About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

August 18, 2013 8:00am by Kokila Patel

General Debate 18 August 2013

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment136

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (136)

Login to comment or vote

Judith

@ nasska 7.54pm

Is that a promise? If I become a feminist I get to do all those things? Where do I sign up? 😛 (except kill the kids, I’d rather just continue to make their lives a misery, if you don’t mind)
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2013 8:00pm
nasska

A good, clean living Atheist died and went to Heaven. St Peter met him at the door. “You can’t come in here,” Peter said.
The Atheist asked why.
“You’re Atheist… sorry. But Hell isn’t so bad. Your friends are there, and they say it’s cool.”
The Atheist is depressed but goes anyway, because he was, well, Atheist. So he goes to Hell and is greeted by a beautiful green field with people picnicking and having a great time. A man in a white comes over to him and presents himself as Satan, and the Devil tells him of all the delights in what appears to be a 5 star resort.
“Wow!” thinks the Atheist. “Hell ain’t so bad! I’m happy to be here.”
Suddenly, the sky gets black and fire spews from the ground. A screaming, flaming man falls from the sky and is swallowed by a crack in the earth. After he disappears, everything returns to normal.
“What the heck was that?!” the Atheist asks Satan.
Satan replies, “That was a Christian. They wouldn’t have Hell any other way.”
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2013 8:00pm
Lucia Maria

Kea,

It’s not human sacrifice, though.

And, as explained previously, those commands were to particular groups of people at particular times. They’re not general commands for today’s times. However, God, who is the giver of all life, including yours and mine, has every right to cease our existence on this planet at any time He chooses. He’s just not going to command someone else to kill you today, though, nor do those commands to kill disobedient children have any relevance now. Old Testament rules for the People of Israel pre the coming of God Incarnate.
2 2
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2013 8:02pm
Judith

@ Lucia Maria

O.K. so there is a Statute of Limitation regarding certain acts in the bible.

I’m pretty sure by law it is necessary to define the time limits to those who are expected to abide by them.

I can’t see your argument holding up in a court of law, myself.
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2013 8:09pm
nasska

….” those commands were to particular groups of people at particular times”…..

Careful….the only reference that your church has for its condemnation of homosexual activities would come under that heading. 🙂
4 1
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2013 8:13pm
Kea

nasska, yep and there goes the Ten Commandments. Johnboy should be back by now, where is he ?
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2013 8:18pm
big bruv

“There’s no mention of a “sky-fairy” in the Bible, Big Bruv”

Clearly you have not read the book.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2013 8:20pm
nasska

It’s lambing time Kea. He’s out in the paddock grooming the youngsters. 🙂
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2013 8:21pm
Lucia Maria

Nasska,

Well, there are certain things that are revealed truth for all, and other things that were specific to the Old Testament. Discerning what is what is complicated, that’s why we have a Magisterium.

Judith,

Have a look at this link on the Inquisition where the Church early on distinguished between the old law that was specific for the Jews and the law which Our Lord gave Christians when it came to dealing with heretics:

Replying to the accusation of Celsus, based on the Old Testament, that the Christians persecuted dissidents with death, burning, and torture, Origen (Against Celsus VII.26) is satisfied with explaining that one must distinguish between the law which the Jews received from Moses and that given to the Christians by Jesus; the former was binding on the Jews, the latter on the Christians. Jewish Christians, if sincere, could no longer conform to all of the Mosaic law; hence they were no longer at liberty to kill their enemies or to burn and stone violators of the Christian Law.

