OT: Primetime Nightline: Beyond Belief on ABC
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
of apparitions of the Virgin Mary"
You better believe that the High Priest of the Virgin Mary on Planet
Earth will be tuned in tonight for this show.
When I find myself in times of trouble, mother Mary comes to me,
speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
And in my hour of darkness she is standing right in front of me,
speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be.
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be.
And when the broken hearted people living in the world agree,
there will be an answer, let it be.
For though they may be parted there is still a chance that they will
see,
there will be an answer. let it be.
Let it be, let it be, .....
And when the night is cloudy, there is still a light, that shines on
me,
shine until tomorrow, let it be.
I wake up to the sound of music, mother Mary comes to me,
speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
Let it be, let it be, .....
-- Paul McCartney
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Necron99
How do you reconcile your alledged intelligence with your obvious
delusional behaviour?
Is there a trick or is is it just over compensation?
John the Savage
> "The Miracle Mysteries: Correspondent Bill Weir investigates reports
> of apparitions of the Virgin Mary"
>
LOL. Nightline has completely gone to hell recently -- I've posted
about it. Like the rest of ABC News. After all, this is the news
organization that paid Casey Anthony's family over $200K for photos,
essentially funding her defense --
And I guess here is where you and I differ. Jesus of Nazareth was not
born to a virgin, he did not perform any "miracles", and he did not rise
from the dead. WTF.
BTSinAustin
Not looking to provoke any shit but how do you think the Virgin Mary would
react to baby raping priests?
______________________________________________________________________�
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
> How do you reconcile your alledged intelligence with your obvious
> delusional behaviour?
First of all, no reconciliation is necessary, because intelligence and
delusional behavior can coexist in the same individual. See John
Nash, for example.
Second of all, why do you think my behavior is delusional? Don't you
know that questioning the validity of the religious experiences of
others is silly? Read "The Varieties of Religious Experience", by
William James, and get back to me.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Bea Foroni
>
> And I guess here is where you and I differ. Jesus of Nazareth was not
> born to a virgin, he did not perform any "miracles", and he did not rise
> from the dead. WTF.
Maybe not, but it gives comfort to many.
I think it is wrong to pull away that comfort without giving another.
Wrong! It is greed that has killed more people. Often greed is
disguised as religion, but greed is at the bottom of it all.
fffurken
It's not delusional, it's not rational.
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
> It's not delusional, it's not rational.
So what? Human consciousness has two fundamental modes of expression
--
Rational, objective, outward looking
Mystical, subjective, inward looking
To find God, you must look within yourself. Judging mystical
experiences by rational criteria is itself irrational.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
fffurken
Why would you? Mystical experiences aren't real.
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
> And I guess here is where you and I differ. Jesus of Nazareth was not
> born to a virgin, he did not perform any "miracles", and he did not rise
> from the dead. WTF.
You seem pretty confident of your facts. Were you there?
“If you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes.”
Mark 9:23 (NKJV)
“Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are
those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
John 20:29 (NKJV)
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
> On Jul 14, 12:49 am, Wilhelm Kuhlmann <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > To find God, you must look within yourself. Judging mystical
> > experiences by rational criteria is itself irrational.
> Why would you? Mystical experiences aren't real.
Huh? Of course they are real. You are talking nonsense.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
fffurken
A mystical experience happening to someone is real, what happened in
the mystical experience is not real.
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
> Not looking to provoke any shit but how do you think the Virgin Mary would
> react to baby raping priests?
What do you think? I have made it pretty clear that my mission is to
destroy the Roman Catholic Church --
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/48ffb0ddf857abb4
"I have declared myself High Priest of the Virgin Mary on Planet
Earth, sent as her personal emissary of the Second Coming of our Lord
and Savior Jesus Christ , by exposing and destroying the Roman
Catholic Church as apostate religion symbolized by the Scarlet Woman
of Revelation, and by showing through Gematria that whoever is the
current Pope is the Physical Incarnation of the AntiChrist."
If you really want to understand me, reading the above post in its
entirety would be a good place to start.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
BillB
> "The Miracle Mysteries: Correspondent Bill Weir investigates reports
> of apparitions of the Virgin Mary"
Does anyone even know what she looks like? If I think I see the Virgin
Mary on my grilled cheese sandwich, how do I know it's not just a
regular woman in a headscarf?
> You better believe that the High Priest of the Virgin Mary on Planet
> Earth will be tuned in tonight for this show.
No doubt.
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
> A mystical experience happening to someone is real, what happened in
> the mystical experience is not real.
And how would you possibly know that? Look, numbnuts. You have no
way of knowing whether your experience of reality actually corresponds
to something outside yourself. So how could you possibly know whether
what someone else experiences corresponds to something outside
themselves???
William Coleman (ramashiva)
fffurken
I don't believe in the existence of nonreality.
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
> Does anyone even know what she looks like? If I think I see the Virgin
> Mary on my grilled cheese sandwich, how do I know it's not just a
> regular woman in a headscarf?
"There is only one woman in the world. One woman, with many faces."
-- Nikos Kazantzakis
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
> I don't believe in the existence of nonreality.
Actually, you do. Those who have achieved the highest pinnacle of
meditation (satori, samadhi, nirvana, enlightenment, cosmic
consciousness, or whatever you want to call it) consistently report --
All is one. Perception of self as a being separate from external
reality is an illusion. Perception of others as separate beings is an
illusion. The perceived physical world (maya) is itself an illusion.
All that exists is the mind of God.
Om Mani Padme Hum.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
fffurken
> On Jul 13, 6:08 pm, fffurken <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't believe in the existence of nonreality.
>
> Actually, you do.
No I don't.
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
> > Actually, you do.
> No I don't.
How do you know? How do you know that what you believe is real is not
actually an illusion?
William Coleman (ramashiva)
fffurken
For more tangible and rational reasons then you will ever have.
I'll bow out of the silliness now, William, it's way past my bedtime.
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
> On Jul 14, 2:57 am, Wilhelm Kuhlmann <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 6:38 pm, fffurken <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 14, 2:37 am, Wilhelm Kuhlmann <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 13, 6:08 pm, fffurken <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I don't believe in the existence of nonreality.
> > > > Actually, you do.
> > > No I don't.
> > How do you know? How do you know that what you believe is real is not
> > actually an illusion?
> For more tangible and rational reasons then you will ever have.
For example?
> I'll bow out of the silliness now, William, it's way past my bedtime.
It's not silliness. I am talking about a basic epistemological
awareness that you obviously lack. I have had vivid dreams before
which I was sure were real, only to wake up and realize that I had
been dreaming. I was then sure I was awake, only to wake up AGAIN and
realize that I had still been dreaming. How can I know that even now
I am not still dreaming? How can I know whether I am capable of waking
up to a higher state of awareness?
William Coleman (ramashiva)
fffurken
> > > How do you know? How do you know that what you believe is real is not
> > > actually an illusion?
> > For more tangible and rational reasons then you will ever have.
>
> For example?
You want me to give you an example of reality?! Are you serious? They
are too numerous to mention.
> It's not silliness. I am talking about a basic epistemological
> awareness that you obviously lack. I have had vivid dreams before
> which I was sure were real, only to wake up and realize that I had
> been dreaming. I was then sure I was awake, only to wake up AGAIN and
> realize that I had still been dreaming. How can I know that even now
> I am not still dreaming? How can I know whether I am capable of waking
> up to a higher state of awareness?
Please, your dreams aside, I'm going to bed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cfHhAoj3P4
Night.
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
> On Jul 14, 3:14 am, Wilhelm Kuhlmann <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > How do you know? How do you know that what you believe is real is not
> > > > actually an illusion?
> > > For more tangible and rational reasons then you will ever have.
> > For example?
