Jump to content

Stone The Whale


Recommended Posts

Bindi Irwin would be completely pissed...On a related topic:[scene: A New York apartment. Someone knocks on the door.]Woman: [not opening the door] Yes?Voice: (mumbling) Mrs. Arlsburgerhhh?Woman: What?Voice: (mumbling) Mrs. Johannesburrrr?Woman: Who is it?Voice: [pause] Flowers.Woman: Flowers for whom?Voice: [long pause] Plumber, ma'am.Woman: I don't need a plumber. You're that clever shark, aren't you?Voice: [pause] Candygram.Woman: Candygram, my foot. You get out of here before I call the police. You're the shark, and you know it.Voice: Wait. I-I'm only a dolphin, ma'am.Woman: A dolphin? Well...okay. [opens door][Huge latex and foam-rubber shark head lunges through open door, chomps down on woman's head, and drags her out of the apartment, all while the Jaws attack music is playing.]

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't most conservatives say the idiot who snuck in got exactly what he deserved?And what serial killer with the intelligence of a whale would leave his victim's body draped across his back?I think Tilly was framed.More seriously, though, whenever skeptics quote the really outrageous sections of the OT about owning slaves or stoning people or that God wants and demands burnt offerings, Christians say, "Oh, lots of OT stuff doesn't apply anymore. Don't be silly and pretend we have to do all that." But here is a Christian saying one of those outrageous passages is exactly what we ought to be doing. So I guess shrimp IS an abomination and you CAN take several wives and you SHOULD offer your daughters to mobs of rapists or whoever bids the most oxen and sheep.
OMG, You're going to hell.You miss the point. That stuff was written kinda literal and kinda metaphorical so that in the future we can find meaning to relate to current events. Some dope probably did a half ass translation but we can all easily see the point being made and that's all that's important. I mean really, who actually orders shrimp out? That's an abomination. And yes you can take several of your friends wives along with you as long as THEY don't order shrimp either. Offering up daughters to rapists is simply metaphorical for Bang your Head to christian rock.
I'm not sure anyone really thought they wanted the thing to actually be killed by throwing stones at it. Regardless, using the bible as a reference in this case is idiotic, seeing as the bible does very clearly say that the owners of the whale should be executed as well. You can't say, "Kill the whale since the bible says so, but I guess you don't have to do what the bible says about the owners, you can just fine them or put them in jail for a few months or whatever." Either go with biblical law or the law of the land...picking and choosing is obnoxiously hypocritical.
It was just metaphorical, GOD, even I get it. He was writing to a bunch of people that believe anything from the bible and writes this drivel all the time. He just got called out on this time. Back off! He was clearly just following God's will anyway.
Posts like this make you look like you don't understand the Bible very well. I haven't read any of the last several threads between you and BG though, so I could be wrong.Did you not read the dude's response? He didn't say that. It's in BG's post, like, just a couple above yours.Also, I know why you perpetuate the lie (well, I do, but whatever), but the OT still applies to Jews. Christians obviously have to listen to Jesus Christ, who said that He was the fulfillment of the rules in the OT. If we wanted to follow the OT then we would be Jewish, not Christians. It's not really hard to understand, but I guess maybe it is.
Oh you don't know? I switched sides. You guys suck at furthing God's plan. And I've read the bible numerous times but to be truthful I was younger and didn't really get it. I liked the children's version though and did go to a Catholic school and chruch for like, 4evah so I am probably more qualified than most. Besides, knowing anything about religon isn't a prerequiste to spouting off stuff like you do anyway.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, I know why you perpetuate the lie (well, I do, but whatever), but the OT still applies to Jews. Christians obviously have to listen to Jesus Christ, who said that He was the fulfillment of the rules in the OT. If we wanted to follow the OT then we would be Jewish, not Christians. It's not really hard to understand, but I guess maybe it is.
So I guess you'll never quote it again or advocate anything in it again or actually sit down and read it, right?Well, I can be sure you won't fully read it, at least.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh you don't know? I switched sides. You guys suck at furthing God's plan. And I've read the bible numerous times but to be truthful I was younger and didn't really get it. I liked the children's version though and did go to a Catholic school and chruch for like, 4evah so I am probably more qualified than most. Besides, knowing anything about religon isn't a prerequiste to spouting off stuff like you do anyway.
huh?
