15:35 PM
I think this is why religion should be separate from the government and the government should stay out of women's wombs
 
2012-10-24 09:16:13 PM

God-is-a-Taco: chuckufarlie:

Sure but even in the new Testament he had a son and let him be tortured to death for some reason that still was never made clear to me.

It's a classic human sacrifice myth:

1. Original Sin (the apple story), all mankind is cursed and hated by God blah blah
2. God changes his mind, maybe humans having knowledge is okay
3. Humans are cursed by the Original Sin still, but God can't go against God's Will.
4. God loves sacrifices, but God doesn't value humans enough for their sacrifice to impress God.
5. God creates God2 in human form
6. God2 does some human stuff, sets into motion his sacrifice.
7. God2 is tortured and killed, pleasing God.
8. God revokes God's Original Sin curse, to the joy of God and also God2
9. God is angry at God for making things so complicated and creates organized religion

Baptism is in there too for some factions.


When all is said and done, Jesus' life and sacrifice is one gigantic theatrical performance to achieve something that God could have done at the snap of a finger. Just kind of illustrates the point that the God of the Bible is a histrionic, petty drama queen.
 
2012-10-24 09:16:48 PM

Weaver95: leaving aside for a moment the philosophical implications of believing in a god that condones violent acts against his followers...did Mourdock really intend that press conference to succeed? c'mon man...I was watching it. he tried to say that his words were 'twisted' against him. while i'm sure that you could make that case in other circumstances the record seems pretty clear: he kinda/sorta seems to believe that rape babies happen because it's god's will and his press conference didn't really clear any of that up.


He wasn't sorry about saying it, he was sorry that people 'twisted' his words. So basically he stands by his original words of rapetiy rape rape rape.

/I said rape 3 times.
 
2012-10-24 09:18:00 PM

dericwater: Techhell: I'm thinking that by 2024, there won't be enough Americans capable of this sort of double-think to vote Republican. Now if the US can keep the Republicans from realizing this until 2025, there's a good chance that the USA might not eat itself.

See, the tough part is that they're procreating so fast because they're being raped by their brothers, fathers and uncles and choosing not to abort that "miracle of life" fetus. Idiocracy is happening in America, that's for sure.


People may be getting dumber, but they aren't getting more religious.
The younger generations are losing religion fast.
 
2012-10-24 09:18:39 PM

Mugato: Fart_Machine: Mugato: intelligent comment below: I don't see where he is constantly getting pissed off and punishing them but I guess if you believe it rains tomorrow because God's angry then you can blame everything on him

What do you call the Flood? The plagues of Egypt? Adam and Eve? That's all the Bible is, God being pissed and punishing people.

Old Testament God was kind of a jerk.

Sure but even in the new Testament he had a son and let him be tortured to death for some reason that still was never made clear to me.


One explanation is that it is a fertility myth, like Adonis or Persephone.

Also it's not clear that early Christians really believed that God the Father was the OT god. The NT god may have been a replacement for the OT god and the death an initiation rite.
 
2012-10-24 09:20:05 PM
Hey, Jesus was a rape baby. So, if it's good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone!
 
2012-10-24 09:20:23 PM

WorldCitizen: kg2095: Weaver95: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: I prefer to hang out with the heathens instead of the pagans.

Pagan community has too many drama llamas.

I haven't actually seen any issues among the pagans I know in my local area. they seem more laid back than the evangelical Christians.

Well that wouldn't be hard would it?

One of my best friends is a pagan. He's about as laid back and good of a human being as one can get.


Generally anyone in a minority religion has to be, it is only when a religion becomes the majority they start farking up a country/region.
 
2012-10-24 09:20:32 PM

Karma Curmudgeon: WWJR?


He played his father, raped his mother and he became the result of that non-abortion.
 
2012-10-24 09:22:31 PM
I like where this thread went
 
2012-10-24 09:27:51 PM
I find his statement entirely consistent with what I observe religious believers do every day.
For example: Joey gets very sick. This is horrible news but not caused or ordained by anyone. Everyone at church is asked to pray for Joey.
Joey gets better. It's a miracle!!! Hallelujah! God has intervened because we prayed real hard.
OR
Joey dies. It's God's will, thank you Lord for giving Joey such a beautiful time on earth.

The whole thing is entirely consistent in its craziness and shouldn't surprise anyone.
 
2012-10-24 09:29:17 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: nekulor: Why is Conservative God such a dick?

Because it's a bunch of assholes telling others what god thinks, instead of reiterating any teachings of examples of god, such as Jesus. This is the perfect example of a wolf in christian clothing, which should not reflect on christians as a whole, as this sort of thing typically does on fark.


Could not agree more. Jesus was a wolf, and his deceptions towards his fellow Jews were astounding.
 
2012-10-24 09:29:22 PM
When a rapist gives you lemons, make lemonade.
 
2012-10-24 09:30:43 PM

Mrs.Sharpier: I like where this thread went


The surest way to get people to say mean and nasty things about your religion is to try to use it to control their lives.
If people don't want their beliefs demeaned and torn to pieces, they shouldn't use them as a basis for public policy.

Everything that people use to advocate for public policy gets scrutinized, perverted and misconstrued.
Religious beliefs won't be spared that just because of sentimental attachment.
 
2012-10-24 09:34:18 PM
I did a copypasta of the thread and extracted the all "rape". Here's what we have up to now:

raperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperapeRaperapeRaperaper a peraperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperape raperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperapera peraperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperape raperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperapera peraperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperape raperaperaperaperaperapeRaperaperaperaperaperapeRaperaperaperaperapera peraperaperaperaperaperaperapeRaperaperaperapeRaperapeRaperaperaperape raperaperaperaperaperaperapeRaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperapera peraperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperape raperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperapera peraperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperape raperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperapera peraperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperape RaperapeRaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperapera peraperaperaperaperaperaperapeRAPERAPEraperaperape
 
2012-10-24 09:34:40 PM

elchip: When a rapist gives you lemons, make lemonade.


I call mine Raponade.
 
2012-10-24 09:37:22 PM

HeartBurnKid: dletter: swaniefrmreddeer: So god intended for the rape victim to conceive, then he must have wanted her to be raped in the first place. Therefor god wants women to get rape-raped.

You forget, "God" is responsible for anything that they do want to have happen, and "Satan" or something else outside of God's control is responsible for the other parts. So, Satan raped the person, and God just decided to make it a little better, because kids always make everything better!

It is all part of the "Making things up from inferences as I go along to fit my needs" bible study.

You know, I'll never understand how Christians think of themselves as monotheists. So many of them ascribe so much power and control to Satan that he must be considered a secondary deity of some sort.


That is interesting, never really thought about it that way, I'll have to ask next time I am in a group how they consider that being not "monotheistic", I mean, Satan seems to have some pretty "God-like" powers.
 
2012-10-24 09:42:45 PM
That's what I understood him to mean the first time.
 
2012-10-24 09:45:14 PM

Ricardo Klement: That's what I understood him to mean the first time.


Like it really makes a difference. Any way you parse his statement he's still a misogynistic asshole.
 
