ACtually, I dont mind spendi.(Im sure many others feel the same) So many of the RL's and BD's are unimpeded by the thought process, but there remains so little time.
You just sit there like a howler monkey throwing cashews at anybody who wont stroke your massive ego, but thats another thread entirely.
spendius wrote: fm (and others),
...Would you kindly set out your agenda for a non-Christian fabric. You are having too easy a ride as things stand. Vandalising an existent structure can be creative so let's be hearing your alternative. Only then can we scrutinise it and if it passes muster I feel sure many will come round to your position. Failure to offer one leaves the vandalism stuck at the point of wreckage. And vandals of street furniture just flee the scene and leave it at that. You wouldn't want to be seen to be doing that about a nation's mental furniture I'm sure but if you fail to offer an alternative that's roughly the position you will be seen to be in.
Sadly, an alternative you ask for will not be presented from those you speak of. Your assessment is spot on as to their need for vandalism. While I describe it (conservatively) as the need for a safety net; your description is probably more accurate. Despite numerous offers to provide their own [creative] descriptions/definitions/etc - refusal is the repeated answer. There is some sort of pleasure derived from waiting (baiting?) for another to assert - then pouncing on the assertion and the person with might. The issue has no matter - it is the attack that excites.
It is much like fishing, or more appropriately - trolling.
You forgot to mention, bd, the gratuitously insulting flourish which usually accompanies the "refusal" which is really an incapacity either of knowledge or daring.
I would have had "perverted" between "of" and "pleasure".
It has been a challenge for 3 years almost and always ducked.
One cannot speak of anything they disagree with without being accused of something or other. You wouldn't believe how many times my "massive ego" has been wheeled out. They can't even insult people properly despite my having provided them with numerous examples.
One only has to imagine them manning the higher reaches of our bureaucracies to orient oneself regarding these matters.
A distinct advantage of a Christian society is that we can still ask them these questions.
They would of course "re-educate" any "massive egos" that surfaced.
Humanely at first. Until the money runs out. Which it would. The Capitalist entrepreneurial spirit is entirely Christian. Show Plato a can of beans, opened of course, and he would just eat it.
He would never think that if he shaved a fraction of metal off the rim he could save --let's see- there's billions of cans and thus 0.75 grammes comes to er er and there's a never ending demand, or at least until there's a nutrient tube next to the telly which is worked by the remote, suck it and see science, and that's a few thou tons a year and at $350 a ton, and with the canners being forced by the customers to buy cans in the same way the customers buy them when filled with "you name it , well cram it in", he might be able to get a bank manager interested etc etc. You have to be Christian through and through to think like that and our opponents on here pride themselves that they understand Plato, what a tosser eh?
I could elaborate but I'll refrain. On the contracts mostly.
The only true entrepreneur the Greeks had was a fictional character called Spendius, the son of a rhetorician and a Campagna prostitute, who Gustave Flaubert created for them. And he just bought and sold women.
baddog1 wrote:In order not to threadjack - please start your own thread(s) with these questions.
Liar.
Terry is not "thread-jacking." The title of this pathetic exercise of yours is: "Is the Bible Reliable? Science and Scripture." Every question which Terry asked is direct and to the point; more specifically, those questions are directly to the point in a discussion of the (putative) scientific reliability of scripture.
You do of course mean the (putative) scientific reliability of those aspects of scripture you choose to look at in your specifically personal way and draw our attention to.
The version you have is a condensation of 100 years of tavern tales and rumours which circulate around all significant people brought together by some writers, much as Homer did, and rendered into a language which we have no hope of understanding in it's subtleties for a people noted for their exciteability. How far is the vision of the Apocalypse from a giant Plasma TV screen operated by an easily bored viewer. As a prophesy. Midnight Cowboy did a crude version at an appropriate moment.
Some of the things you have skipped over because they are not so easy to use as ammo are what the Biblical scholars pore over in a number of university departments.
Shouldn't you be calling for them to be disbanded. You can't have all that taxpayer's money going on poring over bullshit surely?
Quote:It has been a challenge for 3 years almost and always ducked.
NO one has ever ducked you spendi. When , in the few times when youve been fully lucid, and have asked sensible questions or made points that were substantive, everyone has gladly accepted your input. Most of the time, however, the howler monkey in you attempts to make beautiful forest music at high decibels. Why dont you continue your original posts in which youve stated that you were a "scientist" and people had challenged you on this obvious lie since you were unaware of most of the basics of science.
I do agree however, you are challenged.
Flannel.
You've ducked every significant question all the way through. It's on the record.
How do you imagine a non-scientest could put together that theory of mine, irrespective of its validity, concerning the Gospel, the Bishop of Brixen, modern mathematics and your TV remote control not to mention your bowthrusters.
And only a non-scientist would not appreciate the theory and thus ignore it. Think it nuts. And think it nuts and it is nuts to a non-scientist.
