In the first three you imply that VOR thinks saying someone is a "Bush Hater" is an insult. Where does VOR say this is an insult? If so, he would be a hypocrite, however, from further reading of them, I don't think he was using as an insult at all. I will say calling you "little man" is an insult and probably has more backing for calling him a hypocrite. However, if I find a link from you saying that name calling is bad then you would be guilty of the same thing right?

Originally Posted by Duo

Vor is a hypocrite because he talks about how gay's behavior is a reason they are unnaturla and thereofre should not be allowed to marry. He neglects the fact that striaghts engage in the same behavior. To argue that it is wrong because of A yet this group can even if they do the same is hypocritical.

You implied that VOR DOESN'T believe in "voiding straight marriages that engage in anal"...however you have no provided no evidence to show his views on anal sex with regards to straight marriages. Therefore how can you call him a hypocrite?

Originally Posted by Duo

Vor is a hypocrite because during the elections he repetively said that polls don't matter at all about anything. Yet here he clearly states they do.

In your post you provided no evidence of what he said about polls. Thus your claim was unfounded which is what we are saying you do. If this was true you should of posted a place where he(VOR) said that polls don't matter. Otherwise, like I said, your claim is unfounded.

Originally Posted by Duo

Vor is a hypocrite because he ignores that straights behave in similar manners that he find offensive in gay behaviors.

You didn't even come close to providing proof here...In fact, VOR (in the post you quoted him) never said anything about his opinion...he said some people think...this by no means shows his beleifs. So why did you try and call him a hypocrite on it? You once again made an unfounded claim.


As for your last link...it goes along with the your first link I believe except you added this:

Originally Posted by Duo

AS for your military service: VOR isn't even old enough to enlist

STOP LYING

you provided NO proof whatsoever of VORs age and/or enlistment statis in the military. This would be another example of an unfounded claim.

Lets add them up:
At BEST:

VOR being a hypocrite provided with facts: 1
Unfounded claims by Duo: 4

Duo, come on now.

why is it you are too lazy to even run a search yourself?

I feel like I am arguing with someone who doesn't want to bother doing any research himself yet demands everything.

Duo: The sky is blue
steeve: YOU HAVE NO PROOF, YOU'RE A LIAR!!! YOUR CLAIM IS UNFOUNDED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Duo: The grass is green.
Steeve: You haven't provided anything, YOU'RE WRONG!!! YOUR CLAIM IS UNFOUNDED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Duo: The water is cool
Steeve:You haven't provided anything, YOU'RE WRONG!!! YOUR CLAIM IS UNFOUNDED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you want, i can do the same for you.

I take it you haven't even bothered to view the threads?

I take it that you rescind your claim that you do not let people go about with unfounded claims?

Originally Posted by Duo_Maxwell

why MUST I DO EVERYTHING?

http://4forums.com/political/showpos...4&postcount=18

Vor is a hypocrite because he has used personal attacks aganist others yet cries foul when they are used aganist him.

http://4forums.com/political/showpos...0&postcount=38

Vor is a hypocrite because he talks about how they resort to personal attacks instead of addressing the issue, nevermind the fact that he does the same thing.

http://4forums.com/political/showpos...4&postcount=30

Vor is a hypocrite because he talks about how gay's behavior is a reason they are unnaturla and thereofre should not be allowed to marry. He neglects the fact that striaghts engage in the same behavior. To argue that it is wrong because of A yet this group can even if they do the same is hypocritical.

http://4forums.com/political/showpos...4&postcount=12

Vor is a hypocrite because during the elections he repetively said that polls don't matter at all about anything. Yet here he clearly states they do.

http://4forums.com/political/showpos...6&postcount=61

Vor is a hypocrite because he ignores that straights behave in similar manners that he find offensive in gay behaviors.

http://4forums.com/political/showpos...9&postcount=53

Vor is a hypocrite because calling someone a insult because they disagree with you is wrong. Nevermind the fact he does it himself.

DO I NEED TO GO ON?

This is why you don't remove context. Because it is IMPORANT to figuring out how something applies.

I love you too little man...... I will have to check you out from my ISP from Florida that is in Port Orchard Washington...........

