Roe v. Wade: 42 Years in the Past

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
561

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote] Pat wrote:

You have a right to be an immoral person, just own it.

[/quote]

This guy claims that morality and even human life are “constructs” and don’t actually exist. He’s a nihilist and moral reprobate.[/quote]

Just like most of the atheists on this forum, with exceptions of course most notably Kamui.
What is striking to me, based on observation, is how he and all the others who have passed through say almost exactly the same kind of stuff, the same way and yet claim to be bound by nothing and adhere to atheism because they are freethinkers. Yet, they say and do all the same stuff as if they all scripted from the same play.
I beginning to wonder if there isn’t a secret atheist bible somewhere that they are all required to memorize like the Koran.
The irony of atheists all saying and acting the same way as each other, almost always punctuated with a great deal of anger, while claiming this ‘freethinking’ motif is not lost on me.
It may not be a religion, but it’s certainly cultish. Do you agree?[/quote]

thjs is not true of me. I have answered several questions and asked some good ones,have even quoted scripture,but my posts have mainly been ignored

562

[quote]pabergin wrote:

Sure, that’s one way to interpret the Bible. Why do you choose this interpretation? [/quote]

I was not interpreting. I was directly quoting.

Yahweh tells us (or rather, the author of the book of Exodus tells us that Yahweh told Moses to tell us) that he is a jealous god.

In what context does he mention this? In the very first public statement ever to a large group of his creations. Think about this for a moment. Whereas in every recorded instant up to this point he had only ever appeared as a voice in the heads of select individuals, or else sent his minions to deliver a message, this was THE FIRST instance of DIRECT communication between the Almighty and his People at large, literally written in stone by the Fiery Finger of the LORD.*

And his first words are his commandment that must we consider all of the other gods his inferiors, and that he will punish not only us, but our children, our grandchildren, and even our great grandchildren if we should ever bow down to any of those other gods.

That’s pretty jealous, all right. If one didn’t know better, one might think Yahweh is a chick.

His prophet Nahum tells us that Yahweh is not only a jealous god, but also a vengeful god, “full of wrath” against his enemies.

I won’t quote all of the other places in the Bible where the vengeance and wrath of Yahweh are talked about, or carried out against “his” enemies either by natural phenomena commanded by Yahweh, or by proxy in the form of the Israelites. But as you are likely aware, there are a lot.

Okay, NOW I’ll do some interpreting, because it pleases me to do so.

I surmise that if you are a vengeful, wrathful, jealous, hateful, bigoted, sexist, superstitious, power-hungry conqueror living in the 15th century BC (or in the 7th century AD, for that matter), you probably are going to worship a deity who shares many of the same personality traits as you do, who vindicates your sociopathy by calling it “justice” and “virtue”.

  • As an aside, it’s sure a shame Moses smashed those stone tablets. We have the stele of Hammurabi in the Louvre, which is pretty good evidence for the historicity of Hammurabi and his law, if not necessarily for the existence of the Babylonian gods Shamash and Marduk. If we only had the original tablets of the Ten Commandments, which could be verified not only to be 3500 years old, with a chemical composition indicating that they were alkaline granite from a volcano in the southern Sinai Peninsula, and conclusively shown to have been inscribed by something other than human tools, well, that would count as evidence. Not only for Moses, but also for a supernatural law-giving entity. Alas, such an artefact has never been discovered, and will never be, because Moses got mad at a golden cow and broke the only thing that God had ever written.

As a second aside, I find it fascinating that the Ten Commandments are ALWAYS shown written in Hebrew, which was not a written language at the purported time of the Exodus, or else (as in the Cecil B. DeMille film) early Canaanite script, which few of the Egyptian Israelites would likely have been able to read. So consider that the first time God ever writes anything in the entire Bible (the only other time being the four words of Aramaic graffiti he scrawled on Nebuchadnezzar’s wall), it was probably written in hieroglyphics.