2012-10-24 09:49:07 PM

dletter: That is interesting, never really thought about it that way, I'll have to ask next time I am in a group how they consider that being not "monotheistic", I mean, Satan seems to have some pretty "God-like" powers.


Meh. I can't say for sure what a believer would say, but it's pretty easy to come to the conclusion that Satan's power comes from God.

He's not mentioned a whole lot in the Bible, but if you go by the apochrypha and other fan fiction then Satan is widely considered to be a fallen Angel. So God can be pointed at as the source of any initial power in that case.

Satan is also generally not free to use all his talents on all people. He needs God's permission, like with Job, or he needs people to give themselves over to him freely before he can really screw them over. Or people need to piss God off so much that he withdraws his protection and Satan gains free reign.

So Satan doesn't really have any power outside of what God allows, as far as I can tell. So it's still a pretty monotheistic system that way.
 
2012-10-24 09:50:11 PM

dletter: That is interesting, never really thought about it that way, I'll have to ask next time I am in a group how they consider that being not "monotheistic", I mean, Satan seems to have some pretty "God-like" powers.


Read Job. Satan is basically God's sting operative.
 
2012-10-24 09:51:08 PM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-10-24 09:51:29 PM
Oh, and thank you Fark for teaching me something new today. It does happen every now and then.


From The Ayn Rand Letter, Volume IV, Number 2, November-December 1975:


Now I want to give you a brief indication of the kinds of issues that are coming up, on which you might want to know my views.

1. The Presidential election of 1976. I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan. I urge you not to work for or advocate his nomination, and not to vote for him. My reasons are as follows: Mr. Reagan is not a champion of capitalism, but a conservative in the worst sense of that word-i.e., an advocate of a mixed economy with government controls slanted in favor of business rather than labor (which, philosophically, is as untenable a position as one could choose-see Fred Kinnan in Atlas Shrugged, pp. 541-2). This description applies in various degrees to most Republican politicians, but most of them preserve some respect for the rights of the individual. Mr. Reagan does not: he opposes the right to abortion.
 
2012-10-24 09:53:24 PM

hinten: Oh, and thank you Fark for teaching me something new today. It does happen every now and then.


From The Ayn Rand Letter, Volume IV, Number 2, November-December 1975:


Now I want to give you a brief indication of the kinds of issues that are coming up, on which you might want to know my views.

1. The Presidential election of 1976. I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan. I urge you not to work for or advocate his nomination, and not to vote for him. My reasons are as follows: Mr. Reagan is not a champion of capitalism, but a conservative in the worst sense of that word-i.e., an advocate of a mixed economy with government controls slanted in favor of business rather than labor (which, philosophically, is as untenable a position as one could choose-see Fred Kinnan in Atlas Shrugged, pp. 541-2). This description applies in various degrees to most Republican politicians, but most of them preserve some respect for the rights of the individual. Mr. Reagan does not: he opposes the right to abortion.


Oh ya, most Conservatives who claim to be followers rand really RINOs.
 
2012-10-24 09:53:44 PM
that bosnian sniper:

Would you mind terribly if I email you?
 
2012-10-24 09:54:14 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Gosh darn it, you're just so cute. Yep, the rules Jesus laid out have no relevance for our lives..it's just so typical for farkers who hate the possibility that there's a god and he might want you to live in a way that you don't feel like living it. Just one universe, where the laws just happened to work out to have the ability to form complex life.. and it's entirely bullshiat that there was an intelligence behind it. Chances are, you don't know much about physics.. because the odds against this whole thing happening are beyond staggering.

Please feel free to trot out the "well if it wasn't perfect for forming life, then life wouldn't be there to realize it" derp, because it is only one single universe after all, and the odds are infinitely against you.


If this is really the logic you're using to confirm your faith, where exactly did you get the idea that this is the "only one single universe" that ever existed?

/I mean, we could also question why Conservative Fundamentalist Christianity is a better representation of God's nature than, say, Zoroastrianism, but it seems like your entire premise is fatally unimaginative.
 
2012-10-24 09:54:34 PM

hinten: (which, philosophically, is as untenable a position as one could choose-see Fred Kinnan in Atlas Shrugged, pp. 541-2).


The page reference makes this somehow more religious and creepy to my eye.
 
2012-10-24 09:55:52 PM

TalenLee: dletter: That is interesting, never really thought about it that way, I'll have to ask next time I am in a group how they consider that being not "monotheistic", I mean, Satan seems to have some pretty "God-like" powers.

Read Job. Satan is basically God's sting operative.


I prefer "prosecuting attorney."
 
2012-10-24 09:57:42 PM

Hickory-smoked: TalenLee: dletter: That is interesting, never really thought about it that way, I'll have to ask next time I am in a group how they consider that being not "monotheistic", I mean, Satan seems to have some pretty "God-like" powers.

Read Job. Satan is basically God's sting operative.

I prefer "prosecuting attorney."


Satan is the original cop.
 
2012-10-24 10:05:05 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Hickory-smoked: TalenLee: dletter: That is interesting, never really thought about it that way, I'll have to ask next time I am in a group how they consider that being not "monotheistic", I mean, Satan seems to have some pretty "God-like" powers.

Read Job. Satan is basically God's sting operative.

I prefer "prosecuting attorney."

Satan is the original cop.


He's also not the damn snake - that's just another, another, another example of Christians retconning bullshiat back into someone else's book. The Old Testament is Twilight, which makes the New Testament 50 Shades of Gray, which makes the Book of Mormon 50 Shades Of Gray fanfiction.
 
2012-10-24 10:05:47 PM

TaterTot_HotDish: forcing women to have sex = wrong

forcing women to have rape babies = right

The Lord works in mysterious ways


Maybe god wants women to get abortions? After all, His ways are mysterious, and Murdouch claiming he knows the will of God is just presumptuous.
 
2012-10-24 10:06:59 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: LouDobbsAwaaaay: *better protip* Ignore all of it. The collective fantasy stories of an ancient society of goat-herders has no relevance to real life.

mediablitz: If you care about the facts, you should be ignoring the Bible completely.

Gosh darn it, you're just so cute. Yep, the rules Jesus laid out have no relevance for our lives..it's just so typical for farkers who hate the possibility that there's a god and he might want you to live in a way that you don't feel like living it. Just one universe, where the laws just happened to work out to have the ability to form complex life.. and it's entirely bullshiat that there was an intelligence behind it. Chances are, you don't know much about physics.. because the odds against this whole thing happening are beyond staggering.

Please feel free to trot out the "well if it wasn't perfect for forming life, then life wouldn't be there to realize it" derp, because it is only one single universe after all, and the odds are infinitely against you.


"Perfect for forming life" is a strange assessment of the universe. You could stick life on a planet around every star in every galaxy and the combined volume of all that life wouldn't even equal a rounding error on the volume of the universe as a whole. That doesn't seem very conducive to life.

As for the "fundamental constants omg!" argument, yes indeed there are an infinite number of universes where nothing would ever happen. There are, however, an infinite number (albeit a smaller infinity) of universes where complex structures could form.
 
