It All Started In Antioch
The Whistleblower
wrote:
We believe Islam is the Hebraic Christianity marketed
to Arabs. And the marketing ploy used was
covered up by the author of the Sira Rassul Allah
or the "biography of God Messenger" by Ibn Ishaq.
Disconnecting Islam from its hebraic source was
the main accomplishment for this author, but again
we see right through.
Why the debate that started in Antioch between
Paul and some pharisees who believed in Jesus
as the Christ resurfaced in Mecca is no longer
a mystery.
The council in Jerusalem failed to settle the issue.
Paul remained Anti Moses Law preacher, and the
pharisees who believed remained loyal to Moses.
We had here two Models of Christianity.
The Hebraic Model and the Gentile or Paulin model
One evolved into Islam, the other turned into
Trinitarian Catholicism in Nicea Constantinople.
The Paulin Churches in the Roman
Empire had officially elevated TRINITY to
official dogma of the Empire.
Islam: How they did, why they did and who did it.
> Dear atheists, Jews, anti-Islam trolls, Hindus, Christians, Zionists,
> Zoroastrians, spammers and the like.
>
> I have tried reading this newsgroup, and I found that almost 90 percents of
> stuff on this NG is not stuff I am looking for.
>
> I haven't met many missionaries but I am sure that they do not preach their
> religion by attacking another religion. I'm sure they preach by showing good
> examples, love and other good things. I don't know if you guys are serious,
> or just insecure, cause I don't care.
>
> All I care is that you stop posting nonsense to this NG cause there are
> people trying to learn about Islam and they do not like people like you
> posting nonsense and using vulgar languages and saying thing without proof.
>
> If you want to convert people to Atheism, Christianity, Judaism, or
> Hinduism, please do so in an orderly fashion. I don't think attacking Islam
> will win you many converts. In fact, you may even turn people from your
> religion.
>
> I am sure that missionaries respects other religions and don't go around
> saying stuff about the prophet. I predict - no, I guarantee that this is
> going to come back to haunt you. Let me remind you that you are very lucky
> because Muslims will not sink to your low level of immorality and filth.
>
> However, don't think that using "Anonymous ip" give you assurance that
> nobody will catch you, well don't be surprise if one day a stranger going to
> show up on your doorstep and beat the living hell out of you.
rea...@council.com
Paul remained Anti Moses Law preacher, and the
pharisees who believed remained loyal to Moses."
No, the council was headed by the local church leaders James the brother
of Christ and John and Peter. Paul only made a report of his activities
at the council. The issue was settled and was done so on the basis of
the view James offered which became the concensus of the entire council.
In most other regards the jew only group held the same views about the
divinity of Christ and his role as Messiah. They continued to hold to
the need to observe all jewish laws. Both groups saw Christ in the line
of Moses and the prophets that followed him.
"We had here two Models of Christianity. The Hebraic Model and the
Gentile or Paulin model One evolved into Islam, the other turned into
Trinitarian Catholicism in Nicea Constantinople. The Paulin Churches in
the Roman Empire had officially elevated TRINITY to official dogma of
the Empire."
No, the two forms were those of the councilwhich accepted jews and all
others
and those who wanted to exclude all but Jews. This division continued
for some time. By the time of islam it was only one part remaining, the
followers of the council.
Islam is a mix of the ideas mohamid took in where he lived. The local
to him jews and the nestorian church were his sources. That church held
a view of Christ similar to the one muslims were later to hold also that
Jesus was not divine in his person and was created by God. This is why
early christians thought islam only another church heresy similar to the
nestorians.
The matter of the Holy Trinity had nothing to do with anything related
to islam, coming much later, nor the jew only religious followers of
Christ who by 325 when the council defining the Holy Trinity met were a
tiny minority. Paul had been long dead by that council. The council
pointed to Christ himself in His teachings about the Holy Trinity, they
did not see Paul as their source aside from any others.
Christopher A. Lee
>"The council in Jerusalem failed to settle the issue.
>Paul remained Anti Moses Law preacher, and the
>pharisees who believed remained loyal to Moses."
>
>No, the council was headed by the local church leaders James the brother
>of Christ and John and Peter. Paul only made a report of his activities
>at the council. The issue was settled and was done so on the basis of
>the view James offered which became the concensus of the entire council.
Prove it, moron.
panam...@hotmail.com
> "The council in Jerusalem failed to settle the issue.
> Paul remained Anti Moses Law preacher, and the
> pharisees who believed remained loyal to Moses."
>
> No, the council was headed by the local church leaders James the brother
> of Christ and John and Peter.
No, the house & dojo was actually Karou's. It had been her father's,
and passed down to her along with the responsibility of teaching the
Kamiya Kasshin style. Kenshin was asked to stay by Karou after the
"Battousai" imposter was defeated. Yahiko *did* live there after he
was freed from the Yakuza, since he was an orphan and had no where
else to go. Sanosuke, however, actually lived in the public "row
houses" for the poor. Megumi, of course, lived with her mentor Dr.
Gensai.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
rea...@council.com
>Paul remained Anti Moses Law preacher, and the
>pharisees who believed remained loyal to Moses."
>
>No, the council was headed by the local church leaders James the
brother
>of Christ and John and Peter. Paul only made a report of his
activities
>at the council. The issue was settled and was done so on the basis of
>the view James offered which became the concensus of the entire
council.
"Prove it, moron."
Starting at Acts 15 and following is the account of the council. It
describes the report given by Paul, the view raised by James and
thereafter it bbecoming the concensus of the entire council and of their
efforts to spread that concensus to other parts of the church..
Christopher A. Lee
What kind of moron cites the Bible as "proof" of anythingto
non-Christians?
rea...@council.com
Reminds me of the trick question children ask. Are you still beaing
your wife? An answer either way confirms the beating.
Question asked and answered. What kind of moran would ask a christian a
question about christian history and then be surprised when a christian
answer is given.
rea...@council.com
> Paul remained Anti Moses Law preacher, and the
> pharisees who believed remained loyal to Moses."
>
> No, the council was headed by the local church leaders James the
brother
> of Christ and John and Peter.