Speaking of DeMille’s Ten Commandments, it’s interesting that Charelton Heston, who played Moses, also provided the voice of God emanating from the Burning Bush. Ditto with Prince of Egypt, in which Val Kilmer provided the voice of both Moses and God.

There is some delicious irony here, which I’m sure was lost on the directors of both films, but not on me. All of the times I could have sworn I heard the voice of God speaking to me, it later occurred to me that the voice sounded suspiciously like my own.

563

Says morality doesn’t exist yet he’s not a moral nihilist? Go figure.

564

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Says morality doesn’t exist yet he’s not a moral nihilist? Go figure.[/quote]

You lack the ability to comprehend basic statements.

I said morality was a construct, not that I don’t believe they exist or have any I support, I just recognise they are constructs, which is the only other option, they are either divine and absolutes, or they are seen through the materialist prism of being socially constructed.

Why do you keep saying I don’t believe in them, it is moronic.

565

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pabergin wrote:

Sure, that’s one way to interpret the Bible. Why do you choose this interpretation? [/quote]

I was not interpreting. I was directly quoting.

Yahweh tells us (or rather, the author of the book of Exodus tells us that Yahweh told Moses to tell us) that he is a jealous god.

In what context does he mention this? In the very first public statement ever to a large group of his creations. Think about this for a moment. Whereas in every recorded instant up to this point he had only ever appeared as a voice in the heads of select individuals, or else sent his minions to deliver a message, this was THE FIRST instance of DIRECT communication between the Almighty and his People at large, literally written in stone by the Fiery Finger of the LORD.*

And his first words are his commandment that must we consider all of the other gods his inferiors, and that he will punish not only us, but our children, our grandchildren, and even our great grandchildren if we should ever bow down to any of those other gods.

That’s pretty jealous, all right. If one didn’t know better, one might think Yahweh is a chick.

His prophet Nahum tells us that Yahweh is not only a jealous god, but also a vengeful god, “full of wrath” against his enemies.

I won’t quote all of the other places in the Bible where the vengeance and wrath of Yahweh are talked about, or carried out against “his” enemies either by natural phenomena commanded by Yahweh, or by proxy in the form of the Israelites. But as you are likely aware, there are a lot.

Okay, NOW I’ll do some interpreting, because it pleases me to do so.

I surmise that if you are a vengeful, wrathful, jealous, hateful, bigoted, sexist, superstitious, power-hungry conqueror living in the 15th century BC (or in the 7th century AD, for that matter), you probably are going to worship a deity who shares many of the same personality traits as you do, who vindicates your sociopathy by calling it “justice” and “virtue”.

  • As an aside, it’s sure a shame Moses smashed those stone tablets. We have the stele of Hammurabi in the Louvre, which is pretty good evidence for the historicity of Hammurabi and his law, if not necessarily for the existence of the Babylonian gods Shamash and Marduk. If we only had the original tablets of the Ten Commandments, which could be verified not only to be 3500 years old, with a chemical composition indicating that they were alkaline granite from a volcano in the southern Sinai Peninsula, and conclusively shown to have been inscribed by something other than human tools, well, that would count as evidence. Not only for Moses, but also for a supernatural law-giving entity. Alas, such an artefact has never been discovered, and will never be, because Moses got mad at a golden cow and broke the only thing that God had ever written.

As a second aside, I find it fascinating that the Ten Commandments are ALWAYS shown written in Hebrew, which was not a written language at the purported time of the Exodus, or else (as in the Cecil B. DeMille film) early Canaanite script, which few of the Egyptian Israelites would likely have been able to read. So consider that the first time God ever writes anything in the entire Bible (the only other time being the four words of Aramaic graffiti he scrawled on Nebuchadnezzar’s wall), it was probably written in hieroglyphics.

Speaking of DeMille’s Ten Commandments, it’s interesting that Charelton Heston, who played Moses, also provided the voice of God emanating from the Burning Bush. Ditto with Prince of Egypt, in which Val Kilmer provided the voice of both Moses and God.

