1. Predates Christianity by at least 800 years. (Depicted on pottery)
2. Was born of a God and a mortal woman.
3. The human side of him felt sorrow and anger.
4. The divine side of him created miracles.
5. Willingly sacrificed himself at the end of his life.
6. Ascended to heaven (Mt. Olympus) to sit with his father.
Plenty of literary sources confirm this to be true. Go ahead, try to disprove it. Those who latter claimed his story for themselves are impostors.
Virtually every notion, idea and element of the Xtian bible was lifted from a previous source. The Zoroastrian myth's are striking and also predate all the Abraham-ist text.
It is a complete farce. Professing belief in such a work of plagiarism is the epitome of foolishness.
It is a complete farce. Professing belief in such a work of plagiarism is the epitome of foolishness.
The slick thing that Christian leaders did was to add "be meek" and to wait for Christ to return. That was a stroke of genius, custom made to make believers pliable.
QUOTE (orestis+Aug 17 2009, 09:07 AM)
1. Predates Christianity by at least 800 years. (Depicted on pottery)
2. Was born of a God and a mortal woman.
3. The human side of him felt sorrow and anger.
4. The divine side of him created miracles.
5. Willingly sacrificed himself at the end of his life.
6. Ascended to heaven (Mt. Olympus) to sit with his father.
Plenty of literary sources confirm this to be true. Go ahead, try to disprove it. Those who latter claimed his story for themselves are impostors.
You left off number seven.
7. Was cool because he was a good street fighter.
2. Was born of a God and a mortal woman.
3. The human side of him felt sorrow and anger.
4. The divine side of him created miracles.
5. Willingly sacrificed himself at the end of his life.
6. Ascended to heaven (Mt. Olympus) to sit with his father.
Plenty of literary sources confirm this to be true. Go ahead, try to disprove it. Those who latter claimed his story for themselves are impostors.
You left off number seven.
7. Was cool because he was a good street fighter.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Aug 17 2009, 06:53 AM)
You left off number seven.
7. Was cool because he was a good street fighter.
That would avoid the whole my son of god can beat up your son of god thing.
And speaking of the street, Hercules was born with all his human parts. As a matter of fact he had a wife and family. But his stepmother, Hera the wife of Zeus, took out her anger at her husbands' philandering ways on Hercules, made him crazy and he ended up killing them.
Now, Christians say that Jesus came to earth to suffer like the rest of us so he can know our condition and save us. How is he going to understand our condition if he never got lucky? Or worse yet, never wanted to get lucky. That's a large part of human joy and misery. Go figure.
PS: Newguy, you are arguing the fine points of a plagiarized story.
7. Was cool because he was a good street fighter.
That would avoid the whole my son of god can beat up your son of god thing.
And speaking of the street, Hercules was born with all his human parts. As a matter of fact he had a wife and family. But his stepmother, Hera the wife of Zeus, took out her anger at her husbands' philandering ways on Hercules, made him crazy and he ended up killing them.
Now, Christians say that Jesus came to earth to suffer like the rest of us so he can know our condition and save us. How is he going to understand our condition if he never got lucky? Or worse yet, never wanted to get lucky. That's a large part of human joy and misery. Go figure.
PS: Newguy, you are arguing the fine points of a plagiarized story.
PPs: Newguy, you are arguing the fine points of a plagiarized story.
PP and another PS:
Newguy you are arguing the fine points of a plagiarized story. Doesn't that make you feel silly?
QUOTE (orestis+)
Newguy you are arguing the fine points of a plagiarized story. Doesn't that make you feel silly?
orestis: Actually, that would be YOU. Nothing predates Christ...I thought that you at least understood that. Anyhow, I'm glad to see that you finally "tipped your hand" and called me out. I really bother you, don't I? That's good...in a sense. So, do you want to talk to me about the blood on your hands, again? Christ can remove the guilt...if you'll but let him. Is that straight up enough for you? In the future, if you want to address me, then do it straightforwardly, like a man. Take care.
P.S. Try to refrain from cursing this time around, okay? You only expose YOUR OWN volatile nature when doing such.
orestis: Actually, that would be YOU. Nothing predates Christ...I thought that you at least understood that. Anyhow, I'm glad to see that you finally "tipped your hand" and called me out. I really bother you, don't I? That's good...in a sense. So, do you want to talk to me about the blood on your hands, again? Christ can remove the guilt...if you'll but let him. Is that straight up enough for you? In the future, if you want to address me, then do it straightforwardly, like a man. Take care.
P.S. Try to refrain from cursing this time around, okay? You only expose YOUR OWN volatile nature when doing such.
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 17 2009, 01:12 PM)
QUOTE (orestis+)
Newguy you are arguing the fine points of a plagiarized story. Doesn't that make you feel silly?
orestis: Actually, that would be YOU. Nothing predates Christ...I thought that you at least understood that. Anyhow, I'm glad to see that you finally "tipped your hand" and called me out. I really bother you, don't I? That's good...in a sense. So, do you want to talk to me about the blood on your hands, again? Christ can remove the guilt...if you'll but let him. Is that straight up enough for you? In the future, if you want to address me, then do it straightforwardly, like a man. Take care.
P.S. Try to refrain from cursing this time around, okay? You only expose YOUR OWN volatile nature when doing such.
newguy, don't you think Hercules would win in a fight?
orestis: Actually, that would be YOU. Nothing predates Christ...I thought that you at least understood that. Anyhow, I'm glad to see that you finally "tipped your hand" and called me out. I really bother you, don't I? That's good...in a sense. So, do you want to talk to me about the blood on your hands, again? Christ can remove the guilt...if you'll but let him. Is that straight up enough for you? In the future, if you want to address me, then do it straightforwardly, like a man. Take care.
P.S. Try to refrain from cursing this time around, okay? You only expose YOUR OWN volatile nature when doing such.
Now, now, dont get all huffy and puffy. We're all friends here.
As far as addressing you like a man, didn't I use your name three or four times? There was an anonymous member while I was typing the things above. I was pretty sure it was you, probably being shy, so I 'called you out," by name, like a man. Besides, it was creepy having you back there. Like a bandit hiding behind a tree.
I'll try not to swear again. I stopped drinking about two weeks ago. (Zeus help me, I hope its permanent.) As soon as the fumes get out of my system I should be the pleasant person that people have come to know and love.
But concerning this "Nothing predates Jesus," bull. There is evidence that the story of Hercules predates the story of Jesus by 800 hundred years. It is the same story.
Are you going to stick your fingers in your ears and chant LALALA?
orestis: Actually, that would be YOU. Nothing predates Christ...I thought that you at least understood that. Anyhow, I'm glad to see that you finally "tipped your hand" and called me out. I really bother you, don't I? That's good...in a sense. So, do you want to talk to me about the blood on your hands, again? Christ can remove the guilt...if you'll but let him. Is that straight up enough for you? In the future, if you want to address me, then do it straightforwardly, like a man. Take care.
P.S. Try to refrain from cursing this time around, okay? You only expose YOUR OWN volatile nature when doing such.
newguy, don't you think Hercules would win in a fight?
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 17 2009, 09:12 AM)
orestis: Actually, that would be YOU. Nothing predates Christ...I thought that you at least understood that. Anyhow, I'm glad to see that you finally "tipped your hand" and called me out. I really bother you, don't I? That's good...in a sense. So, do you want to talk to me about the blood on your hands, again? Christ can remove the guilt...if you'll but let him. Is that straight up enough for you? In the future, if you want to address me, then do it straightforwardly, like a man. Take care.
P.S. Try to refrain from cursing this time around, okay? You only expose YOUR OWN volatile nature when doing such.
Now, now, dont get all huffy and puffy. We're all friends here.
As far as addressing you like a man, didn't I use your name three or four times? There was an anonymous member while I was typing the things above. I was pretty sure it was you, probably being shy, so I 'called you out," by name, like a man. Besides, it was creepy having you back there. Like a bandit hiding behind a tree.
I'll try not to swear again. I stopped drinking about two weeks ago. (Zeus help me, I hope its permanent.) As soon as the fumes get out of my system I should be the pleasant person that people have come to know and love.
But concerning this "Nothing predates Jesus," bull. There is evidence that the story of Hercules predates the story of Jesus by 800 hundred years. It is the same story.
Are you going to stick your fingers in your ears and chant LALALA?
QUOTE (orestis+)
Now, now, dont get all huffy and puffy. We're all friends here.
orestis: Although I doubt that "we're all friends here", I'll glady extend my hand towards you...come what may.
orestis: Although I doubt that "we're all friends here", I'll glady extend my hand towards you...come what may.
QUOTE (orestis+)
As far as addressing you like a man, didn't I use your name three or four times? There was an anonymous member while I was typing the things above. I was pretty sure it was you, probably being shy, so I 'called you out," by name, like a man. Besides, it was creepy having you back there. Like a bandit hiding behind a tree.
