Author
|
Topic: Exposing Christendom (Read 2723 times) |
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
 
|
 |
Re:Exposing Christendom
« Reply #15 on: 2007-10-07 17:49:47 » |
 |
A Prayer for Archimedes
[ Hermit: The significance and tragedy of this article can hardly be underestimated. Had we had access to calculus for the last 2000 years, rather than the only the last 400, it is difficult to imagine how different society would be. I find it extremely difficult to contemplate the losses imposed on civilization by Christianity with any kind of equanimity, and the reasons why their pathetic attempts to cloak themselves as protectors of learning infuriate me are given an additional impetus as we catch a glimpse here and there from remaining fragments of the immense value of the materials they obliterated without consideration, qualm or conscience. ]
A long-lost text by the ancient Greek mathematician shows that he had begun to discover the principles of calculus.
Source: Science News On-line Week of Oct. 6, 2007; Vol. 172, No. 14
Authors: Julie J. Rehmeyer
Dated: 2007-10-06
For seventy years, a prayer book moldered in the closet of a family in France, passed down from one generation to the next. Its mildewed parchment pages were stiff and contorted, tarnished by burn marks and waxy smudges. Behind the text of the prayers, faint Greek letters marched in lines up the page, with an occasional diagram disappearing into the spine.
The owners wondered if the strange book might have some value, so they took it to Christie's Auction House of London. And in 1998, Christie's auctioned it off—for two million dollars.
For this was not just a prayer book. The faint Greek inscriptions and accompanying diagrams were, in fact, the only surviving copies of several works by the great Greek mathematician Archimedes.
Figure 1: The top layer of writing in this 700-year-old book describes Christian prayers. But underneath, almost obliterated, are the only surviving copies of many of the works of the ancient Greek mathematician Archimedes.
An intensive research effort over the last nine years has led to the decoding of much of the almost-obliterated Greek text. The results were more revolutionary than anyone had expected. The researchers have discovered that Archimedes was working out principles that, centuries later, would form the heart of calculus and that he had a more sophisticated understanding of the concept of infinity than anyone had realized.
Archimedes wrote his manuscript on a papyrus scroll 2,200 years ago. At an unknown later time, someone copied the text from papyrus to animal-skin parchment. Then, 700 years ago, a monk needed parchment for a new prayer book. He pulled the copy of Archimedes' book off the shelf, cut the pages in half, rotated them 90 degrees, and scraped the surface to remove the ink, creating a palimpsest—fresh writing material made by clearing away older text. Then he wrote his prayers on the nearly-clean pages.
What happened to the monk's book after that is unclear, but in 1908, Johan Ludwig Heiberg, a Danish philologist, discovered it in a library in Constantinople. He was astonished to find that the book contained previously unknown texts by Archimedes. He studied the book in detail, puzzling out the faint letters with a microscope. His efforts brought the works to the attention of scholars around the world, but after he had completed his transcription, the book again disappeared until nearly a decade ago, when it was auctioned off at Christie's.
Figure 2: These are two images of a single sheet from the book. The picture on the left is an ordinary photograph, with the Archimedes text barely visible. The picture on the right is a multi-spectral image, and the Archimedes text and diagrams are mostly legible.
The book's anonymous buyer has funded an enormous research project on the volume. First, intensive conservation and restoration stabilized the condition of the book itself. Then the researchers took digital pictures of it in different wavelengths of light, creating a multi-spectral image that could be manipulated to reveal the text by Archimedes. On four of the pages, forged paintings covered the entire text, so the researchers used x-ray fluorescence imaging to peek beneath the paintings and decipher the obscured text.
Figure 3: Sometime after Johan Heiberg examined the book in 1906, someone painted gold-leaf images over four of the pages (left). Multispectral imaging couldn't peer beneath the reflective metal paint, but x-ray fluorescence imaging revealed the underlying text (right).
Two of the texts hiding in the prayer book have not appeared in any other copy of Archimedes's work, so no one but Heiberg had studied them until now. One of them, titled The Method, has special historical significance. It could be considered the earliest known work on calculus.
Archimedes wrote The Method almost two thousand years before Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz developed calculus in the 1700s. Reviel Netz, an historian of mathematics at Stanford University who transcribed the text, says that the examination of Archimedes' work has revealed "a new twist on the entire trajectory of Western mathematics."
In The Method, Archimedes was working out a way to compute the areas and volumes of objects with curved surfaces, which was also one of the problems that motivated Newton and Leibniz. Ancient mathematicians had long struggled to "square the circle" by calculating its exact area. That problem turned out to be impossible using only a straightedge and compass, the only tools the ancient Greeks allowed themselves. Nevertheless, Archimedes worked out ways of computing the areas of many other curved regions.
Such problems are tricky because solving them directly requires slicing up curved areas into infinitely many areas with straight boundaries. But the concept of infinity is a slippery and troublesome one that can quickly lead to paradox.
The Greek philosopher Aristotle built defenses against infinity's vexing qualities by distinguishing between the "potential infinite" and the "actual infinite." An infinitely long line would be actually infinite, whereas a line that could always be extended would be potentially infinite. Aristotle argued that the actual infinite didn't exist.
Archimedes developed rigorous methods of dealing with infinity—still used today—in which he followed Aristotle's injunction. For example, Archimedes proved that the area of a section of a parabola is four-thirds the area of the triangle inside it (shown in red in the diagram below). To do so, he built a straight-lined figure that's an approximation of the curvy one. Then he showed that he could make the approximation as close as anyone could ever demand to both the section of the parabola and to four-thirds the area of the triangle.
Critically, Archimedes never claimed that by adding triangles forever, you could make the straight-line construction exactly equal to the section of the parabola. That would require an actual infinity of triangles. Instead, he just said that you can make the approximation as good as you like, so he was sticking with potential infinity.
Figure 4: Sometime after Johan Heiberg examined the book in 1906, someone painted gold-leaf images over four of the pages (left). Multispectral imaging couldn't peer beneath the reflective metal paint, but x-ray fluorescence imaging revealed the underlying text (right).
Modern historians and mathematicians have always believed whenever Archimedes dealt with infinities, he kept strictly to the potential kind. But Netz, who transcribed the newly found text, says that the recent discoveries show that Archimedes indeed used the notion of actual infinity. Netz and the project's lead researcher, William Noel of the Walters Art Museum in Baltimore, have co-authored a new book, The Archimedes Codex, which describes this discovery and the other facets of the project. It is scheduled for release on Nov. 1 of this year.
Archimedes's key argument about infinity appears on pages so damaged that Heiberg had been unable to transcribe them. Archimedes calculated the volume of a body shaped something like a fingernail by enclosing it in a volume bounded by plane surfaces. But instead of making better and better approximations of the curved figure, as he had done with the parabolic section, he pondered a two-dimensional slice through the larger volume enclosing the smaller one.
Figure 5: Archimedes computed the area of the curved figure (left) by enclosing it in a bigger one with straight edges (right). He then examined random slices to compute the volume—using the concept of actual infinity.
Archimedes found a relationship between the full area of that slice, which was a section through the plane-sided volume, and the smaller area within it, which was a section through the curved shape. Then he argued that he could use that relationship to calculate the entire volume of the curved shape, because both the curved figure and the straight one contained the same number of slices. That number just happened to be infinity? actually infinity. [ Hermit: sic ]
"The interesting breakthrough is that he is completely willing to operate with actual infinity," Netz says, but he adds that "the argument is definitely not completely valid. He just had a strong intuition that it should work." In this case, it did work, but it remained for Newton and Leibniz to figure out how to make the argument mathematically rigorous.
Newton and Leibniz also worked with actual infinity. Leibniz went so far as to say in a letter, "I am so in favor of the actual infinite that instead of admitting that Nature abhors it, as is commonly said, I hold that Nature makes frequent use of it everywhere, in order to show more effectively the perfections of its Author."
Modern calculus no longer makes use of the actual infinite; it sticks with Aristotle's distinction. Philosophers still argue over the legitimacy of the notion of actual infinity. Netz argues, however, that The Method reveals the originality and daring of Archimedes's thought and shows that he anticipated some of the bold steps that would later lead to the full development of calculus.
References:
Netz, R., and W. Noel. 2007. The Archimedes Codex. Cambridge, Mass.: Da Capo Press. See http://www.perseusbooksgroup.com/dacapo/
book_detail.jsp?isbn=030681580X.
Netz, R. 2002. Proof, amazement, and the unexpected. Science 298(Nov. 1):967-968. Available at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/298/5595/967.
Stein, S. 1999. Archimedes : What Did He Do Besides Cry Eureka? Washington, D.C.: Mathematical Association of America. See http://www.maa.org/reviews/archim.html.
Further Readings:
Klarreich, E. 2004. Glimpses of genius. Science News 165(May 15):314-315. Available at http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040515/bob9.asp.
Peterson, I. 2004. Squaring circles. Science News Online (Oct. 30). Available at http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20041030/mathtrek.asp.
Peterson, I. 2002. Ancient infinities. Science News Online (Nov. 23). Available at http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20021123/mathtrek.asp.
Peterson, I. 2000. Unveiling the work of Archimedes. Science News 157(Jan. 29):77. Available to subscribers at http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000129/note18.asp.
An article outlining the history of the concept of infinity can be found at http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/
~history/HistTopics/Infinity.html.