2012-10-24 10:10:06 PM

BMulligan: However, that said, if there were a God, wouldn't you expect him (or it, or whatever) to be a God we can't see doing things we can't understand, in pursuit of a plan that we can't comprehend? I mean, really, isn't that kind of the very definition of "God?" Once one accepts the existence of God, all the rest of that just sort of seems to follow.


The definition of God being: "You can't observe his presence in any way, but he's constantly running around doing shiat. Also he makes no sense, so don't even try to observe him based on all the shiat he's doing."

That's the definition of a non-existent being.
 
2012-10-24 10:13:19 PM

TalenLee: A Dark Evil Omen: Hickory-smoked: TalenLee: dletter: That is interesting, never really thought about it that way, I'll have to ask next time I am in a group how they consider that being not "monotheistic", I mean, Satan seems to have some pretty "God-like" powers.

Read Job. Satan is basically God's sting operative.

I prefer "prosecuting attorney."

Satan is the original cop.

He's also not the damn snake - that's just another, another, another example of Christians retconning bullshiat back into someone else's book. The Old Testament is Twilight, which makes the New Testament 50 Shades of Gray, which makes the Book of Mormon 50 Shades Of Gray fanfiction.


This is getting creepier by the second.
 
2012-10-24 10:16:28 PM

evaned: Pappas: To be perfectly honest, I've always felt that anyone who claims to be "pro-life" because "life begins at conception", yet supports exceptions for race/incest/health of the mother, to be the definition of hypocritical.
And even though I'm not in that camp, I think you're wrong (or, can be wrong even if you tend to be right in practice), and I've already explained why earlier in this thread: if you say the fetus is a little mini-human with rights, then it immediately becomes a balancing act between the rights of the fetus and mother; it's not at all unreasonable to say that a deliberate choice to engage in an activity that has a reasonable probability of producing a pregnancy means that the mother waives some of her rights thus moving the balance in favor of the fetus.
I think it's a much bigger hipocracy to be (as someone else pointed out) anti-abortion and anti-birth control.


That's an excellent point, and well taken in the case of rape. It makes sense that, using your likely scenario, a rape victim could be allowed an abortion (no deliberate choice, no waiving of rights). I don't think this address the issue of incest that isn't also rape (for obvious reasons, though this is admittedly rare) or the health of the mother, assuming it's not a guarantee that the mother will die. Like you said, she made a deliberate choice and waives her rights. Who knows what a court would decide? 50% chance the mom dies and she has to have the baby? Less? .

That being said, go back to rape: if this is going to be a legal matter in a mother V fetus scenario, who determines if the woman was raped? Do we take her word for it? Do we have to wait for her rapist to be caught and put on trial? What about an appeal? If this is a legal matter (mother V fetus), the facts have to be indisputable... and abortion is only an option for so long. That's where I think the legal argument breaks down... it's not -really- possible for it to be up for adjudication in the first place.

Regardless, I agree that being anti-abortion and anti-birth control is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. Talk about abhorrent.
 
2012-10-24 10:31:37 PM

MorePeasPlease: I did a copypasta of the thread and extracted the all "rape". Here's what we have up to now:

raperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperapeRaperapeRaperaper a peraperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperape raperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperapera peraperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperape raperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperapera peraperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperape raperaperaperaperaperapeRaperaperaperaperaperapeRaperaperaperaperapera peraperaperaperaperaperaperapeRaperaperaperapeRaperapeRaperaperaperape raperaperaperaperaperaperapeRaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperapera peraperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperape raperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperapera peraperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperape raperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperapera peraperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperape RaperapeRaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperaperapera peraperaperaperaperaperaperapeRAPERAPEraperaperape


I'm proud to sat I'm "RAPERAPE"!
 
2012-10-24 10:34:16 PM
elchip 2012-10-24 09:29:22 PM

When a rapist gives you lemons, make lemonade.

Yeah. Outta the rapist.
 
2012-10-24 10:49:43 PM

Gyrfalcon: This is getting creepier by the second.


You get used to it if you've been at Fark awhile. The atheist derp here is quite inspired.
 
2012-10-24 10:51:49 PM

LandOfChocolate: Remember this, GOP

You brought this on yourself

By ousting a long time "RINO" and courting the batshiat crazy American Taliban, you have no one to blame but yourselves for all the shiat currently being fanned on your candidates.


Love that.

Can't use it anywhere though... well, because librul media and all that.
 
2012-10-24 10:51:53 PM
So if you abort the antichrist, will you still go to Hell?
 
2012-10-24 10:55:29 PM

Hoboclown: [playingrickymorton.files.wordpress.com image 483x355]

This guy?


If Dickie was alive today I like to think he'd punch Mourdock in the face without spilling his Currs.
 
2012-10-24 10:58:21 PM

Jormungandr: So if you abort the antichrist, will you still go to Hell?


I think they're more worried about the next time God wants to rape and impregnate a young girl.
 
2012-10-24 11:00:31 PM

Kurmudgeon: Gyrfalcon: This is getting creepier by the second.

You get used to it if you've been at Fark awhile. The atheist derp here is quite inspired.


Yeah, because the fact that we have politicians who believe that part of God's grand cosmic plan involves women getting raped and forced to carry their rape babies to term whether they want to or not? That's perfectly reasonable.
 
2012-10-24 11:11:18 PM
Something something analogy 'anchor babies.' They shouldn't be here if people had obeyed the law, but we might as well make the most of the cards we were dealt. Right Republicans?
 
2012-10-24 11:11:57 PM
Fark is really slacking off

i71.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-24 11:14:08 PM

Tommy Moo: Thank god society has finally progressed in this country to the point where expressing backwards, asinine religious dogma is actually considered an embarrassing, career ending gaffe. We are about 20 years away from an atheist President and about 40 away from religion being a sad anachronism confined to the f***ing Ozarks.


Let's check back on November 7 to see if it's really career threatening.
 
2012-10-24 11:19:43 PM
i1024.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-24 11:51:28 PM

intelligent comment below: ilambiquated: intelligent comment below: So far that's 3 things in about 4,000 years

You said constantly getting pissed off

You haven't read the bible.


What else is there?


Would you like a freaking list?
 
2012-10-25 12:01:57 AM

hawcian: "Perfect for forming life" is a strange assessment of the universe. You could stick life on a planet around every star in every galaxy and the combined volume of all that life wouldn't even equal a rounding error on the volume of the universe as a whole. That doesn't seem very conducive to life.


Lmao. In your little rat brain, does a universe conducive to life mean that life must exist everywhere.. or 50, 75% of the universe? I'm talking about the properties required to form matter and the structures that are required to form life. One minor difference and the biological structures within our cells would be incoherent, and that is dictated by the properties of the universe. Tell me, what is your ideal of the universe if you think you could make an improvement.. let's hear it. I'd be glad to tear your models apart. Surely, you being an intelligent being can create something better than random chance was able to.
 
2012-10-25 12:04:29 AM

DemonEater: Of course, abb3w will probably be along in a minute to tell me how wrong I am, and how I'm wrong, but that's ok.