St. Cyprian of Carthage, surrounded as he was by countless schismatics and undutiful Christians, also put aside the material sanction of the Old Testament, which punished with death rebellion against priesthood and the Judges. “Nunc autem, quia circumcisio spiritalis esse apud fideles servos Dei coepit, spiritali gladio superbi et contumaces necantur, dum de Ecclesia ejiciuntur” (Epistle 61, no. 4) religion being now spiritual, its sanctions take on the same character, and excommunication replaces the death of the body. Lactantius was yet smarting under the scourge of bloody persecutions, when he wrote this Divine Institutes in A.D. 308. Naturally, therefore, he stood for the most absolute freedom of religion. He writes:

Religion being a matter of the will, it cannot be forced on anyone; in this matter it is better to employ words than blows [verbis melius quam verberibus res agenda est]. Of what use is cruelty? What has the rack to do with piety? Surely there is no connection between truth and violence, between justice and cruelty . . . . It is true that nothing is so important as religion, and one must defend it at any cost [summâ vi] . . . It is true that it must be protected, but by dying for it, not by killing others; by long-suffering, not by violence; by faith, not by crime. If you attempt to defend religion with bloodshed and torture, what you do is not defense, but desecration and insult. For nothing is so intrinsically a matter of free will as religion. (Divine Institutes V:20)

The Christian teachers of the first three centuries insisted, as was natural for them, on complete religious liberty; furthermore, they not only urged the principle that religion could not be forced on others — a principle always adhered to by the Church in her dealings with the unbaptised — but, when comparing the Mosaic Law and the Christian religion, they taught that the latter was content with a spiritual punishment of heretics (i.e. with excommunication), while Judaism necessarily proceeded against its dissidents with torture and death.

Circumcision is another Biblical example whereby it was binding on Jews prior to Christianity, and then after Christ was Resurrected, it was no longer necessary.
2 4
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2013 8:28pm
Lucia Maria

Big Bruv,

Yes, I’ve read the book. No sky-fairy.

How about you give me a specific reference to a fairy in the sky from the Bible?
2 4
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2013 8:30pm
Lucia Maria

The Ten Commandments are binding on Christians, and Our Lord taught every single one of them. They’re not hard to find in the New Testament.
2 5
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2013 8:39pm
big bruv

“How about you give me a specific reference to a fairy in the sky from the Bible?”

Any reference to the non existent “God” aka the Sky Fairy.

Are you sure you have read the book? You really should do so, it is a huge laugh and quite a good way of filling in a few hours. All things considered the main character in the book (the sky fairy) really is a shit. I am not sure that the authors of this work of fiction wanted to paint the man in a manner that suggests he is a vindictive narcissist but then what can you expect from a bunch of illiterate camel jockeys.
3 4
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2013 8:39pm
eszett

Well, there are certain things that are revealed truth for all, and other things that were specific to the Old Testament. Discerning what is what is complicated, that’s why we have a Magisterium.

Translation: you can make up whatever shit you want. Justifiing it is all just a question of interpretation.
4 2
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2013 8:42pm
Judith

@ Lucia Maria

Thanks but no thanks, you see most historical documents change the emphasis/laws etc over time. I view the bible as no more than most of those, written by people with the skill to record events, that were by no means representative of the entire population.

Ever played the game chinese whispers? As far as I am concerned, a similar concept applies to stories that were written many years after the events – and as I said, by people who did not represent those who took part in the original event/s. They were written by only one very small group of society.

I’ve read the bible many many times. I give it no more value than the Kish Tablet.
4 3
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2013 8:43pm
Harriet

“……I’ve read the bible many many times. I give it no more value than the Kish Tablet…..”

Why did you read it a second time Judith?

Lucia,

People like Kea, Nasska and Judith find it impossable to understand historical text.

Putting things into context is well beyond their ability. Must have been their schooling.
3 3
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2013 9:25pm
Fletch

He directs babies to be dashed to death in front of their parents.

And where exactly does it say that then?
2 2
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2013 9:43pm
Fletch

By the way, do you think that if people had obeyed God’s biblical laws about men (not) sleeping with men and women (not) sleeping with women that we would have AIDS today?

Yes or no.
3 3
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2013 9:56pm
chiz

Yes, we would still have AIDS. It originated in Africa, where it is mainly a heterosexual disease.
2 3
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2013 10:07pm
Kea

Fletch I am growing tired of giving you bible lessons 🙂

Hosea 13:16

16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open.”