There is some delicious irony here, which I’m sure was lost on the directors of both films, but not on me. All of the times I could have sworn I heard the voice of God speaking to me, it later occurred to me that the voice sounded suspiciously like my own.[/quote]

Do you really know about early Hebrew inscriptions? I don’t think you do from what you’ve posted. There wasn’t a “Hebrew” script at the time. At the time of the Exodus, a “proto-Sinaitic” script was used by the Hebrews which was kind of an ancestor of both Phoenician and Hebrew. And yes, few Hebrews would’ve been able to read. That was the job of the priestly class and the scribes. And from what I recall, the bible states a “disembodied hand” tagged Nebuchadnezzar’s wall.

566

[quote]pat wrote:
The claim is very simple and a scientific one. That a fully autonomous human life is present in the zygote stage of human development, at the very least. This is what the study of embryology tells us. That the organism you want to kill, because it’s little, is a human being. I presented links. You can self-study, you merely need to google ‘embryology’ and you will get all the science you can handle, particularly if you want to get very technical.

The question, or requirement hasn’t changed since the beginning. Either, the living being in the uterus of a human female is a human being, or it’s something else.

I want scientific proof that the child, while en utero, is not a human being and thus is okay to kill.
I have provided scientific evidence that said child en utero is a human being and you have not provided anything to contrary. So I take it you cannot.

So, put up or shut up. Either prove these organisms in the zygote stage or later are not human beings, or just be ok with the fact that you are ok with taking innocent human life for superficial reasons.
You have a right to be an immoral person, just own it.[/quote]

Has anyone actually denied that a living human fetus is both living and human?

Here is something I wrote a few years ago on another thread. I would invite anyone here to disagree.

A fetus is alive. This is self-evident. If it were dead it would not grow. Let us also agree that it is human. It could not be otherwise. Human sperm and human eggs cannot combine to form anything other than a human embryo, which will inevitably become a human infant, unless the process is interrupted by biological, chemical or mechanical means.

567

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
People who believe in scientific principles don’t have faith, they believe what can be proved and not things that require belief without faith.

Comparing that to religion if moronic.[/quote]

Yet, when the science contradicts your belief you reject it, is particularly hilarious. Then you claim no faith. The conflict is blaring.

And since you seem to be the only one comparing religion to science, you are calling yourself a moron.

Life requires faith, you don’t know anything. You think you do, but your just trusting a bunch of people who are scientists aren’t lying to you. You’re not working the science, you’re not working the equations, you’re not interpreting results. You’re trusting people are telling you the truth. That’s the very definition of faith.

[/quote]

This is so silly.

I am trusting a bunch of scientists? No, you can look at scientific data and check the validity of the claim, or you can look at an invention and see it working, you can do neither for the insane religious claims.[/quote]

No you are not. First, you are ignoring the science. You are trusting neither the scientists nor gathering the data on your own.
So you are making a mockery of science, or trying to. You’re claiming to be all scientifical but ignoring the unequivocal, undeniable evidence that demonstrates that the life of a human being begins at conception. This is not a religious claim, this is not a historical claim, this is not a literary claim, this is not an athletic endeavor, this is pure science.

While claiming this adherence to science and it’s process, principles and underlying philosophy, you are contradicting the scientific data stating that an autonomous human life begins at conception, based on… well nothing at all.

Your argument is this in a nutshell: Abortion is fine because science. Science says that a human life begins at conception, so religion is stupid.

You are the one who keeps bringing up religion. This issue is so simple, so elementary, so black and white, so clear I don’t even have to mention it.

It seems to me the only science you are engaging in is finding how many ways you can hang yourself with your own rope. You apparently got a lot of rope and you don’t mind swinging. [/quote]

Yet again you did not show evidence for your claim personhood starts at conception or as a fetus. You merely rambled your way around it, demanding I disprove of a non truth.