I don't pretend either QM or Free Will makes much sense to me, particularly when you mix "God" into the mess.
 
2012-10-25 12:28:14 AM
This is the idiotic reasoning that shows just how evil religion is.
 
2012-10-25 12:30:29 AM

Pappas: I don't think this address the issue of incest that isn't also rape (for obvious reasons, though this is admittedly rare) or the health of the mother, assuming it's not a guarantee that the mother will die. Like you said, she made a deliberate choice and waives her rights. Who knows what a court would decide? 50% chance the mom dies and she has to have the baby? Less? .That being said, go back to rape: if this is going to be a legal matter in a mother V fetus scenario, who determines if the woman was raped? Do we take her word for it? Do we have to wait for her rapist to be caught and put on trial? What about an appeal? If this is a legal matter (mother V fetus), the facts have to be indisputable... and abortion is only an option for so long. That's where I think the legal argument breaks down... it's not -really- possible for it to be up for adjudication in the first place.


Real-world complications to the theoretical are part of why I am in favor of a blanket allowance. There are other practical concerns too -- e.g. it's possible to act responsibly with regard to the possibility of pregnancy but the condom breaks or you get the one-and-a-million occurrence (odds made up) of the pill failing, or whathaveyou. In the case of rape, I'd also really worry about someone feeling forced to claim rape when it wasn't in order to get an abortion.

So essentially my opinion on the issue is that, at least early on (again, left deliberately vague -- at least long enough that it'd be pretty impossible to not know you're pregnant) the rights of the mother are strong enough that when you consider the practical problems with allowing abortions here but not there, the best ("least bad"?) course of action is to give a blanket allowance and trust the women involved to make "the" right decision, whatever it may be for them. The cost of prohibiting abortion is higher.

(Which isn't to say that allowing it is free of practical problems -- in particular, what if the father disagrees about whether there should be an abortion? How much if any say should he have? What if he wants an abortion but she refuses -- should he be on the hook for child support? If she wants an abortion but he doesn't, should that weigh into the picture somehow?)
 
2012-10-25 12:53:30 AM

intelligent comment below: Out of all that nonsense, the only new addition to the list is Sodom and Gamorra


I'll chuck in one, how about the prophet Elisha.

'cuz, you know, sending a bear to eat the fark out of a bunch of little kids, who aren't even of the age of accountability, because some bald asshole that can't take a joke says so the the shiznit.
 
2012-10-25 12:58:01 AM

evaned: (Which isn't to say that allowing it is free of practical problems -- in particular, what if the father disagrees about whether there should be an abortion? How much if any say should he have? What if he wants an abortion but she refuses -- should he be on the hook for child support? If she wants an abortion but he doesn't, should that weigh into the picture somehow?)

 
Men do not have any legal rights over a child until it is no longer in a woman's body. That's easy enough to understand- you can't give one person legal rights over another person's body.

Child support laws do not exist to protect women. They exist to protect children, and a man can't opt out of his legal obligation to a child simply because he'd prefer that child not have existed.


 
 
2012-10-25 01:01:32 AM

intelligent comment below: HeartBurnKid: Would you like a freaking list?


Out of all that nonsense, the only new addition to the list is Sodom and Gamorra

Nothing else was God punishing people for free will

"He killed X because God told him to"

"You should sacrifice a lamb because of X"

That isn't helpful to this argument. Try again


Some of it was.

The "sin" of Onan was. Onan didn't want to get his brother's wife pregnant, so god killed him for it. Sounds pretty much like free will to me.
The people of Korah "complained" and god killed them for it (Numbers). So they exercised their free will to go against god, and god didn't like it.
Some people supported one king (Abilemech) instead of the one god wanted, and were killed on god's orders. So they picked one candidate over another and were executed. (Judges)

There's just lots of examples of god killing people for exercising free will in the Bible, no matter how hard you want to deny it.
 
2012-10-25 01:06:13 AM
Also, this article was posted earlier and it's a lovely reminder that the fact that these assholes can even discuss this as a pure hypothetical is a function of their privilege:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/pregnancy-as-lab or /264070/ 

This was my favorite comment on the piece:

"When I was a kid, my mom, an OBGYN, worked pretty much 24/7 to reduce infant mortality in the Middle East so I grew up steeped in knowledge of women's health issues. The complications that arise in pregnancy are often incredible, I learned. The notion that it's some kind of easy process is bunk. It's not a Hallmark card. When I was 7, a couple came to my mom for counselling. Tests revealed that if she didn't have an abortion, there was a good chance that she might die. She was terrified as all hell to a degree that was obvious to me as a kid. The fear in her eyes, I don't believe I've often seen the like. She knew what was coming and she didn't have the ability to do anything without her husband's consent, whether through some lack of means, opportunity or fortitude. Her husband, on the other hand, by all accounts a kind and generous man, was of the opinion that all this is a blessing and God's will and that under no circumstances was his wife to get an abortion. When my mom tried to obtain his consent, he quoted Scripture quite naturally while sitting beside a woman who knew she was going to die. When I think about why I'm vehemently and militantly pro-choice, it comes down to this. Here was a man concerned with abstractions and sin and God and the potential of human life and not about the person sitting right beside him who he claimed to support, a living, breathing person confronting her own mortality. She died. He came by a month afterwards to give my mom a gold watch for her trouble.

The pro-life position strikes me as the epitome of male privilege, even when expressed by women, the ability to discount the existent in favor of the abstract, theoretical and non-existent." 
 
2012-10-25 01:10:27 AM

Weaver95: leaving aside for a moment the philosophical implications of believing in a god that condones violent acts against his followers...did Mourdock really intend that press conference to succeed? c'mon man...I was watching it. he tried to say that his words were 'twisted' against him. while i'm sure that you could make that case in other circumstances the record seems pretty clear: he kinda/sorta seems to believe that rape babies happen because it's god's will and his press conference didn't really clear any of that up.


That would imply a kind of empathy or self-reflection that would preclude his religious beliefs in the first place. This argument is fundamentally the "problem of evil" philosophical quandary.

As Vitamin_R posted;
i71.photobucket.com
Just replace "evil" with "rape."

But as a true-blue believer Mourdock has spent a good portion of his life ignoring and avoiding that question, he has layers and layers of denials and mental gymnastics to keep from asking the question "why evil?" and the idea that other people would NOT have those layers of denial and repression are just as alien.

Coincidentally this is the process by which people who know how objectively terrible the GOP is and how little they can afford the promised middle-class tax-hikes are willing to say BSABSVR and vote for Mitt Romney.
 
2012-10-25 01:13:44 AM

intelligent comment below: That's just another of the "something bad happened, lets blame God"


...you haven't actually read the story of Elisha and the bears, have you. The meaning and context are pretty crystal clear.

That's a case of God acting subordinately to a man possessing of free will to punish children not of the age of accountability. I'd love to hear you explaining that one without equivocation, like you just attempted.
 
2012-10-25 01:21:01 AM

GhostFish: dletter: That is interesting, never really thought about it that way, I'll have to ask next time I am in a group how they consider that being not "monotheistic", I mean, Satan seems to have some pretty "God-like" powers.

