Taking questions of the Different state past (2)

[dad]

Well, you keep proving my point really. You neither understand nor are the least interested in anyone's views but your own, but as I mentioned, there are probable reasons for this. I've seen it before in elderly people who are isolated.

Now you descend into some self serving dreamland where eveyone is nuts but you. Still you offer no reason or content.

You are the one who never follows nor cares what anyone else has to say.

Get a grip, man. Stop trying to demonize other posters.

Focusing on issues raised by other people is a theoretical concept for you.

If an ant gets in the way when one is walking, how hard is it to deal with? You either see it and step over it, or walk on it if you don't notice it. You want us to pretend that little silly defeated ant posts ought to be reverenced as huge obstacles to our walk. Try to deal with the fact that unless you post something worthy of reasoned consideration and debate, it need not be remembered.

This isn't really your fault, you don't have the tools necessary to do it, but that is of no importance to you. Other people's posts are just an excuse for you to repeat your own identical post for the 30,000th time.

Perhaps you should lick your wounds elsewhere, and get back to us if and when you grow a case.

Then close the thread. Do it. It would be good therapy for you.

If most posts devolve into whiny little rants such as you offer, it would not pain me to not bother posting anymore.

 

[dad]

Logic? scripture? was scripture written by logical people?

Dr Luke and the government workers and fishermen were of very sound mind. Paul was so educated some called him too learned. Solomon had more wisdom than any man on earth in his day. David was a brilliant military strategist and leader. Jesus won every debate He was in to such an astounding degree, that one could hardly call it debate, more of a slaughter.

their world was filled with demons, dragons, spirits and gods,

So is yours, the issue is whether you know it. Apparently not. So called science is dead. It doesn't have the wherewithal to perceive much of what goes on.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Now you descend into some self serving dreamland where eveyone is nuts but you. Still you offer no reason or content.

I've given a plausible reason for your solipsistic posting style, and it wasn't being "nuts".

Get a grip, man. Stop trying to demonize other posters.

Interesting that you see a description of what you admit you do as demonising. If you don't like the picture that's your fault, no one else's.

If an ant gets in the way when one is walking, how hard is it to deal with? You either see it and step over it, or walk on it if you don't notice it. You want us to pretend that little silly defeated ant posts ought to be reverenced as huge obstacles to our walk. Try to deal with the fact that unless you post something worthy of reasoned consideration and debate, it need not be remembered.

There you are, you've just described what you do yourself. Yet when I described it to you, you called it demonising. You know, it's strange that you are unable to ignore these defeated ants whose posts aren't worth remembering. That's why I made the observation that other posters aren't really necessary for you to repeat yourself for the 30,000th time. It clearly isn't about the ants or the contents of their posts. They are irrelevant to you.

Perhaps you should lick your wounds elsewhere, and get back to us if and when you grow a case.

It's rather difficult to feel wounded by someone who can't remember and doesn't care about what he's replying to. All one can do is try and make them aware of what they're doing. If they still don't care then it's rather hopeless. But, as I said, there are explanations for it.

If most posts devolve into whiny little rants such as you offer, it would not pain me to not bother posting anymore.

Then prove it.

 

[Andy 998]

Jesus won every debate He was in to such an astounding degree, that one could hardly call it debate, more of a slaughter.

I has been proposed that he was gay, what do you think?
Problem is no one who ever wrote anything about him actually saw him or heard him speak.

 

[dad]

I've given a plausible reason for your solipsistic posting style, and it wasn't being "nuts".

Your digression into blather continues at a rapid pace.

You know, it's strange that you are unable to ignore these defeated ants whose posts aren't worth remembering.

I try to be courteous enough to respond to defeated ants, even when their posts are like yours. That doesn't add interest or content to them.

Then prove it.

When you become the only poster, and continue to display an inability to discuss anything of even small merit, but continue to spam post, I would look at that option.

 

[dad]

I has been proposed that he was gay, what do you think?

I think you are projecting.

Problem is no one who ever wrote anything about him actually saw him or heard him speak.

Paul heard Him. John heard Him, etc. You represent so called science well. Taking pride in piggishly false claims.

 

[justlookinla]

I has been proposed that he was gay, what do you think?
Problem is no one who ever wrote anything about him actually saw him or heard him speak.

So, he was gay and didn't exist?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

When you become the only poster, and continue to display an inability to discuss anything of even small merit, but continue to spam post, I would look at that option.