> You want me to give you an example of reality?!
No. I want you to explain to me how you know that what you believe is
real is not actually an illusion.
> Are you serious? They are too numerous to mention.
Invariably, when someone says that, they can't think of anything at
all.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
fffurken
> > You want me to give you an example of reality?!
>
> No. I want you to explain to me how you know that what you believe is
> real is not actually an illusion.
How can I prove to you that it's not an illusion, numbnuts?
FL Turbo
"Once you've seen one naked woman, you want to see them all naked."
FL Turbo
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
I didn't ask you to prove anything to me. I am trying to get you to
realize that you have no way of knowing whether your perceptions
correspond to anything real. Therefore you certainly have no way of
knowing whether the perceptions of others correspond to anything real.
You have said twice that you are going to bed. Why are you still
replying?
William Coleman (ramashiva)
fffurken
> On Jul 13, 7:47 pm, fffurken <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 14, 3:43 am, Wilhelm Kuhlmann <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > You want me to give you an example of reality?!
> > > No. I want you to explain to me how you know that what you believe is
> > > real is not actually an illusion.
> > How can I prove to you that it's not an illusion, numbnuts?
>
> I didn't ask you to prove anything to me. I am trying to get you to
> realize that you have no way of knowing whether your perceptions
> correspond to anything real.
Yeah I do.
> You have said twice that you are going to bed. Why are you still
> replying?
What does that matter?
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
> On Jul 14, 3:57 am, Wilhelm Kuhlmann <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 7:47 pm, fffurken <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 14, 3:43 am, Wilhelm Kuhlmann <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > You want me to give you an example of reality?!
> > > > No. I want you to explain to me how you know that what you believe is
> > > > real is not actually an illusion.
> > > How can I prove to you that it's not an illusion, numbnuts?
> > I didn't ask you to prove anything to me. I am trying to get you to
> > realize that you have no way of knowing whether your perceptions
> > correspond to anything real.
> Yeah I do.
Then answer the question --
How you know that what you believe is real is not actually an
illusion?
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Alim Nassor
> "The Miracle Mysteries: Correspondent Bill Weir investigates reports
> of apparitions of the Virgin Mary"
>
> Earth will be tuned in tonight for this show.
>
> speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
> And in my hour of darkness she is standing right in front of me,
> speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
>
> Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be.
> Whisper words of wisdom, let it be.
>
> And when the broken hearted people living in the world agree,
> there will be an answer, let it be.
> For though they may be parted there is still a chance that they will
> see,
> there will be an answer. let it be.
>
> Let it be, let it be, .....
>
> And when the night is cloudy, there is still a light, that shines on
> me,
> shine until tomorrow, let it be.
> I wake up to the sound of music, mother Mary comes to me,
> speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
>
> Let it be, let it be, .....
>
> -- Paul McCartney
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
Beautiful song.
brewmaster
Except Bea Foroni
Every breathing human male
______________________________________________________________________
brewmaster
And he still performs it beautifully too.
-----
fffurken
Well then it seems to me that in your world, we should be equally
unsure of our individual reality. Is that all you're saying? pickle
might be a better choice to discuss that with.
Btw, have you had a "mystical experience" yourself and do you have a
history of drug abuse, real or imagined?
John the Savage
>>> Yeah I do.
>>
>> Then answer the question --
>>
>> How you know that what you believe is real is not actually an
>> illusion?
>>
> unsure of our individual reality. Is that all you're saying? pickle
> might be a better choice to discuss that with.
You seem woefully unfamiliar with even the most elementary topics in
philosophy. Surely, you have heard Descartes -- "I think, therefore I
am". That is all ramashiva is saying. According to this idea, the only
thing we can know for sure exists is our own thoughts. You have no
direct access to the external world, rather you experience only a highly
filtered and processed version of the external world through your
senses, which are affected by your internal states, or manipulated by
illusions, and can be convincingly shown to *not* correspond exactly to
the external world. You believe, as most do nowadays, that there is an
external reality independent of human consciousness. However, you can
never know this for sure.
John the Savage
Of course I wasn't there. But this sort of thing is impossible.
Besides that, I am expected to take the gospels as historical proof of
these events? There is no surviving account of Jesus' life from within
a generation of his death. The gospels were not generally even written
by whom Christian's generally believe. The gospels don't even agree on
critical aspects of Jesus' life. Only two of them think the virgin
birth is even worth reporting! Can you imagine that -- telling the
story of Jesus' life for all eternity, as Mark and John do -- without
even mentioning such an incredible event? Impossible.
And it does not stop there. Of course, the gospels generally forget
about Jesus from birth until the age of 30ish -- I think there is one
childhood story in there. Then he suddenly reappears, doing amazing
miracles which again, someone didn't make it into all the gospels! As
far as his miracles, it seems that only the feeding of the 5000 managed
to make it into all four gospels. Seems fishy, does it not?! You would
think many of these amazing events would have made it into any story of
the life of Jesus, yet they did not.
And then, we have thousands of years in between. We have meetings in
which books were places into the Bible based on committee votes or some
such; some books just barely made it and became the divine word or God,
while others disappeared. The books themselves are full of
contradictions, and in the thousands of years since they have been
twisted and corrupted even since.
These stories desperately lack credibility, and yet you suggest that I
must believe them to achieve salvation. Yet the Bible itself is full of
doubters! Even the Jews, being led from Egypt by Moses himself, after
witnessing God's direct actions over and over during their escape, still
decide to start worshiping the fuck out of idols while Moses is up on
the mount. I mean.. seriously?? HOW THE FUCK COULD THEY STILL DOUBT
GOD AFTER ALL THAT??? And yet, God forgives them! Sure, they have to
wander for 40 years or something, and that sucks, but after that, they
are delivered!! Even Moses doubts at times!! But me, I'm supposed to
take all this nonsense on faith, thousands of years later, without a
sniff of a reason to actually believe in it? Or else, my loving God
will sentence me to infinite torture!
I mean, if that God exists -- you can keep him! What are Christians
really describing? An infinitely powerful, all knowing God who loves
all of his creations, but nonetheless makes a vast majority of them
unrepentant sinners, such that he will eventually doom them to an
eternity of torture. A God that insists on endless worship and praise.
A jealous, vengeful, selfish God who made us apparently to be nothing
more than sycophantic pets.
This is silly. I like what you said about meditation, and God being
one. I have tended towards Pantheism in the past and I think you are
articulating a similar idea. But Christianity?? The Gospels?? The
Bible?? This is some unreliable shit, ramashiva .. BIG TIME. That
doesn't mean I don't think there is huge value in the book, or enjoy the
stories, or think that this Jesus character described therein was a
pretty amazing guy -- I'm with you on all that. I wish modern
Christians paid more attention to what Jesus says and does in the Bible,
because it's good stuff. But it sure as hell ain't historical. And
yes, I'm very confident, for these reasons and so, so many more.
da pickle
And yet your surety of your surety would be suspect, surely.
da pickle
> ... I'm very confident ...
That is enough for many people.
John the Savage
> Only two of them think the virgin birth
> is even worth reporting! Can you imagine that -- telling the story of
> Jesus' life for all eternity, as Mark and John do -- without even
> mentioning such an incredible event? Impossible.
>
> And it does not stop there. Of course, the gospels generally forget
> about Jesus from birth until the age of 30ish -- I think there is one
> childhood story in there.
One more thing I meant to include in this rant/post --
Yes, the gospels generally start when Jesus is about 30. The virgin
birth was almost certainly added later, which is why it seems so
disconnected from the rest of the story, and also why it is only in half
the gospels. It was almost certainly added to fulfill a prophesy in
Isaiah 7:14, to convince Jews that Jesus was in fact God. A simple bit
of propaganda, still effective some 2000 years later.