I can’t prove unicorns dont exist, I say that the ones who claim they do show me proof, or else I won’t believe them.
[/quote]

That’s an interesting way to try and twist definitions, meanings and such. What ‘personhood’ is is a philosophical question not a scientific one. Science has no way to measure or define such a thing.
The definition can be such that even full adult human beings may not fit the definition.

The claim is very simple and a scientific one. That a fully autonomous human life is present in the zygote stage of human development, at the very least. This is what the study of embryology tells us. That the organism you want to kill, because it’s little, is a human being. I presented links. You can self-study, you merely need to google ‘embryology’ and you will get all the science you can handle, particularly if you want to get very technical.

The question, or requirement hasn’t changed since the beginning. Either, the living being in the uterus of a human female is a human being, or it’s something else.

I want scientific proof that the child, while en utero, is not a human being and thus is okay to kill.
I have provided scientific evidence that said child en utero is a human being and you have not provided anything to contrary. So I take it you cannot.

So, put up or shut up. Either prove these organisms in the zygote stage or later are not human beings, or just be ok with the fact that you are ok with taking innocent human life for superficial reasons.
You have a right to be an immoral person, just own it.[/quote]

Oh don’t get me wrong I don’t care how many kids get vacumed. However I like how you finally stopped asking for proof that a fetus is not a person once I asked you to prove it was. As you say, personhood is a construct, it isn’t an actual thing in and of itself, nor is it an absolute thing, it is something we erect based on the current moral code we were raised with in our time in history.

Also, you are immoral by many moral standards of other religions, societies, are you ok with being immoral in the eyes of Muslims? or buddhists?

Do you understand morals are constructs too and many different peoples have many different cultures?

You don’t believe in 99.9 percent of all religions and moral absolutist guidelines, I merely believe in one less than you.
[/quote]

You got me confused with somebody else. I never made any such claim. I have stated, and repeated the same thing from the beginning. I am asking for scientific proof that the child en utero is not a human being. That is the only thing I have asked for, repeatedly. You have not provided one single solitary shred of evidence that the child en utero is not a human being.
I have not mentioned personhood, sentience, cognitive faculty, consciousness, or any other such bullshit at any time.
I have only asked for scientific proof, something you claimed you believe and adhere to, you have not provided any.

Based on this:
“Oh don’t get me wrong I don’t care how many kids get vacumed.” ← You have just subverted your whole argument. You admit here that the child in gestation is a human being (or a goat) and you don’t care how many are killed or die at the hands of men.
So you just admitted it, right there.

On morality:
I have done things that are immoral, I have done wrong in my life. I certainly don’t claim differently. What I don’t do, is pretend that they are not immoral or wrong. I have done things that are immoral and wrong and I am sorry for those things. I don’t try to redefine morality so that the things that I have done wrong are suddenly “right” or “good” because I want them to be.

Religion does not define morality. It didn’t create it, it didn’t make it up out of thin ass air, etc. What religion’s role is, with respect to morality, is recommend you live a moral life. Religion’s job with respect to morality it to try to help explain what is and is not moral behavior. And most religions at their core, share vastly the same moral values.
Behaviors that are culturally or arbitrarily condemned or accepted, while maybe loosely based on morality, are not in themselves moral constructs. Such things are typically more superficial things such as manner of dress.

The reason why Moral Relativism is and has long been dead is because at it’s core it must be able to justify the most horrific behaviors. It also shifts the basis of behavior not on the effect of the behavior but the superiority of the actant in a scenario, shifting the higher value to the one doing the wrong. In simple terms, when it comes to relative moralism, it’s always opposite day. The rapist is right and of greater value than his victim under relativism. That’s why it’s a failed and widely disregarded ethos even among atheists, at least those of the atheist elite. This ethic has been dead for centuries for a reason, because it’s stupid.

568

[quote]confusion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote] Pat wrote:

You have a right to be an immoral person, just own it.