Abortion:

Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. “Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God of course obeys by making all their unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally “abortion”?

Numbers 5:11-21 The description of a bizarre, brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife SUSPECTED of adultery. This is considered to be an induced abortion to rid a woman of another man’s child.

Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” In other words: women that might be pregnant, which clearly is abortion for the fetus.

Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the “their women with child shall be ripped up”. Once again this god kills the unborn, including their pregnant mothers.

2 Kings 15:16 God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah (aka Tiphsah) to be “ripped open”. And the Christians have the audacity to say god is pro-life. How and the hell is it that Christians can read passages where God allows pregnant women to be murdered, yet still claim abortion is wrong?

Infanticide:

1 Samuel 15:3 God commands the death of helpless “suckling” infants. This literally means that the children god killed were still nursing.

Psalms 135:8 & 136:10 Here god is praised for slaughtering little babies.

Psalms 137:9 Here god commands that infants should be “dashed upon the rocks”.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2013 10:09pm
Fletch

Kea, that’s a lot of stuff, but just to answer one of them.

Psalms 137:9 Here god commands that infants should be “dashed upon the rocks”

God said no such thing. The writer of the verse is expressing his own feelings of anger to God. God is not commanding any such thing.

First, we must remember that the psalmist is a Jewish writer (not sure who as it does not say) who is embittered towards Babylon as the Babylonians ransacked the civilization of the Jewish people -taking them into captivity- and destroyed their once glorious temple. He may very well be hoping for the “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” scenario.

This next point, is a key issue that I would like us to zero in on. There is no command or condoning of by God to do such a thing of the Babylonian children. One may object by saying “well this scripture is in the Bible”, but here’s what we must consider. These sentiments are the thoughts of a distressed man, and the Bible is merely recording what he said. Just because it’s written in there, doesn’t mean it’s to be construed as an endorsement from God.

He is likely referencing Isaiah’s prediction of the destruction of Babylon. His usage of dashing thy little ones against the stones is a term that would have been familiar to the ancients, meaning that Babylon would be utterly destroyed and left in ruin. This is the strongest language possible that he could have used to convey the destruction of a nation. Homer used similar language.

You’re looking at verses through the lens of today and without any context at all as to what was happening historically then. Also, you have to know the common sayings or scripture references that these are lensed through to give them context.
You don’t have any of that.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2013 10:21pm
Fletch

Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.”

Moses obviously thought that killing the Midianites was a good and proper thing to do, just as Bin Laden thought that it was good and proper to kill 3,000 Americans by flying airplanes into the Trade Towers, and just as America thought it right to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima to end WW2. Is killing always ‘wrong’? If so, is that not a declaration of a moral absolute? Isn’t a moral absolute a direct contradiction of moral relativism? If so, is moral relativism wrong? Is it proper to make the observation that different cultures have different moral values and to then make the statement that they are immoral, simply because their moral values differ from our own? We must admit that we are immoral by another culture’s standards; can you see the resulting hypocrisy?

When I first read Numbers 31, I wanted to condemn Moses and the God that commanded him to kill. But what made my opinion on the matter carry any more weight than Moses’ opinion that it was a moral decision? Is there no such thing as a ‘just war’? You may not think that there is. However, what gives your opinion on the matter any more authority than those who think that wars can be just? How, then, can a person who accepts secular humanism’s view that morality is relative be in a position to condemn Moses?

In simple terms, such condemnation merely exposes the personal bias and emotionalism of the moral relativist. If one doesn’t like the idea of God, then one will be quick to condemn God for His actions, even if the result is hypocrisy. On the other hand, if a moral relativist is fair minded, he will take the time to see the moral perspective from the other side.