For more information on the Archimedes Palimpsest project, go to http://www.archimedespalimpsest.org.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Sasquatch
Anarch
Gender: 
Posts: 12
Reputation: 3.46
Rate Sasquatch
Doing what you can't...
|
 |
Re:Exposing Christendom
« Reply #16 on: 2007-11-08 12:41:46 » |
|
I found something of particular interest in this topic - that being putting the existence of Jesus into question. I’ve never actually come across someone denying his actual existence before because it’s so widely regarded, as well as being so evidentually documented, as being true.
I think that it’s pretty obvious that he did exist. He started the movement known as Christianity and was killed by those that opposed him due to their fears of an uprising. Jesus' followers then went around and spread his theology.
That is agreed upon by most historians. A lot of ancient history is based on things that are second hand. We just sort of have to accept it because there isn't anything else to go on. The issue is whether or not Jesus was superhuman. Jesus the man did exist and start the movement. It had to start somewhere.
I think that this site sums it up pretty well and provides some good documentation: Refuting the Jesus Myth
The Bible refers to many, many historical truths. Plagues, wars, fires, births, deaths, laws, etc. For one example there is historical evidence concerning the trial of Jesus and release of Barabbas by Pontius Pilate.
In Christianity, Jesus has already died for our sins, past, present, and future. Before then it was pretty much difficult for any man to get into heaven or hell. Once Jesus sacrificed himself for all of mankind it made it easier on those very same souls who are decent people to enter heaven despite any sins they commit. The understanding within that historical event was that it actually made it easier for one to choose to accept Jesus as their savoir [hence him becoming a martyr] and lead a selfless, and inspire a virtuous life devoted to that deed in which will allow you to enter the gates of heaven. This is what is written and it is well documented.
The most ignorant and biggest mistake I see anti-Christians and atheist alike is the misconception that God is a wrathful being. He's not a just or unjust God, but a merciful God. The difference between what ignorant people tell you and what snippets of verses you read of who God really is the fact we have a choice. If God were truly a wrathful being that wanted everyone to believe in him [or Jesus in this case], he would not give you the ability to choose to believe in him. That's what people mistake these days. The fact we have the choice is evident enough that what the majority of ignorant anti-Christians think they believe is wrong. I'll give you an example of how a merciful God is:
All right, let's presume Christianity is real and every historical event regarding supernatural occurrences is true. In my example, let's say God didn't create the flood and allowed millions of people continue to rape, pillage, and kill each other. Fast forward today, what do you think the world would be like? Or hell, would there be any world left with so much chaos? Would you be alive today sitting at your computer and reading any of this out or would you be held at gunpoint by somebody who wants to use your body? With so much pain, suffering, and misery in that world do you really believe it was wrath that God brought upon his people?
Now of course I could probably ask question after question, but I think you [hopefully] get my point. If it wasn't a mercy God that gave this world in that time then I don't know what was.
We all do things wrong (called "sins") -- all of us, even one little thing wrong -- and that's enough to keep us out of God's presence (remember, this is the Biblical God). Since we cannot keep from doing wrong things, we must be forgiven. Instead of paying for our sins (since there are only two places to live eternally, Heaven or Hell, and no sinners can enter God's presence in Heaven), Jesus paid for our sins, so that we didn't have to -- because we can't. So since we can't "earn" our way to Heaven (or, rather, out of Hell) by doing "good" things, we must be forgiven for the "bad" things we've done.
Consider people like cookies, and God wants us to be sugar cookies. Let's say God's allergic to chocolate -- can't eat it, can't touch it, can't even be around it. We all started out as sugar cookies, but throughout life, we get chocolaty, some more than others. You may be a sugar cookie with one chocolate sprinkle, or you may be an entire chocolate cake with chocolate chips and chocolate filling and chocolate icing and chocolate crust and chocolate milk on the side (did I miss some chocolate?), but either way, you're not a sugar cookie. Jesus was the only sugar cookie. And only Jesus can take all of the chocolate out of us and make us sugar cookies again, no matter how much we have, so God can ... eat us, I guess. C'mon, I'm trying to explain Christian spirituality and salvation with cookie analogies, gimme a break. Maybe cookies wasn't the best idea ... but it's understandable, right?
While no true Christian (or believer of any religion, I'd imagine) condones the "fire insurance" following of their religion, at least it's a way to, hopefully, get the person to consider what the beliefs entail, learn about them, and possibly consider joining them. Followers of most beliefs and ideals, religious or not, use a similar tactic. Hell, look at the "Global Warming" nutjobs. Regardless of whether you believe it or not, Al Gore spouting that the earth is going to melt and burn today and flood and freeze tomorrow gets you thinking. I assume Al Gore is lying whenever he opens his mouth because of the Law of Averages (if he's usually lying, he's probably lying now), but his presentations have made even me look into the topic. Whichever path I chose to follow, at least Al Gore and others who think alike have brought the issue to the table, made a serious confrontation about it, and gotten people to consider the issue. While movies like "An Inconvenient Truth" (which was very inconvenient, and nowhere near truth) and "Day After Tomorrow" present extremes that are unrealistic and only push people away from the issue, they do the same thing that "soapbox preachers" and the typical ignorant "OMG ur goin 2 heck!" kids do. The difficult part is sorting out which present a serious issue in a pathetic manner, and which just present a pathetic issue.
The difference is that "scientists" and lobbyists like Al Gore support issues like "Global Warming" (is that different from the Global Cooling scare 30 years ago, or do they just call it Global Climate Change now?) for their personal financial and political gain, while most Christians have nothing to gain from spreading their beliefs.
I find it funny when fans of science and anti-christians won't do their own research into evolution or the big bang or "Global Warming" to realize the many holes in each theory. They’ll eat up everything the science community says is true because they A) Don't want to, or fear of actually being judged for their “sins” and wish to live a sinful life so they attack God or B) Have lived a life of ignorance as to what they think is right. It's really a sad thing too because they become hypocrites by forcing their beliefs on Christians when they have no right too. Debate against them? Sure, a little debate is always healthy for cerebral development, but to down right attack the other side is something only a child would do when things aren't going their way I think.
Jesus’ existence is very well documented and there is proof of his existence, I think that is reason enough to say that he lived; if not then hell, the fact that no written records exist during someone's lifetime or immediately after their death proves that they can't reasonably exist right? It's just like how the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage never happened because the only accounts available to us are by Roman and Greek historians that were written a hundred years or more after it supposedly happened. That Polybius is full of bullocks, what was he trying to pull?
|
|
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.89
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re:Exposing Christendom
« Reply #17 on: 2007-11-08 14:40:59 » |
|
Walter wept.
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Exposing Christendom
« Reply #18 on: 2007-11-08 15:57:56 » |
|
Quote from: Sasquatch on 2007-11-08 12:41:46
I found something of particular interest in this topic - that being putting the existence of Jesus into question. I’ve never actually come across someone denying his actual existence before because it’s so widely regarded, as well as being so evidentually documented, as being true. |
[Blunderov1] I think the point is that the existence of Jesus is a lot less certain than is widely believed. True, many historical reconstructions depend upon sometimes very indirect evidence, but the point stands. Jesus might, for instance, have been a composite of various persons.
To reiterate; the certitude with which the existence of Jesus is usually asserted is insufficiently grounded in evidence to justify that certitude.
Quote from: Sasquatch on 2007-11-08 12:41:46
I think that it’s pretty obvious that he did exist. He started the movement known as Christianity and was killed by those that opposed him due to their fears of an uprising. Jesus' followers then went around and spread his theology.
That is agreed upon by most historians. A lot of ancient history is based on things that are second hand. We just sort of have to accept it because there isn't anything else to go on. The issue is whether or not Jesus was superhuman. Jesus the man did exist and start the movement. It had to start somewhere.. |
[Blunderov1] True, if something "began" it must have begun "somewhere". But just exactly where, or exactly how, is not always as obvious as it might seem. There are various possibilities. Just because the most usual accounts of this particular "beginning" are more less in agreement with each other does not guarantee that these accounts are correct.
This is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populem; "It must be true because everybody says it is."
Quote from: Sasquatch on 2007-11-08 12:41:46
I think that this site sums it up pretty well and provides some good documentation: Refuting the Jesus Myth
The Bible refers to many, many historical truths. Plagues, wars, fires, births, deaths, laws, etc. For one example -- contrary to what the topic starter believes -- there is historical evidence concerning the trial of Jesus and release of Barabbas by Pontius Pilate... |
[Blunderov1]The Bible refers to many untruths too. Far more, I would guess, than it does to truths. The Bible is a potpourri of disparate bronze age materials which have subsequently be translated, retranslated, edited and in some instances fraudulently altered, bowdlerized and supressed. Unsurprisingly, most of it really makes no sense at all.
Quote from: Sasquatch on 2007-11-08 12:41:46
In Christianity, Jesus has already died for our sins, past, present, and future. Before then it was pretty much difficult for any man to get into heaven or hell. Once Jesus sacrificed himself for all of mankind it made it easier on those very same souls who are decent people to enter heaven despite any sins they commit. The understanding within that historical event was that it actually made it easier for one to choose to accept Jesus as their savoir [hence him becoming a martyr] and lead a selfless, and inspire a virtuous life devoted to that deed in which will allow you to enter the gates of heaven. This is what is written and it is well documented. |
[Blunderov1] This is a good example of what I mean by not making any sense at all. How can somebody "die for my sins"?
