Kett's SPOTD-3-13-2012--Nick M knocks Sum1sGruj' pitch out of the park.

[Sherman]

Sum1sGruj pitches the ball. It is drifting--it is a knuckle ball.

Let me tell you something about your phony conviction.

In the Old Testament, fetuses were property. If the baby was harmed, the penalty was a fine.

Nick M takes a swing with the bat.

Spread around to you, because I can only give so much to meshak.

Nice of you to tell lies. If no harm and the baby is born premature, restituion is paid. If the baby dies, life for life. Therefore, the Bible calls the baby, life.

22 “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Line by line for the learning impared.

“If men fight, and hurt a woman with child

It is established a woman was hurt.

so that she gives birth prematurely,

While hurt, she gives birth prematurely. Still following?

yet no harm follows,

No harm follows? Moses already said she was harmed. Does he have memory loss? No, he is talking about the condition of born premature.

so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows

Are you following?

23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life,

The woman is harmed and gives birth prematurely. If the baby is ok, then restitution is paid by the father. If the baby is harmed, life for life.

Quad Era Demonstrata

Going....going gone! Grand slam clear out of the park!

 

[some other dude]

Yeah, I saw that last night and ignored it. Good job Nick!

 

[Tambora]

Atta boy, NickM!

 

[alwight]

Naa! I think Nick's version here is very questionable, a swing and a miss imo. :sherlock:

Spread around to you, because I can only give so much to meshak.

Nice of you to tell lies. If no harm and the baby is born premature, restituion is paid. If the baby dies, life for life. Therefore, the Bible calls the baby, life.

22 “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Line by line for the learning impared.

“If men fight, and hurt a woman with child

It is established a woman was hurt.

so that she gives birth prematurely,

While hurt, she gives birth prematurely. Still following?

yet no harm follows,

No harm follows? Moses already said she was harmed. Does he have memory loss? No, he is talking about the condition of born premature.

Clearly Nick is simply making up his own version here.
As I interpret it; harm which follows is not necessarily the same as the harm that happened originally and that the writer is still talking about the woman, her following and perhaps continuing harm, if any.

so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows

Are you following?

Yes, no following harm to the woman.

23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life,

The woman is harmed and gives birth prematurely. If the baby is ok, then restitution is paid by the father. If the baby is harmed, life for life.

Quad Era Demonstrata

The writer is still talking about the woman to which God presumably attaches greater importance to than her "fruit" according to the KJV anyway.
Therefore God is apparently pro-choice since he considers a woman's life to be of more importance than that of her fruit the fetus.
QED

 

[Sherman]

alwight, the purpose of post of the day threads are to congratulate members, not for debate. Of you want to debate Nick, please take it to the thread where the post was originally posted.

 

[alwight]

alwight, the purpose of post of the day threads are to congratulate members, not for debate. Of you want to debate Nick, please take it to the thread where the post was originally posted.

Where did you get that idea from, is it in the rules?
The purpose here was not to debate with Nick, which I think is a waste of time, but to suggest to you and others that your praise of him is perhaps somewhat undeserved.

 

[Sherman]

ACW was warned by Knight for doing the same thing in another SPOTD thread. Please take the debate to the appropriate thread.

 

[Nick M]

:e4e:

So simple even a caveman can understand it.

 

[rocketman]

Good Job Nick! very good post indeed...

 

[john w]

Back, back, back.......

 

[King cobra]

Good Job Nick! very good post indeed...

Agreed, indeed!

 

[alwight]

ACW was warned by Knight for doing the same thing in another SPOTD thread. Please take the debate to the appropriate thread.

In that case:
Nice job Nick an excellent post. :thumb:


Better?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

ACW was warned by Knight for doing the same thing in another SPOTD thread. Please take the debate to the appropriate thread.

Could you kindly point alwight and myself in the direction of an "appropriate thread" Kett?

 

[Sherman]

Could you kindly point alwight and myself in the direction of an "appropriate thread" Kett?

The thread where the post originated. :doh:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

The thread where the post originated. :doh:

Thanks, I guess I missed the link (and still can't find it in this thread).

 

[MaryContrary]

Thanks, I guess I missed the link (and still can't find it in this thread).

Go to the OP and, in one of the quotes where the poster's name is, you'll see a lil' curved blue arrow. That's a link to that original post, which would be inside the original thread. Just like the lil' blue arrow next to your name right here, where I quoted you.

Or just click this.

 

[alwight]

Thanks, I guess I missed the link (and still can't find it in this thread).

I was actually responding to the OP here not the thread that the original post came from (there being no point in a dialogue with Nick imo), but my views aren't welcome here only those in praise of Nick are apparently.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I was actually responding to the OP here not the thread that the original post came from (there being no point in a dialogue with Nick imo), but my views aren't welcome here only those in praise of Nick are apparently.

Nor are mine after questioning the supposed pro life beliefs of an atheist.

Hey, I gave you a positive rep though!

 

[alwight]

Nor are mine after questioning the supposed pro life beliefs of an atheist.

Hey, I gave you a positive rep though!

And me you, how about that.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

And me you, how about that.

LOL...hey, we're still arch enemies, right?