John the Savage
> "John the Savage"
>>
>> You seem woefully unfamiliar with even the most elementary topics in
>> philosophy. Surely, you have heard Descartes -- "I think, therefore I
>> am". That is all ramashiva is saying. According to this idea, the only
>> thing we can know for sure exists is our own thoughts. You have no direct
>> access to the external world, rather you experience only a highly filtered
>> and processed version of the external world through your senses, which are
>> affected by your internal states, or manipulated by illusions, and can be
>> convincingly shown to *not* correspond exactly to the external world. You
>> believe, as most do nowadays, that there is an external reality
>> independent of human consciousness. However, you can never know this for
>> sure.
>
> And yet your surety of your surety would be suspect, surely.
>
Is that supposed to mean something?
mo_charles
> >
> >
> > Mark 9:23 (NKJV)
> >
> > �ｿｽThomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are
> > those who have not seen and yet have believed.�ｿｽ
do you think two obama fellators would include all the same anecdotal
evidence of their stupidity in a biography of his life?
mo_charles
_______________________________________________________________________�ｿｽ
mo_charles
> > FL Turbo
>
> Except Bea Foroni
> Every breathing human male
i keep hearing about this bea pic. i haven't eaten anything yet today, so
maybe someone could link it.
mo_charles
---
John the Savage
> do you think two obama fellators would include all the same anecdotal
> evidence of their stupidity in a biography of his life?
>
Mo, we're talking about two authors of the gospels, books designed to
tell the story of Jesus' life, who DID NOT EVEN INCLUDE THE VIRGIN
BIRTH. Something apparently unprecedented in human history, something
which fulfilled a prophesy in Isaiah, and thus was offered as proof of
his divinity. How could you leave something like that out!?
Impossible. It would be like an Obama biography failing to mention he
was black, or something equally critically important to his story --
there isn't an example that comes close to matching the virgin birth,
but you get the idea.
mo_charles
maybe the authors who didn't include it didn't believe it was true. maybe
the authors who didn't include it didn't want the "magical" to detract
from things they thought more critical. who made you dictator of
authorial intent?
mo_charles
-------
Beldin the Sorcerer
"brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:9852f8x...@recgroups.com...
> On Jul 13 2011 7:50 PM, FL Turbo wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 18:24:21 -0700 (PDT), Wilhelm Kuhlmann
>> <ramas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jul 13, 5:44 pm, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Does anyone even know what she looks like? If I think I see the Virgin
>> >> Mary on my grilled cheese sandwich, how do I know it's not just a
>> >> regular woman in a headscarf?
>> >
>> >"There is only one woman in the world. One woman, with many faces."
>> >
>> >-- Nikos Kazantzakis
>> >
>> >
>> >William Coleman (ramashiva)
>>
>> "Once you've seen one naked woman, you want to see them all naked."
>> FL Turbo
>
> Except Bea Foroni
> Every breathing human male
>
I got a list going of other women I'd rather not see naked.
My mom is at the top of that list
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
fffurken
> You seem woefully unfamiliar with even the most elementary topics in
> philosophy.
Like religion, it isn't an area of much interest.
Certain philosphical musing as it pertains to human nature or the
human condition I would find interesting. Something like "you can
never be sure" doesn't interest me in the slightest.
John the Savage
>>
>> Mo, we're talking about two authors of the gospels, books designed to
>> tell the story of Jesus' life, who DID NOT EVEN INCLUDE THE VIRGIN
>> BIRTH. Something apparently unprecedented in human history, something
>> which fulfilled a prophesy in Isaiah, and thus was offered as proof of
>> his divinity. How could you leave something like that out!?
>> Impossible. It would be like an Obama biography failing to mention he
>> was black, or something equally critically important to his story --
>> there isn't an example that comes close to matching the virgin birth,
>> but you get the idea.
>
> maybe the authors who didn't include it didn't believe it was true. maybe
> the authors who didn't include it didn't want the "magical" to detract
> from things they thought more critical. who made you dictator of
> authorial intent?
LOL. Mo, these are simply the sort of questions one asks, when doing a
critical analysis of historical documents, especially concerning their
validity.
For example, the story of Jesus and the money-changers is considered
unflattering, yet it appears in all four gospels. Since it is
unreasonable to presume that an unflattering AND untrue story would
appear in all four works, this story is generally believed to be true.
By the converse logic, when incredible, flattering stories fail to occur
regularly in the gospels, doubt is immediately cast upon them.
mo_charles
> > the authors who didn't include it didn't want the "magical" to detract
> > from things they thought more critical. who made you dictator of
> > authorial intent?
>
> LOL. Mo, these are simply the sort of questions one asks, when doing a
> critical analysis of historical documents, especially concerning their
> validity.
>
> For example, the story of Jesus and the money-changers is considered
> unflattering, yet it appears in all four gospels. Since it is
> unreasonable to presume that an unflattering AND untrue story would
> appear in all four works, this story is generally believed to be true.
> By the converse logic, when incredible, flattering stories fail to occur
> regularly in the gospels, doubt is immediately cast upon them.
two biographers, one doesn't mention birth and the other does. a smart
student of history should decide which version is flattering and ignore it.
mo_charles
-----
da pickle
>> And yet your surety of your surety would be suspect, surely.
>
> Is that supposed to mean something?
Don't call me surely.
da pickle
> ... this story is generally believed to be true ...
The "truth" revealed on RGP ... film at 11.
John the Savage
Mo, it's clear you have idea what you are talking about, or even what
you are trying to say. This is not just birth being mentioned in a
biography, this is a VIRGIN BIRTH fathered by the Holy Spirit. It's
kind of a big deal. There are four gospels, two of which bother to
mention the story, and two of which do not.
As for which versions are flattering .. ALL OF THEM DUH FUCKING DUH!
These are the four accounts of Jesus' life that form the foundational
texts for a religion in which Jesus is the messiah. They describe him
as God on Earth, and the only source of true salvation. You intimate
that perhaps some of the gospels are not flattering accounts?! ROFL!
Of course they are, and thus they are subject to the kind of historical
analysis I have described, and has been done many times by many historians.
John the Savage
As I thought, nothing. What am I so sure of? That we can't be sure the
external world is real? GTFO.
John the Savage
Again, what are you talking about? There is a wealth of historical
analysis that has been done on the Bible and the gospels. Scholars
generally agree on some things, and don't agree on other things. Your
ankle-biting nonsense notwithstanding, those are just the facts.
da pickle
>>>> And yet your surety of your surety would be suspect, surely.
>>>
>>> Is that supposed to mean something?
>>
>> Don't call me surely.
>
> As I thought, nothing. What am I so sure of? That we can't be sure the
> external world is real? GTFO.
And yet the story of Jesus and the money changers is "true." Amazing.
At least you are sure about what you are sure about ... and that includes
what you are sure that you are unsure about.
da pickle
> ... There are four gospels ...
Are you sure? In all of your study of historical documents, are you sure
you are correct with your conclusion?
John the Savage
> "John the Savage"
>
>>>>> And yet your surety of your surety would be suspect, surely.
>>>>
>>>> Is that supposed to mean something?
>>>
>>> Don't call me surely.
>>
>> As I thought, nothing. What am I so sure of? That we can't be sure the
>> external world is real? GTFO.
>
> And yet the story of Jesus and the money changers is "true." Amazing.
ROFL! I did not say that. I said it is "generally believed to be
true", by scholars, on the basis of an historical analysis technique,
and what I said is completely correct. Are you going to apologize now???
>
> At least you are sure about what you are sure about ... and that includes
> what you are sure that you are unsure about.
>
You have obviously no idea what I am sure about. You are not Confucius,
Pickle. You are just confusing.
da pickle
The search for the historic Jesus for Dummies ... right here on RGP.