So I guess you'll never quote it again or advocate anything in it again or actually sit down and read it, right?Well, I can be sure you won't fully read it, at least.
I don't understand what's going on in this post.
Link to post
Share on other sites
huh?I don't understand what's going on in this post.
Okay. SB is chastising BG for only taking parts of the bible that he wants to use and ignoring the rest. I acting like BG but everyone but you ignores me since i've been acting weird here lately and no one knows if I've lost it or i'm just being an incoherent ass. I am taking the position that there is a God. He created the earth and man and our genetic heritage. He imposed his will on us and has a plan, thus we have no freewill and are slaves to his plan unless we follow it and find out after death that heaven indeed does exist. This is in fact BG's and the Christian arguement all along. It's just that when I say it that way, then BG says i'm miss-interpreting it which is pretty funny because who's to say who is right. Everyone has there own interpretation except, well mine at it's simplest core is the very argument they all share. There really is no miss-interpretaion on my part. It's just that no one likes to look at the whole thing truthfully.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay. SB is chastising BG brv for only taking parts of the bible that he wants to use and ignoring the rest.
Also the standard casual dig about making a big deal about it being the sacred word of God but not bothering to read all of it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Umm... that is some selective reading of the Bible right there. Had he gone on, he would see"However, unlike an ox, if a creature of the sea should cause the death of a man, that creature shall be employed in the entertainment of children and families alike." (Exodus 21:34).
This is classic.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's pretend that the bible has nothing to do with this in anyway shape or form but the guy who referenced the bible had just said something like "We destroy pitbulls who kill children all the time, what makes this whale so special?" What say FCP to that statement? The reason I ask is that in my view the man has a good point but it's getting lost in the overall hatred of the bible amongst the heathens that run FCP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand what's going on in this post.
Brv, the article in question involves a christian who called for killing the beast based on a rule written in the OT. SB pointed out that its a hypocrisy for christians to discount the OT by claiming they aren't required to believe that nonsense since it was replaced by the NT, but then invoke its rules when it suits them. You responded by saying that christians don't need to follow the OT: "If we wanted to follow the OT then we would be Jewish, not Christians". Which misses the point that the article in question, written by a Christian, is invoking the OT.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Brv, the article in question involves a christian who called for killing the beast based on a rule written in the OT. SB pointed out that its a hypocrisy for christians to discount the OT by claiming they aren't required to believe that nonsense since it was replaced by the NT, but then invoke its rules when it suits them. You responded by saying that christians don't need to follow the OT: "If we wanted to follow the OT then we would be Jewish, not Christians". Which misses the point that the article in question, written by a Christian, is invoking the OT.
It's not really hard to understand, but I guess maybe it is.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's pretend that the bible has nothing to do with this in anyway shape or form but the guy who referenced the bible had just said something like "We destroy pitbulls who kill children all the time, what makes this whale so special?" What say FCP to that statement? The reason I ask is that in my view the man has a good point but it's getting lost in the overall hatred of the bible amongst the heathens that run FCP.
You might be right about the "overall hatred of the bible" hurting actual discussion, but I think the reason for that is because this was posted in the Religion forum, so naturally that's what people would be drawn towards discussing. I'm also an FCPer that is not a fan of the bible, but actually the biggest thing about this thread I noticed was that the "update" posted by Balloon_Guy still provided a poor justification for killing the whale, whether by stoning or a more humane option.The parallels between pitbulls and killers whales don't work too well. One of the reasons we put down dangerous pitbulls is that there isn't really anywhere to put them safely, and they are a danger to human beings while in their "supposed" domesticated natural element. Killer whales, on the other hand, could just be released back into the sea. Even if they are dangerous to humans, we have a way to allow them to live without killing them. And more importantly, we're the ones who took these killer whales out of their natural environment to begin with, so it seems absurd to take wild animals out of their natural environment, and then argue that we should be able to kill them when they act...wild.As a side point, I'm also thinking about "trained" tigers and bears hurting their "owners". I think most rational (this is key) people think less "we must euthanize those animals because they are dangerous" than "Ugh, yeah. What do you expect when you work with wild animals?"