As Derek1148 recently noted on another thread, my name does not appear as an online user. That's deliberate on my part. Since I'm generally strapped for time, I prefer to avoid "the paparazzi", those who seem to be obsessed with any "sighting" of me, and to post when and where I choose. Since I'm a decent fellow(contrary to popular belief), I feel somewhat of an obligation(depending upon the motives of the asker) to answer the questions that are asked of me, so I try to keep as low a profile as possible, due to my time limitations. Anyhow, having said all that, I can assure you that I'm NOT "shy". I used to preach openly on the streets of New York and New Jersey and I've got nothing to hide. Whoever the "anonymous member" was, I doubt that it was me(would I show up as being "anonymous"?), although I have obviously read this thread and understood, from the outset, what its intended purpose was...a purpose that you've finally stated, outright. A "bandit"? Not me. Anyhow...
As Derek1148 recently noted on another thread, my name does not appear as an online user. That's deliberate on my part. Since I'm generally strapped for time, I prefer to avoid "the paparazzi", those who seem to be obsessed with any "sighting" of me, and to post when and where I choose. Since I'm a decent fellow(contrary to popular belief), I feel somewhat of an obligation(depending upon the motives of the asker) to answer the questions that are asked of me, so I try to keep as low a profile as possible, due to my time limitations. Anyhow, having said all that, I can assure you that I'm NOT "shy". I used to preach openly on the streets of New York and New Jersey and I've got nothing to hide. Whoever the "anonymous member" was, I doubt that it was me(would I show up as being "anonymous"?), although I have obviously read this thread and understood, from the outset, what its intended purpose was...a purpose that you've finally stated, outright. A "bandit"? Not me. Anyhow...
QUOTE (orestis+)
I'll try not to swear again. I stopped drinking about two weeks ago. (Zeus help me, I hope its permanent.) As soon as the fumes get out of my system I should be the pleasant person that people have come to know and love.
Swearing doesn't really bother me, by the way. I was simply trying to make a point of how unnecessary it is and how it makes the swearer look bad. As far as your sobriety is concerned, I'm glad to hear it. Prior to becoming a Christian, I used to drink like a fish. On most nights(that extended over several years), I drank a small bottle of Sambuca BEFORE going out to drink. Anyhow, aside from a sip of wine during a communion service in someone's home several years ago, I haven't had a drink in about 20 years. Don't miss it in the least.
Sweet Athena! I don't know if I should laugh at you or cry for you. You are using one part of a fable to verify another part of the fable. By your reasoning Sauroun did exist because he is mentioned in the Simillirion.
I just had to clean oil splatters from the stove and counter. I need a good laugh.
But I wont comment on the image of you preaching on street corners.
Swearing doesn't really bother me, by the way. I was simply trying to make a point of how unnecessary it is and how it makes the swearer look bad. As far as your sobriety is concerned, I'm glad to hear it. Prior to becoming a Christian, I used to drink like a fish. On most nights(that extended over several years), I drank a small bottle of Sambuca BEFORE going out to drink. Anyhow, aside from a sip of wine during a communion service in someone's home several years ago, I haven't had a drink in about 20 years. Don't miss it in the least.
QUOTE (orestis+)
But concerning this "Nothing predates Jesus," bull. There is evidence that the story of Hercules predates the story of Jesus by 800 hundred years. It is the same story.
Are you going to stick your fingers in your ears and chant LALALA?
Not at all...my ears and my eyes are wide open. Problem(at your end) is that you obviously don't understand Christianity too well. Christianity did NOT begin with the incarnation of Christ. Does that shock you? Well, it shouldn't. Scripturally speaking(I always have to include that for buttershug's sake), Jesus existed "in the beginning".
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."(John 1:1-3)
What pre-dates that? If you'd like, I can actually show you examples of Jesus speaking IN THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES. Yeah...it's in there. When Jesus said...
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"(Matthew 23:37)
...He was letting the people of Israel know that HE WAS THE ONE Who was sending THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHETS to them. Yep, them's be the facts. Anyhow, if you'd like, then I'll gladly show you an instance or two of Christ speaking in THE OLD TESTAMENT. Take care.
P.S. I almost forgot to tell you my theory regarding these "stories" that seem to pre-date Jesus... Well, I'll only tell you if you desire to hear it.
P.P.S. I just checked the "Board Statistics" screen and, apparently, I do show up as an "anonymous member". Honestly, I never noticed that before...I thought that I was totally "hidden". With this realization, I might have been "anonymously" viewing this thread at one or more of the times that you alluded to. As I've already admitted, I have read this thread before.
Are you going to stick your fingers in your ears and chant LALALA?
Not at all...my ears and my eyes are wide open. Problem(at your end) is that you obviously don't understand Christianity too well. Christianity did NOT begin with the incarnation of Christ. Does that shock you? Well, it shouldn't. Scripturally speaking(I always have to include that for buttershug's sake), Jesus existed "in the beginning".
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."(John 1:1-3)
What pre-dates that? If you'd like, I can actually show you examples of Jesus speaking IN THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES. Yeah...it's in there. When Jesus said...
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"(Matthew 23:37)
...He was letting the people of Israel know that HE WAS THE ONE Who was sending THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHETS to them. Yep, them's be the facts. Anyhow, if you'd like, then I'll gladly show you an instance or two of Christ speaking in THE OLD TESTAMENT. Take care.
P.S. I almost forgot to tell you my theory regarding these "stories" that seem to pre-date Jesus... Well, I'll only tell you if you desire to hear it.
P.P.S. I just checked the "Board Statistics" screen and, apparently, I do show up as an "anonymous member". Honestly, I never noticed that before...I thought that I was totally "hidden". With this realization, I might have been "anonymously" viewing this thread at one or more of the times that you alluded to. As I've already admitted, I have read this thread before.
Sweet Athena! I don't know if I should laugh at you or cry for you. You are using one part of a fable to verify another part of the fable. By your reasoning Sauroun did exist because he is mentioned in the Simillirion.
I just had to clean oil splatters from the stove and counter. I need a good laugh.
But I wont comment on the image of you preaching on street corners.
QUOTE (orestis+)
Sweet Athena! I don't know if I should laugh at you or cry for you. You are using one part of a fable to verify another part of the fable. By your reasoning Sauroun did exist because he is mentioned in the Simillirion.
"There you go, again." - Ronald Reagan during his Presidential debate with Jimmy Carter.
orestis: Not at all. YOU are the one who has been going on about how the "story" of Hercules PRE-DATES the "story" of Christ. I, on the other hand, am merely attempting to show you that "the story of Christ" did NOT begin with the New Testament. In fact, "the story of Christ" is contained all throughout the Old Testament scriptures. Does that PRE-DATE your "sacred" Hercules? Seems so to me. In fact, according to the scriptural record, the New Testament apostles CONSISTENTLY used the Old Testament scriptures to prove that Jesus was, indeed, the Christ. Get's you "right there", doesn't it? Anything else that you'd like to discuss? If so, then let me know.
P.S. Good to see that you're cleaning your stove. "Cleanliness is next to Godliness"...or so they say.
P.P.S. My street-preaching was no laughing matter.
I had the cops called on me a multitude of times(I had a permit)...
I had at least one individual charge at me to pummel me(one of my friends got punched in the mouth)...
I had things thrown at me...
Heck, I even had a bird crap on my shoulder while I was preaching in Newark, NJ(I hope it wasn't an indication of what God thought of my preaching
)...
I also had people genuinely turn to Christ(as far as I could tell, anyway)...
"There you go, again." - Ronald Reagan during his Presidential debate with Jimmy Carter.
orestis: Not at all. YOU are the one who has been going on about how the "story" of Hercules PRE-DATES the "story" of Christ. I, on the other hand, am merely attempting to show you that "the story of Christ" did NOT begin with the New Testament. In fact, "the story of Christ" is contained all throughout the Old Testament scriptures. Does that PRE-DATE your "sacred" Hercules? Seems so to me. In fact, according to the scriptural record, the New Testament apostles CONSISTENTLY used the Old Testament scriptures to prove that Jesus was, indeed, the Christ. Get's you "right there", doesn't it? Anything else that you'd like to discuss? If so, then let me know.
P.S. Good to see that you're cleaning your stove. "Cleanliness is next to Godliness"...or so they say.
P.P.S. My street-preaching was no laughing matter.
I had the cops called on me a multitude of times(I had a permit)...
I had at least one individual charge at me to pummel me(one of my friends got punched in the mouth)...
I had things thrown at me...
Heck, I even had a bird crap on my shoulder while I was preaching in Newark, NJ(I hope it wasn't an indication of what God thought of my preaching
)...I also had people genuinely turn to Christ(as far as I could tell, anyway)...
Uh oh...
I just noticed that "Thor" is reading this thread. I hope this doesn't turn into a "clash of the Titans".
I just noticed that "Thor" is reading this thread. I hope this doesn't turn into a "clash of the Titans".