You really need to get a life little man and get over your fixation on me..........

Now can we please get vack to the subject of this thread???? Thank you.......

State your Ip then for all of us to check.

http://www.whatismyip.com/

haha, I know the grass is green, the sky is blue, and the water is cool and I wouldn't agrue on that. However, you were claiming VOR was a hypocrite to which no one knew anything about VOR. So why should we have taken your word for it? Lets assume I had no idea that grass was green because I had never seen grass....If you just came on and said "grass is green", they I would have said you claim is unfounded.

Nevertheless, claiming someone is a hypocrite is probably requires more evidence then a simple claim like the grass is green as it is a personal attack. It seems all of your posts when you quote VOR include that he is a hypocrite and yet you refuse to provide evidence in all of them. So, I got tired of your unfounded claims and decided to call you out on them. If you simply provide evidence to back your claims then it wouldn't be a big deal now would it? However, you have yet to provide evidence for your unfounded claims. If they are YOUR claim YOU should provide the evidence...not me. So call me lazy all you want but it appears many people see the way I do (zachvac and cone as shown in this thread).

In conclusion,

You can make unfounded claims about people all you want, however, it doesn't make them true and in the end you look like a fool. Just take our advice and post evidence to back your claims about other people on the forum.

For those just joining us: Don't by any means think that Duo (or anyone) has done anything wrong or has been proven wrong. We are just simply telling him to ground his claims in provided evidence so they don't look like "because I said so" arguements..

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

haha, I know the grass is green, the sky is blue, and the water is cool and I wouldn't agrue on that. However, you were claiming VOR was a hypocrite to which no one knew anything about VOR. So why should we have taken your word for it? Lets assume I had no idea that grass was green because I had never seen grass....If you just came on and said "grass is green", they I would have said you claim is unfounded.

Nevertheless, claiming someone is a hypocrite is probably requires more evidence then a simple claim like the grass is green as it is a personal attack. It seems all of your posts when you quote VOR include that he is a hypocrite and yet you refuse to provide evidence in all of them. So, I got tired of your unfounded claims and decided to call you out on them. If you simply provide evidence to back your claims then it wouldn't be a big deal now would it? However, you have yet to provide evidence for your unfounded claims. If they are YOUR claim YOU should provide the evidence...not me. So call me lazy all you want but it appears many people see the way I do (zachvac and cone as shown in this thread).

In conclusion,

You can make unfounded claims about people all you want, however, it doesn't make them true and in the end you look like a fool. Just take our advice and post evidence to back your claims about other people on the forum.

For those just joining us: Don't by any means think that Duo (or anyone) has done anything wrong or has been proven wrong. We are just simply telling him to ground his claims in provided evidence so they don't look like "because I said so" arguements..

Steeeve, let it go..............He will never stop.......

Very well then VOR...Since it is about you and you have asked...I will end it and let it be known that any post about the previous subject will be disregarded.

Back to the topic at hand...I don't know where we left off so lets just pick it up by saying:

A Christian is one who believes in God, Jesus, and God's Word (the Bible).

you know what, there's no point in discussing stuff with you. You apparently require that everything be cited, and that those be cited, and that those be cited and so on and so forth until the sun burns out. You're simply not worth the time.

The more time you spend with Vor, the more you will realize I am right.

http://4forums.com/political/showpos...6&postcount=39

There's a unfounded claim, why don't you jump on him?

I will end it and let it be known that any post about the previous subject will be disregarded

Originally Posted by Steeeve

“Rashach : To murder, slay.
I don't know where you get something differently.”

Because you use contemporary Hebrew…not classic, which is hundreds of years outdated like Old English. The grammar and definition have changed for many words in Hebrew since the reestablishment of Israel. Understandably, the community part would be dropped off so rashach would sound similar to the more accepted definition of murder.
However splitting hairs isn’t going to do you any good either.

Originally Posted by Steeeve

“After looking up some stuff I found out that miscarriage is not used. Yatsa is the word that is commonly misused to mean miscarriage while here is means to give birth. This is clear because later on the writter refers to a miscarriage using the word shakal.”