Link to post
Share on other sites
I love how finely the blogger is attempting to split these hairs. He says over and over again that he never expressly advocated stoning the whale, yet the passage he is citing, the one that he tells us to follow the example of, says that verbatim.If we don't have to follow the part that says "stone it," Why do we have to follow the part that says "kill it"?
This is it, in a very nicely put nutshell.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You might be right about the "overall hatred of the bible" hurting actual discussion, but I think the reason for that is because this was posted in the Religion forum, so naturally that's what people would be drawn towards discussing. I'm also an FCPer that is not a fan of the bible, but actually the biggest thing about this thread I noticed was that the "update" posted by Balloon_Guy still provided a poor justification for killing the whale, whether by stoning or a more humane option.The parallels between pitbulls and killers whales don't work too well. One of the reasons we put down dangerous pitbulls is that there isn't really anywhere to put them safely, and they are a danger to human beings while in their "supposed" domesticated natural element. Killer whales, on the other hand, could just be released back into the sea. Even if they are dangerous to humans, we have a way to allow them to live without killing them. And more importantly, we're the ones who took these killer whales out of their natural environment to begin with, so it seems absurd to take wild animals out of their natural environment, and then argue that we should be able to kill them when they act...wild.As a side point, I'm also thinking about "trained" tigers and bears hurting their "owners". I think most rational (this is key) people think less "we must euthanize those animals because they are dangerous" than "Ugh, yeah. What do you expect when you work with wild animals?"
We could keep pitbulls in cages, just like we would keep this whale in a body of water which acts as a cage, with trained personnel just like that which takes care of the whale. The whale is obviously more highly valued than the pitbull. As far as being released back into the sea, I don't think that's even an option for these whales, someone correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I know if released back into the wild they may not do so well. As a side note, I'm not really arguing for either side, I think it's a travesty that the beast is in captivity in the first place, a massive, beautiful majestic creature made into little more than a monkey clashing cymbals, and on some level I see it as Gods/Natures justice that one of it's captors is taken out every once in awhile.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Also the standard casual dig about making a big deal about it being the sacred word of God but not bothering to read all of it.
Are you trying to imply that I don't currently or haven't ever read the entire Bible many times over? ok.
Brv, the article in question involves a christian who called for killing the beast based on a rule written in the OT. SB pointed out that its a hypocrisy for christians to discount the OT by claiming they aren't required to believe that nonsense since it was replaced by the NT, but then invoke its rules when it suits them. You responded by saying that christians don't need to follow the OT: "If we wanted to follow the OT then we would be Jewish, not Christians". Which misses the point that the article in question, written by a Christian, is invoking the OT.
But this isn't the case at all. It's not hypocrisy because, when have BG or I ever invoked it's rules? You guys clearly still are not understanding Christianity. The OT is not our current rule book. It's now a history book that was pointing towards a coming savior. God told the Jews that they had to follow the rules until a savior would come and change everything. Jesus came to Earth and we are now saved through Him, and not the rules. This isn't God changing His mind, this is God doing exactly what He said He would do.Also, I don't ever remember BG or I saying that the OT was nonsense, as neither of us think that.Also, the point of the article, written by a Christian, isn't that at all. BG already posted his response saying that he never said that.
It's not really hard to understand, but I guess maybe it is.
exactly.
Link to post
Share on other sites

From BG's post of what the christian author actually said. "In my blog/column, I simply extracted an underlying principle from the Exodus 21 passage and gave it a contemporary application."So I think that VB and SB have a point that this particular Christian (not necessarily Brv or BG) is invoking the OT to justify the killing of the whale.

Link to post
Share on other sites
From BG's post of what the christian author actually said. "In my blog/column, I simply extracted an underlying principle from the Exodus 21 passage and gave it a contemporary application."So I think that VB and SB have a point that this particular Christian (not necessarily Brv or BG) is invoking the OT to justify the killing of the whale.