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 17 2009, 10:40 AM)
orestis: Not at all. YOU are the one who has been going on about how the "story" of Hercules PRE-DATES the "story" of Christ. I, on the other hand, am merely attempting to show you that "the story of Christ" did NOT begin with the New Testament. In fact, "the story of Christ" is contained all throughout the Old Testament scriptures. Does that PRE-DATE your "sacred" Hercules? Seems so to me. In fact, according to the scriptural record, the New Testament apostles CONSISTENTLY used the Old Testament scriptures to prove that Jesus was, indeed, the Christ. Get's you "right there", doesn't it? Anything else that you'd like to discuss? If so, then et me know.
P.S. Good to see that you're cleaning your stove. "Cleanliness is next to Godliness"...or so they say.
P.P.S. My street-preaching was no laughing matter.
I had the cops called on me a multitude of times(I had a permit)...
I had at least one individual charge at me to pummel me(one of my friends got punched in the mouth)...
I had things thrown at me...
Heck, I even had a bird crap on my shoulder while I was preaching in Newark, NJ(I hope it wasn't an indication of what God thought of my preaching )...
I also had people genuinely turn to Christ(as far as I could tell, anyway)...
Thank you for that perfect definition of blind faith. It's interesting to see that you will believe just about anything that those Jewish shepherds wrote. If they had written "kill your neighbor if they don't believe in god" would you do it?
That excuse is terrible. orestis brought up a very good point. The Jesus/Savior/Son of God myth was very common at the time of Paul/Peter/et al. Just check out the aforementioned Zoroastrianism, Greek mythology and even Egyptian mythology (wwaaaaay older than even the prophecies of which you speak). It just happens to be the least original story in the ancient world.
As far as your street preaching goes, that happens to be one of the most obnoxious and least effective methods of conversion. Even when I was a devout christian, I knew that street preaching was ineffective. The people you convert are usually short-lived believers. If they even find their way to a church, the usually don't engage and stop going after a couple weeks. GOOD JOB! I just love it when people like you make people disgusted with religion.
P.S. Good to see that you're cleaning your stove. "Cleanliness is next to Godliness"...or so they say.
P.P.S. My street-preaching was no laughing matter.
I had the cops called on me a multitude of times(I had a permit)...
I had at least one individual charge at me to pummel me(one of my friends got punched in the mouth)...
I had things thrown at me...
Heck, I even had a bird crap on my shoulder while I was preaching in Newark, NJ(I hope it wasn't an indication of what God thought of my preaching
)...I also had people genuinely turn to Christ(as far as I could tell, anyway)...
Thank you for that perfect definition of blind faith. It's interesting to see that you will believe just about anything that those Jewish shepherds wrote. If they had written "kill your neighbor if they don't believe in god" would you do it?
That excuse is terrible. orestis brought up a very good point. The Jesus/Savior/Son of God myth was very common at the time of Paul/Peter/et al. Just check out the aforementioned Zoroastrianism, Greek mythology and even Egyptian mythology (wwaaaaay older than even the prophecies of which you speak). It just happens to be the least original story in the ancient world.
As far as your street preaching goes, that happens to be one of the most obnoxious and least effective methods of conversion. Even when I was a devout christian, I knew that street preaching was ineffective. The people you convert are usually short-lived believers. If they even find their way to a church, the usually don't engage and stop going after a couple weeks. GOOD JOB! I just love it when people like you make people disgusted with religion.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
Thank you for that perfect definition of blind faith.
Ah, a "paparazzo" has found me...
flyingbuttressman: Actually, thank YOU for more stupid reasoning. My response had absolutely nothing to do with "blind faith", as you call it. My response was simply intended to show orestis that the Old Testament scriptures pre-date Hercules. As far as my real faith is concerned, as I've explained ad nauseum, it has to do with confidence in Someone Whom I know. You, of all people, should be aware of this definition of "faith"...isn't that correct? I remember the following quite well:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...15&#entry422379
Ah, a "paparazzo" has found me...
flyingbuttressman: Actually, thank YOU for more stupid reasoning. My response had absolutely nothing to do with "blind faith", as you call it. My response was simply intended to show orestis that the Old Testament scriptures pre-date Hercules. As far as my real faith is concerned, as I've explained ad nauseum, it has to do with confidence in Someone Whom I know. You, of all people, should be aware of this definition of "faith"...isn't that correct? I remember the following quite well:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...15&#entry422379
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
Uhhh, where are you getting your definitions?
Faith:
Dictionary Link
As we both know, the definition that you supplied was definition #2. Why did you skip definition #1, which says:
Dictionary Link
As we both know, the definition that you supplied was definition #2. Why did you skip definition #1, which says:
1.Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Because you're a dishonest, b@stard...that's why. Well, as always, it's been a pleasure. Afterall, every circus does need its clown...
Faith:
QUOTE
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Dictionary Link
As we both know, the definition that you supplied was definition #2. Why did you skip definition #1, which says:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. |
Dictionary Link
As we both know, the definition that you supplied was definition #2. Why did you skip definition #1, which says:
1.Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Because you're a dishonest, b@stard...that's why. Well, as always, it's been a pleasure. Afterall, every circus does need its clown...
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 17 2009, 03:40 PM)
In fact, according to the scriptural record, the New Testament apostles CONSISTENTLY used the Old Testament scriptures to prove that Jesus was, indeed, the Christ.
But Paul did that after Christ was dead.
Suppose there was nothing about the James' brother about "bile" but the Old Testament had that quote.
All Paul had to do was describe Jesus that way. Jesus didn't have to actually be the way Paul described. Paul only had to describe him as fortold in the Old Testament.
Maybe Jesus did ride into town on an ***. But he could have done so because it was expected. If the propeshy had said a white stallion then he would have found one.
Or maybe Paul only said that Jesus road into town on an ***.
At least now you are putting things like "according to scriptual record" into your posts.
Maybe someday you will understand why that is like saying "according to the TV series, Uhura was a bridge officer."
But Paul did that after Christ was dead.
Suppose there was nothing about the James' brother about "bile" but the Old Testament had that quote.
All Paul had to do was describe Jesus that way. Jesus didn't have to actually be the way Paul described. Paul only had to describe him as fortold in the Old Testament.
Maybe Jesus did ride into town on an ***. But he could have done so because it was expected. If the propeshy had said a white stallion then he would have found one.
Or maybe Paul only said that Jesus road into town on an ***.
At least now you are putting things like "according to scriptual record" into your posts.
Maybe someday you will understand why that is like saying "according to the TV series, Uhura was a bridge officer."
QUOTE (-buttershug+)
At least now you are putting things like "according to scriptual record" into your posts.
Maybe someday you will understand why that is like saying "according to the TV series, Uhura was a bridge officer."
buttershug: Seriously, are you retarded or something? I mean it...are you? I've always put such indicators in my posts...are you PARTIALLY blind? As I've explained to you numerous times before(where's that wall that I bang my head against? Ah, yes...here it is...), I'm NOT out to "prove" the things that you insist I'm out to "prove". Oh, forget it...
Maybe someday you will understand why that is like saying "according to the TV series, Uhura was a bridge officer."
buttershug: Seriously, are you retarded or something? I mean it...are you? I've always put such indicators in my posts...are you PARTIALLY blind? As I've explained to you numerous times before(where's that wall that I bang my head against? Ah, yes...here it is...), I'm NOT out to "prove" the things that you insist I'm out to "prove". Oh, forget it...
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 17 2009, 04:54 PM)
buttershug: Seriously, are you retarded or something?
Comment referenced on another thread.
Comment referenced on another thread.
Hmmmm ... as usual Newguy plays fast and very loose with history.
In fact the 12th century BC would be earlier than most early estimates by 200 years but let's be conservative.
Early Greek mythology is also hard to date exactly. Most historians date the so-called "Dorian Invasion" at around 1200 BC. The Dorian invasion of course is more of a convenience for historians than an actual event. At some point at that time the Mycenaean culture that had existed there ended and the so called Greek civilization began.
Interestingly, the legend concerning that period is called The Return of the Heracleidae.... ie. Heracles (Hercules). Despite the completely legendary nature of this tale, it does seem that the belief in Heracles was already entrenched before the 12th century. Of course, at that point this is only speculation.
However, it does seem obvious that Heracles and the Old Testament existed at around the same period.
However...
How about the "Epic of Gigamesh"?
Written around 2000 BC, fully a thousand years before the Old Testament, it also features a very Heracles-like figure, who goes to the land of the dead and comes back, has a flood story and a Noah like character and even has immortality stolen from Gilgamesh by a serpent.
Sound familiar?
There is obviously some speculation that the Hebrew myths were influenced or based on earlier myths such as the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Interesting isn't it.
QUOTE
It is believed the Old Testament was composed and compiled between the 12th and the 2nd century BC.
In fact the 12th century BC would be earlier than most early estimates by 200 years but let's be conservative.