[/quote]

This guy claims that morality and even human life are “constructs” and don’t actually exist. He’s a nihilist and moral reprobate.[/quote]

Just like most of the atheists on this forum, with exceptions of course most notably Kamui.
What is striking to me, based on observation, is how he and all the others who have passed through say almost exactly the same kind of stuff, the same way and yet claim to be bound by nothing and adhere to atheism because they are freethinkers. Yet, they say and do all the same stuff as if they all scripted from the same play.
I beginning to wonder if there isn’t a secret atheist bible somewhere that they are all required to memorize like the Koran.
The irony of atheists all saying and acting the same way as each other, almost always punctuated with a great deal of anger, while claiming this ‘freethinking’ motif is not lost on me.
It may not be a religion, but it’s certainly cultish. Do you agree?[/quote]

thjs is not true of me. I have answered several questions and asked some good ones,have even quoted scripture,but my posts have mainly been ignored
[/quote]

And it may not be. Which is why I used the term ‘most’ and not ‘all’ and stated it was based on my observation. Unfortunately, when stereotyping, some may get unfairly lumped in with others and for that I apologize. I don’t want to unfairly characterize you if you are not that.

569

I was referring to perlenbacher not confusion by the way.

570

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The claim is very simple and a scientific one. That a fully autonomous human life is present in the zygote stage of human development, at the very least. This is what the study of embryology tells us. That the organism you want to kill, because it’s little, is a human being. I presented links. You can self-study, you merely need to google ‘embryology’ and you will get all the science you can handle, particularly if you want to get very technical.

The question, or requirement hasn’t changed since the beginning. Either, the living being in the uterus of a human female is a human being, or it’s something else.

I want scientific proof that the child, while en utero, is not a human being and thus is okay to kill.
I have provided scientific evidence that said child en utero is a human being and you have not provided anything to contrary. So I take it you cannot.

So, put up or shut up. Either prove these organisms in the zygote stage or later are not human beings, or just be ok with the fact that you are ok with taking innocent human life for superficial reasons.
You have a right to be an immoral person, just own it.[/quote]

Has anyone actually denied that a living human fetus is both living and human?
[/quote]
Yes, unsuccessfully.

I don’t disagree with it. But it seems to implicate that a human embryo is a precursor to a human being, where in fact ‘embryo’ is merely a stage of human developement of a human being. Is that what you mean?

571

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
There wasn’t a “Hebrew” script at the time.[/quote]

Yes, that’s what I said. Or at least, what I meant to say but was a bit sloppy about it.

Considering that the oldest thing we have written in Hebrew is from the 10th Century BC, whether anybody wrote anything at all in Hebrew at the purported time of the Exodus is a matter of speculation. In any case, the illustration above is what the oldest Hebrew writing we have ever found looks like. If the Ten Commandments were ever depicted written in this script, it has escaped my attention.

Which only existed after Sinai. What a great job, by the way. Don’t have to go to war, but you get a share of the spoils, and a steady stream of free meat, grain and fruit for you to “sacrifice”.

Ah. So not God after all, but Thing from the Addams Family. My mistake.

572

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Which only existed after Sinai. What a great job, by the way. Don’t have to go to war, but you get a share of the spoils, and a steady stream of free meat, grain and fruit for you to “sacrifice”.

[/quote]

Well, it’s not something they invented. Animal sacrifice and offerings were near universal in antiquity.

573

[quote]pat wrote:

I don’t disagree with it. But it seems to implicate that a human embryo is a precursor to a human being, where in fact ‘embryo’ is merely a stage of human developement of a human being. Is that what you mean?[/quote]

Pat, I hope you haven’t forgotten which side I’m on. That would hurt my feelings.

I do not mean to “implicate”, or even to imply, that an embryo is a “precursor” to a “human being”. That would be like saying that an infant is a “precursor” to a “human being”, or a child is a “precursor” to a “human being”. Of course they are all stages of human development.

I prefer the term “human”, however, to “human being”. I don’t generally say “dog being” or “bird being” or even “chimpanzee being”, even though they are all living creatures, i.e. “beings”.