When we read the Old Testament, we discover that the Caananites are described as wicked. What this means, described loosely in secular terms, is that the moral culture of the Caananites differed dramatically from the moral culture of the Israelites. It is known that the people of Moab sacrificed their babies by placing them into the red hot hands of a heated statue of their god. Their standards of honesty, respect for life, and sanctity of marriage were different than Israel’s. What Moses tried to prevent with warfare was the unpalatable mixing of two diametrically opposed societies. If a person honestly thought that sacrificing babies was wrong, how would they feel when they saw this practice spreading, perhaps even seeing some of their own people who had married into the other culture, performing this act on their children? They were outraged. But from the Moabites point of view, to be made not to sacrifice children to their god was equally offensive and wrong! In Numbers 25, we see that this inter-marrying was taking place. Moses did not want his people to become as wicked as the Midianites, and so he did what he thought was proper – he destroyed all whom he considered to be a threat to his culture. The men and women were killed because they would both fight to have their way of life preserved. The boys were killed because they would grow up resenting the Israelites and cause problems later on. The young girls were not seen as a threat because, submissive and young, they would form bonds and babies with their captors and become absorbed into the culture.

When there is a clash of cultures with diametrically opposed values, there can be no peace. We see this being played out in the Middle East. The western world believes in freedom for ALL through democracy, Islam believes in submission to God for ALL through theocracy. Israel wanted ALL to have its values and worship its God, the Caananites and Moabites wanted ALL to have their values and worship their God. Any compromise would have been found unacceptable by both sides.

The liberal mindset in America today is that war is to be a gentle act of persuasion, and that those who win any war fought with weapons are monsters and that those who lose, are noble victims. But no matter the cause of war, at its height – at that instant when the battle can go either way, and at that moment when both sides fear they will lose – both sides, if given the weapons and the option, would logically choose to annihilate the enemy. When soldiers were slaughtering native Americans, had those native Americans had access to modern weaponry, does one really think they would not have used it? Can you imagine an Indian chief, his people dead and dying, the white man moving in, having no respect for the buffalo or the land, saying, ‘Gee, we could win this war, but we respect life so much that we won’t destroy the lives of our enemies. We’ll just lie down and die for them’?

The Midianites were not noble victims. They fought hard. They would have loved to have killed every Israelite and to have wiped them off of the planet. They were not a peaceful village in a sleepy valley that was one day attacked by vicious hordes of Jews. They were constantly waging war, burning Israel’s crops and leaving them with nothing to eat. In my opinion, the war was a just war, especially when viewed through the lens of moral relativism. It is laughable when a person, 3500 years after the fact, sitting in his comfortable house, sipping a latte’, who adheres to the principles of moral relativism, emphatically claims that God was immoral for having conducted such a war.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2013 10:26pm
eszett

Fletch (4,644) Says:
August 18th, 2013 at 9:56 pm
By the way, do you think that if people had obeyed God’s biblical laws about men (not) sleeping with men and women (not) sleeping with women that we would have AIDS today?

Yes or no.

Yes we would. HIV doesn’t give a fuck whether you are gay or straight.

And if people would have ignored the idiotic religious objections against condoms and heeded rational advice, we would have far less people with AIDS and far less people would have died.

Aside from that if your imaginary od really wanted to give some health advice he could have just said something like “Wash you hands” or “Use desinfectant”. That would have saved more lives in human history than some homophobic rant.

But you and your god seem more interested in what people do with the sexual organs.
3 1
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2013 10:27pm
Harriet

Hosea 9:11-16

It is important to note here that all life was created by, and belongs to, God. He controls whether or not a person has children (Genesis 20:17-18, 25:21, 29:31, 30:22; Ruth 4:13; 1 Samuel 1:5). Children are a blessing from God (Psalm 127:3). God had warned the Israelites that if they broke their covenant with him, disobeyed his commandments and showed him contempt by worshipping idols, he would withhold blessings from them, including the blessing of children: “You who were as numerous as the stars in the sky will be left but few in number, because you did not obey the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 28:62, NIV).