Early Greek mythology is also hard to date exactly. Most historians date the so-called "Dorian Invasion" at around 1200 BC. The Dorian invasion of course is more of a convenience for historians than an actual event. At some point at that time the Mycenaean culture that had existed there ended and the so called Greek civilization began.
Interestingly, the legend concerning that period is called The Return of the Heracleidae.... ie. Heracles (Hercules). Despite the completely legendary nature of this tale, it does seem that the belief in Heracles was already entrenched before the 12th century. Of course, at that point this is only speculation.
However, it does seem obvious that Heracles and the Old Testament existed at around the same period.
However...
How about the "Epic of Gigamesh"?
Written around 2000 BC, fully a thousand years before the Old Testament, it also features a very Heracles-like figure, who goes to the land of the dead and comes back, has a flood story and a Noah like character and even has immortality stolen from Gilgamesh by a serpent.
Sound familiar?
There is obviously some speculation that the Hebrew myths were influenced or based on earlier myths such as the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Interesting isn't it.
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 17 2009, 11:40 AM)
QUOTE (orestis+)
Sweet Athena! I don't know if I should laugh at you or cry for you. You are using one part of a fable to verify another part of the fable. By your reasoning Sauroun did exist because he is mentioned in the Simillirion.
"There you go, again." - Ronald Reagan during his Presidential debate with Jimmy Carter.
orestis: Not at all. YOU are the one who has been going on about how the "story" of Hercules PRE-DATES the "story" of Christ. I, on the other hand, am merely attempting to show you that "the story of Christ" did NOT begin with the New Testament. In fact, "the story of Christ" is contained all throughout the Old Testament scriptures. Does that PRE-DATE your "sacred" Hercules? Seems so to me. In fact, according to the scriptural record, the New Testament apostles CONSISTENTLY used the Old Testament scriptures to prove that Jesus was, indeed, the Christ. Get's you "right there", doesn't it? Anything else that you'd like to discuss? If so, then let me know.
It's taken me a while to recover from the shock of realizing how... stupid (it's the only word I can use)..you are. You use reasoning that my 13 year old grandchild would say doesn't make sense. The story of Hercules, Thor, Sauron and Jesus are fables.
What you refer to as the Old Testament is a Greek translation of Hebrew text, the Septuagint.
"Jewish scholars first translated the Torah into Koine Greek in the third century BC[7]. Further books were translated over the next two centuries. It is not altogether clear which was translated when, or where; some may even have been translated twice, into different versions, and then revised.[8] The quality and style of the different translators also varied considerably from book to book, from the literal to paraphrasing to interpretative. According to one assessment "the Pentateuch is reasonably well translated, but the rest of the books, especially the poetical books, are often very poorly done and even contain sheer absurdities".[9]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint
Everything after Deuteronomy could "contain sheer absurdities." The references that you have cited aren't even from the Old Testament! They were written in the New Testament in the first or second century AD.
So what have you proven?
You have proven that it's safer to be a street preacher on the internet then on the street. Nobody can throw things at you.
"There you go, again." - Ronald Reagan during his Presidential debate with Jimmy Carter.
orestis: Not at all. YOU are the one who has been going on about how the "story" of Hercules PRE-DATES the "story" of Christ. I, on the other hand, am merely attempting to show you that "the story of Christ" did NOT begin with the New Testament. In fact, "the story of Christ" is contained all throughout the Old Testament scriptures. Does that PRE-DATE your "sacred" Hercules? Seems so to me. In fact, according to the scriptural record, the New Testament apostles CONSISTENTLY used the Old Testament scriptures to prove that Jesus was, indeed, the Christ. Get's you "right there", doesn't it? Anything else that you'd like to discuss? If so, then let me know.
It's taken me a while to recover from the shock of realizing how... stupid (it's the only word I can use)..you are. You use reasoning that my 13 year old grandchild would say doesn't make sense. The story of Hercules, Thor, Sauron and Jesus are fables.
What you refer to as the Old Testament is a Greek translation of Hebrew text, the Septuagint.
"Jewish scholars first translated the Torah into Koine Greek in the third century BC[7]. Further books were translated over the next two centuries. It is not altogether clear which was translated when, or where; some may even have been translated twice, into different versions, and then revised.[8] The quality and style of the different translators also varied considerably from book to book, from the literal to paraphrasing to interpretative. According to one assessment "the Pentateuch is reasonably well translated, but the rest of the books, especially the poetical books, are often very poorly done and even contain sheer absurdities".[9]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint
Everything after Deuteronomy could "contain sheer absurdities." The references that you have cited aren't even from the Old Testament! They were written in the New Testament in the first or second century AD.
So what have you proven?
You have proven that it's safer to be a street preacher on the internet then on the street. Nobody can throw things at you.
QUOTE (orestis+)
What you refer to as the Old Testament is a Greek translation of Hebrew text, the Septuagint.
"Jewish scholars first translated the Torah into Koine Greek in the third century BC[7]. Further books were translated over the next two centuries. It is not altogether clear which was translated when, or where; some may even have been translated twice, into different versions, and then revised.[8] The quality and style of the different translators also varied considerably from book to book, from the literal to paraphrasing to interpretative. According to one assessment "the Pentateuch is reasonably well translated, but the rest of the books, especially the poetical books, are often very poorly done and even contain sheer absurdities".[9]"
orestis: Nice try(not really). Actually, what I was/am referring to is the underlying Hebrew texts...NOT the Septuagint. Why do you have to stoop to deceit? Is that your best defense? As far as the Hebrew texts are concerned, they were compiled much earlier than the Septuagint...I'll let you and Rob hammer out the details on that one.
That would be an interesting claim indeed... considering the other attributes of Gilgamesh.
Are these some of the gods that Yahweh didn't want his 'chosen people' to worship when he said to Moses, allegedly, "You shall have no other gods before me". Or may be he was talking about all of the others that were around at the time? A bit paranoid , it seems.
I sometimes wonder how jews/xians/muslims reconcile this with there being, in their heads at least, only one god. How human beings can create and kill gods inside their heads also amuses me. Apparently gods aren't as omnipotent as they are made out to be.
Physfan
"Jewish scholars first translated the Torah into Koine Greek in the third century BC[7]. Further books were translated over the next two centuries. It is not altogether clear which was translated when, or where; some may even have been translated twice, into different versions, and then revised.[8] The quality and style of the different translators also varied considerably from book to book, from the literal to paraphrasing to interpretative. According to one assessment "the Pentateuch is reasonably well translated, but the rest of the books, especially the poetical books, are often very poorly done and even contain sheer absurdities".[9]"
orestis: Nice try(not really). Actually, what I was/am referring to is the underlying Hebrew texts...NOT the Septuagint. Why do you have to stoop to deceit? Is that your best defense? As far as the Hebrew texts are concerned, they were compiled much earlier than the Septuagint...I'll let you and Rob hammer out the details on that one.
QUOTE (orestis+)
The references that you have sighted aren't even from the Old Testament! They were written in the New Testament in the first or second century AD.
No kidding. I told you that I would provide you with Old Testament examples, if you but asked. Can't you read? Apparently not.
I'll address Rob's point later on tonight...I do have to do some work.
P.S. It's "cited"...not "sighted". Interesting slip from someone who is blind...
No kidding. I told you that I would provide you with Old Testament examples, if you but asked. Can't you read? Apparently not.
I'll address Rob's point later on tonight...I do have to do some work.
P.S. It's "cited"...not "sighted". Interesting slip from someone who is blind...
Thank you.
You have made me need to center.
I appreciate you.
You have made me need to center.
I appreciate you.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Aug 17 2009, 05:09 PM)
Hmmmm ... as usual Newguy plays fast and very loose with history.
However...
How about the "Epic of Gigamesh"?
Written around 2000 BC, fully a thousand years before the Old Testament, it also features a very Heracles-like figure, who goes to the land of the dead and comes back, has a flood story and a Noah like character and even has immortality stolen from Gilgamesh by a serpent.
Sound familiar?
There is obviously some speculation that the Hebrew myths were influenced or based on earlier myths such as the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Interesting isn't it.
Dad1 whose conclusions were different, but whose methods were the same as, Newguy's would have said that the epic of Gilgamesh was talking about Christ.
@Orestis Newguy doesn't understand that you are not wishing to discuss things in what I call "Star Trek" style. Do you understand he will only discuss things that way?
That is you have to talk as if you are talking non-fiction.
However...
How about the "Epic of Gigamesh"?
Written around 2000 BC, fully a thousand years before the Old Testament, it also features a very Heracles-like figure, who goes to the land of the dead and comes back, has a flood story and a Noah like character and even has immortality stolen from Gilgamesh by a serpent.
Sound familiar?
There is obviously some speculation that the Hebrew myths were influenced or based on earlier myths such as the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Interesting isn't it.