How is it possible for somebody other than the actual guilty party to repent a bad deed? If I am sentenced to spend time in jail I can't send somebody else to serve my sentence for me. The idea is preposterous unless you are sun-addled bronze age primitive who believes that human sacrifice has some effect on the universe apart from the death of the unfortunate victim.
Very interestingly, we note that Jesus is supposed to have died for our sins in some cases as much as 2000 years in advance of their actual commission. Wither free will? So often it is claimed that God gave us "free will" so that our love for him would be unconstrained. This seems inconsistent with the "fact" that we are doomed to be sinners no matter what we do or do not do. Can't have it both ways I'm afraid.
Quote from: Sasquatch on 2007-11-08 12:41:46
The most ignorant and biggest mistake I see anti-Christians and atheist alike is the misconception that God is a wrathful being. He's not a just or unjust God, but a merciful God. The difference between what ignorant people tell you and what snippets of verses you read of who God really is the fact we have a choice. If God were truly a wrathful being that wanted everyone to believe in him [or Jesus in this case], he would not give you the ability to choose to believe in him. That's what people mistake these days. The fact we have the choice is evident enough that what the majority of ignorant anti-Christians think they believe is wrong. I'll give you an example of how a merciful God is: |
[Blunderov1] I find it hard to understand this logic. Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether god is wrathful or not, why should it be necessary to have to choose whether to believe in god or not? I'm not faced with the choice of whether or not to believe in my own existence. The fact that the existence of "god" is not blindingly obvious suggests to m,e that there can be no such thing as "god". Why would the certain knowledge of the existence of god prevent anyone from loving god "freely"? I am fairly certain of the existence of many people but this knowledge does not prevent me from loving at least some of them. In fact I seriously doubt that it would be possible for me to love somebody that I had never even met or spoken to. Why would any rational god expect me to make an exception for him? It would mean that I would have to invent a completely different definition of the word "love" than has ever been used before.
The short of it is that this argument from "free love" is an abuse of language. It is nonsense.
Quote from: Sasquatch on 2007-11-08 12:41:46
All right, let's presume Christianity is real and every historical event regarding supernatural occurrences is true. In my example, let's say God didn't create the flood and allowed millions of people continue to rape, pillage, and kill each other. Fast forward today, what do you think the world would be like? Or hell, would there be any world left with so much chaos? Would you be alive today sitting at your computer and reading any of this out or would you be held at gunpoint by somebody who wants to use your body? With so much pain, suffering, and misery in that world do you really believe it was wrath that God brought upon his people?
Now of course I could probably ask question after question, but I think you [hopefully] get my point. If it wasn't a mercy God that gave this world in that time then I don't know what was. : |
[Blunderov1] <rubbing eyes in complete disbelief> The world as we find it is a happy little paradise because the Biblical flood rid us of evil people? Sasquatch, are there newspapers and stuff like that where you live? We know you have access to the internet. How have you missed the fact that the world is a horrible, fucked up, evil place full of pain, suffering, death, misery, cruelty, disease, humiliation, subjugation and advertising?
So much so in fact, that it forms one of the main arguments against the existence of god sometimes known as the "problem of evil". This problem is so grave that many theologians have felt compelled to produce what are known as "theodicies" which are elaborate attempts to explain this problem away. Suffice it to say that nobody has succeeded so far.
Short version; what kind of a "merciful" god would create Satan? (Arguments from "free will" will not be entertained; please refer to my previous remarks on the subject.)
Quote from: Sasquatch on 2007-11-08 12:41:46
We all do things wrong (called "sins") -- all of us, even one little thing wrong -- and that's enough to keep us out of God's presence (remember, this is the Biblical God). Since we cannot keep from doing wrong things, we must be forgiven. Instead of paying for our sins (since there are only two places to live eternally, Heaven or Hell, and no sinners can enter God's presence in Heaven), Jesus paid for our sins, so that we didn't have to -- because we can't. So since we can't "earn" our way to Heaven (or, rather, out of Hell) by doing "good" things, we must be forgiven for the "bad" things we've done. |
[Blunderov] Bullshit logic again. If we have no choice but to sin then we have no moral responsibility for those sins. If god chose to create us this way then that's his problem. Therefore we do not need to be forgiven. Sacrificing Jesus is a complete waste of nails and wood, we do not need him to "pay" for our sins even if this was possible which it isn't.
Quote from: Sasquatch on 2007-11-08 12:41:46
Consider people like cookies, and God wants us to be sugar cookies. Let's say God's allergic to chocolate -- can't eat it, can't touch it, can't even be around it. We all started out as sugar cookies, but throughout life, we get chocolaty, some more than others. You may be a sugar cookie with one chocolate sprinkle, or you may be an entire chocolate cake with chocolate chips and chocolate filling and chocolate icing and chocolate crust and chocolate milk on the side (did I miss some chocolate?), but either way, you're not a sugar cookie. Jesus was the only sugar cookie. And only Jesus can take all of the chocolate out of us and make us sugar cookies again, no matter how much we have, so God can ... eat us, I guess. C'mon, I'm trying to explain Christian spirituality and salvation with cookie analogies, gimme a break. Maybe cookies wasn't the best idea ... but it's understandable, right?. |
[Blunderov1] Personally I think of myself as filled with creamy goodness, fibre for substance and added vitamins, T in particular.
Let me see if I have the hang of this one; nailing a sugar cooky onto some handy nearby woodwork causes all the chocolate cookies in the world to go white with fear (but only if they choose freely be terrified)? Hmm.
Quote from: Sasquatch on 2007-11-08 12:41:46
While no true Christian (or believer of any religion, I'd imagine) condones the "fire insurance" following of their religion, at least it's a way to, hopefully, get the person to consider what the beliefs entail, learn about them, and possibly consider joining them. Followers of most beliefs and ideals, religious or not, use a similar tactic. Hell, look at the "Global Warming" nutjobs. Regardless of whether you believe it or not, Al Gore spouting that the earth is going to melt and burn today and flood and freeze tomorrow gets you thinking. I assume Al Gore is lying whenever he opens his mouth because of the Law of Averages (if he's usually lying, he's probably lying now), but his presentations have made even me look into the topic. Whichever path I chose to follow, at least Al Gore and others who think alike have brought the issue to the table, made a serious confrontation about it, and gotten people to consider the issue. While movies like "An Inconvenient Truth" (which was very inconvenient, and nowhere near truth) and "Day After Tomorrow" present extremes that are unrealistic and only push people away from the issue, they do the same thing that "soapbox preachers" and the typical ignorant "OMG ur goin 2 heck!" kids do. The difficult part is sorting out which present a serious issue in a pathetic manner, and which just present a pathetic issue. |
[Blunderov1] Evidently you believe that Al Gore tells more lies than anything else. Tough to back that up with evidence. Presumably that's why you didn't do so. Please feel free to remedy the situation. Bring lots of data. Lots and lots. Most of Gores public utterances in fact. Or you could withdraw the allegation...
Quote from: Sasquatch on 2007-11-08 12:41:46
The difference is that "scientists" and lobbyists like Al Gore support issues like "Global Warming" (is that different from the Global Cooling scare 30 years ago, or do they just call it Global Climate Change now?) for their personal financial and political gain, while most Christians have nothing to gain from spreading their beliefs.. |
[Blunderov1] Nothing to gain? Not even credits for admission to heaven? Perhaps we have been exposed to different bibles. The one's that I hear about are shrill with imprecations about spreading the word of god and what the consequences might be for failing to heed that same word of god. Perhaps they have nothing to gain, but in their eyes, "most christians" have a lot to lose. More fool them.
Quote from: Sasquatch on 2007-11-08 12:41:46
I find it funny when fans of science and anti-christians won't do their own research into evolution or the big bang or "Global Warming" to realize the many holes in each theory. They’ll eat up everything the science community says is true because they A) Don't want to, or fear of actually being judged for their “sins” and wish to live a sinful life so they attack God or B) Have lived a life of ignorance as to what they think is right. It's really a sad thing too because they become hypocrites by forcing their beliefs on Christians when they have no right too. Debate against them? Sure, a little debate is always healthy for cerebral development, but to down right attack the other side is something only a child would do when things aren't going their way I think.. |
[Blunderov1] I am not aware of Christians having beliefs "forced upon them" by scientists or anybody else other than their own priests. (Please don't even think of trying the "faith in science is the same thing as faith in god" maneuver. It doesn't work, something which has been demonstrated time and again in these very precincts. Please fell free to consult the archives in this regard.)
But perhaps you are referring to the "forcefulness" of evidence, reason and logic? If this is the case, then I'm sure you would not wish to perpetrate the same abuse as that of which you complain of by persuading me that your point of view is correct. Or is it the case that you are only prepared to play by those rules if you are allowed to win everytime?