We come now to the verse describing God taking the lives of Israelite children. As in previous passages, this is a difficult issue. There are a few things that we need to take into consideration. First, God gave the people ample warning over many years to avoid destruction. If they had repented, God would not have withdrawn his protection and allowed them to be overtaken by the Assyrians (Jeremiah 18:7-8, Jonah chapter 3). Second, one of the reasons that God would have withheld children from being born during this time period was due to the widespread killing and destruction that occurred during the siege of Samaria (2 Kings 17; Hosea 13:16). Finally, if the children had lived to adulthood, they most likely would have followed the idol-worshipping practices of their parents, and would have been lost for eternity. God took their lives in childhood to prevent this from occurring.

Passages such as this one are horrifying, and cause for sober reflection. God’s commands are not to be treated flippantly or disregarded. He does not want anyone to perish, and he takes no pleasure in the death of anyone (Ezekiel 18:32). However, there comes a time when his patience runs out and he abandons those who have rejected him to their fate. The conquest of Israel by Assyria was such a time.

—————————————-
Kea, the Bible discusses a lot about the rise and fall of Nations.

Communilistic society is better than individualism. We’ve seen the effects of indvidualism for 40yrs now, selfishness, unkindness, irresponsability ect in individuals. Homofacism and feminism can only thrive in an individualistic society.

The West has abandoned God while Russia is welcoming him.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2013 10:33pm
Fletch

Yes we would. HIV doesn’t give a fuck whether you are gay or straight.

Bullshit.
AIDS was first known as GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency).
Yes, heterosexuals can get it now through blood transfusions etc, but the main spread is by homosexual sex.

As far as condoms etc, if people had obeyed the Bible on no fornication (no sex until marriage) and faithfulness (no cheating on your married spouse) we would not even need such things as condoms, or the pill, or abortion, or Gardisil injections for girls or any of that stuff.

The only reason we have contraception at all is because we want to f*ck who we want out of wedlock and not get pregnant. It is a lack of respect for the other person. And women thought the Pill would free them? Liberate them? What a joke!
It only lets them be used more by men; men who invented the Pill. And women thought it was for their sake 😆

If people went back to the Bible for morals we could get rid of sexual disease altogether eventually.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2013 10:34pm
chiz

AIDS was first known as GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency).

When it was first discovered in the west it was referred to for a while as GRID. It was subsequently found that it had been around for decades in Africa, where it is mainly spread heterosexually.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2013 10:40pm
Fletch

chiz, sorry I don’t believe that is true.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2013 10:40pm
chiz

Which bit? AIDS is thought to have arrived in the US around 1969, but its now know in retrospect that it was present in the Congo in 1959 for example.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2013 10:52pm
Harriet

Quite so Fletch.

Symptons of Aids does show up as Aids in some Africans – but it isn’t. It’s some other virus.

I came across that in a PDF file by some scientist who worked there. I’ll try and find it. Cheers.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2013 10:54pm
Fletch

Thanks Harriet.

Also, a man has worked out the numbers in a presentation at the link below and says that the reported heterosexual rate of HIV infection in Africa is just not plausible. For it to be correct, both men and women would have to have an astronomical number of sexual partners.

By current estimates, 17% of adults in the Republic of South Africa have HIV/AIDS. In Botswana, 25% of the population supposedly has HIV infection. These numbers entirely implausible. They exceed all feasible limits of human sexual activity.

Now, to put things in proper perspective, we need to examine the sexual behavior of gay males in NYC at the beginning of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

At the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, the gay men in New York City averaged approximately 20 different sexual partners every 6 months [ref] [ref], or by another account, they averaged approximately 1000 sexual partners over their lifetime [ref].

Now, in truth, these numbers represent only gay males who were highly sexually active. Not all gay males are highly sexually active. But at the other extreme, the Centers for Disease Control tracked one gay male who claimed 750 different sexual partners over a 3-year period [ref].