Dad1 whose conclusions were different, but whose methods were the same as, Newguy's would have said that the epic of Gilgamesh was talking about Christ.
@Orestis Newguy doesn't understand that you are not wishing to discuss things in what I call "Star Trek" style. Do you understand he will only discuss things that way?
That is you have to talk as if you are talking non-fiction.
Good advice. From now on I will imagine him with Spock ears, looking directly in my eyes and daring me to say Star Trek was only a TV show.
QUOTE
Newguy's would have said that the epic of Gilgamesh was talking about Christ.
That would be an interesting claim indeed... considering the other attributes of Gilgamesh.
He thought JC's influence on our calendar added to proof of his ideas. I don't think ever explain four days of the being named after Norse Gods.
QUOTE
I don't think ever explain four days of the being named after Norse Gods.
Are these some of the gods that Yahweh didn't want his 'chosen people' to worship when he said to Moses, allegedly, "You shall have no other gods before me". Or may be he was talking about all of the others that were around at the time? A bit paranoid , it seems.
I sometimes wonder how jews/xians/muslims reconcile this with there being, in their heads at least, only one god. How human beings can create and kill gods inside their heads also amuses me. Apparently gods aren't as omnipotent as they are made out to be.
Physfan
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 17 2009, 04:54 PM)
QUOTE (buttershug+)
At least now you are putting things like "according to scriptual record" into your posts.
Maybe someday you will understand why that is like saying "according to the TV series, Uhura was a bridge officer."
buttershug: Seriously, are you retarded or something? I mean it...are you? I've always put such indicators in my posts...are you PARTIALLY blind? As I've explained to you numerous times before(where's that wall that I bang my head against? Ah, yes...here it is...), I'm NOT out to "prove" the things that you insist I'm out to "prove". Oh, forget it...
It's faith or proof.
You insist you don't have faith.
So if you don't have proof you have nothing.
You keep complaining that you keep telling us that things have happened in your life and because of that you "know". We keep telling youthat's not good enough.
But you keep persisting. And then call us the stupid ones.
Imagine if someone tried to check into a hotel with an Armenian Express card but the hotel wouldn't take it. Who would be the stupid one?
What if that person repeatedly tried checking into hotels with it? Never understanding it's not a recognized card.
You have had weird stuff happen to you. So has Nopeda. What's the difference?
You seriously expect us to simply have faith in you? You expect us to believe you can tell the natural from the supernatural? You expect that then when we don't you call us the stupid ones.
You asked Dad1 if he ever met anyone that believed his "split" idea. Have you ever met anyone else that met all the pre-conditions you talk of?
Even if there is supernatural forces at work, how do you know it's not a false God yanking your chain? Maybe Loki has taken a special interest in you.
To sum up; faith or proof. Whatcha got?
Maybe someday you will understand why that is like saying "according to the TV series, Uhura was a bridge officer."
buttershug: Seriously, are you retarded or something? I mean it...are you? I've always put such indicators in my posts...are you PARTIALLY blind? As I've explained to you numerous times before(where's that wall that I bang my head against? Ah, yes...here it is...), I'm NOT out to "prove" the things that you insist I'm out to "prove". Oh, forget it...
It's faith or proof.
You insist you don't have faith.
So if you don't have proof you have nothing.
You keep complaining that you keep telling us that things have happened in your life and because of that you "know". We keep telling youthat's not good enough.
But you keep persisting. And then call us the stupid ones.
Imagine if someone tried to check into a hotel with an Armenian Express card but the hotel wouldn't take it. Who would be the stupid one?
What if that person repeatedly tried checking into hotels with it? Never understanding it's not a recognized card.
You have had weird stuff happen to you. So has Nopeda. What's the difference?
You seriously expect us to simply have faith in you? You expect us to believe you can tell the natural from the supernatural? You expect that then when we don't you call us the stupid ones.
You asked Dad1 if he ever met anyone that believed his "split" idea. Have you ever met anyone else that met all the pre-conditions you talk of?
Even if there is supernatural forces at work, how do you know it's not a false God yanking your chain? Maybe Loki has taken a special interest in you.
To sum up; faith or proof. Whatcha got?
QUOTE (Physfan+Aug 18 2009, 06:01 AM)
Are these some of the gods that Yahweh didn't want his 'chosen people' to worship when he said to Moses, allegedly, "You shall have no other gods before me". Or may be he was talking about all of the others that were around at the time? A bit paranoid , it seems.
I sometimes wonder how jews/xians/muslims reconcile this with there being, in their heads at least, only one god. How human beings can create and kill gods inside their heads also amuses me. Apparently gods aren't as omnipotent as they are made out to be.
Physfan
The weapon of choice of one the Gods of one of those days is apparently in someone's pants on here.
That person would be better able to talk about those Gods.
I sometimes wonder how jews/xians/muslims reconcile this with there being, in their heads at least, only one god. How human beings can create and kill gods inside their heads also amuses me. Apparently gods aren't as omnipotent as they are made out to be.
Physfan
The weapon of choice of one the Gods of one of those days is apparently in someone's pants on here.
That person would be better able to talk about those Gods.
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 17 2009, 10:50 AM)
I just noticed that "Thor" is reading this thread. I hope this doesn't turn into a "clash of the Titans".
And you wonder why we call you a troll...
Congrats, you've just added "Dumbass" to your list of valid descriptives.
Dumbass, fundie, dishonest, morally questionable... It's quite a list.
And you wonder why we call you a troll...
Congrats, you've just added "Dumbass" to your list of valid descriptives.
Dumbass, fundie, dishonest, morally questionable... It's quite a list.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
The weapon of choice of one the Gods of one of those days is apparently in someone's pants on here.
That person would be better able to talk about those Gods.
I think Baal and Tiamat might have been among the list of gods that part of the bible is referencing, but Rob would actually be a better guy to ask.
One thing I can say with near absolute assurance is that the bible wasn't specifically talking about the Norse gods. Us vikingr are an adventurous lot, but I'm as sure as I can be that none of my ancestors were in the Levant at that time.
Or if it was, we'd better all get baptized, cause that's just freaky.
That person would be better able to talk about those Gods.
I think Baal and Tiamat might have been among the list of gods that part of the bible is referencing, but Rob would actually be a better guy to ask.
One thing I can say with near absolute assurance is that the bible wasn't specifically talking about the Norse gods. Us vikingr are an adventurous lot, but I'm as sure as I can be that none of my ancestors were in the Levant at that time.
Or if it was, we'd better all get baptized, cause that's just freaky.
QUOTE (newguy+)
I just noticed that "Thor" is reading this thread. I hope this doesn't turn into a "clash of the Titans".
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
And you wonder why we call you a troll...
Congrats, you've just added "Dumbass" to your list of valid descriptives.
Dumbass, fundie, dishonest, morally questionable... It's quite a list.
MjolnirPants: Lighten up. It was a joke. The thread is supposedly about "Hercules", you know. THAT is the "clash of the Titans" that I was joking about...a "clash" between Hercules and Thor. As far as your descriptors are concerned, after reading what type of "Christian" you respect on another thread, you can call me whatever you'd like. Doesn't faze me in the least.
What's that?
Don't tell me, let me guess...
I'm being "dishonest", again, by telling you my true intent for posting the comment that you overreacted to due to your pride.
"Believe" whatever you'd like...
Congrats, you've just added "Dumbass" to your list of valid descriptives.
Dumbass, fundie, dishonest, morally questionable... It's quite a list.
MjolnirPants: Lighten up. It was a joke. The thread is supposedly about "Hercules", you know. THAT is the "clash of the Titans" that I was joking about...a "clash" between Hercules and Thor. As far as your descriptors are concerned, after reading what type of "Christian" you respect on another thread, you can call me whatever you'd like. Doesn't faze me in the least.
What's that?
Don't tell me, let me guess...
I'm being "dishonest", again, by telling you my true intent for posting the comment that you overreacted to due to your pride.
"Believe" whatever you'd like...
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 19 2009, 02:12 AM)
As far as your descriptors are concerned, after reading what type of "Christian" you respect on another thread, you can call me whatever you'd like. Doesn't faze me in the least.
Sweet shiny Apollo!
Are you saying you saw no value, no power in what MP's pastor said? Oh Ichabod, you need to rein in that horse you're riding.
Evan if MP had made up that conversation, four or five of those sentences have more value then all of your long winded posts combined.
Now apologize to MP and get back on everybody's good side again.
Sweet shiny Apollo!
Are you saying you saw no value, no power in what MP's pastor said? Oh Ichabod, you need to rein in that horse you're riding.
Evan if MP had made up that conversation, four or five of those sentences have more value then all of your long winded posts combined.
Now apologize to MP and get back on everybody's good side again.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 19 2009, 03:59 AM)
QUOTE (buttershug+)
The weapon of choice of one the Gods of one of those days is apparently in someone's pants on here.
That person would be better able to talk about those Gods.
