In Leviticus 20:9, it states: (NRSV)

>All who curse (their) father or mother shall be put to death; having cursed (their) father or mother, their blood is upon them.

Like, couldn't tou try spanking them first?

To me, there is NO WAY to justify this passage.

A similar passage exists in Exodus 21:15

Exodus 21:15 states: (NRSV)

>Whoever strikes (their) father or mother shall be put to death.

There is also no way to defend this passage IMO. You could try putting them in house arrest first.

These are u/EyedPeace 's arguments against evolution Click here. Here is my paraphrase of his arguments:

1. Even though the LTEE has been running for so 75K generations, and millions of mutations have occurred A) no new complex systems, B) no new protein folding patterns, C) new protein functions have emerged.

• 2. In the LTEE, A) we see the majority of mutations have degraded the genome. B) We even see the bacteria have lost their flagellum.
• 3. Take a look at how antibiotic resistance develops, A) Bacteria are resistant because their transport proteins or enzyme activities are eliminated.
• 4. Take a look at how resistance to viruses develops. A) Through mutations that eliminate key proteins, which is why viruses can no longer attach and enter the cell.

For argument 1A, Im not sure what you mean by "complex". If you mean irreducibly complex, then you are wrong. The ability to digest citrate in aerobic conditions meets Behe's definitions of irred comp. Source: Here

For argument 1B, I am not sure what you mean by "new fold pattern".

For argument 1C, this is probably false. This source found several *possible* instances of de novo gene birth. (We are not sure yet).

For argument 2A, this is straight-up false. Dr. Lenski himself explaining the mutations.

For argument 2B, keep in mind the bacteria didn't have to search hard for their food, and thus didnt require a flagellum.

For argument 3A, Here is a creationist channel making that same argument and Dan Stern Cardinale refuting it.

Finally for argument 4A, while some do that, others don't.

I dont get the appeal in admitting that I am fundamentalky broken from birth and that somebody else needs to help me. How is Joshua of Bethelhem Nazareth going to help me anyway? Especially not when the alleged reason that I needhelp is because of a fable that involves golem spells like in Pinocchio, magically enchanted fruit like in Snow White, and talking snakes like in The Jungle Book.

I dont fet the appeal in admitting that I am fundamentalky broken from birth and that somebody else needs to help me. How is Joshua of Bethelhem Nazareth going to help me anyway? Especially not when the alleged reason that I needhelp is because of a fable that involves golem spells like in Pinocchio, magically enchanted fruit like in Snow White, and talking snakes like in The Jungle Book.

Also, people do not raise from the dead. Period. After 3 days a lot of his cells would have decomposed.

The Ottomans spent centuries as the bleeding edge of Islamic expansion into Europe, with all the fire and brimstone you'd expect of any state primarily built around crusaders, and progressively mellowed out over time. By the time we get to the reforms c. 1800, the Ottomans had robust protections for Christians and Jews (including the millet system, a sort of parallel legal structure for them), and the devshirme had been abolished for about a century. The Ottomans had a large, influential, and prosperous dhimmi class and so they couldn't only enact laws for the ummah, so practicality forced them to eventually find a reasonably tolerant approach to multicultural governance. The reforms of c. 1800 are also roughly contemporary with the death of al-Wahhab and the rising influence of Wahhabist thought. Sufi thought was fairly influential in the Ottoman Empire and in fundamental opposition to Wahhabist doctrine.

But while we can recognize the more progressive values of the later stages of the Ottoman Empire relative to what we often see from the region today, it's important to remember that not every ethnic or religious minority enjoyed equal levels of legal protection. The Armenian Genocide is obviously the most glaring example, but we shouldn't overlook the prosecution of the Alevis or, say, the "blood tax" imposed on Christian communities through the devshirme. And this list isn't exactly comprehensive.

Kaynak: https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1udklfk/comment/otf4v57/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=2&utm_content=share_button

How old was Terah when he died?