Quote from: Sasquatch on 2007-11-08 12:41:46
Jesus’ existence is very well documented and there is proof of his existence, I think that is reason enough to say that he lived; if not then hell, the fact that no written records exist during someone's lifetime or immediately after their death proves that they can't reasonably exist right? It's just like how the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage never happened because the only accounts available to us are by Roman and Greek historians that were written a hundred years or more after it supposedly happened. That Polybius is full of bullocks, what was he trying to pull? |
[Blunderov1] Perhaps it is reasonable to suppose that Jesus, or someone like him did exist. But it does not follow that everything that has been said or written about him is also likely to be true. It may be. Or it may not be. Most likely most of it is not true. To put it mildly.
|
|
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.89
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re:Exposing Christendom
« Reply #19 on: 2007-11-08 16:58:56 » |
|
Thanks Blunderov.
My thoughts exactly.
It's just that I was too busy weeping to put them into words.
Walter 
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Exposing Christendom
« Reply #20 on: 2007-11-08 19:43:41 » |
|
[Hermit] Sorry you had to cry Walter. Thanks for the work Blunderov. I was occupied giving this verbiage far more attention than it deserved. I tried to ensure that my response would serve as well as an example of how to deal with this class of screed, as the screed itself serves as a perfect example of a certain poor quality of apologetics and what passes for thought; widely present on the Internet, but fortunately not too frequently of late in the CoV forums.
[Hermit] Sasquatch, you come across, more and more strongly as a "Troll" due to the fact that while others took the time and made the effort to respond to your previous questions, rather than entering a dialog, you choose instead to hijack another thread. Then, having done so you descended immediately into a slew of debating fallacy, innuendo and assertion like the worst of religious bigots and right wing idiots (this opinion is reinforced and exacerbated by your challenges with spelling and apparent inability to use a spell-checker. Or is it merely indicative of the degree to which you despise your audience?
[Hermit] Consider in future, if you have a future here as somebody apparently holding a totally non-Virian perspective, attempting to deal with your issues in appropriate forums - e.g, this topic has been extensively discussed and your assertions addressed on numerous occasions on the [ Church of Virus BBS, General, Philosophy & Religion ] forum.
[Hermit] You may also like to consider how members of an atheistic religion and '"Global Warming" nutjobs' enjoy having theistic apologetics thrust upon them, at the same time as they are being called nameson their own forums by an apparently intellectually challenged newcomer.
[Hermit] Before you are consigned to a thoroughly deserved oblivion, shall we dance a little?
[Sasquatch] I found something of particular interest in this topic - that being putting the existence of Jesus into question.
[Hermit] The topic is "Re:Exposing Christendom" and while it might be better named "Re-exposing a fraction of the heritage the Christians largely destroyed." it doesn't speak to the fabrication of religious myths.
[Sasquatch] I’ve never actually come across someone denying his actual existence before
[Hermit] The fact that you have "never actually come across someone denying his actual existence before" speaks to your limited education in this area, but is irrelevant to the proposition. The literature observing on the weakness, generic nature and large numbers of prototypes of the "biblical Jesus," along with the contradictions of the Judeo-Christian mythos by external evidence (including archaeological evidence) and internal contradictions both technical and non technical, as well as acknowledged fabrications (cf e.g. the luminous liars), is voluminous. The current academic position is well articulated in the above referenced James the Brother of Jesus.. I infer from your writing that you have not studied it yet. In addition, the readily accessible and previously referenced http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/scholars.html references both the arguments and scores of books, numbers of them thoroughly credible (in the academic sense) works showing why an historical prototype for the biblical Jesus is a farfetched stretch requiring not one but many extensions of belief (accepting something as true despite a lack of evidence or in the face of contradictory evidence) and failures of logic. I recommend that you examine both, as you will, as a putatively "honest searcher", no doubt find the erosion of your position by well regarded, peer reviewed, academic works, of "particular interest" too.
[Sasquatch] because it’s so widely regarded ... as being true.
[Hermit] This is a classical example of the Argumentam ad Populum and Argumentam ad Numerum debating fallacies. The truth of a proposition is in no way determined by the number of people who vest belief in it. If your proposition were correct, then the biblical Jesus would clearly be a mere prophet and subordinate to Mohamed, as the major branches of Islam vastly outnumber even the more populous Christian sects; and this discussion would be over before it began. The Muslims not requiring belief but only conformance to a number of prescribed actions, mostly unexceptional, I think that the importance you ascribe to belief indicates that you do not accept Islam, which also proves that you do not in fact accept this argument from the mass. Which indicates stupidity, hypocrisy or both.
[Sasquatch] because it’s ...so evidentually documented, as being true.
[Hermit] This appears to be a Petitio principii assertion, as you are simply stating that what you seem to wish to be true, to be true, in the absence of evidence (and in the face of contradictory evidence). The contemporaneous harvest of documents; or even alleged copies of documents up into the 300s is slim; and the few claimed references to the biblical Jesus do not withstand scrutiny, either being too ambiguous or blatant and even admitted falsifications. Documents prior to the late 300s display no consistent perspective and bear little relationship to the Christian's babbles of the current era which settled into forms approximating their current variants in the 500s. (Ibid.)
[Hermit] While the prototypical biblical Jesus exists, indeed the plethora of such prototypes speaks to either a much earlier person or a common myth stem, and there is a wealth of material relating to this, including the "Sermon on the Mount" (regarded by academic philologists (as opposed to theological) as the only authentic religious writings in the New Testament), particularly the so called "Lords Prayer," dating to c 2600BCE in the tomb of Osiris, in the Pyramid texts of Unas and Pepi II and in other sources from the same era and later, while "transubstantiation", the most sacred of all the "Christian Mysteries" and its description in the babbles of the Christian sects are adopted practically word-for-word from the Osiris Sacraments, even though these pre-Christian prototypes are disavowed by most Christian bodies (although, shortly after the discovery of the, until then assumed to have been mythical, tomb of Osiris, John Paul II alluded to this in the encyclical where he stated explicitly that an historical Jesus is not a prerequisite for Christian beliefs. (cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris).
[Hermit] In addition, the prototypical historical Jesus, "The Righteous Teacher", as the brother of James the Nazor, "The Just Priest" (assassinated on the Temple stairs in 62 CE), has appeared through the document caches of the militarized Q'umram "Community of the Poor," finally eradicated in 135 CE, but this Jesus was clearly a revolutionary Zealot (Zealous for the Law (of Moses), far from the Jesus of the babble - as indeed was "The Wicked Liar", better known today as Paul (or Saul) of Tarsis. (Ibid.)
[Sasquatch]I think that it’s pretty obvious that he did exist.
[Hermit] Who is your "he"? The supposed Jesus of the babble? In which case was he the Egyptian who died in about 2600CE, or the Jewish rebel who wanted the Hasmodeans stoned for marrying their cousins and fomented rebellion in Judea including the refusal to use "tribute pennies" due to the blasphemy of granting Caesar godhood (Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's...)? Neither of these appears Prima Facie to be a good candidate for the Christian's biblical "Jesus." Yet unlike the clearly derivative "biblical Jesus," both of them have reasonable support. (Ibid.) I suggest that you are attempting to commit the logical fallacy of Affirming the Consequent with this unsupported, fuzzy and illogical assertion.
[Sasquatch] I He started the movement known as Christianity and was killed by those that opposed him due to their fears of an uprising. Jesus' followers then went around and spread his theology.
[Hermit] Really? Please explain how you came up with this naked assertion Affirming your Consequent again? Sources?
[Sasquatch] That is agreed upon by most historians.
[Hermit] And this is an example of the True Scotsman Fallacy and the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad Verecundiam. Most historians are not historians of the origins of Christianity or even of Judea, and thus what they have to say on this issue is not relevant.
[Sasquatch] A lot of ancient history is based on things that are second hand. We just sort of have to accept it because there isn't anything else to go on.
[Hermit] The correct name for arguing that because something is not proven false that it must be true is Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. I could equally argue that because you have not disproved that the Universe was created by an Invisible Pink Unicorn (BBHP*) that it is obvious that it must be true.
[Sasquatch] The issue is whether or not Jesus was superhuman. Jesus the man did exist and start the movement. It had to start somewhere.
[Hermit] To me this appears as apologetics bolstered by Argumentam ad Populam, and seasoned with a red herring on a pile of burning straw men, not argument. So far as I am aware, nobody, Christians least of all, assert that the biblical Jesus, historical Jesus or mythical Jesus was a superhuman.
[Sasquatch] I think that this site sums it up pretty well and provides some good documentation: Refuting the Jesus Myth
[Hermit] This is labeled by you as your opinion. Unfortunately the body of your writings here is small, varied and at least to my eyes does not appear to indicate that I should consider your opinion in the field of Judean History as having weight. So, in the absence of a body of work from which to evaluate the value of your opinion (or indeed, to counteract the lack of value for your opinion which perusal of your writing here to date has instilled), please provide your relevant credentials so that we can evaluate whether or not we should take your opinion sufficiently seriously tio invest our time in performing this research. Please note that opinions are not evidence and in isolation neither affirm nor deny the issue under evaluation. Unless you can support your assertion of in field expertise this is a logical fallacy .The specific fallacy is again Argumentum ad Verecundiam with you attempting to play the role of an authority.
[Sasquatch]The Bible refers to many, many historical truths. Plagues, wars, fires, births, deaths, laws, etc. For one example -- contrary to what the topic starter believes -- there is historical evidence concerning the trial of Jesus and release of Barabbas by Pontius Pilate.