Submissions limited to those that are "very confident" and they are "sure"
they know what is "real" and what is "true."
Anyone who questions "the facts" just does not know what they are talking
about.
John the Savage
Yes there are four canonical gospels present in the Bible, Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John, and they are by far the most referenced historical
accounts of Jesus' life, and they are the accounts included in the holy
book of Christianity, whose tales I am here to dispute. Again, you
have nothing to say. Stop saying it, please. You are detracting from
my important work in this thread, and I don't have much time left here
today.
da pickle
No other historic documents apply. And that is "the truth."
mo_charles
> > student of history should decide which version is flattering and ignore it.
>
> Mo, it's clear you have idea what you are talking about, or even what
> you are trying to say. This is not just birth being mentioned in a
> biography, this is a VIRGIN BIRTH fathered by the Holy Spirit. It's
> kind of a big deal. There are four gospels, two of which bother to
> mention the story, and two of which do not.
>
> As for which versions are flattering .. ALL OF THEM DUH FUCKING DUH!
> These are the four accounts of Jesus' life that form the foundational
> texts for a religion in which Jesus is the messiah. They describe him
> as God on Earth, and the only source of true salvation. You intimate
> that perhaps some of the gospels are not flattering accounts?! ROFL!
> Of course they are, and thus they are subject to the kind of historical
> analysis I have described, and has been done many times by many historians.
i find your position flattering to your position, so it's clearly
inaccurate. anything else?
mo_charles
-----
John the Savage
> "John the Savage"
>
>>>> ... this story is generally believed to be true ...
>>>
>>> The "truth" revealed on RGP ... film at 11.
>>>
>>
>> Again, what are you talking about? There is a wealth of historical
>> analysis that has been done on the Bible and the gospels. Scholars
>> generally agree on some things, and don't agree on other things. Your
>> ankle-biting nonsense notwithstanding, those are just the facts.
>
> The search for the historic Jesus for Dummies ... right here on RGP.
LOL. My fiancee just graduated with a three-year Harvard divinity
graduate degree. I've found our conversations regarding these topics
extremely illuminating and she has yet much more to teach me. But
somehow, I don't think what I've learned from Harvard through her is
"historical Jesus for Dummies", you insulting fool.
>
> Submissions limited to those that are "very confident" and they are "sure"
> they know what is "real" and what is "true."
My personal confidence in my conclusions has nothing to do with the
debate. I am not sure what is real, or true, and never said I was.
I've had enough.
>
> Anyone who questions "the facts" just does not know what they are talking
> about.
>
I am the one questioning "the facts" and applying a critical examination
to them. You are babbling, and making yourself generally look stupid.
Like I said, enough is enough. Have a nice day.
da pickle
>>>>>> And yet your surety of your surety would be suspect, surely.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that supposed to mean something?
>>>>
>>>> Don't call me surely.
>>>
>>> As I thought, nothing. What am I so sure of? That we can't be sure the
>>> external world is real? GTFO.
>>
>> And yet the story of Jesus and the money changers is "true." Amazing.
>
> ROFL! I did not say that. I said it is "generally believed to be true",
> by scholars, on the basis of an historical analysis technique, and what I
> said is completely correct. Are you going to apologize now???
Well, do you agree with the scholars? Your appeal to authority is
interesting. I missed the part where you said the scholars were full of
shit.
>> At least you are sure about what you are sure about ... and that includes
>> what you are sure that you are unsure about.
>>
>
> You have obviously no idea what I am sure about. You are not Confucius,
> Pickle. You are just confusing.
I wonder about weaseling, how confusing is that?!
mo_charles
>
> LOL. My fiancee just graduated with a three-year Harvard divinity
> graduate degree. I've found our conversations regarding these topics
> extremely illuminating and she has yet much more to teach me. But
> somehow, I don't think what I've learned from Harvard through her is
> "historical Jesus for Dummies", you insulting fool.
>
> > Submissions limited to those that are "very confident" and they are "sure"
> > they know what is "real" and what is "true."
>
> My personal confidence in my conclusions has nothing to do with the
> debate. I am not sure what is real, or true, and never said I was.
> I've had enough.
>
> > Anyone who questions "the facts" just does not know what they are talking
> > about.
>
> I am the one questioning "the facts" and applying a critical examination
> to them. You are babbling, and making yourself generally look stupid.
> Like I said, enough is enough. Have a nice day.
where's morphy when we need him?
mo_charles
____________________________________________________________________
VegasJerry
> On 7/14/11 8:18 AM, mo_charles wrote:
> > do you think two obama fellators would include all the same anecdotal
> > evidence of their stupidity in a biography of his life?
> >
>
> Mo, we're talking about two authors of the gospels, books designed to
> tell the story of Jesus' life, who DID NOT EVEN INCLUDE THE VIRGIN
> BIRTH.
Christianity grabbed the 'Virgin Birth' gambit from Mithraism, just like
they did claiming Jesus was born on December 25 (like so many other gods).
They also grabbed "considered a great traveling teacher and master;" "had
12 companions or disciples;" performed miracles; buried in a tomb; rose
three days later; et cetera. These were the tricks Mithraism use to get
people to believe. Christianity started and just copied them from
Mithraism.
Jerry 'n Vegas
Something apparently unprecedented in human history, something
> which fulfilled a prophesy in Isaiah, and thus was offered as proof of
> his divinity. How could you leave something like that out!?
> Impossible. It would be like an Obama biography failing to mention he
> was black, or something equally critically important to his story --
> there isn't an example that comes close to matching the virgin birth,
> but you get the idea.
---
da pickle
>>>>> ... this story is generally believed to be true ...
>>>>
>>>> The "truth" revealed on RGP ... film at 11.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Again, what are you talking about? There is a wealth of historical
>>> analysis that has been done on the Bible and the gospels. Scholars
>>> generally agree on some things, and don't agree on other things. Your
>>> ankle-biting nonsense notwithstanding, those are just the facts.
>>
>> The search for the historic Jesus for Dummies ... right here on RGP.
>
> LOL. My fiancee just graduated with a three-year Harvard divinity
> graduate degree. I've found our conversations regarding these topics
> extremely illuminating and she has yet much more to teach me. But
> somehow, I don't think what I've learned from Harvard through her is
> "historical Jesus for Dummies", you insulting fool.
You were not trying to make an extremely complex discussion simple for us
"dummies"? You do not intend to insult those who question your confidence
in your opinion of your opinion? You find no flaw in your confidence in
your opinion about that which you ultimately conclude with equal confidence
is unknowable? I am the Dummy, JtS, trying to understand.
>> Submissions limited to those that are "very confident" and they are
>> "sure"
>> they know what is "real" and what is "true."
>
> My personal confidence in my conclusions has nothing to do with the
> debate. I am not sure what is real, or true, and never said I was. I've
> had enough.
Perhaps, you have indeed said enough. I hope your confidence is not shaken.
>> Anyone who questions "the facts" just does not know what they are talking
>> about.
>>
>
> I am the one questioning "the facts" and applying a critical examination
> to them. You are babbling, and making yourself generally look stupid.
> Like I said, enough is enough. Have a nice day.
You seemed to be stating the facts ... but have a nice day. (Don't run from
challenges to your "beliefs", JtS.)
mo_charles
> > tell the story of Jesus' life, who DID NOT EVEN INCLUDE THE VIRGIN
> > BIRTH.
>
> Christianity grabbed the 'Virgin Birth' gambit from Mithraism, just like
> they did claiming Jesus was born on December 25 (like so many other gods).