He's not saying that at all. This is the section of interest:
If the counsel of the Judeo-Christian tradition had been followed, Tillikum would have been put out of everyone's misery back in 1991 and would not have had the opportunity to claim two more human lives.Says the ancient civil code of Israel, "When an ox gores a man or woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner shall not be liable." (Exodus 21:28)So, your animal kills somebody, your moral responsibility is to put that animal to death. You have no moral culpability in the death, because you didn't know the animal was going to go postal on somebody.But, the Scripture soberly warns, if one of your animals kills a second time because you didn't kill it after it claimed its first human victim, this time you die right along with your animal. To use the example from Exodus, if your ox kills a second time, "the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death." (Exodus 21:29)If I were the family of Dawn Brancheau, I'd sue the pants off SeaWorld for allowing this killer whale to kill again after they were well aware of its violent history."
He's CLEARLY just saying that in the OT times this wouldn't have happened, because the owner and animal would have already been killed after the 2nd time.He is saying that the trainers' family should sue Seaworld and the animal should be euthanized. I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with that assessment. (At least the suing Seaworld part)(I know nothing about this guy and am NOT trying to defend him. I'm simply reading this paragraph.)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Brvheart, there is some strange misunderstanding going on here. We understand you personally don't feel obligated to follow the old testament. If we assume that other Christians believe the same, then we expect them not to quote arcane OT rules to us.

But this isn't the case at all. It's not hypocrisy because, when have BG or I ever invoked it's rules?
No one is saying that you personally have. The author of the article did. But he's a christian.
You guys clearly still are not understanding Christianity. The OT is not our current rule book.
Tell that to the guy who wrote the article then!
Link to post
Share on other sites
He's not saying that at all. This is the section of interest:He's CLEARLY just saying that in the OT times this wouldn't have happened, because the owner and animal would have already been killed after the 2nd time.He is saying that the trainers' family should sue Seaworld and the animal should be euthanized. I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with that assessment. (At least the suing Seaworld part)(I know nothing about this guy and am NOT trying to defend him. I'm simply reading this paragraph.)
I read the whole thing again and my take on what that author said still stands. I can see your viewpoint however.Also, his pit bull analogy sort of sucks as a child is a helpless victim when attacked by a pit bull. However, a trainer knowingly takes the risks of being in the pool with a Killer Whale. From reading about Dawn, she loved her job and being around the killer whales and her family has said that they are sure she would not want the killer whale to be put to death despite the tragedy. The other guy who died when he snuck into the pool is similar to someone who stands up on a roller coaster - perfect candidate for the Darwin awards.Now if the killer whale killed a spectator by snatching him/her from the stands during a performance, then yeah, I would view it differently.
Link to post
Share on other sites
We could keep pitbulls in cages, just like we would keep this whale in a body of water which acts as a cage, with trained personnel just like that which takes care of the whale. The whale is obviously more highly valued than the pitbull. As far as being released back into the sea, I don't think that's even an option for these whales, someone correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I know if released back into the wild they may not do so well. As a side note, I'm not really arguing for either side, I think it's a travesty that the beast is in captivity in the first place, a massive, beautiful majestic creature made into little more than a monkey clashing cymbals, and on some level I see it as Gods/Natures justice that one of it's captors is taken out every once in awhile.
We seem to agree on the larger points of animal captivity in general, as I dislike using animals for human entertainment as well.I'm not a whale expert, but assuming it doesn't have major health problems, it seems like a stretch to me to say that killing the whale would be a better option than releasing it back into its natural habitat.I should say I'm not a huge fan of putting dogs down either, but it seems to me that the case of the dangerous dog versus wild whale isn't a good one. Humans have an extra obligation to whales because we actively took them out of their natural wild habitat and then some apparently think that they have to be put down because they aren't cooperating perfectly.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you trying to imply that I don't currently or haven't ever read the entire Bible many times over? ok.
My mistake. I now realize you never posted in the "Have You Read the Whole Bible" thread (http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...17235&st=80). Neither did BG, for that matter. Strange. What a blast from the past. I miss Checkymcfold. Herokid was smart and interesting. Lois was ... well, I'll stop now.Edit: Actually, here is the exchange we had once:
QUOTE (Southern Buddhist @ Monday, July 20th, 2009, 11:04 AM) I specifically started a thread asking how many Christians have read the entire bible, and was met with the argument (including from Brvheart himself) that it wasn't necessary for them to do so.