"No, the house & dojo was actually Karou's. It had been her father's,
and passed down to her along with the responsibility of teaching the
Kamiya Kasshin style. Kenshin was asked to stay by Karou after the
"Battousai" imposter was defeated. Yahiko *did* live there after he was
freed from the Yakuza, since he was an orphan and had no where else to
go. Sanosuke, however, actually lived in the public "row houses" for the
poor. Megumi, of course, lived with her mentor Dr. Gensai."
Having ones meds evaluated might do you a world of good. This kind of
disassociation of thought I have not seen since working in mental health
among the seriously disturbed schizophrenics
Christopher A. Lee
>>>"The council in Jerusalem failed to settle the issue.
>>>Paul remained Anti Moses Law preacher, and the
>>>pharisees who believed remained loyal to Moses."
>>>
>>>No, the council was headed by the local church leaders James the
>>brother
>>>of Christ and John and Peter. Paul only made a report of his
>>activities
>>>at the council. The issue was settled and was done so on the basis of
>>>the view James offered which became the concensus of the entire
>>council.
>>
>>"Prove it, moron."
>>
>>Starting at Acts 15 and following is the account of the council. It
>>describes the report given by Paul, the view raised by James and
>>thereafter it bbecoming the concensus of the entire council and of
>their
>>efforts to spread that concensus to other parts of the church..
>
>"What kind of moron cites the Bible as "proof" of anythingto
>non-Christians?"
>
>Reminds me of the trick question children ask. Are you still beaing
>your wife? An answer either way confirms the beating.
Then don't be one.
>
>Question asked and answered. What kind of moran would ask a christian a
>question about christian history and then be surprised when a christian
>answer is given.
It's not history, imbecile. It's Christian tradition.
Christopher A. Lee
As a patient obviously.
rea...@council.com
I bet it would not take much to find much to admire about you if we were
to meet.
rea...@council.com
>non-Christians?"
>
>Reminds me of the trick question children ask. Are you still beaing
>your wife? An answer either way confirms the beating.
"Then don't be one."
What, be a wife?
>
>Question asked and answered. What kind of moran would ask a christian
a
>question about christian history and then be surprised when a christian
>answer is given.
"It's not history, imbecile. It's Christian tradition."
How do you know? Who gets to say what is history and not and what
definition of same is the operative one?
Tradition is most often associated with oral history. In which case the
account of the council is not tradition.
In the history of psychology "imbecile" and "moran" have specific
definitions. One can not be both at the same time.
Someone once said something to the effect that personal attack is the
last
refuge of a scoundrel.
I bet there is much to admire about you if we were to meet.
Christopher A. Lee
I'm not the moron who inagines Christian tradition is accurate
history, imbecile.
Christopher A. Lee
>>"What kind of moron cites the Bible as "proof" of anythingto
>>non-Christians?"
>>
>>Reminds me of the trick question children ask. Are you still beaing
>>your wife? An answer either way confirms the beating.
>
>"Then don't be one."
>
>What, be a wife?
Idiot.
>>Question asked and answered. What kind of moran would ask a christian
>a
>>question about christian history and then be surprised when a christian
>>answer is given.
>
>"It's not history, imbecile. It's Christian tradition."
>
>How do you know? Who gets to say what is history and not and what
>definition of same is the operative one?
History is about corroboration to reach conclusions with varying
degrees of confidence,
You have nothing outside Christuian tradition.
>Tradition is most often associated with oral history. In which case the
>account of the council is not tradition.
And historians accept when it os coroborated, taking into accound that
it mutates each time iti s told.
>In the history of psychology "imbecile" and "moran" have specific
>definitions. One can not be both at the same time.
You obviously are.
rea...@council.com
>>non-Christians?"
>>
>>Reminds me of the trick question children ask. Are you still beaing
>>your wife? An answer either way confirms the beating.
>
>"Then don't be one."
>
>What, be a wife?
"Idiot."
Oh dear, "idiot" is also speciffically defined in psychology. So which
is it, "idiot" or "imbecile" or "moran"?
>>Question asked and answered. What kind of moran would ask a christian
>a
>>question about christian history and then be surprised when a
christian
>>answer is given.
>
>"It's not history, imbecile. It's Christian tradition."
>
>How do you know? Who gets to say what is history and not and what
>definition of same is the operative one?
"History is about corroboration to reach conclusions with varying
degrees of confidence,"
How do you know? I'm afraid you are confusing an academic process with
history.
"You have nothing outside Christuian tradition."
It is my understanding that the entire set of histories written about
alexander the great is from the accounts of one man. Is that what you
have in mind and why he must not have existed?
>Tradition is most often associated with oral history. In which case
the
>account of the council is not tradition.
"And historians accept when it os coroborated, taking into accound that
it mutates each time iti s told."
Sometimes yes, but no less history. That is the nature of oral
transmission of information. Native americans have such histories going
back hundreds of years. Often great care is taken to minimize
"mutations" because they want to get it right. In some african cultures
an accounting of geneology can also go back multiple generations and
hundreds of years involving thousands of people. There are oral experts
whose life work is to memorize them and become the goto source when such
information is required.
The history of the council as found in Acts was written by one man.
>In the history of psychology "imbecile" and "moran" have specific
>definitions. One can not be both at the same time.
"You obviously are."
Then you obviously are not of a scientific mind set, is that your
confession to us?
rea...@council.com
were
>to meet.
"I'm not the moron who inagines Christian tradition is accurate history,
imbecile."
Then if following in your example, one would ask which moran you are
then?
What imagination of the form of moran you represent do you support?
This the obvious follow on question your logic suggests.
I bet there are even things one could come to admire and love about you.
panam...@hotmail.com
> > "The council in Jerusalem failed to settle the issue.
> > Paul remained Anti Moses Law preacher, and the
> > pharisees who believed remained loyal to Moses."
>
> > No, the council was headed by the local church leaders James the
> brother
> > of Christ and John and Peter.
If you intend to reply to Usenet groups in the future, please learn
how to properly set attribution marks. You get *this* one for free..