> They also grabbed "considered a great traveling teacher and master;" "had
> 12 companions or disciples;" performed miracles; buried in a tomb; rose
> three days later; et cetera. These were the tricks Mithraism use to get
> people to believe. Christianity started and just copied them from
> Mithraism.
the "christians" who wrote the gospels weren't christians, they were jews.
mo_charles
_______________________________________________________________________
John the Savage
>
> where's morphy when we need him?
>
> mo_charles
>
I doubt we'll see him here. Morphy is not capable of interesting
trolling, nor does he possess knowledge relevant to this thread, nor is
he willing to state any controversial opinion about the world outside of
poker. You know how it is, when you're a rock star, always in the
spotlight. You can't really take a stand on issues or you alienate too
many fans. It's just a harsh reality of our modern political / musical
/ corporate climate.
mo_charles
>
> trolling, nor does he possess knowledge relevant to this thread, nor is
> he willing to state any controversial opinion about the world outside of
> poker. You know how it is, when you're a rock star, always in the
> spotlight. You can't really take a stand on issues or you alienate too
> many fans. It's just a harsh reality of our modern political / musical
> / corporate climate.
he'd enjoy you throwing your girlfriend's cv at us. he might be reading,
al!
mo_charles
_______________________________________________________________________
John the Savage
>>> where's morphy when we need him?
>>
>> I doubt we'll see him here. Morphy is not capable of interesting
>> trolling, nor does he possess knowledge relevant to this thread, nor is
>> he willing to state any controversial opinion about the world outside of
>> poker. You know how it is, when you're a rock star, always in the
>> spotlight. You can't really take a stand on issues or you alienate too
>> many fans. It's just a harsh reality of our modern political / musical
>> / corporate climate.
>
> he'd enjoy you throwing your girlfriend's cv at us. he might be reading,
> al!
>
Nah, Morphy never reads my posts.
(And you're right, I shouldn't have brought it up, especially since I
only did so because I misunderstood Pickle. I wish I hadn't, I suppose,
but I'm thankful that she doesn't have time to read the nonsense I post
here. And maybe, I just wanted to tell you all that I am getting
married, Mo. Did you ever think of that??)
BillB
> (And you're right, I shouldn't have brought it up, especially since I
> only did so because I misunderstood Pickle. I wish I hadn't, I suppose,
> but I'm thankful that she doesn't have time to read the nonsense I post
> here. And maybe, I just wanted to tell you all that I am getting
> married, Mo. Did you ever think of that??)
I thought it was cool. Can you imagine your girlfriend having a debate
with pickle? How long would she put up with his nonsensical double-talk
before she walked out?
mo_charles
> > al!
>
> Nah, Morphy never reads my posts.
>
> (And you're right, I shouldn't have brought it up, especially since I
> only did so because I misunderstood Pickle. I wish I hadn't, I suppose,
> but I'm thankful that she doesn't have time to read the nonsense I post
> here. And maybe, I just wanted to tell you all that I am getting
> married, Mo. Did you ever think of that??)
congratulations. if you're having a destination wedding somewhere warm,
i'll attend. otherwise, you're out of luck.
mo_charles
---�
da pickle
"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:DrDTp.56972$lW4....@newsfe07.iad...
Someone with a divinity degree from Harvard would understand what I was
talking about.
BTSinAustin
> > > "Once you've seen one naked woman, you want to see them all naked."
> > > FL Turbo
> >
> > Except Bea Foroni
> > Every breathing human male
>
> i keep hearing about this bea pic. i haven't eaten anything yet today, so
> maybe someone could link it.
>
> mo_charles
>
> ---�
She had it up for about a day
"I owe Jordan $84 and he'll get his money, but not until there is NO
MENTION of it on RGP for 14 consecutive years. That's the new rule.� --
Rick "DaVoice" Charles 12-31-1999 �The Voice of Poker��
_____________________________________________________________________�
BTSinAustin
> On Jul 13, 4:32�pm, "BTSinAustin" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Not looking to provoke any shit but how do you think the Virgin Mary would
> > react to baby raping priests?
>
> What do you think? I have made it pretty clear that my mission is to
> destroy the Roman Catholic Church --
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/48ffb0ddf857abb4
Since I just want to watch the world burn I am behind you 100%
_______________________________________________________________________�
Necron99
> On 7/13/11 7:59 PM, Wilhelm Kuhlmann wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 13, 4:27 pm, John the Savage<savage0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> And I guess here is where you and I differ. Jesus of Nazareth was not
> >> born to a virgin, he did not perform any "miracles", and he did not rise
> >> from the dead. WTF.
>
> > You seem pretty confident of your facts. Were you there?
>
> > “If you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes.”
>
> > Mark 9:23 (NKJV)
>
> > “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are
> > those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
>
> > John 20:29 (NKJV)
>
> Of course I wasn't there. But this sort of thing is impossible.
> Besides that, I am expected to take the gospels as historical proof of
> these events? There is no surviving account of Jesus' life from within
> a generation of his death. The gospels were not generally even written
> by whom Christian's generally believe. The gospels don't even agree on
> critical aspects of Jesus' life. Only two of them think the virgin
> birth is even worth reporting! Can you imagine that -- telling the
> story of Jesus' life for all eternity, as Mark and John do -- without
> even mentioning such an incredible event? Impossible.
>
> And it does not stop there. Of course, the gospels generally forget
> about Jesus from birth until the age of 30ish -- I think there is one
> childhood story in there. Then he suddenly reappears, doing amazing
> miracles which again, someone didn't make it into all the gospels! As
> far as his miracles, it seems that only the feeding of the 5000 managed
> to make it into all four gospels. Seems fishy, does it not?! You would
> think many of these amazing events would have made it into any story of
> the life of Jesus, yet they did not.
>
> And then, we have thousands of years in between. We have meetings in
> which books were places into the Bible based on committee votes or some
> such; some books just barely made it and became the divine word or God,
> while others disappeared. The books themselves are full of
> contradictions, and in the thousands of years since they have been
> twisted and corrupted even since.
>
> These stories desperately lack credibility, and yet you suggest that I
> must believe them to achieve salvation. Yet the Bible itself is full of
> doubters! Even the Jews, being led from Egypt by Moses himself, after
> witnessing God's direct actions over and over during their escape, still
> decide to start worshiping the fuck out of idols while Moses is up on
> the mount. I mean.. seriously?? HOW THE FUCK COULD THEY STILL DOUBT
> GOD AFTER ALL THAT??? And yet, God forgives them! Sure, they have to
> wander for 40 years or something, and that sucks, but after that, they
> are delivered!! Even Moses doubts at times!! But me, I'm supposed to
> take all this nonsense on faith, thousands of years later, without a
> sniff of a reason to actually believe in it? Or else, my loving God
> will sentence me to infinite torture!
>
> I mean, if that God exists -- you can keep him! What are Christians
> really describing? An infinitely powerful, all knowing God who loves
> all of his creations, but nonetheless makes a vast majority of them
> unrepentant sinners, such that he will eventually doom them to an
> eternity of torture. A God that insists on endless worship and praise.
> A jealous, vengeful, selfish God who made us apparently to be nothing
> more than sycophantic pets.
>
> This is silly. I like what you said about meditation, and God being
> one. I have tended towards Pantheism in the past and I think you are
> articulating a similar idea. But Christianity?? The Gospels?? The
> Bible?? This is some unreliable shit, ramashiva .. BIG TIME. That
> doesn't mean I don't think there is huge value in the book, or enjoy the
> stories, or think that this Jesus character described therein was a
> pretty amazing guy -- I'm with you on all that. I wish modern
> Christians paid more attention to what Jesus says and does in the Bible,
> because it's good stuff. But it sure as hell ain't historical. And
> yes, I'm very confident, for these reasons and so, so many more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You've just spent 10 paragraphs explaining that the bible is a bunch
of shit without a shed of credibility and finish it with "I wish
people spent more time listening to what Jesus says in the bible".