[Hermit] So does, e.g. John Norman's Chronicles of Gor (26 books apparently written to prove that the book publishing industry would print any old rubbish and that it would sell. And it completely succeeded in this goal). Badly written or not, it is more consistent in style and less self-contradictory - and takes a much less misogynistic or even anti-humanistic tenor than the babbles of the Christians; but are you seriously proposing that this is sufficient to qualify the myths of Gore as historical events in the modern sense of "historical" as opposed to the classical "fabricated stories to convey a point"? As was acknowledged by some of the most prominent apologists for the JudeoChristian myths.
[Sasquatch] In Christianity, Jesus has already died for our sins, past, present, and future.
[Hermit] As a point of fact, this articulation was only proposed in the 300s, and the argument over it between opposing groups of Christian fanatics arguably resulted in more so-called martyrs than any other point of dispute bar the argument of the degree of divinity possessed by this careless hodgepodge of ancient myth and contemporaneous invention by the "Luminous Liars" who forged (in both senses) Christianity. Refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
[Sasquatch] Before then it was pretty much difficult for any man to get into heaven or hell.
[Hermit] Before the Christians invented the idea of hell as a place of punishment, this idea was not widely recognized, and while the Jews eschewed an afterlife, most other cultures had such, but not as we would recognize as "heaven". So your assertion while arguably true is lamentably incomplete. But if you examine the beliefs of most Christians, their entire idea of "sin" originates from gods who created amoral creatures, which they then lied to, knowing that they would break the rules, which these gods had established and for which they would be unable to forgive the humans unless the humans offered a blood sacrifice. Which was, as the babble repeatedly reminds us, and excavations confirm, "a custom in Israel" (and in many other Mediterranean nations). (cf Various JudeoChristian Sacred writings)
[Sasquatch] Once Jesus sacrificed himself for all of mankind it made it easier on those very same souls who are decent people to enter heaven despite any sins they commit.
[Hermit] But this passive portrayal, and even alleged "sacrifice," is altogether unsupported by the babble. Where did you get it from?
[Hermit] My understanding is that the Christians assert that their insane gods finally forgave humanity for inevitably breaking rules that the gods had made such that they would be broken after the gods supposedly "sacrificed" their supposedly own offspring on behalf of their human playthings to end the need for the gods' "chosen people" to sacrifice their own children. This assertion is countered by the fact that while those previous to this "sacrifice" and those rejecting this "sacrifice" are allegedly tortured forever by these gods for what were after all, purely temporary actions (given that nobody lives forever), unlike the tens of thousands of human sacrifices, this alleged god-thingy supposedly sacrificed on our behalf (which was only one of many such stories), did not actually die (which is defined as a permanent and irreversible cessation of life) but somehow returned to living (like all the "resurrection gods" before it). Which means that the supposed "sacrifice" was actually not a "sacrifice" in the same sense at all.
[Sasquatch] The understanding within that historical event
[Hermit] Which historical event? Are you not making the logical fallacy of Assuming the Consequent here? Is not the question at hand whether there is an historical basis for the babbles mythical Jesus?
[Sasquatch] was that it actually made it easier for one to choose to accept Jesus as their savoir [hence him becoming a martyr] and lead a selfless, and inspire a virtuous life devoted to that deed in which will allow you to enter the gates of heaven.
[Hermit] Really? This looks to me like a serious confusion of horse and cart, or as it is more generally known, as the debating fallacy of Circulus in Demonstrando and even more egregious, some kind of inversion of the the Naturalistic fallacy in that you seem to be arguing that because of a statement about virtue (a value judgment on your part) that some fact must be true. Clearly a Non Sequitur. There is also an inherent, and common, but none the less incorrect assumption, that god thingies somehow define virtue, whereas elementary logic will show that in the absence of the ability to make independent ethical evaluations, you cannot determine whether a god thingy is worthy of being worshiped, and thus gods are dependent on virtue rather than the other way around. In any event, the virtue of men has nothing to do with the historicity (or otherwise) of the biblical Jesus, meaning that this is also an example of Ignoratio Elenchi or an irrelevant conclusion
[Sasquatch] This is what is written and it is well documented.
[Hermit] Where? Quod Erat Non Demonstrandum. You have not shown this assertion to be true.
[Sasquatch]The most ignorant and biggest mistake I see anti-Christians and atheist alike is the misconception that God is a wrathful being.
[Hermit] Which imaginary god are you referring to? There are many. There are also many flavors of atheism and "anti-Christianism". I cannot imagine an atheist who vests no belief in god thingies, contradicting herself by asserting generically on the characteristics of gods. To me it seems that you are engaging in both the fallacy of careless or hasty generalization coupled with the straw man of inventing words in order to be better positioned to refute them. Only, as a brief glimpse at the horrible gods you refer to below, you fail there too.
[Sasquatch] He's not a just or unjust God, but a merciful God.
[Hermit] Huge snip of confused babble apologetics here. To summarize some of it, the Judeo-Christian god thingies are merciful because he drowned everybody except the drunken, daughter fucking old reprobate Noah from whom, presumably, according to Sasquatch, we are all descended. This was to preserve the world from drunkenness and rape. In a classic example of Supressio Veri or cherry picking, Sasquatch of course elided the bit about Noah being a drunken daughter-fucker as that might have spoiled his example. IMO, the rest of the apologetics Sasquatch presented are of the same or worse tenditious quality.
[Sasquatch] While no true Christian (or believer of any religion, I'd imagine) condones the "fire insurance" following of their religion, at least it's a way to, hopefully, get the person to consider what the beliefs entail, learn about them, and possibly consider joining them.
[Hermit] I preserved this because it was to good to pass up as an undisguised or naked example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy as I have ever seen. Clearly Sasquatch has been disguising the fact that he is a Scientologist, given that the pulp-fiction writer, L Ron Hubbard clearly proved that unless a thetan such as Sasquatch is religiously audited he will never reach the state of "Clear", never mind become an "Operating Thetan". And as we all know, Ron Hubbard only died in 1986 and having been inspired by Xenu, was the first person to recognize the fundamental truths about mankind.
[Hermit] I leave the following screed in place to demonstrate what we are dealing with.
[Sasquatch] Followers of most beliefs and ideals, religious or not, use a similar tactic. Hell, look at the "Global Warming" nutjobs. Regardless of whether you believe it or not, Al Gore spouting that the earth is going to melt and burn today and flood and freeze tomorrow gets you thinking. I assume Al Gore is lying whenever he opens his mouth because of the Law of Averages (if he's usually lying, he's probably lying now), but his presentations have made even me look into the topic. Whichever path I chose to follow, at least Al Gore and others who think alike have brought the issue to the table, made a serious confrontation about it, and gotten people to consider the issue. While movies like "An Inconvenient Truth" (which was very inconvenient, and nowhere near truth) and "Day After Tomorrow" present extremes that are unrealistic and only push people away from the issue, they do the same thing that "soapbox preachers" and the typical ignorant "OMG ur goin 2 heck!" kids do. The difficult part is sorting out which present a serious issue in a pathetic manner, and which just present a pathetic issue.
[Sasquatch] The difference is that "scientists" and lobbyists like Al Gore support issues like "Global Warming" (is that different from the Global Cooling scare 30 years ago, or do they just call it Global Climate Change now?) for their personal financial and political gain, while most Christians have nothing to gain from spreading their beliefs.
[Hermit] I haven't responded, in part because there is no need to respond to such a flood of ideological assertion, Non Sequitur and Argumentam ad Hominem, but more because the ongoing debate on this topic at [ Church of Virus BBS, General, Science & Technology, The Flipping Point ] , with the "anti-warming" ably (though so far unsuccessfully) represented by Iolo Morganwg, and myself and others arguing the other side makes a further response here, completely redundant. I will comment that when it comes to Global Climate change, Al Gore is definitely credentialed and in field as a scientist, rather than a "lobbyist" which is how Sasquatch attempted to portray him.. I am fascinated to see what credentials Sasquatch brings in support of his assertions.
[Sasquatch] I find it funny when fans of science and anti-christians won't do their own research into evolution or the big bang or "Global Warming" to realize the many holes in each theory.
[Hermit] Here we again have Sasquatch providing a very firm opinion, and an engaging in Audiatur et Altera Pars, or burying his presumptions ("the many holes"), presumably hoping that we won't notice. In addition to the afore-identified claim to Judean historical authority, we now have the implicit assertion of authority by Sasquatch in the Philosophy of Science and Climatology (to say nothing of the assertions about being able to make prognostications about Al Gore that could come right from Fox Television or AM Talk Radio). As before, in the absence of material demonstrating his competence (and abundance of material here strongly indicating the reverse), I call for Sasquatch to tender his credentials for evaluation.
[Sasquatch] They’ll eat up everything the science community says is true because they A) Don't want to, or fear of actually being judged for their “sins” and wish to live a sinful life so they attack God or B) Have lived a life of ignorance as to what they think is right. It's really a sad thing too because they become hypocrites by forcing their beliefs on Christians when they have no right too. Debate against them? Sure, a little debate is always healthy for cerebral development, but to down right attack the other side is something only a child would do when things aren't going their way I think.
[Hermit] Like Walter Watts, Hermit wept. When it is not possible to discern the meaning of an assemblage of words, it is not meet to attempt a response. So excuse me if I pass over this bloviation.