Meh. I can't say for sure what a believer would say, but it's pretty easy to come to the conclusion that Satan's power comes from God.

He's not mentioned a whole lot in the Bible, but if you go by the apochrypha and other fan fiction then Satan is widely considered to be a fallen Angel. So God can be pointed at as the source of any initial power in that case.

Satan is also generally not free to use all his talents on all people. He needs God's permission, like with Job, or he needs people to give themselves over to him freely before he can really screw them over. Or people need to piss God off so much that he withdraws his protection and Satan gains free reign.

So Satan doesn't really have any power outside of what God allows, as far as I can tell. So it's still a pretty monotheistic system that way.


A lot of that, interestingly, is because the role of Satan has evolved as Christianity evolved from Judaism--it seems the original role of Satan (or ha-Satan) was basically as God's prosecuting attorney (yes, that's right, the original concept of Satan was basically as God's own Miles Edgeworth, and the book of Job is basically a semi-parody of the concept of the Court of the Divine with Job as the defendant for all of humanity).

During the occupation of what is now Israel by the Persians, Judaism was exposed to one of the dualist religions that evolved in isolation from the Semitic family of faiths--early versions of Zoroastrianism, which posited the existence of an Ultimate Good Deity (Ahura Mazda or Ormazhd) and an Ultimate Evil Entity in opposition to the Ultimate Good Deity (Ahriman). This did have some substantial influence on at least some sects of Judaism, including the branch that spawned Christianity; the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls (the Essenes) in particular had latched onto the "elevation" of Satan into an Ahriman-archetype opposed to God. (Most of the Apocryphal works depicting Satan as a fallen angel were written around this period of transition of Satan from "God's own Miles Edgeworth" to "Ultimate Evil".)

Needless to say, Christianity really ran with the Zoroastrian-influenced trope, to the point that it (and Islam) pretty much have functional dualism (or in the case of trinitarian Christianity, a triumvirate "three-headed Deity" versus Ultimate Evil--there has been some speculation there could have been influence from remaining Vedic practice in Iran before Zoroastrianism took over as the state religion, but it's more likely that trinitarianism evolved independently).

(And for even more fun, there's Gnosticism, which has been speculated as having been influenced by Buddhism--which posits that the Old Testament God is pretty much a spiritless bastard of the real creative forces of the universe and is perpetually throwing a galactic temper tantrum, and Jesus came to pretty much show the true nature of things. :D Needless to say, it didn't really get along with mainstream Christianity at all and there were systematic attempts to wipe Gnosticism out for the better part of a millennium.)
 
2012-10-25 01:24:42 AM

Great Porn Dragon: (And for even more fun, there's Gnosticism, which has been speculated as having been influenced by Buddhism--which posits that the Old Testament God is pretty much a spiritless bastard of the real creative forces of the universe and is perpetually throwing a galactic temper tantrum, and Jesus came to pretty much show the true nature of things. :D Needless to say, it didn't really get along with mainstream Christianity at all and there were systematic attempts to wipe Gnosticism out for the better part of a millennium.)



Yup. Gnosticism is actually the school of thought that allowed me to see the real beauty in Christian ideals.
 
2012-10-25 01:25:18 AM
So if someone believes that life begins at conception and that murder should be illegal, what is it about that opinion that makes it any more ridiculous than the idea that abortion should be legal no matter what even right up until the full term child's head is coming down the birth canal?

Logic is logic and it doesn't give a damn about feelings.
 
2012-10-25 01:30:06 AM
In all fairness, at least he's honest about what he feels instead of one of those "whatever it takes to get elected" like Romney who does support a woman's choice, then doesn't support a woman's choice, and then only supports it in cases of incest of rape, or whatever he feels bound to say to his financial backers today.

Now, I didn't say I agreed with it, but I can have more respect for someone who at least doesn't lie at the drop of a hat like Mittens
 
2012-10-25 01:34:46 AM
"I do want to clarify one thing that Congressman Murphy had said about this, um, the rape issue and contraception. That was asking the Hartford Courant review board, and it was really an issue about a Catholic church being forced to offer those pills if the person came in in an emergency rape... that was my response to it."

- Republican senate candidate Linda McMahon (CT)
October 15, 2012


As opposed to a planned rape?

"Mr. Rapist? Hi, this is Susan... I can't do the rape thing tonight, I have to work late. Yes I know walking back to my car alone in the parking garage will be my best opportunity this week, but I just can't make it. Much too busy. How about friday, say 11 pm - midnightish? That will give me a whole weekend of mental trauma to go through after you're done with me.
I'll be coming back from dinner with the girls and I'll be in the lot at my apartment complex. Yes, the bushes near my usual parking spot are nice and high, and there's even a drainage ditch you can throw me into afterwards on the other side where I might not be found for a day or two. Sure, I can wear a skirt and no pantyhose... no problem. You know my address? I'll be driving a white VW bug with a butterfly sticker on the window. Okay, see you on friday. Buh-bye! *click*"

Stupid.

Seriously.
 
2012-10-25 01:36:19 AM

jvl: For the grownups here, if there are any, here is what the gibberish coming out of his mouth means:

Some people believe in predestination. Some believe in free will. And some manage to believe in both, which leads to interesting logical conclusions.

Here's how the "both" works: people have free will, but God knows how it's going to work out if he lets people make their own decisions. Usually such people believe that the end result of history is destined. So the rape is a completely evil crime made when God allowed the rapist to choose whether to act good or act evilly. The net result though, simply adds to God's plan. In this way, he is saying that if someone is raped and chooses to have a baby, then the baby is (a) good and (b) meant to be and (c) the rapist is a criminal.

But please continue hyperventilating as if he had said something truly wacko like "women can naturally abort real rape."


Don't apologize for him. It's not grown-up.
 
2012-10-25 01:40:53 AM

Bigdogdaddy: In all fairness, at least he's honest about what he feels instead of one of those "whatever it takes to get elected" like Romney who does support a woman's choice, then doesn't support a woman's choice, and then only supports it in cases of incest of rape, or whatever he feels bound to say to his financial backers today.

Now, I didn't say I agreed with it, but I can have more respect for someone who at least doesn't lie at the drop of a hat like Mittens


There's a third choice you know. There's "being honest" (which is code for "I'm about to say something ignorant, stupid or racist"), lying like a Persian Rug, or simply NOT SAYING ANYTHING AT ALL.

Sorry, I can't "respect" anyone just because they say what they think, only because what they think is what should garner the respect and not the fact that they said it.
 
2012-10-25 01:45:24 AM

vernonFL: I don't see what the big deal is.

Have you read the Bible? The God that these people worship is all about rape.


The Book of Job, is essentially a story in which the devil bets god that if he turns his life upside down and kills him; god accepts the bet. God eventually wins, but Job's life is figuratively raped and then killed. And that's the "male on male" story... do I even need to Google the female rape and pillage rape?
 
2012-10-25 01:48:16 AM
Good lord.