I think Baal and Tiamat might have been among the list of gods that part of the bible is referencing, but Rob would actually be a better guy to ask.
One thing I can say with near absolute assurance is that the bible wasn't specifically talking about the Norse gods. Us vikingr are an adventurous lot, but I'm as sure as I can be that none of my ancestors were in the Levant at that time.
Or if it was, we'd better all get baptized, cause that's just freaky.
I was talkling about Dad1 using the calendar as some sort of evidence of God and Jesus Christ while ignoring Tew's Day, Woden's day, Thor's day, Freya's day, during the week.
And why does Sarturnia get a day? I can understand Sun day and Moon day, but why Saturnia? I think Lokday would make more sense than Saturday.
and Hercules and Thor were not Titan's
That person would be better able to talk about those Gods.
I think Baal and Tiamat might have been among the list of gods that part of the bible is referencing, but Rob would actually be a better guy to ask.
One thing I can say with near absolute assurance is that the bible wasn't specifically talking about the Norse gods. Us vikingr are an adventurous lot, but I'm as sure as I can be that none of my ancestors were in the Levant at that time.
Or if it was, we'd better all get baptized, cause that's just freaky.
I was talkling about Dad1 using the calendar as some sort of evidence of God and Jesus Christ while ignoring Tew's Day, Woden's day, Thor's day, Freya's day, during the week.
And why does Sarturnia get a day? I can understand Sun day and Moon day, but why Saturnia? I think Lokday would make more sense than Saturday.
and Hercules and Thor were not Titan's
QUOTE (my obsessive "fan"+)
and Hercules and Thor were not Titan's
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/titan
Main Entry: ti·tan
Pronunciation: \ˈtī-tən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek
Date: circa 1741
1 capitalized : any of a family of giants in Greek mythology born of Uranus and Gaea and ruling the earth until overthrown by the Olympian gods
2 : one that is gigantic in size or power : one that stands out for greatness of achievement
Broaden your vocabulary, okay?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/titan
Main Entry: ti·tan
Pronunciation: \ˈtī-tən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek
Date: circa 1741
1 capitalized : any of a family of giants in Greek mythology born of Uranus and Gaea and ruling the earth until overthrown by the Olympian gods
2 : one that is gigantic in size or power : one that stands out for greatness of achievement
Broaden your vocabulary, okay?
QUOTE (orestis+)
Now apologize to MP and get back on everybody's good side again.
orestis: You've "accidentally" touched upon something...
I have NO DESIRE WHATSOEVER to "get back(???) on everbody's good side again(???)". None. Zippo. Nil. Unlike MP's "pastor"(GOD HELP US!), I'm not a man-pleaser. Have fun.
orestis: You've "accidentally" touched upon something...
I have NO DESIRE WHATSOEVER to "get back(???) on everbody's good side again(???)". None. Zippo. Nil. Unlike MP's "pastor"(GOD HELP US!), I'm not a man-pleaser. Have fun.
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 19 2009, 01:12 AM)
MjolnirPants: Lighten up. It was a joke. The thread is supposedly about "Hercules", you know. THAT is the "clash of the Titans" that I was joking about...a "clash" between Hercules and Thor.
What's that?
Don't tell me, let me guess...
Neither Hercules nor Thor were titans. Hercules was a the son of a god, and Thor was a god. Duh.
A man who knows the bible better than you ever will, who knows the writings of religious scholars better than you ever will, who went from being a very secular person with a scientific upbringing (and who can wax eloquent on the value of skepticism and rational thought, by the way) to a pastor with multiple degrees in theology, and you think this man isn't worthy of respect because he disagrees with you?
You'll never make it into heaven, assuming it exists. God will take one look at you, laugh and tell you to get lost.
A man who knows the bible better than you ever will, who knows the writings of religious scholars better than you ever will, who went from being a very secular person with a scientific upbringing (and who can wax eloquent on the value of skepticism and rational thought, by the way) to a pastor with multiple degrees in theology, and you think this man isn't worthy of respect because he disagrees with you?
You'll never make it into heaven, assuming it exists. God will take one look at you, laugh and tell you to get lost.
I'm being "dishonest", again, by telling you my true intent for posting the comment that you overreacted to due to your pride. "Believe" whatever you'd like...
You're so clueless...
I wasn't referring to the contents of your comment, dumbass. I was referring to the fact that you not only felt the need to check up on who's doing what, but that you then felt the need to comment on the fact that I was apparently reading this thread when you did so. That's really sad.
What's that?
Don't tell me, let me guess...
Neither Hercules nor Thor were titans. Hercules was a the son of a god, and Thor was a god. Duh.
QUOTE
As far as your descriptors are concerned, after reading what type of "Christian" you respect on another thread, you can call me whatever you'd like. Doesn't faze me in the least.
A man who knows the bible better than you ever will, who knows the writings of religious scholars better than you ever will, who went from being a very secular person with a scientific upbringing (and who can wax eloquent on the value of skepticism and rational thought, by the way) to a pastor with multiple degrees in theology, and you think this man isn't worthy of respect because he disagrees with you? You'll never make it into heaven, assuming it exists. God will take one look at you, laugh and tell you to get lost.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As far as your descriptors are concerned, after reading what type of "Christian" you respect on another thread, you can call me whatever you'd like. Doesn't faze me in the least. |
A man who knows the bible better than you ever will, who knows the writings of religious scholars better than you ever will, who went from being a very secular person with a scientific upbringing (and who can wax eloquent on the value of skepticism and rational thought, by the way) to a pastor with multiple degrees in theology, and you think this man isn't worthy of respect because he disagrees with you? You'll never make it into heaven, assuming it exists. God will take one look at you, laugh and tell you to get lost.
I'm being "dishonest", again, by telling you my true intent for posting the comment that you overreacted to due to your pride. "Believe" whatever you'd like...
You're so clueless... I wasn't referring to the contents of your comment, dumbass. I was referring to the fact that you not only felt the need to check up on who's doing what, but that you then felt the need to comment on the fact that I was apparently reading this thread when you did so. That's really sad.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 19 2009, 11:02 AM)
You'll never make it into heaven, assuming it exists. God will take one look at you, laugh and tell you to get lost.
If by some stretch the Christian afterlife exists, I will be satisfied by ending up wherever newguy isn't.
If by some stretch the Christian afterlife exists, I will be satisfied by ending up wherever newguy isn't.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 19 2009, 04:10 PM)
If by some stretch the Christian afterlife exists, I will be satisfied by ending up wherever newguy isn't.
Mark Twain
QUOTE
Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company.
Mark Twain
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 19 2009, 11:10 AM)
If by some stretch the Christian afterlife exists, I will be satisfied by ending up wherever newguy isn't.
Here here.
Between you, me, and the others I know who'll end up in hell, we shouldn't have too much trouble making Satan our collective bitch and taking over...
A man who knows the bible better than you ever will, who knows the writings of religious scholars better than you ever will, who went from being a very secular person with a scientific upbringing (and who can wax eloquent on the value of skepticism and rational thought, by the way) to a pastor with multiple degrees in theology, and you think this man isn't worthy of respect because he disagrees with you?
MP: That's it? A laughing emoticon and a lot of hot air? Invite your pastor friend to this forum. I'll be happy to debate him.
You're so clueless...
I wasn't referring to the contents of your comment, dumbass. I was referring to the fact that you not only felt the need to check up on who's doing what, but that you then felt the need to comment on the fact that I was apparently reading this thread when you did so. That's really sad.
No, that would be you. You flatter yourself way too much. I've been checking the "Online Users" screen for 4 years on this forum on a daily basis. In fact, your good buddy Sapo ought to be able to tell you that I asked him if a similar feature existed over at the Joint when I used to post there. So, as usual, you're the clueless one. Incidentally, you recently mentioned how I "wonder why 'we' call you(me) troll". Aside from the fact that I've never wondered about any such thing, who exactly is this "we"? From my recollection, the only ones who have referred to me as such are you and Sapo. Haven't lost any sleep over it. In fact, when you recently called me "delusional", Grumpy straightened out your butt(well, he tried to, even though he vehemently opposes most of what I adhere to). Don't you remember his comments:
Here here.
Between you, me, and the others I know who'll end up in hell, we shouldn't have too much trouble making Satan our collective bitch and taking over...
QUOTE (newguy+)
Unlike MP's "pastor"(GOD HELP US!), I'm not a man-pleaser. Have fun.
1. He's not my pastor. I've made it explicitly clear on many occasions that he is the former pastor of a church I no longer attend.
2. 'man-pleaser'? How juvenile can you be?
3. If more so-called 'christians' behave and thought the way this man did, you wouldn't have atheists foaming at the mouth to prove you wrong and make you look bad. You wouldn't have had the witch hunts, the crusades, much of the sectarian violence in Europe, the Westboro Baptist Church, or people being pushed into paganism and atheism by the hypocrisy of the religion they were taught as children.
