Taz
Gold Member
- Jul 8, 2014
- 22,876
- 2,119
- 190
- Banned
- #221
..
till the crucifiers are brought to justice no religion will represent the 1st century religious itinerant or the many others made to suffer by the same means. than the spoken religion of antiquity presently abandoned for the same reason.
Do you understand what you say here?
better yet ... do you know why the 1st century religious itinerant was crucified.
I guess, you'll tell me this now.
.
better yet ... do you know why the 1st century religious itinerant was crucified..I guess, you'll tell me this now.
that was meant as a question, you're the christian - and please explain the chicken that crowed 3 times ...
because they are still crowing - - > at you - - still afraid, for what "they" will do to you ...
.
* hint: "they" wrote your book.
I don't understand what you want from me. Soon will be Easter. What about the idea to follow just simple our way now? Jesus had died on April, 7th in the year 30 AD. This we will remember this year again by celebrating Easter again. It's the 1990th Easter celebration. In the moment is a fasting period, which was starting last Wednesday. We often prefer periods of 40 days (not periods of months). And "fast" has nothing to do with speed in this context - it comes from the German word "fest", what means solid, strong, hard, firm. In a fasting period we train our will to do what's good to do. This is individually different. If you do often something what's not good for you or others - or if you let it be to do what's good for you and others - then this are good situations for to start to change this wrongdoing now. Don't try to change everything - try to change only a special moment. But do it: Change it. See what this is doing with you.
.
.Jesus had died on April, 7th in the year 30 AD. This we will remember this year again by celebrating Easter again.
you seem never to know what anyone is ever saying -
howabout not celebrating till you bring to justice the crucifiers who victimized the 1st century religious itinerant to give any meaning whatsoever for whatever you are celebrating - as a memento, too - the religion of antiquity the itinerant died for.
Do you like to create a time machine and to wipe out the Romans?
Just the Germans, they're a waste of space, and like their bodies cooked crispy.
I like it when you show that you believe morals are absolute.
Wonderful that you like something. But what do you call "moral" here?
The comment was directed at Taz's apparent righteous indignation. So as much as Taz and people like Taz want to object to absolute morality and absolute truth, they demonstrate they believe in a universal right and wrong that everyone should know, understand, accept and follow.
Dirty Krautz thought that what they were doing was legit. Morals are subjectives.
You certainly don't act like morals are subjective. You only act like your beliefs that morals are subjective are subjective.
We'll never all agree on what's moral, that would make it subjective. Abortion and same sex marriage to name two that all of society will never agree on.
Nope. That makes human being subjective, dummy. No matter what the time, no matter what the issue, there were always people who believed that moral evils were wrong even when those in their societies thought it was right.
You demonstrate daily your belief in a universal right and wrong, despite your objections to the contrary.
See? you prove my point, you call abortion a universal moral evil, I don't.
In case of every abortion always a human being has to die. That's the universal component of all abortions. So how is abortion in general able to be compatible with the natural human rights? Are all abortions justifiable?
You see it one way, I see it another.
Btw, you're wrong. As usual.
What for heavens sake do you see with closed eyes? That light is an absurdity? To kill human beings is not a question of ideas, opinions or tolerance.
A fetus isn't a human being. Now you know.
When exactly starts a human being to be a human being in your view to the world? What are the very exact reasons for this in my eyes very absurde idea?
A fetus becomes a human being when it is born. Sort of like a caterpillar isn't a butterfly into it comes out of the cocoon.
That's not what every embryologist and embryology textbook says, dummy.
Again, no link. Now fuck out of my threads until you get a link, ok?
.
A butterfly begins as a caterpillar. A human begins as a fetus.
Not according to science. Did you even read the link?
The human being starts off as a fetus. The whole thing starts at conception. No problem there. What is it you're trying to get at?
From the link you asked for but didn't read....
Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."
Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:
"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)
.
He makes the distinction between human being and human person. So in his view, I'm talking about a human person. Life begins at conception but you don't become a human person until you're born. There. Happy yet?
I couldn't be happier for you to ass fuck logic, taz.
It’s your link, making you the ass fucker. I bet you do that often.
The link refutes YOUR logic. It's YOUR faulty logic that ass fucks logic.
Was that supposed to be a homophobic insult, Taz? That's very revealing of you.
Actually the guy agrees with me, he makes the distinction between in utero and outside it.
You are an idiot if that was what you concluded.
Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."
Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:
"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)
When Do Human Beings Begin?
Well, your quote says "the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being", which seems wrong as a whole human being has legs and arms, and can breathe and eat on its own...
It might have its chromosomes at conception, something I've never denied, but it's like something having its bar code before all the pieces are assembled. Fits perfectly into my model.
And you must really enjoy talking to idiots, so don't get so upset about it.
Dummy, the quote says that at conception a new human being has come into existence. It's not a lump of tissue or the mother. It is a new human being.
The reason you can't accept this fact is because it makes it harder for you to kill it. Just be honest that you don't give a fuck about killing babies. Lean into it.
You can't even read your own quote properly, "the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being". Which is false. Own it.
You think you know more than the experts? It means that everything that controls the human life cycle is in place. It's not a potential human being. It is a human being with potential. It's not a blob of tissue as you put it.
Here's the definition of human being. So not an embryo or a fetus, which are 2 different things.
Human being
In this article is nothing written about embryos and fetuses. It describes biological components of human beings in context with other biological species. In general helps a simple example: The fetus of an elephant is an elephant. The fetus of a human being a human being. A fetus is not a species - a fetus is a developement step - comparable with an expression like "baby" for example. A nice baby of an elepant and a nice baby of a human being are different living entities.
A caterpillar isn't a butterfly.
What's wrong. In a caterpillar lives something what we are able to call "the soul of a butterfly". And every butterfly was once a hungry caterpillar.
Now shut up and stop whining.
What about to try to become a human being and stop it to be a monster? If a caterpillar can become a butterlfy then this change easily should be able to be done.
Humans start as an embryo, then develop into a fetus, then come out as a human being. And then some of them go back in an oven, don't they?
They are human beings every step of the way. It's called the human life cycle, dummy. It begins at conception and ends at death. Learn some science.
Yes, the human life cycle, which includes an embryo, a fetus, and a full blown human. Thanks for clearing that up?