*I* actually posted:
> "No, the house & dojo was actually Karou's. It had been her father's,
> and passed down to her along with the responsibility of teaching the
> Kamiya Kasshin style. Kenshin was asked to stay by Karou after the
> "Battousai" imposter was defeated. Yahiko *did* live there after he was
> freed from the Yakuza, since he was an orphan and had no where else to
> go. Sanosuke, however, actually lived in the public "row houses" for the
> poor. Megumi, of course, lived with her mentor Dr. Gensai."
rea then replied:
> Having ones meds evaluated might do you a world of good. This kind of
> disassociation of thought I have not seen since working in mental health
> among the seriously disturbed schizophrenics
Your lack of a sense of humor is noted. Any two-minute search on
Google of the names of the fictional characters I posted would have
shown you that I was referencing a Japanese manga/anime. I am an
atheist, and decided to post something about my own favorite fictional
story upon a thread discussing other (IMO, less well written)
fictional stories. Other atheists familiar with fiction consider the
equation of "good" fiction with "poor" fiction humorous. And of
course, since so many theistic idiots post their moronic fairy tales
into alt.atheism on a regular basis, ridicule of that garbage is a
source of great humor to the members of my group.
You've made the mistake of thinking that I should consider their
nonsense as something worth taking seriously. There is no
"disassocation" here..only the mocking of people stupid enough to
think that fiction is truth, just because it's a few thousand years
older than the stuff they could find in a bookstore tomorow morning.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Robibnikoff
<rea...@council.com> wrote
Why the fuck did you post this bullshit in alt.atheism?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & Belly Dancer Supreme
BAAWA Knight
#1557
Christopher A. Lee
<drdon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 06 Feb 2010 00:14:43 GMT, rea...@council.com wrote:
>
>Like many schizophrenics, I see you have placed yourself in the "practitioner"
>role. Nice try.
He's a typically stupid narcissistic theist incapable of understanding
that in the real world outside his religion, he has to give real world
outside his religion explanations and that there's no substntive
difference between his original and what panamafloyd wrote.
So he phony amateur-psychologises responses based on the only
personality he has ever tried to understand, his own.
And because he can't think outside the box he doesn't even realise
this.
.
>-
>
>aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
> Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
>The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
rea...@council.com
nonsense as something worth taking seriously. There is no
"disassocation" here..only the mocking of people stupid enough to think
that fiction is truth, just because it's a few thousand years older than
the stuff they could find in a bookstore tomorow morning."
Good, a med fix does work.
Mocking does wonders when turned on the mockers, it being on the level
best allowing comprehension . While disassociation has subsided use of
spell checkers has declined.
It is my understanding that almost the entire information about
alexander the great comes from one writer. And that some 2500 years
ago. What think ye of good old alexander?
One does hope the atheists would come up with new material, the now
stale dry stuff long since effective.
I did not come to the atheist group, the poster to whom I was responding
included it and it can not be known from whince he made the post.
I bet there is much to admire about you if we were to meet.
rea...@council.com
The original poster included it. When responding we don't know from
which group the post came.
"Fuck" is one of those now general generic terms like "ain't" that can
be used almost everywhere. But if one considers its use here it makes
no sense, does it?
It does tend however to color ones first impression of the person using
it, and it ain't a pretty sight.
rea...@council.com
this."
Happy for a serious discussion once you even have a box. That sandbox
will not serve however.
I haven't seen such high level discussion since 8th grade school yard
days.
Robibnikoff
<rea...@council.com> wrote in message
news:4b6dd084$0$11056$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu...
> "Why the fuck did you post this bullshit in alt.atheism?"
>
> The original poster included it.
That would be you, asshole.
The Whistleblower
> <rea...@council.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4b6dd084$0$11056$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu...
>
> > "Why the fuck did you post this bullshit in alt.atheism?"
>
> > The original poster included it.
>
> That would be you, asshole.
What's up baby cheetah?
Are you still fasting from sex?
All righr... Let me know when you are ready.
"Push it baby, push it"
Christopher A. Lee
>"You've made the mistake of thinking that I should consider their
>nonsense as something worth taking seriously. There is no
>"disassocation" here..only the mocking of people stupid enough to think
>that fiction is truth, just because it's a few thousand years older than
>the stuff they could find in a bookstore tomorow morning."
A fact which too many theists who can't grasp that there is a real
world beyond their religion, don't seem to understand.
>Good, a med fix does work.
So take your own advice.
>Mocking does wonders when turned on the mockers, it being on the level
>best allowing comprehension . While disassociation has subsided use of
>spell checkers has declined.
>
>It is my understanding that almost the entire information about
>alexander the great comes from one writer. And that some 2500 years
>ago. What think ye of good old alexander?
Dishonest bait'n'switch between a religious claim for which there is
no evidence, and somebody whose existence was CONCLUDED from evidence
using the historical process.
Apart from this being a red herring, Alexander was a general who
fought battles. If it hadn't been him it would have been somebody
else.
And if you had provided as much evidence for Jesus as there is for
Alexander you might have had a point. But you didn't, and you haven't.
Here's another clue:
If you actually has any evidence you wouldn't have needed this kind of
dishonest cop out that fools nobody.
Thank you for the tacit admission that you have nothing.
Now shut up because you are incapable of putting up.
>One does hope the atheists would come up with new material, the now
>stale dry stuff long since effective.
What "stale dry stuff" are you lying about?
Again, thank you for the implicit admission that you have nothing.
If you had, some Christian would have answered it long ago.
>I did not come to the atheist group, the poster to whom I was responding
>included it and it can not be known from whince he made the post.
We certainly didn't go looking for you, imbecile.
But in any case, you knew you were talking to an atheist.
So presuming what you knew they didn't believe was just plain stupid.
>I bet there is much to admire about you if we were to meet.
The feeling isn't mutual.
Christopher A. Lee
>"Why the fuck did you post this bullshit in alt.atheism?"
>
>The original poster included it. When responding we don't know from
>which group the post came.
That's not why you posted your bullshit in alt.atheism. If you had any
common sense you would have tried to answer it OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION.