He's a better christian and a better human being than you will ever be, and your contempt for a man whom you don't know from Adam is indicative of nothing other than your own unchristian nature and moral ambiguity.
1. He's not my pastor. I've made it explicitly clear on many occasions that he is the former pastor of a church I no longer attend.
2. 'man-pleaser'? How juvenile can you be?
3. If more so-called 'christians' behave and thought the way this man did, you wouldn't have atheists foaming at the mouth to prove you wrong and make you look bad. You wouldn't have had the witch hunts, the crusades, much of the sectarian violence in Europe, the Westboro Baptist Church, or people being pushed into paganism and atheism by the hypocrisy of the religion they were taught as children.
He's a better christian and a better human being than you will ever be, and your contempt for a man whom you don't know from Adam is indicative of nothing other than your own unchristian nature and moral ambiguity.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 19 2009, 11:19 AM)
Here here.
Between you, me, and the others I know who'll end up in hell, we shouldn't have too much trouble making Satan our collective bitch and taking over...
From what I hear of this Satan guy, he seems like a decent fellow. I'm pretty sure he would have a laissez faire attitude towards his fellow denizens. And you know what? Fire and brimstone make excellent sources for geothermal energy! After a couple hundred years, it should be possible for hell to assemble a fleet and stage an invasion of heaven. Remember, we have all the scientists, and they have all the newguys.
Between you, me, and the others I know who'll end up in hell, we shouldn't have too much trouble making Satan our collective bitch and taking over...
From what I hear of this Satan guy, he seems like a decent fellow. I'm pretty sure he would have a laissez faire attitude towards his fellow denizens. And you know what? Fire and brimstone make excellent sources for geothermal energy! After a couple hundred years, it should be possible for hell to assemble a fleet and stage an invasion of heaven. Remember, we have all the scientists, and they have all the newguys.
QUOTE (MP+)
A man who knows the bible better than you ever will, who knows the writings of religious scholars better than you ever will, who went from being a very secular person with a scientific upbringing (and who can wax eloquent on the value of skepticism and rational thought, by the way) to a pastor with multiple degrees in theology, and you think this man isn't worthy of respect because he disagrees with you?MP: That's it? A laughing emoticon and a lot of hot air? Invite your pastor friend to this forum. I'll be happy to debate him.
QUOTE (MP+)
You're so clueless... I wasn't referring to the contents of your comment, dumbass. I was referring to the fact that you not only felt the need to check up on who's doing what, but that you then felt the need to comment on the fact that I was apparently reading this thread when you did so. That's really sad.
No, that would be you. You flatter yourself way too much. I've been checking the "Online Users" screen for 4 years on this forum on a daily basis. In fact, your good buddy Sapo ought to be able to tell you that I asked him if a similar feature existed over at the Joint when I used to post there. So, as usual, you're the clueless one. Incidentally, you recently mentioned how I "wonder why 'we' call you(me) troll". Aside from the fact that I've never wondered about any such thing, who exactly is this "we"? From my recollection, the only ones who have referred to me as such are you and Sapo. Haven't lost any sleep over it. In fact, when you recently called me "delusional", Grumpy straightened out your butt(well, he tried to, even though he vehemently opposes most of what I adhere to). Don't you remember his comments:
QUOTE (Grumpy+ "Pope=pourri" Aug 8 2009)
There is much I dissagree with in newguy's posts, but I have found him reasonable and not trollish in our discussions. This place would be exceedingly dull if everyone agreed with everyone else. I have been here a long time, and so has he, and I do not think he deserves the treatment he is currently receiving. A little mutual respect would go a long way. Debate the ideas, don't denigrate the debator The feedbacks I have given him were not in sarcasm, but reflected my actual opinions.
Grumpy
It gets better. Your co-moderator(if you're still a moderator) at the Joint chimed in and said:
Grumpy
It gets better. Your co-moderator(if you're still a moderator) at the Joint chimed in and said:
QUOTE (Derek1148+ "Pope-pourri" Aug 8 2009)
QUOTE (Grumpy+ "Pope-Pourri)
Aug 8 2009]
There is much I dissagree with in newguy's posts, but I have found him reasonable and not trollish in our discussions. This place would be exceedingly dull if everyone agreed with everyone else. I have been here a long time, and so has he, and I do not think he deserves the treatment he is currently receiving. A little mutual respect would go a long way. Debate the ideas, don't denigrate the debator The feedbacks I have given him were not in sarcasm, but reflected my actual opinions.
Grumpy
Your view is interesting and, I believe, accurate.
So, let's see...
You and Sapo vs. Grumpy and Derek...
Have a nice day.
P.S.
There is much I dissagree with in newguy's posts, but I have found him reasonable and not trollish in our discussions. This place would be exceedingly dull if everyone agreed with everyone else. I have been here a long time, and so has he, and I do not think he deserves the treatment he is currently receiving. A little mutual respect would go a long way. Debate the ideas, don't denigrate the debator The feedbacks I have given him were not in sarcasm, but reflected my actual opinions.
Grumpy
Your view is interesting and, I believe, accurate.
So, let's see...
You and Sapo vs. Grumpy and Derek...
Have a nice day.
P.S.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
Here here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear,_hear
Hear, hear is an expression used as a short repeated form of hear ye and hear him. It represents a listener's agreement with the point being made by a speaker.
It was originally an imperative for directing attention to speakers, and has since been used, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, as "the regular form of cheering in the House of Commons", with many purposes depending on the intonation of its user.[1] It is often incorrectly spelled "here here", especially on websites[2] and IM.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear,_hear
Hear, hear is an expression used as a short repeated form of hear ye and hear him. It represents a listener's agreement with the point being made by a speaker.
It was originally an imperative for directing attention to speakers, and has since been used, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, as "the regular form of cheering in the House of Commons", with many purposes depending on the intonation of its user.[1] It is often incorrectly spelled "here here", especially on websites[2] and IM.[3]
QUOTE (MP+)
2. 'man-pleaser'? How juvenile can you be?
MP: No more "juvenile" than Paul, who said:
"For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ."(Galatians 1:10)
"For our exhortation was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile: But as we were allowed to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts."(I Thessalonians 2:3-4)
By the way, it's almost humorous(actually, it's just another indicator of your own sick condition) that you are chiding me for passing judgment on your pastor friend and for supposedly checking up on you WHEN YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SPOKE TO YOUR PASTOR FRIEND ABOUT ME. Sorry to shout...I know that you're blind...I figured that you might be deaf as well. Enjoy your day.
MP: No more "juvenile" than Paul, who said:
"For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ."(Galatians 1:10)
"For our exhortation was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile: But as we were allowed to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts."(I Thessalonians 2:3-4)
By the way, it's almost humorous(actually, it's just another indicator of your own sick condition) that you are chiding me for passing judgment on your pastor friend and for supposedly checking up on you WHEN YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SPOKE TO YOUR PASTOR FRIEND ABOUT ME. Sorry to shout...I know that you're blind...I figured that you might be deaf as well. Enjoy your day.
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 19 2009, 11:46 AM)
MP: That's it? A laughing emoticon and a lot of hot air? Invite your pastor friend to this forum. I'll be happy to debate him.
I have. Unfortunately, unlike you and me, he actually has better things to do, being a pastor and a father and working full time on top of all that.
So engaging in pathetic behavior over a long period of time makes it less pathetic?
So engaging in pathetic behavior over a long period of time makes it less pathetic?
Incidentally, you recently mentioned how I "wonder why 'we' call you(me) troll". Aside from the fact that I've never wondered about any such thing, who exactly is this "we"? From my recollection, the only ones who have referred to me as such are you and Sapo. Haven't lost any sleep over it. In fact, when you recently called me "delusional", Grumpy straightened out your butt(well, he tried to, even though he vehemently opposes most of what I adhere to). Don't you remember his comments:
1. It's a figure of speech. An idiom. Deal with it.
2. Grumpy is a rare exception to a rule.
It's not just me and Sapo, dumbass. Have you ever looked at your feedback page?
It's not just me and Sapo, dumbass. Have you ever looked at your feedback page?
I have. Unfortunately, unlike you and me, he actually has better things to do, being a pastor and a father and working full time on top of all that.
QUOTE
No, that would be you. You flatter yourself way too much. I've been checking the "Online Users" screen for 4 years on this forum on a daily basis. In fact, your good buddy Sapo ought to be able to tell you that I asked him if a similar feature existed over at the Joint when I used to post there. So, as usual, you're the clueless one.
So engaging in pathetic behavior over a long period of time makes it less pathetic?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No, that would be you. You flatter yourself way too much. I've been checking the "Online Users" screen for 4 years on this forum on a daily basis. In fact, your good buddy Sapo ought to be able to tell you that I asked him if a similar feature existed over at the Joint when I used to post there. So, as usual, you're the clueless one. |
So engaging in pathetic behavior over a long period of time makes it less pathetic?