The other problem I have with the word “being” (and this is only a little bit facetious) is that it “implicates” (sorry, implies) that no further development is taking place. Therefore an embryo, a fetus, and an infant and a child are all different stages in human development, and as such they might more accurately be described as “human becomings” rather than “human beings”.

574

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Which only existed after Sinai. What a great job, by the way. Don’t have to go to war, but you get a share of the spoils, and a steady stream of free meat, grain and fruit for you to “sacrifice”.

[/quote]

Well, it’s not something they invented. Animal sacrifice and offerings were near universal in antiquity.[/quote]

That’s right. It was a good racket then, and it’s a good racket now.

575

1832×1762 1.11 MB

If a fetus dies in battle with the doctor, would he go to valhalla and folkvangr?

I would be interested in some religious interpretations on the matter.

576

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
If a fetus dies in battle with the doctor, would he go to valhalla and folkvangr?

I would be interested in some religious interpretations on the matter.[/quote]

I think it would be more likely that an aborted fetus would be claimed by Ran, wife of Aegir, inasmuch as Ran gets everyone who dies at sea, and the amniotic fluid is practically identical in salinity to seawater. Surely the vacuum tube would be analogous to Ran’s net in this case. Alternatively they might all go to serve Gefjon, as they would most certainly be virgins at the time of death.

Valhalla seems completely out of the question, but I would be hesitant to baldly state that they end up in Hel.

577

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I was not interpreting. I was directly quoting.

Yahweh tells us (or rather, the author of the book of Exodus tells us that Yahweh told Moses to tell us) that he is a jealous god.

In what context does he mention this? In the very first public statement ever to a large group of his creations. Think about this for a moment. Whereas in every recorded instant up to this point he had only ever appeared as a voice in the heads of select individuals, or else sent his minions to deliver a message, this was THE FIRST instance of DIRECT communication between the Almighty and his People at large, literally written in stone by the Fiery Finger of the LORD.*

And his first words are his commandment that must we consider all of the other gods his inferiors, and that he will punish not only us, but our children, our grandchildren, and even our great grandchildren if we should ever bow down to any of those other gods.

That’s pretty jealous, all right. If one didn’t know better, one might think Yahweh is a chick.

His prophet Nahum tells us that Yahweh is not only a jealous god, but also a vengeful god, “full of wrath” against his enemies.

I won’t quote all of the other places in the Bible where the vengeance and wrath of Yahweh are talked about, or carried out against “his” enemies either by natural phenomena commanded by Yahweh, or by proxy in the form of the Israelites. But as you are likely aware, there are a lot.

Okay, NOW I’ll do some interpreting, because it pleases me to do so.

I surmise that if you are a vengeful, wrathful, jealous, hateful, bigoted, sexist, superstitious, power-hungry conqueror living in the 15th century BC (or in the 7th century AD, for that matter), you probably are going to worship a deity who shares many of the same personality traits as you do, who vindicates your sociopathy by calling it “justice” and “virtue”.

  • As an aside, it’s sure a shame Moses smashed those stone tablets. We have the stele of Hammurabi in the Louvre, which is pretty good evidence for the historicity of Hammurabi and his law, if not necessarily for the existence of the Babylonian gods Shamash and Marduk. If we only had the original tablets of the Ten Commandments, which could be verified not only to be 3500 years old, with a chemical composition indicating that they were alkaline granite from a volcano in the southern Sinai Peninsula, and conclusively shown to have been inscribed by something other than human tools, well, that would count as evidence. Not only for Moses, but also for a supernatural law-giving entity. Alas, such an artefact has never been discovered, and will never be, because Moses got mad at a golden cow and broke the only thing that God had ever written.

As a second aside, I find it fascinating that the Ten Commandments are ALWAYS shown written in Hebrew, which was not a written language at the purported time of the Exodus, or else (as in the Cecil B. DeMille film) early Canaanite script, which few of the Egyptian Israelites would likely have been able to read. So consider that the first time God ever writes anything in the entire Bible (the only other time being the four words of Aramaic graffiti he scrawled on Nebuchadnezzar’s wall), it was probably written in hieroglyphics.