This level of sexual activity among gay males, in a limited geographical areas, gave rise to the geometric growth in the number AIDS cases in the United States at the beginning of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Geometric means doubling in number every six months [ref].

Now, the risk of HIV transmission during unprotected anal intercourse is estimated to be 0.005–0.02 per exposure. The estimated risk for HIV transmission during vaginal intercourse is 0.001 per exposure [ref] [ref] [ref]. What this all means is the risk of HIV transmission during unprotected anal intercourse is approximately 5 to 20 times greater than the risk of HIV transmission during unprotected vaginal intercourse.

Unprotected means without a condom. Also these numbers I am citing represent the risk to the receptive partner.

The HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa is said to be heterosexual. So for the heterosexual African men to match the same HIV transmission rates as the gay men in New York City, the average African heterosexual man would require approximately 100 – 400 different sexual partners every 6 months.

Now unlike the AIDS epidemic in Europe and the United States, wherein men predominate — in Africa, supposedly the number of men infected with HIV is equal to the number of women affected with HIV.

So African heterosexual women would be required to be extraordinarily busy to infect an equal number of men, since the transmission rate – female-to-male – is approximately 1.1 to 3.3 times less efficient than HIV transmission from male-to-female. So the females would be required to have approximately 110 to 1200 different sexual partners every 6 months in order to accomplish this rate of HIV transmission.

Now all this extraordinary sexual activity among the heterosexual males and females of Africa would only give them a transmission rate comparable to that found among gay males in New York City. But current prevalence of HIV in New York City is approximately 0.4%, or four-tenths of one percent; whereas, in South Africa, the current estimate for HIV prevalence is 17% of all adults, and in Botswana 25%.

Therefore, in order to achieve this astronomical rate of HIV infection in the general population, the heterosexual African men of South Africa would require approximately 4200 to 17,000 sexual partners every 6 months; while females would require approximately 4700 to 51,000 sexual partners every 6 months.

These astronomical numbers are based on the concept that New York City and South Africa have similar size populations of highly sexually active individuals in both. But we must account for the fact that there are far more numbers of heterosexuals than homosexuals. The difference in HIV prevalence in New York City – which is four-tenths of one percent – and South Africa – which is supposedly 17 percent – is a multiple of 42.

Meaning, that for every gay male New Yorker having 20 different sexual partners every six months, there must be 42 South African heterosexuals having comparable sexual activity in terms of HIV transmission rates. So, for every gay male New Yorker having 20 different sexual partners every six months, there must be 42 South African heterosexual males having 100 – 400 different sexual partners every six months, or 42 heterosexual females having 110 – 1200 different sexual partners every six months, or a combination of the two.

http://www.healthalert.net/Dispelling_Misconceptions/?p=497
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2013 11:00pm
Fletch

By the way, as far as the USA goes, according to the AVERT website, out of a number of 38,825 infected men – 30,573 were infected by male-to-male sex.

http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2013 11:06pm
chiz

Also, a man has worked out the numbers in a presentation at the link below and says that the reported heterosexual rate of HIV infection in Africa is just not plausible. For it to be correct, both men and women would have to have an astronomical number of sexual partners.

A bizarre pseudo-analysis that only works if you assume that AIDS is recent. If you allow for the fact that it has been around for a while, especially in poor areas where symptoms might not get noticed, then there isn’t a problem.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 18, 2013 11:20pm
eszett

Fletch (4,650) Says:
August 18th, 2013 at 10:40 pm
chiz, sorry I don’t believe that is true.

Yes, not surprising really, that you don’t accept facts that contradict your preconceived notions. It’s your standard MO.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 19, 2013 1:03am
Left Right and Centre

duggledog 12:50 pm yeah I know. I shop at PnS myself. I did find at Countdown Porirua cream bun 6 pack on special for $2.89 once. I spent literally half an hour deciding whether I wanted to buy them or not.. seeing as I’m a dieter… bought them and ate them all next to the trolleys. Hey.. it was shitty shitty weather and you have dieting lowpoints… unavoidable part of the game. Shit they were good. I wanted to buy another pack but managed to hold off.