... if he turns his life upside down and kills him, Job will denounce god; god accepts the bet.

what I don't even
 
2012-10-25 02:00:34 AM
(*sigh*) These Republican nutjobs spout this stuff, and Republican voters will still vote for them. No wonder things are so f*cked up these days.

/independent
//vote the candidate, not the party
///critical thinking -- exercise some
////it might just make a difference
 
2012-10-25 02:02:03 AM

Vindibudd: So if someone believes that life begins at conception and that murder should be illegal, what is it about that opinion that makes it any more ridiculous than the idea that abortion should be legal no matter what even right up until the full term child's head is coming down the birth canal?

Logic is logic and it doesn't give a damn about feelings.


We don't have a really good objective line in the sand for what constitutes personhood.

According to science we are animals, and it's pretty widely accepted that killing other animals when it benefits you can easily be perfectly acceptable.

So what makes human animals an exception to this would seem to be the concept of personhood.
At some point, a human supposedly transcends the state of being a mindless animal and becomes more than just a complex stimulus and response machine. We think and feel, emote and ruminate and wonder about our existence and empathize with others and all that crap. And that supposedly makes us special and above all the other animals that we kill whenever we want to.

It's easy to say that we have this gift by nature of being born human, but there's no real evidence of that. By all measure, human newborns are about as mindless and idiotic as any other animal on the planet. They have potential, but at the time of infancy they really are nothing by complex stimulus and response machines.
It offends our sense of empathy to consider it, but in any way we can tell there really isn't a rational reason that killing a newborn is any worse than killing anything else. And that's kind of a scary thing that we probably won't address anytime soon.

We'll just continue to squabble over when a human life becomes something that can be empathized with, and we'll use that as our measure to decide when and where abortion is acceptable.

We're a silly and subjective species. Just a bunch of psychotic apes, really.
 
2012-10-25 02:02:35 AM

Tommy Moo: Thank god society has finally progressed in this country to the point where expressing backwards, asinine religious dogma is actually considered an embarrassing, career ending gaffe. We are about 20 years away from an atheist President and about 40 away from religion being a sad anachronism confined to the f***ing Ozarks.


Religion in general? Nah. It'll be around forever.

Anything even remotely recognizable as Christianity to any Christian born before 2000? Yup, in a few decades that shiat's gonna be about as prevalent and socially acceptable a view to openly hold as KKK membership currently is. Because this kind of shiat is... actually very well-supported by the bible and the Protestant clergy.

And... well, good. Sola scriptura Christianity needs to die in a farking fire as soon as practically possible. It can take Wahhabist Islam and "genuine" (i.e. non-hippie-and-drug-fueled) Buddhism out with it while it's going, as far as I'm concerned.

//Catholicism will probably survive because they built their religion with mechanisms to change its positions when needed like, y'know, rational people designing an organization.
 
2012-10-25 02:17:08 AM
Honestly, as an atheist, what's wrong with saying god intended rape? I mean, if you believe god has a big plan fine. Good comes with bad. whatever.

The question is, "Why is rape part of that plan but not your abortion?"
 
2012-10-25 02:23:41 AM

hawcian: There are, however, an infinite number (albeit a smaller infinity) of universes where complex structures could form.


You know how I know you don't understand the concept of "infinity?"
 
2012-10-25 02:39:14 AM
disinfo.s3.amazonaws.com

Excuse me, but... what does God need with a rape baby?

GranoblasticMan: hawcian: There are, however, an infinite number (albeit a smaller infinity) of universes where complex structures could form.

You know how I know you don't understand the concept of "infinity?"


You know how I know you don't understand the concept of "infinity"?
 
2012-10-25 02:42:15 AM
Rape bad, baby good. So we're all even, right?

Uh, no.
 
2012-10-25 03:31:13 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: LouDobbsAwaaaay: *better protip* Ignore all of it. The collective fantasy stories of an ancient society of goat-herders has no relevance to real life.

mediablitz: If you care about the facts, you should be ignoring the Bible completely.

Gosh darn it, you're just so cute. Yep, the rules Jesus laid out have no relevance for our lives..it's just so typical for farkers who hate the possibility that there's a god and he might want you to live in a way that you don't feel like living it. Just one universe, where the laws just happened to work out to have the ability to form complex life.. and it's entirely bullshiat that there was an intelligence behind it. Chances are, you don't know much about physics.. because the odds against this whole thing happening are beyond staggering.

Please feel free to trot out the "well if it wasn't perfect for forming life, then life wouldn't be there to realize it" derp, because it is only one single universe after all, and the odds are infinitely against you.


The intervention of an intelligent agent is a positive claim, so why should I accept it?
Just as I don't have to accept 'random chance' as a possibility, so why should I accept intelligent intervention as one?

You make plenty of assertions that you haven't backed up:
- that there is just one universe.
- that the universe's cosmological constants and laws could have been something else.
- that 'infinitely' small odds precludes any chance of it occurring.
in an attempt to attack 'random chance' (a topic that you introduced as an attack point), but don't provide any evidence for the above or the existence of an intelligent agent.

In particular, putting forth 'and the odds are infinitely against you' is irrelevant. You've stated that you only have one data point and it contains life, so all that can be inferred is that as far as random chance is concerned, whatever the odds were they weren't zero.

As for your bit about the Abrahamic god, why should I believe in him over any other deity?

'I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.' - Roberts 

\ Noticed your insults towards hawcian.
\\ Classy
 
2012-10-25 04:01:07 AM

intelligent comment below: ilambiquated: intelligent comment below: ilambiquated: intelligent comment below: So far that's 3 things in about 4,000 years

You said constantly getting pissed off

You haven't read the bible.


What else is there?

Haha this is going to be a fun game. You are some kind of clever!!


How is it a fun game if you don't answer my question?


Here's a good start if you are really curious.
 
2012-10-25 04:03:06 AM

Hoboclown: [playingrickymorton.files.wordpress.com image 483x355]

This guy?


Is that Baron Harkonnen?
 
2012-10-25 04:24:07 AM
images.wikia.com
Now he's a Congressman?
This guy pops up everywhere!
 
2012-10-25 04:34:15 AM

Great Porn Dragon: some sects of Judaism, including the branch that spawned Christianity


There is a lot of demonology in the Book of Enoch, which is part of the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. It was probably very important to Christianity.
 
2012-10-25 05:15:39 AM

ilambiquated: Great Porn Dragon: some sects of Judaism, including the branch that spawned Christianity

There is a lot of demonology in the Book of Enoch, which is part of the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. It was probably very important to Christianity.


The Book of Enoch is pretty cool. It adds a lot to the story of The Fall Of Man as told in The Bible. Basically, God sent "Watchers" to watch over His Creation while he took a break. Those angles saw our women and got horny. So they made a pact to defy God and get some primate pussy. The result of this union were half-human half-angel hybrids called the Nephilim. The Watchers also taught mankind many "secrets" such as metal working, cosmetics, and arts of war.

The Nephilim grew into giants that consumed huge amounts of food and fought bloody wars among themselves. They started dining on human flesh and generally farking up all the stuff God had worked so hard on the week before. Eventually, God gets word of what the Watchers did and lays down some Godsmack.