[Sasquatch] Jesus’ existence is very well documented and there is proof of his existence, I think that is reason enough to say that he lived;
[Hermit] I'm going to assert the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad Nauseum here. Far from concluding with a summary of his case, Sasquatch merely reiterates his assertion and follows it up not only with his previous use of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam but tops it by using an invalid example.
[Sasquatch] if not then hell, the fact that no written records exist during someone's lifetime or immediately after their death proves that they can't reasonably exist right? It's just like how the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage never happened because the only accounts available to us are by Roman and Greek historians that were written a hundred years or more after it supposedly happened. That Polybius is full of bullocks, what was he trying to pull?
[Hermit] This asserts that the words of Cicero (from multiple sources - including Aurelius Victor; Cato; Pliny the Elder and Plutarch), who ended every speech he gave "Cartago Delenda Est" (sometimes given as "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam") - or "Carthage must be destroyed!" are irrelevant; that the Carthaginian towns dismantled stone by stone, the satellite images showing the abrupt halt of their civilization, the hundreds of celebratory columns over scores of years reflecting the battles, the mitochondrial tracers proving that Carthaginian women (but not men) were distributed throughout the Roman Empire after Carthage's utter defeat are all to be ignored as supporting evidence for the Punic Wars. And then uses this straw man to try to argue that in the absence of any substantive evidence, we should accept that on grounds that seem as shaky as "because Jerusalem existed in Judea" ("proof, but of what"?), we should accept that the "Son of God" "sacrificed himself" to save us - from ourselves.
Thank-you for presenting your thesis Sasquatch, but as you see, it fails to begin to achieve coherency, let alone any quality of persuasion. Perhaps you should attempt to find a home more congenial to brain-damaged Christian apologetics and accepting of logical fallacies, assertions and Non Sequiturs in place of reasoned argument.
Hermit
*Blessed Be Her Pinkness!
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.89
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re:Exposing Christendom
« Reply #21 on: 2007-11-08 21:28:43 » |
|
Quote from: Hermit on 2007-11-08 19:43:41
[Hermit] Sorry you had to cry Walter. Thanks for the work Blunderov.
<masterful missive mined for mission>
*Blessed Be Her Pinkness!
|
"Praise Pink, From Whom All Blessings Flow"
--words by WW
--Music attributed to Louis Bourgeois (1551, Old 100th, Genevan Psalter)
[click here for accompaniment] http://amblesideonline.org/music/praisegodfromwhomallblessingsflow.mid
Praise Pink, from whom all blessings flow;
Praise Pink, all colors here below;
Praise Pink above, ye blushing host;
Praise Hermit, Pink and Holy toast!
Praise Red the color who's the source;
Praise Pink the Son who is the course;
Praise Pink the hue that is the glow;
Praise Pinkish vulvas fold by fold.
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
Sasquatch
Anarch
Gender:
Posts: 12
Reputation: 3.46
Rate Sasquatch
Doing what you can't...
|
|
Re:Exposing Christendom
« Reply #22 on: 2007-11-10 11:42:07 » |
|
I come off as a troll? Well, you’ll have to excuse me for being a little forward with my opinions on things I guess. I was ultimately just raising a valid point. Jesus’ existence is widely accepted and verified as such. At the very least, for you doubters, you can’t deny the fact that the meme is a great success.
Quote:| [Hermit] So far as I am aware, nobody, Christians least of all, assert that the biblical Jesus, historical Jesus or mythical Jesus was a superhuman. |
You know what I meant by the word superhuman. Don't be this way, you will find that it hurts relationships with all sorts of people 
Quote:| [Hermit] This asserts that the words of Cicero (from multiple sources - including Aurelius Victor; Cato; Pliny the Elder and Plutarch), who ended every speech he gave "Cartago Delenda Est" (sometimes given as "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam") - or "Carthage must be destroyed!" are irrelevant; that the Carthaginian towns dismantled stone by stone, the satellite images showing the abrupt halt of their civilization, the hundreds of celebratory columns over scores of years reflecting the battles, the mitochondrial tracers proving that Carthaginian women (but not men) were distributed throughout the Roman Empire after Carthage's utter defeat are all to be ignored as supporting evidence for the Punic Wars. And then uses this straw man to try to argue that in the absence of any substantive evidence, we should accept that on grounds that seem as shaky as "because Jerusalem existed in Judea" ("proof, but of what"?), we should accept that the "Son of God" "sacrificed himself" to save us - from ourselves. |
None of the texts you mentioned go into the details that we "know" about the Punic Wars thanks to Polybius and others, so it really doesn't disuade from the fact that our main source for the events, along with many other events in the ancient world are from historians that lived centuries later. It's really a moot point mind you as it was merely an example. The point that you missed or ignored while Hermit-picking© the details is that someone does not not-exist simply because no one writes about them (that we have found, assuming that's even true) in their lifetime. Besides, as most people have said, most historians agree Jesus the man exists.
I’ve studied a fair bit of history and have also read the bible (not saying I’m a professor or anything like that though). And I’m not actually a Christian but I do have opinions and out-looks on it. The way I interpret it is just what I’ve come to understand (which may seem limited to you intellectual types - see below). If you can provide me with better reasoning then I’m all ears (you’re actually not doing to bad at the moment come to think of it…)
If I had to choose to believe you that there is nothing that even alludes Jesus' existence or the larger historical community that says he does...well, sorry, but you can't win unless you've got some interesting new proof that everyone else seemed to miss.
Jesus not existing is not a generally accepted fact and any historian that denies his existence needs a pretty good deal of proof to counter all the evidence that has been collected supporting his existence.
A childish belief I use to believe myself was: If God is so perfect and merciful, why does all of this nasty stuff happen? Well, honestly it's because humans make it happen. God has no right to dictate what we do and does not involve himself with our world in the way you or many other selfish people would want. Humans are the true ones to blame for the suffering of mankind. Humans are the ones the blame for the chaos and murder they cause whether they assume it's in the name of a God or not. To pin that on God is something only a child would do.
But honestly, would you like it if God intervened on everything? Probably one of the biggest reasons God doesn't jump in and help the helpless is because that would have humans worshiping him in blind faith. It's like if I was a rich man who owned a lot of land and there was many low to middle class people living on it. If I rode around buying people's faith, respect, or love by giving them things they think will make them happy, would you really like to be followed like that so blindly? Of course if you were selfish and greedy you would do that, but God does not. God wants us to have a choice in believing in him so he does not wow us with magic tricks like so many people want him too.
Thanks anyway Hermit.
Thank-you also for your responses Blunderov.
Quote: True, if something "began" it must have begun "somewhere". But just exactly where, or exactly how, is not always as obvious as it might seem. There are various possibilities. Just because the most usual accounts of this particular "beginning" are more less in agreement with each other does not guarantee that these accounts are correct.
This is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populem; "It must be true because everybody says it is.” |
Is this how we do things now? You and I both know that there is more documentation of Jesus existing than not existing. The historical Jesus movement is almost three hundred years old, and people much smarter than we are have made plenty of progress in the field. Most importantly, the Jesus Seminar > us. Do I really need to cite sources on a forum?
Quote:| This is a good example of what I mean by not making any sense at all. How can somebody "die for my sins"? |
If you read the bible you'd know that, but I guess I'll explain it for you.
Before Jesus was sacrificed all our sins were pitted against us [all of them] which is why it made it difficult to get into heaven or even hell. Once Jesus died his blood washed away those sins allowing us to be forgiven for all of our sins and choose to follow Jesus into Heaven. The main result from his death was to make it easier for us to get into Heaven. Jesus' death was the key into giving us a clean slate. It forgave all our sins.
Quote:| How is it possible for somebody other than the actual guilty party to repent a bad deed? If I am sentenced to spend time in jail I can't send somebody else to serve my sentence for me. The idea is preposterous unless you are sun-addled Bronze Age primitive who believes that human sacrifice has some effect on the universe apart from the death of the unfortunate victim. |
You forget that Jesus, in Christianity's eyes, is not a normal man. This wasn't human sacrifice either, but an execution. Now his death was a sacrifice God took so that all our sins would be, as I just said, forgiven. Saying you can't send somebody to serve your own sentence is not the same thing.
Quote:| Very interestingly, we note that Jesus is supposed to have died for our sins in some cases as much as 2000 years in advance of their actual commission. Wither free will? So often it is claimed that God gave us "free will" so that our love for him would be unconstrained. This seems inconsistent with the "fact" that we are doomed to be sinners no matter what we do or do not do. Can't have it both ways I'm afraid. |
Of course we can't have it both ways, but by believing and accepting Jesus it forgives all your sins. That is why he died on the cross so we could have a chance and a choice. If we did not have that kind of free will we would blindly believe in God without a chance to think it over. You wouldn't have control over your own mind. The fact you're rebelling against him in that post shows you that you have the free will to deny him. That would be a very different story if free will never existed.
Quote:| I find it hard to understand this logic, much less abide by it with my life. Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether god is wrathful or not, why should it be necessary to have to choose whether to believe in god or not? I'm not faced with the choice of whether or not to believe in my own existence. The fact that the existence of "god" is not blindingly obvious suggests to me that there can be no such thing as "god". Why would the certain knowledge of the existence of god prevent anyone from loving god "freely"? I am fairly certain of the existence of many people but this knowledge does not prevent me from loving at least some of them. In fact I seriously doubt that it would be possible for me to love somebody that I had never even met or spoken to. Why would any rational god expect me to make an exception for him? It would mean that I would have to invent a completely different definition of the word "love" than has ever been used before. |
You're thinking on the human level there, sir. What you believe is rational is disrupted by the other thing that comes with religon; faith. It is your faith in Jesus and God that allows you to know them personally.