Sheesh.
If there was a god, if there was a jesus son of god, if there was a
moses and the tablets, why the fuck wouldn't god have laid out his
word in 20 foot high letters made from titanium alloy and embedded in
the side of a mountain. Little bit more reliable way of spreading the
message than hearsay and oral tradition dontcha think?
Hollis2
Of course it's real. If it wasn't real, how could you take a picture of
it?
------
Pepe Papon
<savag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You seem woefully unfamiliar with even the most elementary topics in
>philosophy.
Either that or he hashed it all out back in high school and decided
that was enough. Lots of us have seen "The Matrix", too.
Pepe Papon
<jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote:
> I am the Dummy, JtS, trying to divert.
FYP
Pepe Papon
<necr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You've just spent 10 paragraphs explaining that the bible is a bunch
>of shit without a shed of credibility and finish it with "I wish
>people spent more time listening to what Jesus says in the bible".
>Sheesh.
There's nothing illogical about that. The story could be pure fiction
and still contain wisdom.
>If there was a god, if there was a jesus son of god, if there was a
>moses and the tablets, why the fuck wouldn't god have laid out his
>word in 20 foot high letters made from titanium alloy and embedded in
>the side of a mountain. Little bit more reliable way of spreading the
>message than hearsay and oral tradition dontcha think?
He works in mysterious ways that we can't possibly understand.
brewmaster
> "brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:9852f8x...@recgroups.com...
> > On Jul 13 2011 7:50 PM, FL Turbo wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 18:24:21 -0700 (PDT), Wilhelm Kuhlmann
> >> <ramas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Jul 13, 5:44 pm, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Does anyone even know what she looks like? If I think I see the Virgin
> >> >> Mary on my grilled cheese sandwich, how do I know it's not just a
> >> >> regular woman in a headscarf?
> >> >
> >> >"There is only one woman in the world. One woman, with many faces."
> >> >
> >> >-- Nikos Kazantzakis
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >William Coleman (ramashiva)
> >>
> >> "Once you've seen one naked woman, you want to see them all naked."
> >> FL Turbo
> >
> > Except Bea Foroni
> > Every breathing human male
> >
> Hold on now.
>
> I got a list going of other women I'd rather not see naked.
>
> My mom is at the top of that list
>
Ok, I won't send you the pics I took then ;)
>
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
------
Beldin the Sorcerer
"John the Savage" <savag...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MsmdnQbCJ7JYnILT...@giganews.com...
> (And you're right, I shouldn't have brought it up, especially since I only
> did so because I misunderstood Pickle. I wish I hadn't, I suppose, but
> I'm thankful that she doesn't have time to read the nonsense I post here.
> And maybe, I just wanted to tell you all that I am getting married, Mo.
> Did you ever think of that??)
Beldin the Sorcerer
"brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> I got a list going of other women I'd rather not see naked.
>>
>> My mom is at the top of that list
>>
>
> Ok, I won't send you the pics I took then ;)
Dude, you have GOT to slow down with the booze.
She's OLD, for fuck's sake.
John the Savage
> You've just spent 10 paragraphs explaining that the bible is a bunch
> of shit without a shed of credibility and finish it with "I wish
> people spent more time listening to what Jesus says in the bible".
> Sheesh.
I never said the Bible is a bunch of shit. I challenged its historical
accuracy, and I did it with logic and facts, such that you can go check
it all yourself if you doubt my credibility. The Bible is not a bunch
of shit. I find the character Jesus described in the Bible extremely
compelling and I think what is taught is great. There is nothing
inconsistent there.
> If there was a god, if there was a jesus son of god, if there was a
> moses and the tablets, why the fuck wouldn't god have laid out his
> word in 20 foot high letters made from titanium alloy and embedded in
> the side of a mountain. Little bit more reliable way of spreading the
> message than hearsay and oral tradition dontcha think?
This has to be one of the worst logical challenges to the existence of
God I've ever seen. Well played.
fffurken
> This has to be one of the worst logical challenges to the existence of
> God I've ever seen. Well played.
Who is logically challenging the existence of God? If anyone is doing
that, it seems to me that person would be you. Personally I think that
would be an utter waste of my time but I guess we're different. I
don't have a fiancee who spent 3 years doing a fucking "divinity"
degree at Harvard, for example.
John the Savage
> On Jul 15, 2:50 pm, John the Savage<savage0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This has to be one of the worst logical challenges to the existence of
>> God I've ever seen. Well played.
>
> Who is logically challenging the existence of God?
I was critiquing Necron's challenge. I know, following a conversation
can be hard.
> If anyone is doing
> that, it seems to me that person would be you.
Again, you are not very perspicacious. I am challenging the historical
validity of the miracles of Jesus. I did not present a challenge to the
existence of God.
> Personally I think that
> would be an utter waste of my time but I guess we're different. I
> don't have a fiancee who spent 3 years doing a fucking "divinity"
> degree at Harvard, for example.
Get over it. You've already admitted you have no interest in, and
demonstrated that you have no knowledge of, topics of philosophy and
religion. So why don't you just GTFO this thread, instead of
continually revealing further depths of your ignorance?
fffurken
> > Who is logically challenging the existence of God?
>
> I was critiquing Necron's challenge. I know, following a conversation
> can be hard.
I don't see Necron's off the cuff remark as "logically challenging"
the existence of God, not in the way I think YOU meant it.
> Again, you are not very perspicacious. I am challenging the historical
> validity of the miracles of Jesus. I did not present a challenge to the
> existence of God.
One leads to the other.
> Get over it. You've already admitted you have no interest in, and
> demonstrated that you have no knowledge of, topics of philosophy and
> religion. So why don't you just GTFO this thread, instead of
> continually revealing further depths of your ignorance?
Get over it yourself. This is RGP numbnuts, this is what happens.
And do you have to be such a pompous dick everytime you post here to
present your 'work'?
John the Savage
> On Jul 15, 3:22 pm, John the Savage<savage0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Who is logically challenging the existence of God?
>>
>> I was critiquing Necron's challenge. I know, following a conversation
>> can be hard.
>
> I don't see Necron's off the cuff remark as "logically challenging"
> the existence of God, not in the way I think YOU meant it.
He started his paragraph with .. "If there was a god... why the fuck
wouldn't god have ... ?" You don't think that's a logical challenge to
the existence of God? You can't even follow a sentence, much less a
conversation.
>
>> Again, you are not very perspicacious. I am challenging the historical
>> validity of the miracles of Jesus. I did not present a challenge to the
>> existence of God.
>
> One leads to the other.
No, it most certainly does not. You are claiming that everyone who does
not believe Jesus was resurrected and performed miracles must be an
atheist?? Again, why do you persist on revealing further depths of you
ignorance?
fffurken
> > I don't see Necron's off the cuff remark as "logically challenging"
> > the existence of God, not in the way I think YOU meant it.
>
> He started his paragraph with .. "If there was a god... why the fuck
> wouldn't god have ... ?" You don't think that's a logical challenge to
> the existence of God?
Not in the way YOU were thinking and grading him on it, no. You are
the one who pours over the gospels to find inconsistencies for
example, I would be surprised to learn Necron does the same thing.
> >> Again, you are not very perspicacious. I am challenging the historical
> >> validity of the miracles of Jesus. I did not present a challenge to the
> >> existence of God.
>
> > One leads to the other.
>
> No, it most certainly does not. You are claiming that everyone who does
> not believe Jesus was resurrected and performed miracles must be an
> atheist??
You got all that from "one leads to the other"?
John the Savage
> On Jul 15, 3:42 pm, John the Savage<savage0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I don't see Necron's off the cuff remark as "logically challenging"
>>> the existence of God, not in the way I think YOU meant it.