I gave you a perfectly reasonable answer to your dumass question of what do Jesus Christ with a lightning bolt, the Bishop of Brixton, and modern science have in common.
Lets face it, youve just run out of material. John SMith calls and you must obey the thirst.
fm wrote-
Quote:I gave you a perfectly reasonable answer to your dumass question of what do Jesus Christ with a lightning bolt, the Bishop of Brixton, and modern science have in common.
Where? I must have missed it.
I have missed out one step in the logic.
Do you only obey the commands of the "thirst" for pure sping water fm?
Sheesh!!!!
fm wrote-
Quote:Most of the time, however, the howler monkey in you attempts to make beautiful forest music at high decibels.
And what precisely have you got against beautiful forest music fm?
maybe it's the decibel level...
Setanta wrote:baddog1 wrote:In order not to threadjack - please start your own thread(s) with these questions.
Liar.
Terry is not "thread-jacking." The title of this pathetic exercise of yours is: "Is the Bible Reliable? Science and Scripture." Every question which Terry asked is direct and to the point; more specifically, those questions are directly to the point in a discussion of the (putative) scientific reliability of scripture.
There is no way that I can top the most apt reply from spendius as he surely has you pegged!
Spendius wrote:
Quote:You do of course mean the (putative) scientific reliability of those aspects of scripture you choose to look at in your specifically personal way and draw our attention to.
The version you have is a condensation of 100 years of tavern tales and rumours which circulate around all significant people brought together by some writers, much as Homer did, and rendered into a language which we have no hope of understanding in it's subtleties for a people noted for their exciteability. How far is the vision of the Apocalypse from a giant Plasma TV screen operated by an easily bored viewer. As a prophesy. Midnight Cowboy did a crude version at an appropriate moment.
Some of the things you have skipped over because they are not so easy to use as ammo are what the Biblical scholars pore over in a number of university departments.
Shouldn't you be calling for them to be disbanded. You can't have all that taxpayer's money going on poring over bullshit surely?
It is unsurprising that you consider Spurious to have made a significant point at any time in any thread--after all, you believe that the Bobble is "gospel" truth, so you obvious have low (or no) standards.
It remains true, for whatever your bluster or attempts to dodge, that Terry has asked a series of questions which are pertinent to the subject of the scientific reliability of the Bobble. Currently, it also remains true that you have failed to answer those questions, and i suspect you will continue to dodge them. You have failed to make your case, you have failed to support your thesis.
No surprise there.
spendi quoteQuote:Some of the things you have skipped over because they are not so easy to use as ammo are what the Biblical scholars pore over in a number of university departments.
Shouldn't you be calling for them to be disbanded. You can't have all that taxpayer's money going on poring over bullshit surely?
Oh by the way, Im mad
youve missed everything spendi said BD
That's out of order fm. And you know it.
In fact it is a lie. You quoted me as saying something I hadn't said. If we all stooped to such low tricks the site would close in short order.
It is quite obvious you have no answer to the post I offered. Your reputation might not suffer so much as it has if you had simply remained silent on the basis that you didn't understand the points.
As it is viewers can see for themselves how desperate you are. Everytime you use the word "bullshit" in relation to The Bible you rubbish Biblical scholarship the world over and, in case you don't know, most of the world's art heritage.
Supporters of democratically approved science, such as myself, and it's much the most of the subject, must be cringing at the way you support the case for science.
Setanta wrote:It remains true, for whatever your bluster or attempts to dodge, that Terry has asked a series of questions which are pertinent to the subject of the scientific reliability of the Bobble...
No dodge.
Terry's questions are remotely 'pertinent' to the subject at best. Similarly; one could say that the word Adam is 'pertinent' to the subject. Others that quickly come to mind are: Noah, immorality, Psalms, wine, marriage... As I explained earlier - responding to every 'pertinent' goose chase could take a long, long time and I prefer to stay closer to the subject.
BTW: This forum allows for anyone to post a thread of their own choosing. (Including Terry.)
This forum also allows any member to post in any thread--and that includes asking you questions which show your thesis for the idiocy it represents, for however unpleasant that may be for you.
Terry's questions are directly and proximately pertinent, not "remotely" so.
Your failure to address those questions is excellent inferential evidence that you are unable to support your bible-thumper thesis.
At least he's civilised unlike you Setanta.
It amazes me that the mods put up with you. You won't even address people by their chosen name.
Your language is intemperate and a sad reflection on your country, your education and your state of mind.
You are the sole arbiter of what is pertinant and your stubborn refusal to answer questions others think are pertinant is paraded continually. You define what "idiocy" is and a number of other words.
You seem to be in a permanent rage.
What's marriage to an atheist? A deal is the only answer. What's a baby in the womb to an atheist? A glob of protoplasm I suppose or a bloody nuisance.