It's surprising how many Christians don't know the origins and
evolution of their own religion, or its historical context.
Posts don't come "from" a newsgroup.
You respond to a post you see in a newsgroup and are responsible for
posting it to whichever newsgroups the original was posted to.
In this case checking the headers shows this originated with an
Islamic troll who posted it to alt.religion.islam and alt.atheism to
be an asshole. And one of the Christian trolls who infests alt.atheism
added alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.history and
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic.
But in any case you knew your response was going to all those groups.
>"Fuck" is one of those now general generic terms like "ain't" that can
>be used almost everywhere. But if one considers its use here it makes
>no sense, does it?
It expressed well deserved emphasis and contempt for somebody who knew
he was replying to atheists but rudely and stupidly presumed his
beliefs were granted outside his religion.
Who then amateur psychologised somebody who gave an equivalent piece
of fiction, as being schizophrenic. Was that a projection?
Do you honestly fail to understand that there is a real world beyond
your religion, where the only people who take Christian beliefs
seriously are Christians for exactly the same reason the only people
who take Hinduism seriously are Hindus?
>It does tend however to color ones first impression of the person using
>it, and it ain't a pretty sight.
But not as much as the sociopathic stupidity of presuming your
religious beliefs when talking to somebody you know doesn't share
them.
Christopher A. Lee
>"And because he can't think outside the box he doesn't even realise
>this."
>
>Happy for a serious discussion once you even have a box. That sandbox
>will not serve however.
Idiot.
>I haven't seen such high level discussion since 8th grade school yard
>days.
Another tacit admission you can't address the point.
rea...@council.com
>
> The original poster included it.
"That would be you, asshole."
Oh dear, these new fangled computer things got you down we see. It is
easy enough to follow back a thread to its origin. Let's save you some
time and frustration, it ain't who you think.
"Asshole", does this suggest you are at the level of observation that
this is all you can see? Get off your knees son, off we say.
rea...@council.com
than
>the stuff they could find in a bookstore tomorow morning."
"A fact which too many theists who can't grasp that there is a real
world beyond their religion, don't seem to understand."
>Good, a med fix does work.
"So take your own advice."
What advice?
>Mocking does wonders when turned on the mockers, it being on the level
>best allowing comprehension . While disassociation has subsided use of
>spell checkers has declined.
>
>It is my understanding that almost the entire information about
>alexander the great comes from one writer. And that some 2500 years
>ago. What think ye of good old alexander?
Dishonest bait'n'switch between a religious claim for which there is "no
evidence, and somebody whose existence was CONCLUDED from evidence using
the historical process."
Really, hmmm, oh you mean there are no written accounts for some
activity 2000 years ago from a set of authors while there is 2500 years
ago from one author? Now what exactly is that process that allows you
this brilliant conclusion?
"Apart from this being a red herring, Alexander was a general who fought
battles. If it hadn't been him it would have been somebody else."
Oh dear, we see logic is not your thing either. Read again the
connection you are trying to make and how it just dribbles off into
nothing. Does the intro point in any way meet the conclusion somewhere
in this universe?
"And if you had provided as much evidence for Jesus as there is for
Alexander you might have had a point. But you didn't, and you haven't.
Here's another clue:"
Who said anything about Jesus? The point of the original thread and my
response to it was about a council. Returning to the methods of logic
again, sorry; that is a strawman argument.
"If you actually has any evidence you wouldn't have needed this kind of
dishonest cop out that fools nobody."
Evidence about what, please do get your points in a row in some way that
fits the thread if you please. Since my post, evidence is lacking,
personal attack and name calling is just about as elevated a disscussion
as has happened. Happy at anytime to have a serious discussion.
"Thank you for the tacit admission that you have nothing.
Now shut up because you are incapable of putting up."
Ah ha, one thinks this is not the first time you have used this bit.
One hopes it was better in past. Now relate it to the below and see how
it fits.
>One does hope the atheists would come up with new material, the now
>stale dry stuff long since effective.
"What "stale dry stuff" are you lying about?
Again, thank you for the implicit admission that you have nothing."
You answered your own question.
Robibnikoff
rea...@council.com
>
>The original poster included it. When responding we don't know from
>which group the post came.
"That's not why you posted your bullshit in alt.atheism. If you had any
common sense you would have tried to answer it OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION."
I have let the children who have responded set the tone and level of the
discussion, if it can be called that. I did not mention my religion at
all.
"It's surprising how many Christians don't know the origins and
evolution of their own religion, or its historical context."
I agree, but I have made it a point to be as fully informed as is
practicle. Considering the years devoted to that task I'm prepared to
discuss any topic. Now we only need serious discussion and questions
and not childish bombast.
"Posts don't come "from" a newsgroup."
Sure they do, in the sense that one enters into a group as an access
point.
"You respond to a post you see in a newsgroup and are responsible for
posting it to whichever newsgroups the original was posted to.
In this case checking the headers shows this originated with an Islamic
troll who posted it to alt.religion.islam and alt.atheism to be an
asshole. And one of the Christian trolls who infests alt.atheism added
alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.history and
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic.
But in any case you knew your response was going to all those groups."
To make sure, I retraced the post as it appeared originally in the group
that is my access point and the above headers were there in the
original. Happy to cut and paste if you wish. It appears the original
poster started out as you say and then wanting a broader response added
others. That broader version is the one original to my group and absent
a "Re:" which shows it to be so.
>"Fuck" is one of those now general generic terms like "ain't" that can
>be used almost everywhere. But if one considers its use here it makes
>no sense, does it?
"It expressed well deserved emphasis and contempt for somebody who knew
he was replying to atheists but rudely and stupidly presumed his beliefs
were granted outside his religion."
And was the presumption going
both ways that your beliefs are equally granted? Are we to accept that
yours are the measure by which all others are to be informed or
measured? That is indeed presumption.
"Who then amateur psychologised somebody who gave an equivalent piece of
fiction, as being schizophrenic. Was that a projection?"
No, intentional mockery in response to the level of discussion set by
good old central america. Better to let the children set the level of
play least they hurt themselves. Don't you agree?