>>
>> He started his paragraph with .. "If there was a god... why the fuck
>> wouldn't god have ... ?" You don't think that's a logical challenge to
>> the existence of God?
>
> Not in the way YOU were thinking and grading him on it, no. You are
> the one who pours over the gospels to find inconsistencies for
> example, I would be surprised to learn Necron does the same thing.
You have no idea what I was thinking. I described his paragraph aptly,
in my opinion. I do not "pour[sic] over the gospels", and I don't see
how whether or not Necron does is relevant in any way. There are so
many serious, logical problems with the God presented by Christianity ..
I just find the problem posed by Necron to be one of the least
compelling. You are totally unfamiliar with any such arguments, of
course, because you have no knowledge of philosophy and religion, as you
have already acknowledged. So maybe you should stop talking. After
all, the saying goes around here ... if you don't know, DON'T POST!
>
>>>> Again, you are not very perspicacious. I am challenging the historical
>>>> validity of the miracles of Jesus. I did not present a challenge to the
>>>> existence of God.
>>
>>> One leads to the other.
>>
>> No, it most certainly does not. You are claiming that everyone who does
>> not believe Jesus was resurrected and performed miracles must be an
>> atheist??
>
> You got all that from "one leads to the other"?
Yes. LOL. In future debates it might help you to understand the
phrases you are using, before you use them.
fffurken
> You have no idea what I was thinking. I described his paragraph aptly,
> in my opinion. I do not "pour[sic] over the gospels", and I don't see
> how whether or not Necron does is relevant in any way. There are so
> many serious, logical problems with the God presented by Christianity ..
> I just find the problem posed by Necron to be one of the least
> compelling. You are totally unfamiliar with any such arguments, of
> course, because you have no knowledge of philosophy and religion, as you
> have already acknowledged. So maybe you should stop talking. After
> all, the saying goes around here ... if you don't know, DON'T POST!
I don't think you are a very lateral thinker. I remeber a while ago I
posted a troll on why only 3 attempts at a pin number is standard
practise when the chances of guessing a 4 digit pin are so remote.
And I'm pretty sure it was you who literally presented in multiple
posts a bunch of mathematics for the reason! In actual fact, the
answer was simple and guess who won that game of troll bingo? Necron
did. It took me a while to stop laughing at your bullshit and the fact
you believed it.
> Yes. LOL. In future debates it might help you to understand the
> phrases you are using, before you use them.
If you strip away the virgin birth, miracles, the resurrection, what
are you left with? You are left with a human being, not the son of
God. That "leads" to a challenge in the existence of a Christian God.
John the Savage
> On Jul 15, 4:04 pm, John the Savage<savage0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You have no idea what I was thinking. I described his paragraph aptly,
>> in my opinion. I do not "pour[sic] over the gospels", and I don't see
>> how whether or not Necron does is relevant in any way. There are so
>> many serious, logical problems with the God presented by Christianity ..
>> I just find the problem posed by Necron to be one of the least
>> compelling. You are totally unfamiliar with any such arguments, of
>> course, because you have no knowledge of philosophy and religion, as you
>> have already acknowledged. So maybe you should stop talking. After
>> all, the saying goes around here ... if you don't know, DON'T POST!
>
> I don't think you are a very lateral thinker. I remeber a while ago I
> posted a troll on why only 3 attempts at a pin number is standard
> practise when the chances of guessing a 4 digit pin are so remote.
> And I'm pretty sure it was you who literally presented in multiple
> posts a bunch of mathematics for the reason! In actual fact, the
> answer was simple and guess who won that game of troll bingo? Necron
> did. It took me a while to stop laughing at your bullshit and the fact
> you believed it.
What are you talking about? I showed with those confusing mathematics
(LOL) that for an average person's debit card, after a relatively small
number of misses, the person entering the PIN is MORE LIKELY to be a
criminal. You are still unable to even consider this important part of
the equation, and yet you are thread stalking me about it, as an example
of MY inflexible thinking. ROFL!
Why don't you post a link to the thread, fffurken, and RGP can judge for
themselves who was able to address your question with "lateral"
thinking, and who was not. Do you know how to do such a thing? Good luck.
And as for the subject at hand, it will be noted by our readers that you
completely changed it, and completely dodged my exposition of your
logical failures and continuing expositions of your own ignorance on
matters of religion and philosophy. Take a break.
>
>> Yes. LOL. In future debates it might help you to understand the
>> phrases you are using, before you use them.
>
> If you strip away the virgin birth, miracles, the resurrection, what
> are you left with? You are left with a human being, not the son of
> God. That "leads" to a challenge in the existence of a Christian God.
Oh, Christian God, eh? Well, you never said that before, now, did you?
First of all, I will note that there are many modern brands of
Christianity that do not require the Bible to be read literally in any
way, and thus you are wrong to infer that I have challenged even the
existence of a Christian god, because I have challenged the historical
validity of the stories of Jesus' miracles. But of course you never
used this term "Christian" before in this discussion, instead claiming
that I had argued against the existence of God.
fffurken
> What are you talking about? I showed with those confusing mathematics
> (LOL) that for an average person's debit card, after a relatively small
> number of misses, the person entering the PIN is MORE LIKELY to be a
> criminal.
That wasn't particularly in dispute, the question (/troll) was why do
we only get 3 attempts at a pin when it is so mathmatically unlikely
that a thief would guess it correctly in 3 attempts? There is a much
more obvious reason for that, the REAL reason.
> Why don't you post a link to the thread, fffurken, and RGP can judge for
> themselves who was able to address your question with "lateral"
> thinking, and who was not. Do you know how to do such a thing? Good luck.
No I don't John, why don't you post a link?
> > If you strip away the virgin birth, miracles, the resurrection, what
> > are you left with? You are left with a human being, not the son of
> > God. That "leads" to a challenge in the existence of a Christian God.
>
> Oh, Christian God, eh? Well, you never said that before, now, did you?
I took it as read, why wouldn't I, numbnuts? We were, afterall,
talking about the Christian God and the Christian gospels in this
thread! I did *deliberately* include it in my last post though because
that is sometimes neccessary with you and you were already jumping to
conclusions.
John the Savage
> On Jul 15, 4:31 pm, John the Savage<savage0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What are you talking about? I showed with those confusing mathematics
>> (LOL) that for an average person's debit card, after a relatively small
>> number of misses, the person entering the PIN is MORE LIKELY to be a
>> criminal.
>
> That wasn't particularly in dispute, the question (/troll) was why do
> we only get 3 attempts at a pin when it is so mathmatically unlikely
> that a thief would guess it correctly in 3 attempts? There is a much
> more obvious reason for that, the REAL reason.
>
>> Why don't you post a link to the thread, fffurken, and RGP can judge for
>> themselves who was able to address your question with "lateral"
>> thinking, and who was not. Do you know how to do such a thing? Good luck.
>
> No I don't John, why don't you post a link?
You have completely mischaracterized what I posted in that thread.
Since you brought it up, the burden is on you to link to it, or STFU.
Anyway, it's not relevant, and this is just an example of you attempting
to blur what has happened in this thread, by attempting to claim victory
in some very old discussion that nobody remembers the details of. Bullshit.
>
>>> If you strip away the virgin birth, miracles, the resurrection, what
>>> are you left with? You are left with a human being, not the son of
>>> God. That "leads" to a challenge in the existence of a Christian God.
>>
>> Oh, Christian God, eh? Well, you never said that before, now, did you?
>
> I took it as read, why wouldn't I, numbnuts?
What is that supposed to mean? You never mentioned the "Christian" God
until after I had already answered the question, as I read it. Make
some sense, please.