At the end of the genealogy in Genesis 11, we learn about Terah who is the father of the Abram, aka the guy who almost killed his own son.

Genesis 11:26 states that Terah was 70 when Abram was born.

Genesis 12:4 states that Abram was 75 years old when he left Terah's house in Haran.

Genesis 11:32 states that Terah was 205 when he died (which is way older than any male can ever live, especially if we are talking about the Bronze Age, but when did the Bible care about science anyway).

The logical conclusion here is that Terah lived 60 years after Abram left him.

However in Acts 7:2-4 we learn that Abram only left Haran AFTER Terah had died.

An obvious contradiction in the Bible.

1. Prediction: vestigial organs as ‘left-overs’ of evolution. Evolutionist Weidershein made a list of 180 supposed vestigial structures in 1890. However, a lot of these predicted vestiges of past evolution that are no longer considered useless organs. They identified many candidates, such as the human appendix, tonsils, ‘tailbone’, whale hip bones, etc. This is a massive humiliation of evolutionary biology.

2. Prediction: no wheels would be found in living things. The famous evolutionary population geneticist, J.B.S. Haldane, proclaimed in 1949 that mutations and natural selection (neo-Darwinian evolution) could never produce “various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect.” But ‘wheels’ far more sophisticated than Haldane could have imagined, such as subcellular rotary motors and the bacterial flagellum have been discovered.

3. Prediction: similarities, being due to common ancestry, would show a clear pattern of phylogeny, aka the tree of life. This is not so; there are numerous ‘homoplasies’, which are similarities that do not fit any pattern of common ancestry, or phylogeny. Homoplasies are so common that evolutionists invented the rescuing device of ‘convergent evolution’. A comparison of the genes involved in bat and dolphin sonar found 200 similar genes. ¹ Since there is no possible sonar-equipped common ancestor of both, these similarities must have evolved independently, by chance mutations. This is impossible for ‘convergent evolution’ to do.

​4. Prediction: Richard Dawkins predicted there should only be one genetic code. However, there are over 32 genetic codes in living beings. ²This This is a massive fail under Dawkins’ own criterion.

5. Prediction: there would be little genetic resemblance between extant and ‘primitive’ life forms (biochemical homology). Thus, Ernst Mayr stated in his 1963 book Animal Species and Evolution “the search for homologous genes [derived from the same ancestor] is quite futile except in very close relatives.”38 This was a strong prediction, but it has been falsified repeatedly. One example: humans share a gene involved in eye formation with flies. Walter Gehring, University of Basel scientist, remarked: “Much to our surprise, the same gene causes eyeless[ness] in the fruit fly. That came as a total surprise, because we thought that the fruit fly eye was in no way a homologous, a similar structure as in humans.”

¹ Pennisi, E., Bats and dolphins evolved echolocation in same way, news.sciencemag.org, 4 September 2013.

² Elzanowski, A. and Ostell, J., The genetic codes, NCBI, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi, 7 Jan 2019.

³ Walter Gehring: Master control genes and the evolution of the eye, pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/4/text_pop/l_044_01.html (Accessed 11 Oct 2023).

Can you guys believe its been 10 years since vidcon 2016? Alex Clark apologized 3 years ago. I wonder what Jaiden thinks looking back.

In Genesis 38, Judah meets a Caananite woman and begats two children: Er and Onan. After that, he finds a wife named Tamar for Er. (Genesis 38:1-6)

After that, Yahweh kills Er for "being wicked". How was he wicked? No one knows! (Genesis 38:7)

Anyways this leaves Tamar up for grab. In ancient Jewish customs, if a man died the before his wife, then his brother was supposed to take her for himself. Now my question first for Christians is, is this practice justified?

Anyways after that, Onan doesnt want to "go in unto" Tamar becuase legally they dont wont be considered his kids. So instead of spilling his "seed" into Tamar's "box", he spills it on the floor. And for this crime, Yahweh kills Onan.

Now my second question for Christian's is: Was the killing of Onan justified?