Incidentally, you recently mentioned how I "wonder why 'we' call you(me) troll". Aside from the fact that I've never wondered about any such thing, who exactly is this "we"? From my recollection, the only ones who have referred to me as such are you and Sapo. Haven't lost any sleep over it. In fact, when you recently called me "delusional", Grumpy straightened out your butt(well, he tried to, even though he vehemently opposes most of what I adhere to). Don't you remember his comments:
1. It's a figure of speech. An idiom. Deal with it.
2. Grumpy is a rare exception to a rule.
QUOTE
So, let's see... You and Sapo vs. Grumpy and Derek...
It's not just me and Sapo, dumbass. Have you ever looked at your feedback page?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So, let's see... You and Sapo vs. Grumpy and Derek... |
It's not just me and Sapo, dumbass. Have you ever looked at your feedback page?
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
Here here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear,_hear Hear, hear is an expression used as a short repeated form of hear ye and hear him. It represents a listener's agreement with the point being made by a speaker. It was originally an imperative for directing attention to speakers, and has since been used, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, as "the regular form of cheering in the House of Commons", with many purposes depending on the intonation of its user.[1] It is often incorrectly spelled "here here", especially on websites[2] and IM.[3]
You're such a retard. What does this prove, exactly? That you're a pedantic dumbass?
Because we all know you're from the 1st or 2nd century and aren't familiar with American English well enough to understand the connotations of such a phrase...
We both know you chose a deliberately ambiguous phrase in order to convey your disgust. You're a very transparent person.
Because we all know you're from the 1st or 2nd century and aren't familiar with American English well enough to understand the connotations of such a phrase...
We both know you chose a deliberately ambiguous phrase in order to convey your disgust. You're a very transparent person.
By the way, it's almost humorous(actually, it's just another indicator of your own sick condition) that you are chiding me for passing judgment on your pastor friend and for supposedly checking up on you WHEN YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SPOKE TO YOUR PASTOR FRIEND ABOUT ME.
You don't even realize that this makes no sense, do you?
Me mentioning someone I've spoken with to another person and you insulting someone you've never met are two entirely different acts.
You're such a retard. What does this prove, exactly? That you're a pedantic dumbass?QUOTE
MP: No more "juvenile" than Paul, who said:
Because we all know you're from the 1st or 2nd century and aren't familiar with American English well enough to understand the connotations of such a phrase...
We both know you chose a deliberately ambiguous phrase in order to convey your disgust. You're a very transparent person.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| MP: No more "juvenile" than Paul, who said: |
Because we all know you're from the 1st or 2nd century and aren't familiar with American English well enough to understand the connotations of such a phrase...
We both know you chose a deliberately ambiguous phrase in order to convey your disgust. You're a very transparent person.By the way, it's almost humorous(actually, it's just another indicator of your own sick condition) that you are chiding me for passing judgment on your pastor friend and for supposedly checking up on you WHEN YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SPOKE TO YOUR PASTOR FRIEND ABOUT ME.
You don't even realize that this makes no sense, do you?Me mentioning someone I've spoken with to another person and you insulting someone you've never met are two entirely different acts.
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 17 2009, 04:54 PM)
QUOTE (buttershug+)
At least now you are putting things like "according to scriptual record" into your posts.
Maybe someday you will understand why that is like saying "according to the TV series, Uhura was a bridge officer."
buttershug: Seriously, are you retarded or something? I mean it...are you? I've always put such indicators in my posts...are you PARTIALLY blind? As I've explained to you numerous times before(where's that wall that I bang my head against? Ah, yes...here it is...), I'm NOT out to "prove" the things that you insist I'm out to "prove". Oh, forget it...
And as usual you stop short and miss the real point.
You mix talking about the Bible in the same way some talk about Star Trek with talking as if the Bible is accurate.
That's what I was getting at, and what you don't address.
"the Bible says" is not the same as "according to scriptual record".
One is implying that you are quoting a unverisally verified source, the other is a "Star Trek" dicussion type statement.
I added "universally" before verified because I realized you will once again REPEAT that you have verified the Bible. But I havn't seen how you have done that. Or how you have validated that verification.
I don't want you to repeat the same lame stuff then blame us for not understanding what you don't tell us?
Oh and one other thing that you might actually find amusing. "Troll" isn't necessarily talking about cousins of Orcs. One explaination of the origin of the internet useage of the word has to do with "trolling" as in fishing. And aren't you supposed to be a fisherman of men? So doesn't the Bible tell you to be a troll in that sense of the word?
Maybe someday you will understand why that is like saying "according to the TV series, Uhura was a bridge officer."
buttershug: Seriously, are you retarded or something? I mean it...are you? I've always put such indicators in my posts...are you PARTIALLY blind? As I've explained to you numerous times before(where's that wall that I bang my head against? Ah, yes...here it is...), I'm NOT out to "prove" the things that you insist I'm out to "prove". Oh, forget it...
And as usual you stop short and miss the real point.
You mix talking about the Bible in the same way some talk about Star Trek with talking as if the Bible is accurate.
That's what I was getting at, and what you don't address.
"the Bible says" is not the same as "according to scriptual record".
One is implying that you are quoting a unverisally verified source, the other is a "Star Trek" dicussion type statement.
I added "universally" before verified because I realized you will once again REPEAT that you have verified the Bible. But I havn't seen how you have done that. Or how you have validated that verification.
I don't want you to repeat the same lame stuff then blame us for not understanding what you don't tell us?
Oh and one other thing that you might actually find amusing. "Troll" isn't necessarily talking about cousins of Orcs. One explaination of the origin of the internet useage of the word has to do with "trolling" as in fishing. And aren't you supposed to be a fisherman of men? So doesn't the Bible tell you to be a troll in that sense of the word?
"Campbell's comparative historical approach to mythology, religion, and literature, in contrast to the conventional scholar's emphasis on cultural differences, concentrated on similarities. He was convinced that the common themes or archetypes in our sacred stories and images transcended the variations or cultural manifestations. Moreover he believed that a re-viewing of such primordial images in mythology as the hero, death and resurrection, the virgin birth, and the promised land--the universal aspects of the soul, the blood memories--could reveal our common psychological roots. They could even show us, as seen from below, how the soul views itself."
"Myths are the 'masks of God'," he wrote, "through which men everywhere have sought to relate themselves to the wonders of existence." The shock of recognition we receive from the timelessness of these images, from primal cultures to the most contemporary, he believed, was an illumination not only of our inward life but of the same deep spiritual ground from which all human life springs."
http://mythosandlogos.com/Campbell.html
Joseph Campbell, one of the greatest writers on the topic of myth.
"A life-death-rebirth deity, also known as a "dying-and-rising" or "resurrection" deity, is a god who is born, suffers death (or an eclipse or other death-like experience), passes a phase in the underworld among the dead, and is subsequently reborn, in either a literal or symbolic sense. Male examples include Osiris, Tammuz, Zalmoxis, Baldr, Dionysus, and Odin. Female deities who passed into the kingdom of death and returned include Inanna (also known as Ishtar, whose cult dates to 4000 BCE) and Persephone (the central figure of the Eleusinian Mysteries, whose cult may date to 1700 BCE as the unnamed goddess worshiped in Crete)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-death-rebirth_deity
A list of resurrection myths from different cultures across the world, most of which predate Christianity. Some of the articles are sparse but you get the idea.
It's never bothered me that people want to have a religion. There may be cultural and psychological value in having one. But it's so irritating when they start saying "Mine is the only true one! Every one else is wrong!" At that point there is no more discussion, no hope of learning anything.
"Myths are the 'masks of God'," he wrote, "through which men everywhere have sought to relate themselves to the wonders of existence." The shock of recognition we receive from the timelessness of these images, from primal cultures to the most contemporary, he believed, was an illumination not only of our inward life but of the same deep spiritual ground from which all human life springs."
http://mythosandlogos.com/Campbell.html
Joseph Campbell, one of the greatest writers on the topic of myth.
"A life-death-rebirth deity, also known as a "dying-and-rising" or "resurrection" deity, is a god who is born, suffers death (or an eclipse or other death-like experience), passes a phase in the underworld among the dead, and is subsequently reborn, in either a literal or symbolic sense. Male examples include Osiris, Tammuz, Zalmoxis, Baldr, Dionysus, and Odin. Female deities who passed into the kingdom of death and returned include Inanna (also known as Ishtar, whose cult dates to 4000 BCE) and Persephone (the central figure of the Eleusinian Mysteries, whose cult may date to 1700 BCE as the unnamed goddess worshiped in Crete)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-death-rebirth_deity
A list of resurrection myths from different cultures across the world, most of which predate Christianity. Some of the articles are sparse but you get the idea.
It's never bothered me that people want to have a religion. There may be cultural and psychological value in having one. But it's so irritating when they start saying "Mine is the only true one! Every one else is wrong!" At that point there is no more discussion, no hope of learning anything.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.