Speaking of DeMille’s Ten Commandments, it’s interesting that Charelton Heston, who played Moses, also provided the voice of God emanating from the Burning Bush. Ditto with Prince of Egypt, in which Val Kilmer provided the voice of both Moses and God.

There is some delicious irony here, which I’m sure was lost on the directors of both films, but not on me. All of the times I could have sworn I heard the voice of God speaking to me, it later occurred to me that the voice sounded suspiciously like my own.[/quote]

Hey Varq,

I appreciate you taking time to discuss.

Understanding that the bible is imperfect man’s imperfect attempt to describe God, who goes beyond human comprehension and language, and the fact the entire bible perpetually fails to adequately discuss God (due to human imperfection):

How much importance do you assign to those old bible stories you’ve referenced?

Do you think you’re misrepresenting the bible by emphasizing the old testament?

578

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
If a fetus dies in battle with the doctor, would he go to valhalla and folkvangr?

I would be interested in some religious interpretations on the matter.[/quote]

I think it would be more likely that an aborted fetus would be claimed by Ran, wife of Aegir, inasmuch as Ran gets everyone who dies at sea, and the amniotic fluid is practically identical in salinity to seawater. Surely the vacuum tube would be analogous to Ran’s net in this case. Alternatively they might all go to serve Gefjon, as they would most certainly be virgins at the time of death.

Valhalla seems completely out of the question, but I would be hesitant to baldly state that they end up in Hel.[/quote]

Hel is a cold barren place where the people who inhabit it must struggle to survive right? Can’t living relatives send offerings to help them in hel?

What would you offer up for a fetus? How would it survive in any of those afterlives as it can not sustain its own life or talk, eat etc?

579

[quote]pabergin wrote:
Hey Varq,

I appreciate you taking time to discuss.[/quote]

My pleasure.

[quote]Understanding that the bible is imperfect man’s imperfect attempt to describe God, who goes beyond human comprehension and language, and the fact the entire bible perpetually fails to adequately discuss God (due to human imperfection):

How much importance do you assign to those old bible stories you’ve referenced?[/quote]

Old Bible stories? You mean The Creation? The Fall? The Deluge? The Sacrifice of Isaac? The Burning Bush? The Exodus from Egypt? The giving of the Law at to Moses at Sinai? Those old stories? Those are pivotal events in Judaeo-Christian mythology. I think they are terribly important to the people who believe them. How important are they to me? Well, obviously I don’t want them to go away, because so much of Western culture (artwork, music, literature) is intertwined with them (Shakespeare, for example, would be dreadfully impoverished if one were to remove all biblical references from the plays).

Joseph Campbell famously identified Star Wars as our culture’s modern myth.

Would I be misrepresenting Star Wars by emphasising the original trilogy? I mean, the new trilogy had a lot of neat special effects to impress jaded audiences, but it was pretty much a rehash of the originals, with tortured storylines to attempt to explain inconsistencies and answer questions raised by the first three films.

Even the original film in the Star Wars trilogy was a plagiarism of the old Japanese Kurosawa film Kakushitoride no San Akunin, as well as elements of Frank Herbert’s Dune series. It doesn’t make Star Wars any less powerful of a film, but it’s not exactly an original story.

The Star Wars franchise today has become a bloated, heavily revised and re-revised, over-merchandised leviathan, spawning hundreds of imitations, spinoff series and alternative storyline novels, thousands of fan fictions and videos, and billions of dollars in revenue. Sure, Lucas may have given a lot of money to charity, but charity does not absolve atrocity.

What I’m trying to say is, I think Joseph Campbell was more right than he could have known.

580

I would love to hear varq give an essay on how biker gangs are an attempt to recreate god through brotherhood and the diety of the patch.

You are very eloquent, even if I might not agree with you on some things.