Your site is just using the regular old contemporary translation of Exodus 21 that I pointed out earlier. For thousands of years Rabbis translated it as this; if a woman is injured then it is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. If the fetus is injured then it is only a small crime that and those responsible must pay a fine according to the father. As such, even such a law was reflective in all other surrounding cultures.
You don’t have to go far into Judaism to see that Jewish culture didn’t really cherish fetal life since an embryo is not reckoned a viable living thing (in Hebrew, bar kayama). Even the phrase adopted to “unborn children” is ubar yerech imo-- which deems the fetus as being part of the pregnant woman's body.
If the webmaster to your site wants to play history revisionist because he thinks Exodus 21 should be interpreted differently from the way it has been done traditionally for many centuries then so be it. It doesn’t change history or the original interpretation. And yet it still doesn’t say anything against abortion.
Try again.

Originally Posted by Steeeve

“So in conclusion we can determine this quote to mean you can't kill the baby inside the mother. For a further explanation of this I have found a link that kinda says this”

No, even if the Jews had translated it as such it would not condemn abortion. By your interpretation a man is being punished for wrongfully killing a fetus. This doesn’t bar the parents from attaining an abortion.
Once again you are using a logic fallacy. If situation Z provides punishment Y then situation X would provide punishment Y too. Your logic doesn’t make any sense.

Originally Posted by Steeeve

“Liberals are losing a lot these days.”

Indeed…we have already lost 3,000 on 9/11 because of Bush incompetence and 1,500 soldiers because of his war on demand in Iraq. However it is not a loss that is exclusive to just us. I would like to think it applies to many Americans.

Originally Posted by Steeeve

“Every one of them?”

Everyone of them that I have read (and I have read a lot). From the most conservative (Falwell) to the most liberal (Kangas), the bible is silent on the issue. If there was a direct verse against abortion then we wouldn’t be arguing about this but since there isn’t, both sides dig in the Bible looking for verses that might support their political agendas.
I find it to be rather pathetic. If you need to pervert ancient scripture for the sake of their political ideology then it certainly shows a lack of conviction on their part.

Originally Posted by Steeeve

The constitution says nothing about abortion either. How are they implied rights?

The constitution provides many rights that are implied. An officer reading you your rights before being arrested is an implied right. Using birth control is an implied right. Owning a firearm is an implied right from the second

Originally Posted by Steeeve

“Maybe the Bible implies that you can't do abortion?”

Maybe the Bible implies people can have abortions? It doesn’t matter…if something needs to be implied by multiple passages then it isn’t direct. Which once again proves my point.

Originally Posted by Steeeve

“In case you forgot you said "abortion is not mentioned in the Bible therefore it is ok"…”

Not a case of me forgetting but a case of me never suggesting anything of that nature on this thread. I have searched all over this thread for that phrase and used the forum search engine; nothing. My position doesn’t need the Bible to prove a point. I find the Bible to be absolved of all moral teachings.

Originally Posted by Steeeve

“...so I asked if you believed banning abortion is unconsitutional...you never really answered but if you said YES then you would be inconsistent in your views because the constitution never mentinos the word abortion at all...if you can't imply abortion in the Bible how can you in the constitution?”

You are confused.
I am not the one pigeonholing the entire argument for supporting/condemning in Christianity by only using the Bible. I demanded for a direct passage against abortion and now even you admit this is impossible because it involves implying it from multiple sources.
As for your question it is irrelevant but if you desperately need it answered to ease your mind it matters nothing to me if abortion is constitutional or not…it matters more if it is moral.

Originally Posted by Steeeve

“I still don't see your point about Christians supporting abortion for hundreds of years...THey supported slavery too and this was against the Bible.”

For many reasons.
If you are writing off every person from being a Christian because they do not support your position then you need to condemn the majority of Christians as being false. This would mean Christianity is a minority at best and a dead religion at worst.
Secondly, you appear to be totally ignorant of Christian history. If the Bible had a direct passage on abortion, as you admit, then the religion would have never practiced abortion for centuries. This isn’t proof that abortion is right according to the Bible, but proof that it doesn’t have sound message on the issue.
Lastly, chattel slavery was supported in the Bible…the worst form of slavery; people being treated as property.