The general debate on the lower half of this page concerns who the most loathesome religious fuckwit is.

All of these beautiful recipes….. I’d love to make them all and eat them all. Ginger slice, ginger biscuits, lolly cake, hokey pokey toffee, custard creams with lemon filling, pancakes, porridge with custard and banana, choc caramel slice. Damn my gorgeous golden figure… it’s keeping me from baking up batch after batch of bliss. I had to buy 30g of ginger just to own the scent at the very least.

Ginger ice cream

50g butter
2 heaped tablespoons golden syrup
2 teaspoons ground ginger
1 cup icing sugar
300mls cream

Any dropkick can have a crack at that recipe. Easy easy easy. Why if I had cream…. I could start it off right now.

And you think to yourself… there’s this whole world of cool stuff out there… all I had to do as make an effort and hey presto… something that’s probably really cool like your own version of ginger ice cream. Is it really ice cream? That’s what I want to know. It just looks like some ingredients chucked in the freezer. I’m sure the process is a little more involved at the Tip Top plant.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 19, 2013 3:07am
Manolo

Beware of NZ Police sharp shooters: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=860_1228275833
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 19, 2013 7:41am
eszett

Just for Fletch:

HIV is spread via the exchange of body fluids from infected individuals, including blood, semen, vaginal secretions and breast milk. The majority of new HIV infections are in sub-Saharan Africa, where heterosexual sex is the main mode of viral transmission.

While numerous animal models have been developed to find chinks in HIV’s armour in the hope of developing a vaccine, none of these mimicked the main route of HIV transmission – vaginal sex – until now. In their paper just published in the open access journal Disease Models and Mechanisms, Hadas et al describe how male mice infected with a genetically modified version of HIV that propagates in rodents instead of humans, efficiently transmitted the virus to uninfected female mice. Male mice infected with the modified virus (EcoHIV/NDK) were allowed to mate with uninfected females for 1-7 nights; 70-100% of the females became infected.

http://sciblogs.co.nz/infectious-thoughts/2013/08/19/monday-micro-first-animal-model-of-sexual-transmission-of-hiv/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 19, 2013 7:51am
Fletch

eszett, OK, so they are basing this on a study on mice with have been infected with a modified version of HIV?
I still don’t buy it, sorry.
AIDS is spread more through gay sex. Yes, people who are bisexual can pass it on to members of the opposite sex, but I believe the root cause (so to speak) is MSM (men having sex with men).

This is provable (at least in America) by the link to AVERT that I gave earlier – http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm
Look at the graph on the page. Now, why should the disease behave differently in one country than another? Perhaps it is propaganda.

This is leading away from my first premise; however, which does not change: if men and women followed Biblical teaching on sex and relationships – abstained from sex until they were married, were faithful in marriage and did not cheat on their partners – I do not believe there would be many instances of AIDS. In fact, we would be able to do away with condoms, the Pill, Gardasil, abortion – just about all forms of contraception. And all forms of venereal disease would be tackled.

Explain how I am wrong in this.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 19, 2013 10:05am

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« An accident?

Claiming sole credit »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

"Seymour is only doing openly what M?ori nationalists and their Pakeha allies have been doing, quietly for the past 50 years."
Not PC
Barry Soper: The h?koi was M?ori Party's crowning glory
Breaking Views
Sowell says
Hompaddock
Seymour’s opponents need better arguments
Point of Order
Continuous Process Improvement
No Minister
New Zealand government urged to back ICC arrest warrants for Israeli leaders without equivocation
The Daily Blog
Popuphobia’s Javier Milei Problem
Utopia
Open mike 22/11/2024
The Standard
Drawn
No Right Turn
The transgender agenda sunk Kamala
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
What does “reciprocity” mean in New Zealand laws?
Croaking Cassandra
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d