i find your concern hilarious but trust me, there's no need because i definitely have no intentions of removing any tattoo i have or will have in the future.
your concern for another man is also a bit perplexing... you must like your men without tattoos. !
Unfortunately they can only remove your tattoo, not the Hep-C that came with it.
you're in' lame man. step up your game "brah"!
Uh-oh now hes claiming a degree and using the term dichotomous. Next you should draw up the white flag and put me on ignore like partschanger.
Then you claim me pedantic. Thats pretty sad. Oh and btw, dichotomy assumes two. You know the whole prefix di- and all that. Next time try using the term 'different' rather than trying to seem smarter than you really are.
Like I said you are an intellectual coward. Your response to Aristotle vs the Socratic method was an admission that for the most part I am right but you cover it up with a bunch of bull .
This has nothing with me being a badass and everything to do with your cowardice. Its hardly a zero sum game.
Really though, its pretty obvious you are going to hide behind claims of sarcasm and other passive aggressive bull . This most current response is just another example of this.
I mean you even criticize the idea that someone might discuss kinesiology in reference to exercise. You said look to the 1700s for enlightenment. I said I do not agree. Oh the humanity!
For all of your condescension of my comments on Locke -although that is hardly the sole contention- you have been absolutely unable to justify any refutation. You have just given up and gone passive aggressive like a petulant child. Ironic considering your demographic.
This is the epitome of your intellectual cowardice. You are the one that said the 1700s. You arbitrarily chose that. You tried to support that from people from different centuries. You cannot even stand by your original statement.so now we are confined to the 18th century and no longer to locke and the enlightenment in general.
Whats great is that you then accuse me of going off the deep end on tangents. Hypocrite much. All I am trying to do is get you to justify your original assertion.
You cannot even do that. You continue to dissemble and throw out red herrings.
Oh and on a final note. I am getting PMs giving me kudos because of how I am responding to you. Apparently, others have not appreciated your pedantry but whats funny is that you use try and use diction to seem more than you are but fail as often as not:
the three greeks were definitely distinct from one another but by no means were they all that dichotomous.
I may not have any friends but you certainly have enemies.
Hey Fuzzy and rjv...stop posting your bull in my thread sons. You two aren't nearly as smart as you think...with your drawn out idiotic ramblings.
aww you actually read through all that. i thought nobody actually read through line by line arguments.Hey Fuzzy go yourself son....stop posting your bull in my thread. You aren't nearly as smart as you think...with your drawn out idiotic ramblings.
added rjv as well...you both are big dummies. Praise the Lordaww you actually read through all that. i thought nobody actually read through line by line arguments.
all of that and it just comes down to what i said would happen all along. the thread would be reduced to a case of the adult version of third grade dynamics. for all that you spent writing all of this, you essentially have just paraded around in an argument of abuse and an argument of might makes right. nice to know that in the end you're just spewing out fallacies and going on and on. exactly what i stated happens in these threads all along. you even had to go and tell me that everyone else hates me. how desperate is that? you see, i never even had to defend my original assertion. you have demonstrated it all on your own.Uh-oh now hes claiming a degree and using the term dichotomous. Next you should draw up the white flag and put me on ignore like partschanger.
Then you claim me pedantic. Thats pretty sad. Oh and btw, dichotomy assumes two. You know the whole prefix di- and all that. Next time try using the term 'different' rather than trying to seem smarter than you really are.
Like I said you are an intellectual coward. Your response to Aristotle vs the Socratic method was an admission that for the most part I am right but you cover it up with a bunch of bull .
This has nothing with me being a badass and everything to do with your cowardice. Its hardly a zero sum game.
Really though, its pretty obvious you are going to hide behind claims of sarcasm and other passive aggressive bull . This most current response is just another example of this.
I mean you even criticize the idea that someone might discuss kinesiology in reference to exercise. You said look to the 1700s for enlightenment. I said I do not agree. Oh the humanity!
For all of your condescension of my comments on Locke -although that is hardly the sole contention- you have been absolutely unable to justify any refutation. You have just given up and gone passive aggressive like a petulant child. Ironic considering your demographic.
This is the epitome of your intellectual cowardice. You are the one that said the 1700s. You arbitrarily chose that. You tried to support that from people from different centuries. You cannot even stand by your original statement.
Whats great is that you then accuse me of going off the deep end on tangents. Hypocrite much. All I am trying to do is get you to justify your original assertion.
You cannot even do that. You continue to dissemble and throw out red herrings.
Oh and on a final note. I am getting PMs giving me kudos because of how I am responding to you. Apparently, others have not appreciated your pedantry but whats funny is that you use try and use diction to seem more than you are but fail as often as not:
I may not have any friends but you certainly have enemies.
so you admit you have no friends or enemies. damn dude, not only are you not interesting enough to have people like you. you are not even interesting enough to get people to hate you.
I tried actually discussing what you said. You never even tried but decided to just condescend. Self fulfilling prophecy.
Sorry Amare.
Hey Fuzzy and rjv...stop posting your bull in my thread sons. You two aren't nearly as smart as you think...with your drawn out idiotic ramblings.
now that i can agree with.
new testament, brah.
There are a couple of explanations that i have read/heard about this.