Originally Posted by Steeeve

“I go by the Bible and it says you can't murder a person and also says a fetus is a person.”

The two do not connect. Murder is a relative term applied to illegal killing (remember, abortion is legal). The Old Testament does not view the fetus as a viable life form. The Bible treats “unborn babies” as extensions of the woman. If a pregnant woman was guilty of prostitution they were to be incinerated…not spared (Genesis 38). The Bible shows God didn’t spare fetal life from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorra and the drowning of the entire human race during Noah’s Flood. God never prohibited the slaughter of pregnant women of the Mideanites, Amalekites and countless other tribes. Like always the fetus was viewed as a part of the woman. Her sin was tied to the fetus.
There are even countries that legally treat fetuses as people and abortion is perfectly legal.
You are forging a link and it is a link that doesn’t prove anything. Seriously, where is this direct passage at?

Originally Posted by Steeeve

“Not only that, in Exodus it says if you kill the unborn you pay the price as if you murdered. So silent on abortion? No. Have you proven the Bible is silent? Not even close. Keep working at it.”

Exodus doesn’t say anything about abortion. Instead Exodus 21mentions how a man must pay if he accidentally injures the husband’s pregnant wife. It doesn’t say anything about killing a fetus intentionally nor does it say a woman cannot have an abortion. Instead it sets a punishment that is exclusive to this situation and not any others. Also husbands were allowed to destroy the fetuses of their wives if she became pregnant due to adultery (Numbers 5). Families were given the right to kill their children if they became rude (Exodus 21).
If you were an archeologist studying American laws hundreds of years from the future, you’d probably claim we always banned abortion because our legal system punish people for accidentally damaging a fetus…even though abortion was perfectly legal since the beginning of our history.
Once again, you are going back to forging links. Try again.

Originally Posted by Cone

No it isn't. I clearly said God is just in everything He does, not that men are just in everything they do.

God is just in everything he does because it judges it’s actions as such. It has nothing to do with reason.

Originally Posted by Cone

I have shown that for you to judge God is to in fact claim that you know more than God.

Since when was knowing more then the other guy a prerequisite to judgment?
God commits murder, therefore I condemn the murderer. Understood? I am not interested in the excuses of a murderer. Murder is murder.

Originally Posted by Cone

This thread is arguing on Biblical grounds, that is, what the Bible says; and as such, it is again impossible to refute my claim.

I am not arguing on “Biblical grounds“, I am arguing on moral grounds. This forum has left talking on just Biblical grounds a long time ago.

Originally Posted by Cone

“I guess by this statement you are defacing and trivializing the seriousness of a wanted pregnancy, seeing how you only think pregnancy is serious if it is unwanted.”

Another logic fallacy. Are we catching red herrings in order to compensate for a lack of substance to the topic? Do you have an axe to grind with me? I must warn you that people who hold grudges discard logic and dignity to fulfill their emotionally charged impulses. Having an axe grinding and army of logic fallacies will serve you no good against me.

Originally Posted by Hunter

A Christian can not support abortion, nor can a Christian support a political canditate who supports abortion. Thus, the death of the Democratic party.

90% of Americans identify themselves as Christians.60% of Americans support Roe v Wade. Christians make up the majority of abortion patients here in America.
And yet no where in the Bible is their a direct condemnation of abortion.

Originally Posted by Hunter

“This simple truth among many others explains the demise of a formerly great political party. May it rest in peace.”

The abortion issue has never hurt the Democratic base. On the other hand, the pro-life platform of the GOP has hurt it with voters. Why do you think democrats use abortion as the litmus test in elections?

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Very well then VOR...Since it is about you and you have asked...I will end it and let it be known that any post about the previous subject will be disregarded.

Back to the topic at hand...I don't know where we left off so lets just pick it up by saying:

A Christian is one who believes in God, Jesus, and God's Word (the Bible).

DUPLICATE POST...........

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Very well then VOR...Since it is about you and you have asked...I will end it and let it be known that any post about the previous subject will be disregarded.

Back to the topic at hand...I don't know where we left off so lets just pick it up by saying:

A Christian is one who believes in God, Jesus, and God's Word (the Bible).

Thanks Steeeve, I appreciate it..Let him rant and rave...........