Do you honestly fail to understand that there is a real world beyond
your religion, where the only people who take Christian beliefs
seriously are Christians for exactly the same reason the only people
who take Hinduism seriously are Hindus?
>It does tend however to color ones first impression of the person using
>it, and it ain't a pretty sight.
But not as much as the sociopathic stupidity of presuming your
-- press space for more, use arrow keys to move, '?' for help, 'q' to
quit.
rea...@council.com
>this."
>
>Happy for a serious discussion once you even have a box. That sandbox
>will not serve however.
"Idiot."
>I haven't seen such high level discussion since 8th grade school yard
>days.
"Another tacit admission you can't address the point."
Smile, what point is that? We are not seeing you as a source for any
point of any degree of seriousness. Best you have done so far is to
exhaust your narrow set of misapplied terms from developmental
psychology.
rea...@council.com
Shucks, and just when we were hoping you were about to rise above
yourself and you just up and leave.
Christopher A. Lee
>>"Why the fuck did you post this bullshit in alt.atheism?"
>>
>>The original poster included it. When responding we don't know from
>>which group the post came.
>
>"That's not why you posted your bullshit in alt.atheism. If you had any
>common sense you would have tried to answer it OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION."
>
>I have let the children who have responded set the tone and level of the
>discussion, if it can be called that. I did not mention my religion at
>all.
Liar. You cited Acts as though it meant anything to non-Christians.
The only person here who obstructs EXPLANAtion is yourself. Until you
learn not to prewsume Christian doctrines to non-Christians YOU have
nothing to discuss.
>"It's surprising how many Christians don't know the origins and
>evolution of their own religion, or its historical context."
>
>I agree, but I have made it a point to be as fully informed as is
>practicle. Considering the years devoted to that task I'm prepared to
>discuss any topic. Now we only need serious discussion and questions
>and not childish bombast.
You have nothingto discuss as long as you presume Christian doctrine
outside Cheistianity.
Which word are you pretending you don't understand?
>"Posts don't come "from" a newsgroup."
>
>Sure they do, in the sense that one enters into a group as an access
>point.
>
>"You respond to a post you see in a newsgroup and are responsible for
>posting it to whichever newsgroups the original was posted to.
>
>In this case checking the headers shows this originated with an Islamic
>troll who posted it to alt.religion.islam and alt.atheism to be an
>asshole. And one of the Christian trolls who infests alt.atheism added
>alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.history and
>alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic.
>
>But in any case you knew your response was going to all those groups."
>
>To make sure, I retraced the post as it appeared originally in the group
>that is my access point and the above headers were there in the
>original. Happy to cut and paste if you wish. It appears the original
>poster started out as you say and then wanting a broader response added
>others. That broader version is the one original to my group and absent
>a "Re:" which shows it to be so.
So what?
You stillo rudely and stupidly presumed Christian doctrines to
non-Christians.
>>"Fuck" is one of those now general generic terms like "ain't" that can
>>be used almost everywhere. But if one considers its use here it makes
>>no sense, does it?
>
>"It expressed well deserved emphasis and contempt for somebody who knew
>he was replying to atheists but rudely and stupidly presumed his beliefs
>were granted outside his religion."
>
>And was the presumption going
> both ways that your beliefs are equally granted?
What "my beliefs" are you lying about?
I am somebody outside the Christian paradigm.
> Are we to accept that
>yours are the measure by which all others are to be informed or
>measured?
Idiot.
> That is indeed presumption.
Good thing that is just your dishonest strawe man.
>"Who then amateur psychologised somebody who gave an equivalent piece of
>fiction, as being schizophrenic. Was that a projection?"
>
>No, intentional mockery in response to the level of discussion set by
>good old central america. Better to let the children set the level of
>play least they hurt themselves. Don't you agree?
So go fuck yourself.
>Do you honestly fail to understand that there is a real world beyond
>your religion, where the only people who take Christian beliefs
>seriously are Christians for exactly the same reason the only people
>who take Hinduism seriously are Hindus?
Well?
>>It does tend however to color ones first impression of the person using
>>it, and it ain't a pretty sight.
>
>But not as much as the sociopathic stupidity of presuming your
>-- press space for more, use arrow keys to move, '?' for help, 'q' to
>quit.
Idiot.
Christopher A. Lee
Only treating an aggressively stupid idiot as an aggressively stupid
idiot.
panam...@hotmail.com
> "You've made the mistake of thinking that I should consider their
> nonsense as something worth taking seriously. There is no
> "disassocation" here..only the mocking of people stupid enough to think
> that fiction is truth, just because it's a few thousand years older than
> the stuff they could find in a bookstore tomorow morning."
Is your newsreader suffering difficulties, or are you *trying* to
confuse the issue? I wrote the above, not you..
> Good, a med fix does work.
> Mocking does wonders when turned on the mockers, it being on the level
> best allowing comprehension . While disassociation has subsided use of
> spell checkers has declined.
>
> It is my understanding that almost the entire information about
> alexander the great comes from one writer. And that some 2500 years
> ago. What think ye of good old alexander?
I think your "understanding" is incorrect.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/4435329
http://archaeology.about.com/od/alexanderthegreat/Alexander_the_Great_Archaeological_Sites.htm
http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_z1b.html
The comparison of the evidence for the Palestinian "god-man" with the
evidence of other historical figures is an old apologetic, and has
been debunked so many times it should be retired. What's next, William
Lane Craig? William F. Albright? <chuckle>
> One does hope the atheists would come up with new material,
There is no need, until you can actually address the old questions.
There's a *reason* the defense of Christian theology is called
"apologetics".
> the now
> stale dry stuff long since effective.
The only thing stale and dry are the evasions and circular logic
displayed by the defenders of Christian mythology.
> I did not come to the atheist group, the poster to whom I was responding
> included it and it can not be known from whince he made the post.
Ah, an unfortunate vicim of circumstance. Well then, feel free to
return to whatever group of dreamers you wish.
> I bet there is much to admire about you if we were to meet.