You said:
That doesn't apply to this conversation. I was talking about denying something as wrong and only ever quoting anti-Christian pro-hate websites filled with trite, much like moon landing conspiracy sites, and never actually studying the source material. I'm not saying that everyone should be required to read the entire Bible for salvation.
I said:
It applies completely. You said,
QUOTE The main argument of atheists everywhere, including this board, is that they don't believe it because it's crazy... and yet very few have even researched the Bible. I would bet that of all the regular atheist posters on this board that maybe only Checky has read the Bible all the way through... and I would bet against that. How can anyone make a decision without researching something thoroughly and following the evidence where it leads?
In your second sentence, you allege that none of the regular atheist posters on this board have read the bible all the way through. We've now established that most of them have. But you haven't, most Christians haven't, and most never will because they don't believe they need to. So when it comes to knowing the source material, I think we can see who has the upper hand here....I'm not saying that anyone needs to read the Bible "for salvation." It isn't a mechanism for salvation in and of itself. I am saying, though, that anyone who truly believes it all to be the word of God might -- you know, just might -- want to know what it all says. And when someone who hasn't read it debates with a group of people who have nearly unanimously read it, he is the proverbial one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest.
The weird thing is, at the time I obviously thought you had replied to the thread regarding reading the whole bible, and you reply as though you did, too. But when I dredged that thread up, I don't think you had a post in it after all. Maybe it came up elsewhere. Anyway, if you've read the whole thing through and I suggested you didn't, I apologize. I was under the impression you hadn't, but maybe we were talking past each other -- me asking who had read it through beginning to end, just to get an idea of who had and who hadn't, and you thinking that I thought doing so was necessary for faith and replying to say it's not.
It's not hypocrisy because, when have BG or I ever invoked it's rules?
Ten Commandments?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ten Commandments?
I don't think either of us have ever talked about the ten commandments. But we have said many times over that Jesus fulfilled the OT 'rules', which God said the savior would do from the beginning. The Ten Commandments are not applicable any longer. Jesus became the fulfillment of those rules. Now, that doesn't mean that all of the Ten Commandments are ok to do, but instead, it's all about the heart. Jesus said: 21"You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' 22"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court 27"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; 28but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. This doesn't mean that it's now ok to commit adultery or commit murder... but it's no longer about the rules or commandments of the OT... It's now, because of Jesus, all about the heart; the intention, more than the actual action.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I was under the impression you hadn't, but maybe we were talking past each other -- me asking who had read it through beginning to end, just to get an idea of who had and who hadn't, and you thinking that I thought doing so was necessary for faith and replying to say it's not.
This is correct. I have read the entire Bible many times over. I was simply saying that I don't believe that reading the entire Bible is remotely necessary for salvation. (Considering that there was no "Bible" when Christ was on Earth, should be enough to silence anyone that doesn't agree.)
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fine (re: 10 Commandments). It was a tossed-off quip, not very serious. VB actually has the far better response to you on this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
From BG's post of what the christian author actually said. "In my blog/column, I simply extracted an underlying principle from the Exodus 21 passage and gave it a contemporary application."So I think that VB and SB have a point that this particular Christian (not necessarily Brv or BG) is invoking the OT to justify the killing of the whale.
Nope, the point the author was making was that this killer whale had killed already, and as such it was reasonable to assume that maybe it wasn't safe.In doing this he pointed to a Bible verse which talks about the principle that an animal's life is of such a smaller value than a human one that killing the animal is a reasonable response to it's killing of a human.He also clearly was quoting the entire verse for clarity, and the anti-bible nazis grabbed this obscure section to try to make the case that the author wanted the whale killed by stoning. This shows that they:1. Can't follow a simple logical conclusion because their blind hatred of the Bible has reduced their logic skills to nothing.2. Have ignored the point of the entire story, which is that the family of the most recent killings should sue because that is the American way!SB is just continuing with her illogical superstition that common sense allows you to read the Bible and understand what it says without having to fear that some men 1700 years ago were trying to trick her by leaving out the book of Thomas
Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope, the point the author was making was that this killer whale had killed already, and as such it was reasonable to assume that maybe it wasn't safe.
And in order to justify this obvious conclusion he felt he had to appeal to an ancient people's oxen procedures.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...