The first is that the story would not have been very nice. Now this is not to say that the story in the scriptures is nice but Jesus would have gone through in his childhood.
He was a bas or a mazmer in jewish terms. For all the talk of him being the chosen one etc the people of his village would not have thought so. He would have been a social outcast. His mother would have been regarded as a as well.
Now this is not a value judgement on my part. i am just talking about hebrew culture during that time period. Everyone in the village would have looked down on him and ostracized him. People want to talk of kids nowadays being bullied. Well the bullying on him would have been sanctioned.
Being a social and spiritual outcast in his youth does not jive well with the story in the bible.
Deuteronomy 23:2
Other things that I have heard is that he more than likely left Nazareth early. He was probably treated like so who can blame him. John the baptist was his cousin and traipsing through the wilderness so it would make sense to go and hag out with him.A bas shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
Quite a bit of what Jesus talks about is straight out of John's Kabbalah. All the kingdom of god and repentance, baptism, imminent destruction of the world was all John's shtick. Theres a school of thought that John kissing Jesus' ass is a bunch off bull . John did baptize Jesus after all.
Of course this once again would not jive, the king of kings being subservient to anyone doe not look too good so.....
I have no doubt that Jesus had rabbinic callings. He could not have pursued that amongst his own people. His crazy cousin running around in the woods is quite a different story.
^^^ Son are you really this dumb....I bet 80% of the in the bible was never said by Jesus and has nothing to do with him.....
Probably also spent his young adulthood as far east as India, studying eastern religions.
I snort wood glue and enjoy being kicked in the balls.^^^ Son are you really this dumb....I bet 80% of the in the bible was never said by Jesus and has nothing to do with him.....
Interesting. Logical. Provable.Think about it this way. The Bible clearly promises that God answers prayers. For example, in Mark 11:24 Jesus says, "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." And billions of Christians believe these promises. You can find thousands of books, magazine articles and Web sites talking about the power of prayer. According to believers, God is answering millions of their prayers every day.
So what should happen if we pray to God to restore amputated limbs? Clearly, if God is real, limbs should regenerate through prayer. In reality, they do not.
Why not? Because God is imaginary. Notice that there is zero ambiguity in this situation. There is only one way for a limb to regenerate through prayer: God must exist and God must answer prayers. What we find is that whenever we create a unambiguous situation like this and look at the results of prayer, prayer never works. God never "answers prayers" if there is no possibility of coincidence. We will approach this issue from several different angles in this book, but Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8 are particularly important:
Correlation is not cause.The fact that prayers are never answered when the possibility of coincidence is eliminated meshes with another fact. If we analyze God's responses to ambiguous prayers using statistical tools, what we find is that there is never any statistical evidence for prayer. In other words, when we statisically compare prayer to coincidence for explaining any situation, they are identical. For example, this article points out:
One of the most scientifically rigorous studies yet, published earlier this month, found that the prayers of a distant congregation did not reduce the major complications or death rate in patients hospitalized for heart treatments. [ref]
It also says:
A review of 17 past studies of ''distant healing," published in 2003 by a British researcher, found no significant effect for prayer or other healing methods.
India and Persia were not all that far away at the time.
He might not have even had to travel to learn about that, simply due to contact with trading caravans and so forth.
Respectfully:
You would have better conversations if you toned the hostility down a notch.
Well-meant and freely given, although I certainly understand being frustrated at people on the otherside of an argument.
LOL at quoting the winged horse guy.
Anyway you are right. I just misread his tickled pink comment.
Its not that I am hostile towards people on the other side of an argument. I just loathe people that complain about one thing(inane arguments) and then turning around and doing everything in their power to keep it that way (hiding behind sarcasm rather than having a debate).
Once it goes to that line by line its too far gone. No one really reads them anyway. At least I almost never do unless I am participating.
It is hard. That is why I break up the line by line stuff into seperate posts, otherwise it gets very hard to follow/edit.
While I generally am not a big fan of religion, I do recognize that some religious books can contain bits of wisdom that can be meaningful and helpful. The quote from Mohammed is one of my favorites. It's inclusion was meant as subtle humor though.
A theory is that religion, at its most fundamental beginnings, long before the written word, long before civilization even, was small groups of people attempting to explain and decipher their environment, and their lives within its context. However, man, being incredibly intelligent, quickly realized this natural human affinity for deciphering the unknown could be harnessed as a method of near-completely binding control.
Of course, naturalistic elements are ever present - male's physical domination, in a world where brainpower was useful but unnecessary past a certain point due to the lack of transferable knowledge between generations, ultimately made its way into all of the major religious movements.
I have two things against really believing that the Bible is *the* infallible word of God that it says it is.
The existance of evil. Oddly enough, after arriving independently at the conclusion that if there is evil, then God most certainly is not as most Christians concieve him/her/it to be, I found out that this has a fairly formal name, The Problem of Evil.
The other is that the Bible outright says God not only allows evil, he condones something widely held as evil, slavery.
Jesus himself seemed perfectly fine with it, just as one might expect of someone of that time period..Leviticus Chapter 25, verse 44:
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
us, chapter 2 verse 9:
Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity.
I don't see the Word of God there, merely the word of men. Men for that matter, using religion to further their own economic interests.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
