Prime X

Is it the greatest religion?

Get out those bibles, first correct answer wins eternal life!

https://www.facebook.com/notes/save-our-shelter-an...

I have a 3 generational household and recently lost my job. My irresponsible and selfish sister who doesn't have to live with the beast convinced my mother to get a cat we can't afford.

It's from a no-kill shelter and I think they knew it was sick. It's had diarrhea non-stop from day one for THREE WEEKS! It's unsanitary for my children and elderly parents as it hides it and I find messes days later. I've found diarrhea in closets, INSIDE the box-spring of my bed, on the kitchen counter and absorbed into my fabric couch which is now ruined but can't be replaced.

The cat's scratch gave me an infection so bad that I couldn't walk for two weeks. Medicine only worked a couple of days and then diarrhea returned worse than ever.

I think no one will adopt her and thought of taking her to a regular kill shelter until I read that article. I don't want to take it back to the no-kill shelter and have them dupe another family who might just abandon it. I really feel like the shelter took advantage of a family that can least afford to deal with a sick cat, and of course I'm pissed at my sister but I don't want to cause them trouble, I just want to do what's best for my family without making the cat suffer. But it can't stay with us any longer, and my sister won't take it. Any good suggestions will be appreciated.

I m hearing and reading all kinds of conflicting information. One place says that the Zero-Point field is the aether, another place says that the Higgs-Boson field is the aether. What up with that?

http://www.independent.com/news/2012/jul/20/higgs-...

" And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast: therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem. And it shall be for a token upon thine hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes."

The lord said that a lamb sacrafice could be used in place of useful unclean animals and children. Then it says that firstborn sons will be sacraficed, but all firstborn children will be redeemed.

So if they are all going to be redeemed then why point out the sons specifically, and with the word "sacrafice"? Then the next line says that it will be used as a token worn on the hand, or forhead, but it doesn't specify what "it" is.

My theory is that "it" is the forskin used as a male sacrafice in a ritual of circumsision, which if cut in a certain way could be used as a ring.

That's the image that I recieved while reading those passages which I thought was too weird, so I searched online about it. I found out that in some Christian traditions it is said that Jesus gave St Catherine of Siena his forskin as a wedding ring to symbolize her marriage to him. And I've found that there is a lot of lore connecting circumcision with blood sacrifice. However I cant find anything related specifically to this passage, but my intuition keeps urging me to search on.

Anyone have knowledge of this? Could I really be seeing something that so many others have missed or ignored, or do I just have a strange imagination?

Also, references to source materials would be most appreciated! Thanks.

I have a unique interpretation of the following verses which I haven't seen anywhere else.

" And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast: therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem. And it shall be for a token upon thine hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes."

The lord said that a lamb sacrafice could be used in place of useful unclean animals and children. Then it says that firstborn sons will be sacraficed, but all firstborn children will be redeemed.

So I'm thinking, if they are all going to be redeemed then why point out the sons specifically, and with the word "sacrafice"? Then the next line says that it will be used as a token worn on the hand, or forhead, but it doesn't specify what "it" is.

My theory is that "it" is the forskin used as a male sacrafice in a ritual of circumsision, which if cut in a certain way could be used as a ring.

That's the image that I recieved while reading those passages which I thought was too weird, so I searched online about it. I found out that in some Christian traditions it is said that Jesus gave St Catherine of Siena his forskin as a wedding ring to symbolize her marriage to him. And I've found that there is a lot of lore connecting circumcision with blood sacrifice. However I cant find anything related specifically to this passage, but my intuition keeps urging me to search on.

Anyone have knowledge of this? Could I really be seeing something that so many others have missed or ignored, or do I just have a strange imagination?

Also, references to source materials would be most appreciated! Thanks.

Are these people just trolls, lazy or stupid? http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201310...

I don't want to spend eternity in a place where I can't get my balls sucked.

HA HA Made you look!!

If there is a gay gene then jews, christians and muslims who force gay people to hide and have heterosexual marriages will pass on and multiply the gay gene to their decendants, where as same sex couples will not pass on a gay gene as much.