Pissed, God bound them in prisons deep within the earth. He wiped out the Nephilim, but their souls continued on as demons attempting to lure people into joining them in their fate at Judgement. The Watchers will remain bound in the Earth. As judgement approaches they will "tremble" and cause great earthquake over all the earth.

/CSB
 
2012-10-25 06:57:48 AM
It's because he believes in predestination. Simple explanation. Nothing to worry about. Man has his right to believe in his religion. Abortion in special cases will never be banned so calm down
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2012-10-25 07:02:29 AM
I am finally in a position to vote against one of the ultra-idiots.

I will vote against Mourdock. You applicable farkers vote against Bachman, Akin, Walsh, etc all.

Actually put down the beer and do it this time!
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2012-10-25 07:03:30 AM

ninotchka: It's because he believes in predestination. Simple explanation. Nothing to worry about. Man has his right to believe in his religion. Abortion in special cases will never be banned so calm down


Oh bullshiat. Be believes what his corporate and right-wing masters tell him what to believe.
 
2012-10-25 07:52:56 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: LouDobbsAwaaaay: *better protip* Ignore all of it. The collective fantasy stories of an ancient society of goat-herders has no relevance to real life.

mediablitz: If you care about the facts, you should be ignoring the Bible completely.

Gosh darn it, you're just so cute. Yep, the rules Jesus laid out have no relevance for our lives..it's just so typical for farkers who hate the possibility that there's a god and he might want you to live in a way that you don't feel like living it. Just one universe, where the laws just happened to work out to have the ability to form complex life.. and it's entirely bullshiat that there was an intelligence behind it. Chances are, you don't know much about physics.. because the odds against this whole thing happening are beyond staggering.

Please feel free to trot out the "well if it wasn't perfect for forming life, then life wouldn't be there to realize it" derp, because it is only one single universe after all, and the odds are infinitely against you.


The entropic principle isn't bullshiat; it's the foundation of thermodynamics. That you dislike its implication doesn't change the cold-hard physics behind the transfer of energy, the doing of work, and the very formation of matter itself. As for the "odds", well, you're getting it backwards; the universe is not "suitable for life", life developed in response to the conditions of the universe. Life, necessarily, came about under specific conditions, in reaction to those conditions, and, by the simple mechanism of death, those forms of life best suited to the changing physical dynamic of the Earth thrived at the expense of those not so suited. Life is a reaction to the universe, an advantage thoughtlessly grabbed, not its purpose.
 
2012-10-25 08:29:57 AM

God-is-a-Taco: chuckufarlie:

Sure but even in the new Testament he had a son and let him be tortured to death for some reason that still was never made clear to me.

It's a classic human sacrifice myth:

1. Original Sin (the apple story), all mankind is cursed and hated by God blah blah
2. God changes his mind, maybe humans having knowledge is okay
3. Humans are cursed by the Original Sin still, but God can't go against God's Will.
4. God loves sacrifices, but God doesn't value humans enough for their sacrifice to impress God.
5. God creates God2 in human form
6. God2 does some human stuff, sets into motion his sacrifice.
7. God2 is tortured and killed, pleasing God.
8. God revokes God's Original Sin curse, to the joy of God and also God2
9. God is angry at God for making things so complicated and creates organized religion

Baptism is in there too for some factions.


And also the classic story of the male genitive deity which, as huge piles of evidence points to, was originally worshiped via human sacrifice. Whether its Tammuz, Dionysus/Hades, or Jesus the story has a similar form; The god lives physically on earth, the god and the plants die (the harvest), the god goes to the underworld to make a deal with death (winter), the god returns to earth bringing the plants back to life (spring). Among the Indo-Europeans, who didn't have writing until they had taken up agriculture, these gods were typically ones of vegetative fertility, but among the older, Semitic-speaking civilization that invented writing older forms exist, like the story of Tammuz, where the god isn't a harvest deity but a shepherd one. Thus all the shepherd symbolism Jesus is associated with.

That is the tradition the Jesus story plays into, though with two notable twists. First, by dying Jesus saves humans directly from death, instead of indirectly by saving the flocks and plant-life. Second, the salvation Jesus brings isn't the practical salvation of our ancestors -i.e. not starving to death- but rather a salvation tailored to the Roman world the biblical Jesus was invented for; Redemption, literally, the cancelling/paying off of debts. The Roman empire was a slave society and, contrary to the popular concept of Roman slavery, most Roman slaves were debt-slaves, not captives or criminals. The Christians appealed to these debt-slaves via a deity who suffered the greatest form of physical pain and humiliation a slave could suffer(scourging, crucifixion), to bring them salvation by cancelling the moral portion of their debts and ending their slavery. He heralded the Jubilee (again, literally the cancelling of debts, and which historically occurred during the first harvest season of a new Mesopotamian monarch), and reaped a moral harvest (cutting down obligations, bringing in freedom). This is also why, as the Christian church waxed and the Roman state waned, de jure slavery was more or less banished from Roman Europe, to be replaced by the de facto slavery of serfdom and all the justifying sophistry about "order", "hierarchies", and "obligation" with which the later Christian church would surround it.
 
2012-10-25 08:52:58 AM

GranoblasticMan: hawcian: There are, however, an infinite number (albeit a smaller infinity) of universes where complex structures could form.

You know how I know you don't understand the concept of "infinity?"


Actually, it is you who has a poor grasp of the mathematics of infinity. Two sets may both be infinite but one said to be larger or smaller based on how their elements correspond. For example, Take all the positive integers which is an infinite set and the prime numbers which is also an infinite set but a subset of the positive integers.
 
2012-10-25 08:57:40 AM

Jim_Callahan: And... well, good. Sola scriptura Christianity needs to die in a farking fire as soon as practically possible. It can take Wahhabist Islam and "genuine" (i.e. non-hippie-and-drug-fueled) Buddhism out with it while it's going, as far as I'm concerned.


"genuine" Buddhism?

Allow me to show you my zen face:
media.comicvine.com
 
2012-10-25 09:02:42 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: GranoblasticMan: hawcian: There are, however, an infinite number (albeit a smaller infinity) of universes where complex structures could form.

You know how I know you don't understand the concept of "infinity?"

Actually, it is you who has a poor grasp of the mathematics of infinity. Two sets may both be infinite but one said to be larger or smaller based on how their elements correspond. For example, Take all the positive integers which is an infinite set and the prime numbers which is also an infinite set but a subset of the positive integers.


No, the set of all primes is the same size as the set of all integers, even though it is a proper subset. In fact the definition of infinity is that an infinite set can be the same size as on of its a proper subsets.

However, you are right to say that there are different sizes of infinity. The real numbers make up a larger set than the integers, as proven by Cantor's diagonal argument.
 
2012-10-25 09:04:09 AM

nmemkha: God sent "Watchers" to watch over His Creation while he took a break.


Yeah, and the Watchers have survived in Christianity as "guardian angels".
 