After considering the insults with which you started your post, I can
only conclude you're being sarcastic.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
rea...@council.com
beliefs
>were granted outside his religion."
>
>And was the presumption going
> both ways that your beliefs are equally granted?
"What "my beliefs" are you lying about?"
Those about the question of the divine, otherwise known as your
theology. I take this from you having introduced the idea of religion
above in the context of atheism. . If you did not intend to introduce
your theology, please do tell us now.
"I am somebody outside the Christian paradigm."
Muslim?
> Are we to accept that
>yours are the measure by which all others are to be informed or
>measured?
"Idiot."
Now, now, your limitations are showing again.
> That is indeed presumption.
"Good thing that is just your dishonest strawe man."
What strawman? I fear this another limitation. Words mean something
and in their proper use convey information so as to be shared. Throwing
about tired old barbs for wanting to seem to have something to say falls
short.
"Strawman" is used in logic to describe a side argument once refuted is
said to apply to some central argument. No argument is at hand to which
to apply this term.
rea...@council.com
I rest my case, with confessions and confirmation like this what else
need be said?
This is the kind of thing that does not improve from repitition.
Christopher A. Lee
>>he was replying to atheists but rudely and stupidly presumed his
>beliefs
>>were granted outside his religion."
>>
>>And was the presumption going
>> both ways that your beliefs are equally granted?
>
>"What "my beliefs" are you lying about?"
>
>Those about the question of the divine, otherwise known as your
>theology. I take this from you having introduced the idea of religion
>above in the context of atheism. . If you did not intend to introduce
>your theology, please do tell us now.
What "my theology" are you lying about, imbecile?
>"I am somebody outside the Christian paradigm."
>
>Muslim?
Don't be so fucking stupid.
>> Are we to accept that
>>yours are the measure by which all others are to be informed or
>>measured?
>
>"Idiot."
>
>Now, now, your limitations are showing again.
Then try not to be.
>> That is indeed presumption.
>
>"Good thing that is just your dishonest strawe man."
>
>What strawman?
Beliefs I don't have,liar. Stop pretending.
> I fear this another limitation. Words mean something
>and in their proper use convey information so as to be shared. Throwing
>about tired old barbs for wanting to seem to have something to say falls
>short.
Idiot.
>"Strawman" is used in logic to describe a side argument once refuted is
>said to apply to some central argument. No argument is at hand to which
>to apply this term.
No, moron. It is a fabrication to attack instead of addressing the
actual issue.
Christopher A. Lee
>>>"And because he can't think outside the box he doesn't even realise
>>>this."
>>>
>>>Happy for a serious discussion once you even have a box. That sandbox
>>>will not serve however.
>>
>>"Idiot."
>>
>>>I haven't seen such high level discussion since 8th grade school yard
>>>days.
>>
>>"Another tacit admission you can't address the point."
>>
>>Smile, what point is that? We are not seeing you as a source for any
>>point of any degree of seriousness. Best you have done so far is to
>>exhaust your narrow set of misapplied terms from developmental
>>psychology.
>
>"Only treating an aggressively stupid idiot as an aggressively stupid
>idiot."
Then try not to be one.
rea...@council.com
> ago. =A0What think ye of good old alexander?
"I think your "understanding" is incorrect.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/4435329
http://archaeology.about.com/od/alexanderthegreat/Alexander_the_Great_Archa=
eological_Sites.htm
http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_z1b.html"
The first above did not open for me, the second and third held similar
information which can be represented by a bit from the third:
" There are many ancient sources on the career of the Macedonian
conqueror Alexander the Great: the Library of world history of
Diodorus of Sicily, Quintus Curtius Rufus' History of Alexander the
Great of Macedonia, a Life of Alexander by Plutarch of Chaeronea and
the Anabasis by Arrian of Nicomedia are the best-known. All these
authors lived more than three centuries after the events they
described, but they used older, nearly contemporary sources, that are
now lost."
Those lost are from a person who traveled with him who wrote of his
actions and from which all later are derived, as above.
""The comparison of the evidence for the Palestinian "god-man" with the
evidence of other historical figures is an old apologetic, and has been
debunked so many times it should be retired. What's next, William Lane
Craig? William F. Albright? <chuckle>"
Oh, but there is the rub. This thread in its original was about a
council and the question as to how one might apply ancient written
historical information about it. This came from an interchange about
the nature of history. Nothing about your point was made.
> One does hope the atheists would come up with new material,
"There is no need, until you can actually address the old questions.
"There's a *reason* the defense of Christian theology is called
"apologetics"."
Whatold questions? None seen thus far, semantic sparring yes, questions
no.
As for the latter bit, is this what you have in mind?
" the Greek word apologia (apologi'a), meaning a speaking in defense.
Early Christian writers (c 120-220) who defended their faith against
critics and recommended their faith to outsiders were called
apologists.^[1]
In modern times, apologists refers to authors, writers, editors of
scientific logs or academic journals, and leaders known for defending
the points in arguments, conflicts or positions that receive great
popular scrutinies and/or are minority views."
Would that "minority view" bit apply to you? Then you too indulge in
""apologetics" it seems.
> the now
> stale dry stuff long since effective.
"The only thing stale and dry are the evasions and circular logic
displayed by the defenders of Christian mythology."
Could be, but as none have been raised for discussion it is an
irrelevant bit, now isn't it?
> I did not come to the atheist group, the poster to whom I was
responding
> included it and it can not be known from whince he made the post.
"Ah, an unfortunate vicim of circumstance. Well then, feel free to
return to whatever group of dreamers you wish."
If you should choose to take your own advice, adue.
rea...@council.com
>
>What strawman?
Beliefs I don't have,liar. Stop pretending.
> I fear this another limitation. Words mean something
>and in their proper use convey information so as to be shared.
Throwing
>about tired old barbs for wanting to seem to have something to say
falls
>short.
Idiot.
>"Strawman" is used in logic to describe a side argument once refuted is
>said to apply to some central argument. No argument is at hand to
which
>to apply this term.
"No, moron. It is a fabrication to attack instead of addressing the
actual issue."