What your mistaking is a very common idea from people who believe, "If I can't see it, then it isn't real!". Well, on this physical plane of existence I'd say that's truth. If there is no cup in front of me I can't assume a cup is there, but God is above the physical plane. Trying to understand that is bigger than any math equation or scientific theory. It's something humans cannot comprehend. Thus we have faith to help us believe which has nothing to do with science or rationality. Before all that, however, we have choice or free will to accept our faith in believing in him. I think I've done enough repeating of myself too so I'll hope at this point you actually understand [that's a big IF] what I'm saying.
Quote:| The short of it is that this argument from "free love" is an abuse of language. It is nonsense. |
Another opinion good sir.
Quote: The world as we find it is a happy little paradise because the Biblical flood rid us of evil people? Sasquatch, are there newspapers and stuff like that where you live? We know you have access to the Internet. How have you missed the fact that the world is a horrible, fucked up, evil place full of pain, suffering, death, misery, cruelty, disease, humiliation, subjugation and advertising?
So much so in fact, that it forms one of the main arguments against the existence of god sometimes known as the "problem of evil". This problem is so grave that many theologians have felt compelled to produce what are known as "theodicies" which are elaborate attempts to explain this problem away. Suffice it to say that nobody has succeeded so far. |
Looks like you jumped the gun in assuming that I said this is a happy little paradise. I said nothing of the sort. My example merely suggested if there had been no flood then all the pain, suffering, death, misery, cruelty, humiliation, subjugation, and advertising would either have destroyed itself by now or turned this world into a true living hell. I did not suggest a flood would rid the world of such things, however. The only thing the flood didn't kill was Lucifer or his army of demons which is the heart of all the problems of evil. Not rock'n'roll sonny or death metal, but true evil. I mean do you really know what demons and Lucifer do? They influence, suggest, and some times downright take over the human mind to cause pain and suffering. God doesn't make people suffer, Lucifer does. God doesn't create disease, Lucifer does.
Oh, then I'm sure at this point you're going to think "Well why doesn't God do something about it?!", well, he does and doesn't. The power of prayer does some times work in many situations, but that's only if it is a selfless prayer. When prayer isn't involved it becomes a chance if someone suffers or not. It's something not everyone, even Christians, entirely understands honestly.
Quote:| Short version; what kind of a "merciful" god would create Satan? (Arguments from "free will" will not be entertained; please refer to my previous remarks on the subject). |
Satan, or Lucifer, was created as an angel. In fact he was probably one of the most glorious angels God ever created, but eventually Lucifer choose to rebel against God because of his ego, took millions of angels with him, and fled into his own world where hell was eventually created by Lucifer. In the beginning, Lucifer was not evil, but the verses in the bible explains that this angel had his own choice and free will to deny God. It was his choice to do so and now there is a war over our souls. But wait, that leaves one question unanswered.
If God knew this would happen, why didn't he stop it? Because life wouldn't have happened in the way the bible has written. It's one of those time things where if you go to the past and change something it'll change the outcome of the future. If Lucifer had never rebelled against God, Lucifer wouldn't have been there to suggest Eve to sin. If Lucifer hadn't been there Jesus would've never been sacrificed for our sins because it was Lucifer who influenced men into getting him executed. Lucifer is as much apart of the grand plan God has for everyone as you or me. We are all apart of a future that wouldn't happen if none of us were alive. Everything we do has a consequence that will lead up to the second coming of Christ. Angels, demons, God, Lucifer, it's all apart of that.
Quote:| I am not aware of Christians having beliefs "forced upon them" by scientists or anybody else other than their own priests. |
Well, I was saying that scientist and people who believe in what they say attacking people's faith because they don't understand it. If faith, religion, and believing in God is so illogical then what's the point in arguing with someone about it? Because in the back of yours and many other people's minds are trivially challenged by your own belief about how the universe and life was formed. You fear that if all of what you believe is wrong that it'll destroy and shatter everything you've studied and assumed was truth [which goes both ways]. That is why science attacks religion when there's no real need too. You can't convert a person with faith to believe in science much like you can't convert of a person of science to follow faith. It's a paradox honestly. Even then, each types of people collide over and over in a never-ending battle where no side wins and you're just adding to that.
Anyway, again you're assuming that the evidence of God can be found in a materialistic reality. That's something you'll have to journey yourself to understand instead of asking someone else for all the answers like you scientist do.
Quote:| But then perhaps you are referring to the "forcefulness" of evidence, reason and logic? If this is the case, then I'm sure you would not wish to perpetrate the same abuse as that of which you complain of by persuading me that your point of view is correct. Or is it the case that you are only prepared to play by those rules if you are allowed to win every time? |
I'm not persuading to you anything, but writing out the facts of what a Christian would believe. Yes, I probably do sound quite preachy here and there, but from my viewpoints of Christianity and how it works, that's what I've come to understand and I know there are many Christians who would agree with me. The problem is something I've already addressed when science fanboys attack religious people when there is no purpose in doing so. You're simply attacking a brick wall with your bare fist.
Now, what I'm sure what will come to a shock from you is I'm not a Christian. "Bullshit!" you say. No, I'm really not. I'm one of those agnostic people who don't really believe in anything, but acknowledge that the truth of God's are possible. Thing is I've actually read the bible and listened to what real Christians have to say in order to understand the true meaning. What you believe and attack is like trying to attack an invisible enemy until you eventually become tired of it. When I came to understand Christianity and God, I stopped attacking that invisible enemy.
|
|
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.89
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re:Exposing Christendom
« Reply #23 on: 2007-11-10 14:54:37 » |
|
Quote from: Sasquatch on 2007-11-10 11:42:07 Now, what I'm sure what will come to a shock from you is I'm not a Christian. "Bullshit!" you say. No, I'm really not. I'm one of those agnostic people who don't really believe in anything, but acknowledge that the truth of God's are possible. Thing is I've actually read the bible and listened to what real Christians have to say in order to understand the true meaning. What you believe and attack is like trying to attack an invisible enemy until you eventually become tired of it. When I came to understand Christianity and God, I stopped attacking that invisible enemy.
|
It's annoying enough to listen to "true" Christians (those that REALLY believe their own crap).
So now we're debating with their attorneys?
Walter Wept Some More.........
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Exposing Christendom
« Reply #24 on: 2007-11-10 18:32:57 » |
|
[Sasquatch 22] I come off as a troll? Well, you’ll have to excuse me for being a little forward with my opinions on things I guess.
[Hermit 24] Never more so than advocating positions you then disclaim as your own.
[Sasquatch 22] I was ultimately just raising a valid point.
[Hermit 24] No you were not. You asserted the validity of a point which is anything but, and then, having had your babbling exposed for unsupported rubbish, you either are apparently too stupid to recognize this, or too thick-skinned to care - and so you return and do it again.
[Sasquatch 22] Jesus’ existence is widely accepted and verified as such.
[Hermit 24] You asserted exactly this before. Your claim was rejected (in the absence of evidence) and numerous thoroughly referenced sources and appropriately supported logic provided for why it was worthless and establishing the hurdles you would need to overcome to present supporting evidence. Merely reiterating your now even less supported (having disclaimed in field expertise) opinion (Argumentam ad Nauseam) that something is true, and denoting it as "valid" (in the absence of evidence) is not the same thing as attempting to support it . That your claim is widely accepted, by people unable to think rationally on this topic, as true does not support your claim (Argumentam ad Numerum). Arguing your claim is "verified" (shown to be true) might be support - but only if the verification is shown and the audience accepts it as valid. You are the person making the claim. You are incompetent to judge on its validity (Refer the scientific method or just ask any handy Neocon or bittereinde Republican). So please show us your verification facts in an appropriate forum, or shut up.
[Sasquatch 22] At the very least, for you doubters, you can’t deny the fact that the meme is a great success.
[Hermit 24] Don't attempt to label people. You will always fail. As you do here. I am not a doubter, I reject the whole basin of stinking slops you have thrown at our forums. Not only do I reject them - no matter how successful the meme (Argumentum ad Populum again?), no matter how bizarre your claim that you have historical evidence that, pardon my summarizing your lengthy post, the Jesus of the babble, son of a loving cookie monster god who killed his son in order to be able to forgive others, really walked and talked somewhere, sometime. Excuse me if I sound skeptical, but I really doubt you can begin to do it. Even if you dig up Jim Henson and ask him to help.
[Hermit 20] So far as I am aware, nobody, Christians least of all, assert that the biblical Jesus, historical Jesus or mythical Jesus was a superhuman.
[Sasquatch 22] You know what I meant by the word superhuman. Don't be this way, you will find that it hurts relationships with all sorts of people
[Hermit 24] Don't attempt rhetorical responses here, don't assert meaning to my words other than their face value and don't make imputations you cannot support. They are all recognized logical fallacies and social failures.. If that is to complex for you to follow, they just do not work.
[Hermit 24] Let me remind you:
[Sasquatch 16 ] I think that it’s pretty obvious that he did exist.