> We were, afterall,
> talking about the Christian God and the Christian gospels in this
> thread!
I was talking about Jesus. There is no room for subtlety with you, I
can see.
> I did *deliberately* include it in my last post though because
> that is sometimes neccessary with you and you were already jumping to
> conclusions.
WTF? Because I did NOT infer "Christian" when you said I was arguing
against the existence of God I am "jumping to conclusions"? I'm sorry,
but that characterization is obviously contrary to reality. In fact,
you wanted me to jump to the Christian God conclusion, even though you
had NOT actually said that.
But here's the thing, fffurken. It doesn't fucking matter. I have only
argued against the historical validity of the tales of Jesus'
resurrection and performance of miracles. This is NOT automatically
also an argument against the existence of a "Christian" God. Again,
subtlety does not meet you kindly. Seriously, what kind of guy has
never had any interest in any matters of philosophy? At best, you could
aspire to be a bore. But you're doing much worse than that in this thread.
fffurken
> You have completely mischaracterized what I posted in that thread.
> Since you brought it up, the burden is on you to link to it, or STFU.
> Anyway, it's not relevant, and this is just an example of you attempting
> to blur what has happened in this thread, by attempting to claim victory
> in some very old discussion that nobody remembers the details of. Bullshit.
I wasn't attempting to claim victory. In support of you not being a
lateral thinker, which I claimed, I gave an example. I found your
'work' in that thread (literally) laughable. It was a troll about the
mathematics involved presented in a deliberately misleading way. You
fell for it hook line and sinker. No one ever did the calculations you
did in arriving at the number 3 for the attempts allowed on a pin for
the reasons you stated.
Asking you to post a link was directly after an admission that I would
not know how to and I feel no burden to do so. You could have
considered it a request as much as anything else.
> > I took it as read, why wouldn't I, numbnuts?
>
> What is that supposed to mean? You never mentioned the "Christian" God
> until after I had already answered the question, as I read it. Make
> some sense, please.
I took it as read that we were talking about the existence of the
Christian God and that was what I was talking about every step of the
way,
> But here's the thing, fffurken. It doesn't fucking matter. I have only
> argued against the historical validity of the tales of Jesus'
> resurrection and performance of miracles. This is NOT automatically
> also an argument against the existence of a "Christian" God. Again,
> subtlety does not meet you kindly.
Which leads to a challenge in the existence of a Christian God. If it
wasn't intentional then fine but the virgin birth, miracles and the
resurrection are core beliefs for Christians.
John the Savage
> Asking you to post a link was directly after an admission that I would
> not know how to and I feel no burden to do so.
Yes, it is clear you feel no burden to support any of your statements in
this thread. But one of these days, fffurken, perhaps I'm going to make
a post about how to search for things in Google. There are so many of
you that just can't seem to figure it out. It's quite amusing, but in
the end, I'm not here to laugh at you. I'm here to help you, and I'd
like to see you able to avail yourself of modern technology when the
situation calls for it. These are important skills that are sure to
help you meet the ever-changing demands of the 21st century. Especially
when your memory for past exchanges is as bad as you have revealed it to
be here; I encourage you to enhance your declarative memory with Google
whenever possible.
I just need to settle on the most appropriate format. What would help
you the most? A well-described step-by-step instruction set? A YouTube
video? How about a coloring book and a mascot, like a friendly cartoon
internet-searching dinosaur? I'll keep it at or below fifth grade
reading level, I promise.
fffurken
Shut the fuck up. You fucking idiot.
da pickle
> Yes, it is clear you feel no burden to support any of your statements in
> this thread. But one of these days, fffurken, perhaps I'm going to make
> a post about how to search for things in Google. There are so many of
> you that just can't seem to figure it out. It's quite amusing, but in
> the end, I'm not here to laugh at you. I'm here to help you, and I'd
> like to see you able to avail yourself of modern technology when the
> situation calls for it. These are important skills that are sure to
> help you meet the ever-changing demands of the 21st century. Especially
> when your memory for past exchanges is as bad as you have revealed it to
> be here; I encourage you to enhance your declarative memory with Google
> whenever possible.
>
> I just need to settle on the most appropriate format. What would help
> you the most? A well-described step-by-step instruction set? A YouTube
> video? How about a coloring book and a mascot, like a friendly cartoon
> internet-searching dinosaur? I'll keep it at or below fifth grade
> reading level, I promise.
Shut the fuck up. You fucking idiot.
=================
JtS is practicing his smug, condescending persona, but in that mode he uses
too many words. He will learn. Your retort is both clear and concise.
John the Savage
> "fffurken"
>
> Shut the fuck up. You fucking idiot.
> =================
>
> JtS is practicing his smug, condescending persona, but in that mode he uses
> too many words. He will learn. Your retort is both clear and concise.
>
I've noticed something interesting, Pickle. Invariably, when you
intervene in an argument between someone else and me, you support the
other person. It matters not who the other person is, whether it be
Jerry, or fffurken, or someone else you generally disagree with. It
also matters not what the content of the discussion is, as here you
actually chime in to support a post that was, in its entirety --
"Shut the fuck up. You fucking idiot."
If something like that was posted by Beldin, it would be typical, if
better punctuated than usual. But here, you describe it as "clear and
concise", and I conclude insightfully that this is because it was
directed at me.
I am forced to conclude that you engage in deliberate sycophancy with
those with whom I disagree on RGP. I believe you do so in order to win
favor in future disputes with me. You perceive, rightfully, that you
need external help to pridefully survive disagreements with me. Good
luck. I just want you to know, that I see you working, and I am
flattered again by your attention, and I hope you find the support you
need.
fffurken
> I've noticed something interesting, Pickle. Invariably, when you
> intervene in an argument between someone else and me, you support the
> other person. It matters not who the other person is, whether it be
> Jerry, or fffurken, or someone else you generally disagree with. It
> also matters not what the content of the discussion is, as here you
> actually chime in to support a post that was, in its entirety --
>
> "Shut the fuck up. You fucking idiot."
See, when you ignore the actual content of my post and what we had
been discussing all along, and instead choose to respond with a long
winded nonsense about something insignificant, a deserved "Shut the
fuck up. You fucking idiot" is more than appropriate.
da pickle
>> "fffurken"
>>
>> Shut the fuck up. You fucking idiot.
>> =================
>>
>> JtS is practicing his smug, condescending persona, but in that mode he
>> uses
>> too many words. He will learn. Your retort is both clear and concise.
>>
>
> I've noticed something interesting, Pickle. Invariably, when you
> intervene in an argument between someone else and me, you support the
> other person.
You might think about that for a second.
Beldin the Sorcerer
> On 7/16/11 11:13 AM, da pickle wrote:
>> "fffurken"
>>
>> Shut the fuck up. You fucking idiot.
>> =================
>>
>> JtS is practicing his smug, condescending persona, but in that mode he
>> uses
>> too many words. He will learn. Your retort is both clear and concise.
>>
>
> I've noticed something interesting, Pickle. Invariably, when you
> intervene in an argument between someone else and me, you support the
> other person. It matters not who the other person is, whether it be
> Jerry, or fffurken, or someone else you generally disagree with. It also
> matters not what the content of the discussion is, as here you actually
> chime in to support a post that was, in its entirety --
>
> "Shut the fuck up. You fucking idiot."
>
> If something like that was posted by Beldin, it would be typical, if
> better punctuated than usual. But here, you describe it as "clear and
> concise", and I conclude insightfully that this is because it was directed
> at me.
If something like that were posted by me, it would be followed up with an
explanation as to WHY it were posted, showing the error you espoused that
caused someone to tell you to shut the fuck up.
To be honest, of course, I tend NOT to tell people to shut up, but rather,
to stop espousing idiocy.
In your case, that ain't fucking likely