Then why did you choose to take this path of fabrication and attack ?
It does as you say save having to do serious discussion I agree.
Christopher A. Lee
Where did I do that, liar?
rea...@council.com
>>and in their proper use convey information so as to be shared.
>Throwing
>>about tired old barbs for wanting to seem to have something to say
>falls
>>short.
>
>Idiot.
>
>>"Strawman" is used in logic to describe a side argument once refuted
is
>>said to apply to some central argument. No argument is at hand to
>which
>>to apply this term.
>
>"No, moron. It is a fabrication to attack instead of addressing the
>actual issue."
>
>Then why did you choose to take this path of fabrication and attack ?
>It does as you say save having to do serious discussion I agree.
"Where did I do that, liar?"
Just above, in your sloppy use of terms of reference. It can easily
mean it is what you offer in excuse for the poor use and understanding
of "strawman".
Christopher A. Lee
Where, liar?
panam...@hotmail.com
> > It is my understanding that almost the entire information about
> > alexander the great comes from one writer. =A0And that some 2500 years
> > ago. =A0What think ye of good old alexander?
>
> "I think your "understanding" is incorrect.
>
> eological_Sites.htmhttp://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_z1b.html"
>
> The first above did not open for me, the second and third held similar
> information which can be represented by a bit from the third:
>
> " There are many ancient sources on the career of the Macedonian
> conqueror Alexander the Great: the Library of world history of
> Diodorus of Sicily, Quintus Curtius Rufus' History of Alexander the
> Great of Macedonia, a Life of Alexander by Plutarch of Chaeronea and
> the Anabasis by Arrian of Nicomedia are the best-known. All these
> authors lived more than three centuries after the events they
> described, but they used older, nearly contemporary sources, that are
> now lost."
>
> Those lost are from a person who traveled with him who wrote of his
> actions and from which all later are derived, as above.
You have failed to comment upon the archeological findings. If you
wish to build a strawman (that by the standards of evidence non-
Christians require for a proof of a historical "Jesus", there would be
no way to prove the existence of *any* ancient figure), you should at
the very least persue where that conversation may go.
I'm snipping the rest of your evasion.
bam
> <rea...@council.com> wrote
>
> Why the fuck did you post this bullshit in alt.atheism?
(another example of the enlightened and tolerant atheist)
BAM
Robibnikoff
"bam" <b...@blahblahblah.com> wrote in message
news:YpadnUkAIIrib_PW...@giganews.com...
Fuck you too, asshole.
The-ThirdGrader-That-Kicks-Mighty-Asses
> "bam" <b...@blahblahblah.com> wrote in message
>
> news:YpadnUkAIIrib_PW...@giganews.com...
>
> > On 2/6/2010 5:01 AM, Robibnikoff wrote:
> >> <rea...@council.com> wrote
>
> >> Why the fuck did you post this bullshit in alt.atheism?
>
> > (another example of the enlightened and tolerant atheist)
>
> > BAM
>
> Fuck you too, asshole.
Ah! this vulgar little Jezabell again...
bam
> "bam"<b...@blahblahblah.com> wrote in message
> news:YpadnUkAIIrib_PW...@giganews.com...
>> On 2/6/2010 5:01 AM, Robibnikoff wrote:
>>> <rea...@council.com> wrote
>>>
>>> Why the fuck did you post this bullshit in alt.atheism?
>>
>> (another example of the enlightened and tolerant atheist)
>>
>> BAM
>
> Fuck you too, asshole.
I thought atheists were supposed to be good; that they didn't need
religion in order to be civil.
You might wish to give that another look.
BAM
Alan Ford
>> Fuck you too, asshole.
>
> I thought atheists were supposed to be good; that they didn't need
> religion in order to be civil.
I thought theists were supposed to be good; that they weren't supposed
to be pompous hypocritical sanctimonious assholes.
> You might wish to give that another look.
You might wish to go fuck a duck.
--
If you don't beat your meat
You can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding
If you don't beat your meat?
Mitchell Holman
rWnZ2dnUV...@giganews.com:
No atheist ever shot an abortion
doctor in the back.
Dhammd Idjit
Ah, so your xian upbringing has taught you that YOUR behavior is civil.
Figures.
> You might wish to give that another look.
Piss off, Bambam.
RVG
> "It's not history, imbecile. It's Christian tradition."
>
> How do you know? Who gets to say what is history and not and what
> definition of same is the operative one?
>
History needs cross references from various sourcetypes, including from
neutral and even ennemy sides.
There are absolutely NO documents whatsoever from Jewish or Roman
sources that acknowledge anything written in the New Testament.
Because you saw Barack Obama in an issue of Spider-Man doesn't mean that
Spider-Man is a real person, capisce ?
It would take as many different sources as we have for Obama's existence
to prove the existence of Spider-Man.
Same with the NT: Herodius and Pontius Pilatus are historical figures
because we have multiple sources and references that prove it. Not so
much for Jesus of Nazareth.
--
Jazz up your life!
Jazzez-vous la vie!
http://rvgmusic.bandcamp.com/
http://www.jamendo.com/fr/user/RVG95
"La premi�re arme de la R�sistance c'est l'information." Lucie Aubrac
Christopher A. Lee
<not....@themoment.org.invalid> wrote:
>rea...@council.com a �crit :
>
>> "It's not history, imbecile. It's Christian tradition."
>>
>> How do you know? Who gets to say what is history and not and what
>> definition of same is the operative one?
>>
>
>History needs cross references from various sourcetypes, including from
>neutral and even ennemy sides.
The imbecile posts from Carnegie-Mellon and doesn't even know that?
What is he, a janitor?
>There are absolutely NO documents whatsoever from Jewish or Roman
>sources that acknowledge anything written in the New Testament.
It was written long after the alleged events to tell Christians what
to believe, by people who knew neither the history, the geography nor
even (most of them) the language.
The gospels re-tell earlier myths and legends in whet the authors
thought was a first century udea setting. Including thimgs that
amybody with a room temperature IQ reaslises never happened but are
vital to the story. Like nobody had to go to their ancestral home for
a census otherwise the Empire would have ground to a halt. Even the
"prophecies" reflect translation errors from the Hebrew to the Greek
version of the OT.