I doubt very much you'd be able to stop yourself replying even if your only replies were from bots. You need it too much. As for closing the thread? That was funny. Rather like a junkie threatening to chuck his stash down the loo. Never gonna happen.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

So, he was gay and didn't exist?

I understood he was rather keen on mary magdelene. Wasn't there a parchment found referring to him kissing her on the lips?

 

[dad]

I doubt very much you'd be able to stop yourself replying even if your only replies were from bots. You need it too much. As for closing the thread? That was funny. Rather like a junkie threatening to chuck his stash down the loo. Never gonna happen.

You had every opportunity to do something other than talk trash. Don't blame me.

How we look at evidence depends on our starting beliefs. The largest creature on land ever found was still growing. That could indicate that growth processes were different.

"Shockingly, skeletal evidence shows that when this 65-ton specimen died, it was not yet full grown."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140904093007.htm

Perhaps we should consider whether bones repaired themselves or etc in ways we don't see now?

 

[justlookinla]

I understood he was rather keen on mary magdelene. Wasn't there a parchment found referring to him kissing her on the lips?

By this, I'm assuming you believe Jesus existed?

 

[Loudmouth]

Name the specific pattern that was predicted, that doesn't follow the general rules of what was created??

Show us what the general rules are as they related to the ratio of any element in the rocks including Fe, Ni, Al, K, Ar, etc.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

By this, I'm assuming you believe Jesus existed?

My personal opinion is that there was a genuine person on whom the jesus story was very loosely based. He was just a man though, apparently with a crush on mary magdelene.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

You had every opportunity to do something other than talk trash. Don't blame me.

I don't blame you, I understand completely that you can't help yourself. As I said, I've seen it before in elderly people who are isolated.

 

[justlookinla]

My personal opinion is that there was a genuine person on whom the jesus story was based. He was just a man though, apparently with a crush on mary magdelene.

What convinced you that Jesus actually existed?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

What convinced you that Jesus actually existed?

Well, the romans were crucifying lots of these religious cult leaders at the time. I remember reading somewhere that they popping up quite frequently, so the chances of one of them inspiring a myth that catches hold seems quite likely. A religious leader/preacher/teacher makes a nuisance of himself and gets crucified. His followers mythologise him for the next few decades, exaggerating and embellishing the tale with repeated telling until the original truth is completely lost to history. Taken in this light the jesus myth is about what you'd expect.

 

[justlookinla]

Well, the romans were crucifying lots of these religious cult leaders at the time. I remember reading somewhere that they popping up quite frequently, so the chances of one of them inspiring a myth that catches hold seems quite likely. A religious leader/preacher/teacher makes a nuisance of himself and gets crucified. His followers mythologise him for the next few decades, exaggerating and embellishing the tale with repeated telling until the original truth is completely lost to history. Taken in this light the jesus myth is about what you'd expect.

How do you know what the Romans were doing? And what religious cult leaders?

 

[Andy 998]

Well, the romans were crucifying lots of these religious cult leaders at the time. I remember reading somewhere that they popping up quite frequently, so the chances of one of them inspiring a myth that catches hold seems quite likely. A religious leader/preacher/teacher makes a nuisance of himself and gets crucified. His followers mythologise him for the next few decades, exaggerating and embellishing the tale with repeated telling until the original truth is completely lost to history. Taken in this light the jesus myth is about what you'd expect.

It was quite a common thing in those days because there was no cinema, telly or radio so people talked a lot and made up new and embellished existing stories.
With no education and no need for education people were mentally pretty basic, if all they did was go fishing every day or work in the fields they were not and didn't need to be the brightest lights on the tree, that in turn would mean they were easily amazed understood very little and would believe just about anything.


.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

How do you know what the Romans were doing? And what religious cult leaders?

I've forgotten where I read it now, but a quick google indicates that Josephus mentions that there were many messiah claimants at the time, and even the gospels warn against the false messiahs. Messianic figures were quite the thing at the time apparently.

 

[justlookinla]

I've forgotten where I read it now, but a quick google indicates that Josephus mentions that there were many messiah claimants at the time, and even the gospels warn against the false messiahs. Messianic figures were quite the thing at the time apparently.

I was really interested in your sources for your statement that "the romans were crucifying lots of these religious cult leaders at the time."

I'm not aware of Josephus writing about that.