2012-10-25 09:12:12 AM

ilambiquated: No, the set of all primes is the same size as the set of all integers, even though it is a proper subset. In fact the definition of infinity is that an infinite set can be the same size as on of its a proper subsets.

However, you are right to say that there are different sizes of infinity. The real numbers make up a larger set than the integers, as proven by Cantor's diagonal argument.


Yeah, writing math in english with no coffee is a recipe for disaster.
 
2012-10-25 09:39:29 AM
"Life is a gift from God."

"We just want to make sure there are more and more of little gifts left in backalley trashcans."
 
2012-10-25 09:50:32 AM

Pope Larry II: On, a serious note. How do these people keep getting elected?


(R)
 
2012-10-25 11:26:04 AM

elchip: When a rapist gives you lemons, make lemonade throw a lemon party.


ftfy
 
2012-10-25 12:25:37 PM

Vindibudd: So if someone believes that life begins at conception and that murder should be illegal, what is it about that opinion that makes it any more ridiculous than the idea that abortion should be legal no matter what even right up until the full term child's head is coming down the birth canal?

Logic is logic and it doesn't give a damn about feelings.


I never quite understood the outrage over that pro-life position. It logically follows. If it didn't, it would require some gymnastics to justify. Once you start with the premise that life begins at conception, the conclusion can't be any different.
 
2012-10-25 03:03:27 PM
Hey, God causes millions of fertilized eggs to not implant, and thousands of miscarriages every year. But it's ALWAYS fine and dandy when he does it, because he's so awesome and powerful and loving.
 
2012-10-25 03:35:57 PM

ilambiquated: Monkeyhouse Zendo: GranoblasticMan: hawcian: There are, however, an infinite number (albeit a smaller infinity) of universes where complex structures could form.

You know how I know you don't understand the concept of "infinity?"

Actually, it is you who has a poor grasp of the mathematics of infinity. Two sets may both be infinite but one said to be larger or smaller based on how their elements correspond. For example, Take all the positive integers which is an infinite set and the prime numbers which is also an infinite set but a subset of the positive integers.

No, the set of all primes is the same size as the set of all integers, even though it is a proper subset. In fact the definition of infinity is that an infinite set can be the same size as on of its a proper subsets.

However, you are right to say that there are different sizes of infinity. The real numbers make up a larger set than the integers, as proven by Cantor's diagonal argument.



i229.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-25 04:07:51 PM

GranoblasticMan: hawcian: There are, however, an infinite number (albeit a smaller infinity) of universes where complex structures could form.

You know how I know you don't understand the concept of "infinity?"


High school math teaches two kinds of infinity, they are different sizes.
 
2012-10-25 07:45:45 PM

Heron:
And also the classic story of the male genitive deity which, as huge piles of evidence points to, was originally worshiped via human sacrifice. Whether its Tammuz, Dionysus/Hades, or Jesus the story has a similar form; The god lives physically on earth, the god and the plants die (the harvest), the god goes to the underworld to make a deal with death (winter), the god returns to earth bringing the plants back to life (spring).


Neat. It's very interesting stuff to read about. We're still using their stories for own books and movies.
 
2012-10-26 06:02:52 AM

nmemkha: ilambiquated: Great Porn Dragon: some sects of Judaism, including the branch that spawned Christianity

There is a lot of demonology in the Book of Enoch, which is part of the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. It was probably very important to Christianity.

The Book of Enoch is pretty cool. It adds a lot to the story of The Fall Of Man as told in The Bible. Basically, God sent "Watchers" to watch over His Creation while he took a break. Those angles saw our women and got horny. So they made a pact to defy God and get some primate pussy. The result of this union were half-human half-angel hybrids called the Nephilim. The Watchers also taught mankind many "secrets" such as metal working, cosmetics, and arts of war.

The Nephilim grew into giants that consumed huge amounts of food and fought bloody wars among themselves. They started dining on human flesh and generally farking up all the stuff God had worked so hard on the week before. Eventually, God gets word of what the Watchers did and lays down some Godsmack.

Pissed, God bound them in prisons deep within the earth. He wiped out the Nephilim, but their souls continued on as demons attempting to lure people into joining them in their fate at Judgement. The Watchers will remain bound in the Earth. As judgement approaches they will "tremble" and cause great earthquake over all the earth.

/CSB


This would make an awesome movie
 
2012-10-26 04:12:33 PM
So it's been a few days now.

Why, exactly, is this piece of shiat still in office?
 
2012-10-26 05:14:39 PM

whidbey: So it's been a few days now.

Why, exactly, is this piece of shiat still in office?


Because Indiana's Treasurer of State is an elected position. He can't be voted out until 2014, and what he said, while contemptible, doesn't rise to an impeachable offense.

/the moar you know
 
2012-10-26 05:42:33 PM

Olympic Trolling Judge: whidbey: So it's been a few days now.

Why, exactly, is this piece of shiat still in office?

Because Indiana's Treasurer of State is an elected position. He can't be voted out until 2014, and what he said, while contemptible, doesn't rise to an impeachable offense.


Who said anything about "impeaching" him.

His remarks are more than enough to demand he step down.


/the moar you know


In this case, then what? Pretty sure my knowledge of the affair doesn't count for anything.
 
2012-10-26 05:58:00 PM

whidbey: His remarks are more than enough to demand he step down.


Forgive me for ignoring that possibility. I just figured it had as much chance of success as my demand that Princess Celestia appear on the one-dollar bill. Teabaggers and power are generally on a "from my cold dead hands" basis. But if you want to give it a shot, hey, best of luck to you.
 
2012-10-26 08:02:57 PM

Olympic Trolling Judge: whidbey: So it's been a few days now.

Why, exactly, is this piece of shiat still in office?

Because Indiana's Treasurer of State is an elected position. He can't be voted out until 2014, and what he said, while contemptible, doesn't rise to an impeachable offense.

/the moar you know


I did a quick search to see if there was a recall procedure and I stumbled across the other answer as to why he's in office to begin with:

Lugar maintained a strong fundraising lead over Mourdock throughout the primary battle but stumbled throughout his final campaign. A series of major missteps by Lugar over questions of why he had not owned a home in Indiana since 1977, including his inability at a February 2012 event to recall the address on his driver's license, gave Mourdock a key opening.
 
2012-10-26 10:23:31 PM
Those angels saw our women and got horny. So they made a pact to defy God and get some primate pussy. The result of this union were half-human half-angel hybrids called the Nephilim. The Watchers also taught mankind many "secrets" such as metal working

Soooo....we were not supposed to learn the art of working in metal?


www.alomani.com

www.clipart.dk.co.uk
 
2012-10-26 10:31:49 PM

intelligent comment below: Also bears maul a kid, people blame God. So just like I said. Something bad happens.. BLAME GOD


Considering he's omnipotent and everything exists because of him, then yes, it is God's fault. Or are you suggesting that humans have the same power as God?
 
2012-10-27 03:23:41 AM
You know what would be awesome is if this shiatstain is forced out of office by the end of the year.
 
2012-10-27 03:59:23 AM
Tarred, feathered an' rid outta town on a rail, Ah say.
 
Displayed 388 of 388 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report