Muslim Man Rapes 8 Year Old Bride Until She Dies. Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/09/muslim-man-rapes...

This past summer an eight year old girl was raped to death on her wedding night. She died of internal injuries resulting from her undeveloped body being unable to accommodate her 40 year old husband's rigorous penetration. A law which would have prevented this was repealed by conservatives because it wasn't according to scripture.

I have found out that this is not just a Muslim oversight, so please ready my whole argument before responding! Many Christians also believe that if something isn't in the Bible then it's not god's law. The Bible has rules for every single human behavior, except that you can't find one verse in the bible that specifically means "don't fuc|< kids". Why not?

No one can give me a single verse in the bible that forbids child rape. The best they can do is point out rules regarding chastity and fornication which actually justify child rape in the case of marriage. They site all inclusive verses ("oh look it could be read to mean that too!") such as Matthew 18:6 or Luke 17:2 which are not a biblical stance against child abuse any more than they are against making children steal or eat shellfish.

One lady even sited Hebrews 13:4 while accusing me of not understanding the meanings of the bible. That was ironic because she completely misinterpreted that verse which forbids male ejaculation during marital sex, not child rape.

Proper sexual behavior is one of the most emphasized themes in the bible and in most cases the bible repeats important rules many times. Do you think that the same god who forbids the eating of unleavened bread during Passover at least 3 times, really feels that child rape is sufficiently covered by a general law regarding chastity? Anyone using that kind of reasoning is grasping at straws.

One idiot argued that there was no word for pedophilia back then. (face palm). I pointed out that there were no English words at all in Canaan back then. The question is whether or not the bible excused this behavior, not about etymology.

One person suggested that the rules about rape must be used. This is sad because the bible states that all a rapist has to do is ask for his victim's hand in marriage and she has to marry him. That only points out the lack of protection against rape and pedophilia!

Then a clever person correctly pointed out that after a woman was raped no man would want her so the rapist was forced to marry her as a PUNISHMENT. That may be true, but it punishes the victim of rape more that the rapist because in that same time period a man could have multiple wives. Again this enables rape and child rape more than it deters.

Then another idiot told me that the people in the bible were too moral to even think that way! [laughter] The practice of mobs raping male visitors was common place yet he thinks that they are too pious to think that way about children.

The most disturbing response that I have received was a pervert who actually tried to justify it saying that it was fair because children were considered to be adults at the age of 10 or 11 and could work and be enlisted in military service. The real facts is that the earliest age for being considered an adult even back then was 13 when boys were considered old enough to understand the Torah. The age of puberty for females has not changed. The median age for the start of puberty has always been 12, but can be as late as 15.

But all that is beside the point because whatever age they determined to be mature enough for sex would have been specified if God cared about it at all. And if God really did write the Torah, Bible, and Koran then according to literal believers, that age would still apply today and the gruesome death suffered by that poor eight year old girl in Yemen should have never occurred!

The awful answer is that Abraham's god didn't consider pedophilia as a sin! I invite anyone to dispute this by providing a piece of scripture from the Bible that specifically makes pedophilia a sin no matter the marital status of the victim. You must prove that the verse specifically had pedophilia in mind because God's laws in the bible are never ambiguous!

Because I bring up this subject believers have denied, screamed, argued, insulted me, and one even tried placing a hex on me “won't bode well for you today or tomorrow”, LOL! Back at you buddy! What they will not be able to do is offer a valid counter argument or justify it.

Now I know that the vast masses of believers haven't actually read the Bible. To prove it, see how many people respond with the same arguments that I have already countered above. They wont even read this before they spout their uninformed beliefs.

They are really missing out on a good revenue stream!

A lot of questions here are like: why are athiests like this, why are muslims like that. And the assumption in the questions are not even true. Why do they keep doing that?

Because you get all these christians to waste there time and lives trying to "save" you purely for your own entertainment, and it's hillarious.

the christians focus on you and not god, and still think that they get to go to the disneyworld in the clouds. LoL

I cant wait to see all the christians in hell with me. I hope I get a pitch fork to poke them with.