hysterical historical challenge!
$Zero
(was: Re: Barack Obama -- 21st Century Gandhi)
maybe he just doesn't realize how silly he looks.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/828c169747985f37
On Jan 22, 5:49 pm, "John Ashby" <johnashb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "boots" <n...@no.no> wrote in message
> > "John Ashby" <johnashb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
> >>Sal, you just don't understand how this proof thing works, do you? If
> >>Gandhi didn't say in his autobiography that he didn't drink urine, then
> >>that proves he did, doesn't it?
>
> > You must have felt some need to sound silly, John.
>
> > If Ghandi's autobiography doesn't mention his having drunk his own
> > urine that does not in any way *prove* that he did not, it simply
> > makes it easy and reasonable to believe he did not. Easy and
> > reasonable do not make a thing true any more than easily obtainable
> > credit cards make you wealthy, you still have to pay the debt of
> > proof.
>
> You missed the bit that Gandhi did not hold back on, as Sal says,
> the minutiae of his life.
but how do you know how much Gandhi held back?
> > I get that you were being sarcastic, but it isn't clear to me why you
> > felt that might be a good thing to do.
>
> Because there is an awful lot of twaddle being talked in the group about
> proof, and I hoped to make people think about their twaddle.
twaddle.
and...
thinking.
heh.
just wait until you try to meet the hysterical historical challenge
i've made for you.
then you'll see some serious unthinking twaddle output.
but see, these paper-trail peeps don't
use their full minds when they evaluate
the truth of their "proof".
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/828c169747985f37
anyway, ready?
ok.
now here comes the hysterical historical challenge!
yo, Ashby.
here's an hysterical historical question for you.
(one which you seem to want to ignore in as much as you've not
responded to it yet in any way since it was first presented to you).
so here it is.
answer this question:
when exactly did the popes begin to become actual historical figures
instead of being merely fictional characters?
in other words, which pope was the first "REAL" pope?
as a man of science who believes he knows the difference between
actual historical facts and pure bullshit, this should be an easy
question for you to answer.
here's a link to help you get started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Popes
enjoy.
-$Zero...
Jesus, Socrates, and Sasquatch
(debunking the myths of scholars)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/e781d65a75021a19
Whenever two or more people gather in
the spirit of love, it's a bickerfest!
http://bickerfest.com
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
Siricius
What do I win?
Do I get a canon or do I get canonized?
$Zero
proof.
bwah!
what is your evidence for that?
and what about the pope dude right before Siricuis?
Damasus, 1 October 366 - 11 December 384
he was just a fictional character?
is that what you're saying?
did Siricuis never refer to his immediate predecessor?
so somehow you're saying that the 38 other previous popes listed on
the Annuario Pontificio are are all considered fictional characters?
why?
> What do I win?
you get an E for effort, but take heart, that's a far better grade
than either Ashby, Hope, Sylvia, Jackson, or any other objective poser
(who claims that there's credible "historical evidence" for Socrates
but not Jesus) got.
> Do I get a canon or do I get canonized?
i'm not sure i understand.
are you suggesting that the Siricuis was the first pope to be
considered a saint and is somehow then the first "real" pope,
chronologically-wise?
yikes.
if so, you might want to try to reconcile what that means in relation
to Simon Peter eventually being canonized later.
you know, Saint Peter, the very first pope.
good pals with Jesus.
hung around with the dude for quite awhile. well, upside down, anyway.
and, of course, all of the rest before Siricuis who were later
canonized.
others still pending.
or are you saying that Siricuis was the first pope to use the word
pope in reference to his pope-i-tude?
-$Zero...
are all of the characters in the OT and NT totally
fictional characters or is it mostly just Jesus?
and speaking of the first pope, when did the popes
begin to become actual real historic figures instead
of merely fictional characters in some elaborate
prose scam? see what i'm saying?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/ed7a86ad13716f0a
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
Siricuis was the first bishop of Rome to use the the title pope.
"Siricius, again, is one of the Popes presented in various sources as
having been the first to bear the title Pontifex Maximus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Siricius
And detail:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14026a.htm
$Zero
whatever word you want to use to describe them, it doesn't address the
point of the historical evidence of popes leading back to Simon Peter,
does it?
which of those historical trail of "bishops"/"popes" were actual
people and which were merely fictional characters in some elaborate
prose scam?
_that's_ the question here.
the question is not:
"when did they start calling themselves popes?"
-$Zero...
in fact, you cannot even say it at all, since today's
date is clearly based on the historicity of Jesus.
that's its very nature. you can try to claim that it's
in error, but you cannot deny that it was historically
established to mark the date of the approximate birth
of Jesus of Nazareth.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/00522ba56ddea925
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
Well, you've not given a definition of "REAL", so, I've given you my
best effort at what I thought was meant by that term.
Perhaps you could just narrow the definition of "REAL" for us and then
we could jut get on with it.
$Zero
> > > "Siricius, again, is one of the Popes presented in various sources as
> > > having been the first to bear the title Pontifex Maximus.
> > > "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Siricius
>
> > whatever word you want to use to describe them, it doesn't address the
> > point of the historical evidence of popes leading back to Simon Peter,
> > does it?
>
> > which of those historical trail of "bishops"/"popes" were actual
> > people and which were merely fictional characters in some elaborate
> > prose scam?
>
> > _that's_ the question here.
>
> > the question is not:
>
> > "when did they start calling themselves popes?"
>
> best effort at what I thought was meant by that term.
>
> Perhaps you could just narrow the definition of "REAL" for us and then
> we could jut get on with it.
real as in "there's credible historical evidence for".
the same kind of "real" that people use to comfort themselves that
Plato actually existed.
haven't you been following the Sasquatch/Jesus/Socrates arguments?
see, people like Hope and Ashby are claiming that there's no credible
historical "evidence" that a man known as Jesus of Nazeareth ever
really existed.
bwah!
yet they somehow also claim that there _is_ credible historical
evidence that the man known as Socrates actually existed.
which is why the subject of this thread is:
hysterical historical challenge!
get it?
up to speed?
it's a logic thinger.
and a reason thinger.
see, the lineage of popes is well-established.
for Hope's and Ashby's and Sylvia's argument against the historical
evidence for Jesus to have any merit whatsoever, they must pick a pope
along the way and cite that dude as fictional.
or at least pick a pope along the way back to Simon Peter as one
lacking historical evidence, and therefore, identify same as nothing
more than a fictional construct, or non-authoritatively recognized as
actually existing.
which is an exercise in silly season, if you see what i mean.
they sure see what i mean, hence their lack of meeting this otherwise
utterly easy challenge.
they've simply taken it on faith that there's no historical evidence
for the existence of Jesus.
which, at its simplest, is a highly ironic, to say the least.
let alone disqualifying their so-called objective abilities to discern
fact from fantasy.
-$Zero...
in fact, you cannot even say it at all, since today's
date is clearly based on the historicity of Jesus.
that's its very nature. you can try to claim that it's
in error, but you cannot deny that it was historically
established to mark the date of the approximate birth
of Jesus of Nazareth.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/00522ba56ddea925
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
Obviously your child hood was not exposed to "Miracle on 34th Street".
$Zero
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_of_153_fish
-$Zero...
153.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/4e20a595913eb8e8