[Hermit 20] Who is your "he"? The supposed Jesus of the babble? In which case was he the Egyptian who died in about 2600CE, or the Jewish rebel who wanted the Hasmodeans stoned for marrying their cousins and fomented rebellion in Judea including the refusal to use "tribute pennies" due to the blasphemy of granting Caesar godhood (Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's...)? Neither of these appears Prima Facie to be a good candidate for the Christian's biblical "Jesus." Yet unlike the clearly derivative "biblical Jesus," both of them have reasonable support. (Ibid.) I suggest that you are attempting to commit the logical fallacy of Affirming the Consequent with this unsupported, fuzzy and illogical assertion.
[Hermit 24] You have made unsupported and self-contradictory claims. There are numerous Jesus possibilities enumerated, identified and referenced in my previous post. The revolting racist bigot and supporter of slavery and religious war, Jesus of the Bible, who some non-theological academic historians see as being clearly an amalgam of other characters with added nastiness. The prototypical religious Bronze-age Jesus, possibly an Egyptian, who originated the Sermon on the Mount sometime around or before c2600 BCE. The prototypical Jewish Jesus, the zealot brother of James, and a insurrectionist belonging to a wacko communist, fundamentalist, revolutionary religious group, well documented by their writings. And then there is the mythical Jesus sweet and mild, existing only, so far as I am aware, in the imagination of fervid believers.
[Hermit 24] Which of these identities do you imagine you can substantiate (with evidence) as equivalent to an historical instance of the biblical Jesus? Or are you speaking of somebody else? Which of them do you imagine is asserted to be a superman and by which group?
[Sasquatch 22] None of the texts you mentioned go into the details that we "know" about the Punic Wars thanks to Polybius and others, so it really doesn't disuade from the fact that our main source for the events, along with many other events in the ancient world are from historians that lived centuries later.
[Hermit 24] Let me reinsert your claim in its turgid entirety, all of it thoroughly addressed by me, in order to properly address the one tiny piece of your original assertion you appear to be resurrecting emphasis by me):
[Sasquatch 16] Jesus’ existence is very well documented and there is proof of his existence, I think that is reason enough to say that he lived; if not then hell, the fact that no written records exist during someone's lifetime or immediately after their death proves that they can't reasonably exist right? It's just like how the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage never happened because the only accounts available to us are by Roman and Greek historians that were written a hundred years or more after it supposedly happened. That Polybius is full of bullocks, what was he trying to pull?
[Hermit 24] Here is the relevant passage where I responded to the emphasized piece:
[Hermit 20] This asserts that the words of Cicero (from multiple sources - including Aurelius Victor; Cato; Pliny the Elder and Plutarch), who ended every speech he gave "Cartago Delenda Est" (sometimes given as "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam") - or "Carthage must be destroyed!" are irrelevant; that the Carthaginian towns dismantled stone by stone, the satellite images showing the abrupt halt of their civilization, the hundreds of celebratory columns over scores of years reflecting the battles, the mitochondrial tracers proving that Carthaginian women (but not men) were distributed throughout the Roman Empire after Carthage's utter defeat are all to be ignored as supporting evidence for the Punic Wars.
[Sasquatch 22] None of the texts you mentioned go into the details that we "know" about the Punic Wars thanks to Polybius and others, so it really doesn't disuade from the fact that our main source for the events, along with many other events in the ancient world are from historians that lived centuries later. It's really a moot point mind you as it was merely an example. The point that you missed or ignored while Hermit-picking© the details is that someone does not not-exist simply because no one writes about them (that we have found, assuming that's even true) in their lifetime. Besides, as most people have said, most historians agree Jesus the man exists.
[Hermit 24] I carefully pointed out that unlike Jesus, far from " the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage never happened because the only accounts available to us are by Roman and Greek historians that were written a hundred years or more after it supposedly happened" being the case, that uncontested contemporary accounts and a wealth of solid accessible evidence supports our understanding of the Punic Wars - and even permits us to discount many of the claims made about the nastiness of the Carthaginians, not only because they sound like propaganda, but because the evidence is insufficient to accept it, whereas the nastiness of the Romans is in fact born out in the genes.
[Sasquatch 22] I’ve studied a fair bit of history
[Hermit 24] If you had *studied* history, even at an undergraduate level, at any reputable institution, and had achieved a passing grade, you would I think be aware that what the historian said (even an historical historian) is irrelevant. What somebody said 100 years later is a secondary source.
[Sasquatch 22] and have also read the bible (not saying I’m a professor or anything like that though).
[Hermit 24] If you "read" it, I think you failed to comprehend it. Or you ought not to make the claims you do here.
[Sasquatch 22] And I’m not actually a Christian but I do have opinions and out-looks on it. The way I interpret it is just what I’ve come to understand (which may seem limited to you intellectual types - see below). If you can provide me with better reasoning then I’m all ears (you’re actually not doing to bad at the moment come to think of it…)
[Hermit 24] Then why do you feel compelled to hijack our threads in order to deluge us in your sloppy , rose-colored, comprehension of Christianity, history and the babble? What made you imagine that it held any significance for us?
[Sasquatch 22] If I had to choose to believe you that there is nothing that even alludes Jesus' existence or the larger historical community that says he does...well, sorry, but you can't win unless you've got some interesting new proof that everyone else seemed to miss.
[Hermit 24] I desire no man to believe me - or any other. I demand that each person think for themselves and reach their own conclusions. When they are significant, share them - if you can support them when challenged. I can support my views, but in this case do not have to, although I attempted to show you the vast swathes of logical fallacy underpinning your apologetics. The burden of proof was and is upon you to sustain your claims. Not having refuted a single instance where I demonstrated your intellectual failures, you apparently cannot and so are reduced to mere posturing and repetition.
[Sasquatch 22] Jesus not existing is not a generally accepted fact and any historian that denies his existence needs a pretty good deal of proof to counter all the evidence that has been collected supporting his existence.
[Hermit 24] If this confused sentence were true, you would have no difficulty providing us with the purported evidence. But I don't see it. And like the mythical Weapons of Mass Distraction in Iraq, and the even more ludicrous Concepts of Mass Distraction being asserted against Iran, the onus is upon the proponent to prove existence, not upon the respondent to prove non-existence. The failure to observe this elementary rule of logic usually results in consequences as embarrassing to the asserters as current illegal war of aggression against Iraq on phony grounds has proved to the USA's reputation and purse.
[Hermit 24] As you didn't bother to answer my question:
[Hermit 20] Which imaginary god are you referring to? There are many.
[Hermit 24] I'm going to snip your screed about a "God." Until you can provide some identification of this one, along with information about the thousands of gods you appear to have excluded and attempt to explain the reasoning you have followed to decide which one of them you have decided to retain, I do not intend to discuss the even more evidence bereft theological issues you are attempting to raise.
[Hermit 24] If you want further discourse, do not reply here. Instead, instantiate a thread on the Religious forum, answer the questions posed to you and provide the requested substantiation and sources for your assertions to date. Until you attempt to do that, your destroyed credibility will count against your receiving any more attention than any common or garden troll.
Hermit
Minor edits 2007-11-13
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Exposing Christendom
« Reply #25 on: 2007-11-12 16:19:38 » |
|
The following is an excerpt from the continuation of the discussion superimposed on this thread.
Meta Response
[Hermit 2] I see you that you are borrowing extensively from the forum at , http://www.thefinalfantasy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=df91da92a61214fb9132665998df2bbd&t=57768 even though you are represented there (e.g. Sasquatch #8 ). For example, you have quoted "You're right, the fact that no written records exist during someone's lifetime or immediately after their death proves that they can't exist. It's just like how the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage never happened because the only accounts available to us are by Roman and Greek historians that were written a hundred years or more after it supposedly happened. That Polybius is full of bullocks, what was he trying to pull?" [Jintatsu] and "Now, what I'm sure what will come to a shock from you is I'm not a Christian. "Bullshit!" you say. No, I'm really not. I'm one of those agnostic people who don't really believe in anything, but acknowledge that the truth of God's are possible. Thing is I've actually read the bible and listened to what real Christians have to say in order to understand the true meaning. What you believe and attack is like trying to attack an invisible enemy until you eventually become tired of it. When I came to understand Christianity and God, I stopped attacking that invisible enemy. Who knows? Maybe someday I'll join them. Until then, have a nice day.." [Behemoth] without bothering to reference them. I also see that somebody has elected to copy Blunderov [Cell #12] and my [Nin` #17] works wholesale, without attribution.
[Hermit 2] I'm unimpressed. This together with your inability to reply to direct questions earns you a rating of 2 from me. While your moving to a more appropriate board allowed you to avoid a 1 rating, I consider what you have been engaged in here to be sufficiently offensive to cross post this introduction to the original thread.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.80
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Exposing Christendom
« Reply #27 on: 2007-11-16 05:36:58 » |
|
Quote from: Blunderov on 2007-11-12 17:48:24
 :::Seriously Rolling on the Floor Laughing My Fucking Ass Off:::
PS: check out Nin's profile at http://www.thefinalfantasy.com/forums/member.php?u=21543
A kind of creepy mishmash of Hermit and Lucifer.
PPS: Anyone feel like posting over there and calling them out for the dishonest plagiarzers they are?
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
|
Logged