>Spider-Man is a real person, capisce ?
>It would take as many different sources as we have for Obama's existence
>to prove the existence of Spider-Man.
>Same with the NT: Herodius and Pontius Pilatus are historical figures
>because we have multiple sources and references that prove it. Not so
>much for Jesus of Nazareth.
Nothing at all for Jesus of Nazareth. Heck, no Jew would have lived at
Nazareth because it was place of the dead and therefore unclean.
AGG
> rea...@council.com a �crit :
>
> > "It's not history, imbecile. It's Christian tradition."
> >
> > How do you know? Who gets to say what is history and not and what
> > definition of same is the operative one?
> >
>
> History needs cross references from various sourcetypes, including
> from neutral and even ennemy sides. There are absolutely NO
> documents whatsoever from Jewish or Roman sources that acknowledge
> anything written in the New Testament.
***Spoken like a true atheist.
>
> Because you saw Barack Obama in an issue of Spider-Man doesn't mean
> that Spider-Man is a real person, capisce ? It would take as many
> different sources as we have for Obama's existence to prove the
> existence of Spider-Man. Same with the NT: Herodius and Pontius
> Pilatus are historical figures because we have multiple sources and
> references that prove it. Not so much for Jesus of Nazareth.
***Not so much? In your first paragraph you said "absolutely NO
documents". Which is it?
--
AGG
> Nothing at all for Jesus of Nazareth. Heck, no Jew would have lived at
> Nazareth because it was place of the dead and therefore unclean.
***This is the dumbest statement I've ever read. Your source is?
--
bam
If you guys ever want to get uncivil - just let me know - and I'll knock
your asses into another solar system.
BAM
RVG
> RVG wrote:
>
>> rea...@council.com a �crit :
>>
>>> "It's not history, imbecile. It's Christian tradition."
>>>
>>> How do you know? Who gets to say what is history and not and what
>>> definition of same is the operative one?
>>>
>>
>> History needs cross references from various sourcetypes, including
>> from neutral and even ennemy sides. There are absolutely NO
>> documents whatsoever from Jewish or Roman sources that acknowledge
>> anything written in the New Testament.
>
>
> ***Spoken like a true atheist.
>
So, where are your Jewish and Roman sources ?
>
>>
>> Because you saw Barack Obama in an issue of Spider-Man doesn't mean
>> that Spider-Man is a real person, capisce ? It would take as many
>> different sources as we have for Obama's existence to prove the
>> existence of Spider-Man. Same with the NT: Herodius and Pontius
>> Pilatus are historical figures because we have multiple sources and
>> references that prove it. Not so much for Jesus of Nazareth.
>
>
> ***Not so much? In your first paragraph you said "absolutely NO
> documents". Which is it?
>
Well, the NT is the only document and we don't know whether it's really
a document or a piece of fiction, or a mix of both: the story of a
Galilean buddha who died much too young between two pieces of mythology.
Ghod Dhammit
HAHahahahHAHAHAAHHahahahaha
Oh dear, it's a wabbit with fangs!
AGG
> AGG a �crit :
> > RVG wrote:
> >
> >> rea...@council.com a �crit :
> > >
> >>> "It's not history, imbecile. It's Christian tradition."
> > > >
> >>> How do you know? Who gets to say what is history and not and what
> >>> definition of same is the operative one?
> > > >
> > >
> >> History needs cross references from various sourcetypes, including
> >> from neutral and even ennemy sides. There are absolutely NO
> >> documents whatsoever from Jewish or Roman sources that acknowledge
> >> anything written in the New Testament.
> >
> >
> > ***Spoken like a true atheist.
> >
>
> So, where are your Jewish and Roman sources ?
***So, where is your faith in God.
>
> >
> > >
> >> Because you saw Barack Obama in an issue of Spider-Man doesn't mean
> >> that Spider-Man is a real person, capisce ? It would take as many
> >> different sources as we have for Obama's existence to prove the
> >> existence of Spider-Man. Same with the NT: Herodius and Pontius
> >> Pilatus are historical figures because we have multiple sources and
> >> references that prove it. Not so much for Jesus of Nazareth.
> >
> >
> > ***Not so much? In your first paragraph you said "absolutely NO
> > documents". Which is it?
> >
>
> Well, the NT is the only document and we don't know whether it's
> really a document or a piece of fiction, or a mix of both: the story
> of a Galilean buddha who died much too young between two pieces of
> mythology.
***LO and ROTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
RVG
> RVG wrote:
>
>> AGG a �crit :
>>> RVG wrote:
>>>
>>>> rea...@council.com a �crit :
>>>>
>>>>> "It's not history, imbecile. It's Christian tradition."
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you know? Who gets to say what is history and not and what
>>>>> definition of same is the operative one?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> History needs cross references from various sourcetypes, including
>>>> from neutral and even ennemy sides. There are absolutely NO
>>>> documents whatsoever from Jewish or Roman sources that acknowledge
>>>> anything written in the New Testament.
>>>
>>>
>>> ***Spoken like a true atheist.
>>>
>>
>> So, where are your Jewish and Roman sources ?
>
>
> ***So, where is your faith in God.
>
Tired of being a handpuppet's handpuppet.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because you saw Barack Obama in an issue of Spider-Man doesn't mean
>>>> that Spider-Man is a real person, capisce ? It would take as many
>>>> different sources as we have for Obama's existence to prove the
>>>> existence of Spider-Man. Same with the NT: Herodius and Pontius
>>>> Pilatus are historical figures because we have multiple sources and
>>>> references that prove it. Not so much for Jesus of Nazareth.
>>>
>>>
>>> ***Not so much? In your first paragraph you said "absolutely NO
>>> documents". Which is it?
>>>
>>
>> Well, the NT is the only document and we don't know whether it's
>> really a document or a piece of fiction, or a mix of both: the story
>> of a Galilean buddha who died much too young between two pieces of
>> mythology.
>
>
> ***LO and ROTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
Still no arguments.