PDA

View Full Version : A new perspective on the never ending atheist vs religion front.



Merauk
12th September 04, 09:25 AM
While both sides may disagree over his divine status, both sides do acknowledge he was a real person. So I put it to you, was Jesus a wigger or a nigger?

Chantress
12th September 04, 09:37 AM
While both sides may disagree over his divine status, both sides do acknowledge he was a real person. So I put it to you, was Jesus a wigger or a nigger?

He was aramaic. So neither really.

Phrost
12th September 04, 11:17 AM
There is little objective, conclusive evidence (the New Testament is not even remotely objective) that "Jesus Christ" existed.

In fact, there's much more evidence of another man, at the same time, wandering around creating miracles, healing the sick, and opposing the establishment.

His name was Apollonius of Tyana.

[url]While Constantine had his vision and converted to Christianity, the Emperor Aurelian earlier had a similar vision of the appearance of Apollonius during his march against Tyana. He decided to spare the inhabitants and erect a temple instead, which seems to suggest some political motivation for the propagation of Apollonius. The importance of Apollonius in history was acknowledged even by Christian writers as Cassiodorus, who recognized his reputation as a saint. Later medieval Christians always viewed the Apollonius story as a Roman innovation used as an attack on Christianity, or when admitting his existence, as a sorcerer who made a pact with Satan. What is far more likely is that Apollonius was a fabrication used as an attempt to include the rapidly spreading Christian faith. If so, theologians are readily acceptable to the idea that concepts were borrowed from Jesusí story for inclusion to that of Apollonius, yet are far more hesitant to recognize the effect of Apollonius on the teachings and story of Jesus.[/quote]

So the entire premise of your question is wrong. Not everyone 'believes' there was a specific historical figure named Jesus in Palestine around 30 AD. Certainly there were individuals named Jesus (Yeheshua/Joshua/etc), and it's possible that one was politically active.

Here's what the scholars of antiquity say about the subject:


Philo, one of the most renowned writers the Jewish race has produced, was born before the beginning of the Christian Era, and lived for many years after the time at which Jesus is supposed to have died. His home was in or near Jerusalem, where Jesus is said to have preached, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified, and to have risen from the dead. Had Jesus done these things, the writings of Philo would certainly contain some record of his life. Yet this philosopher, who must have been familiar with Herod's massacre of the innocents, and with the preaching, miracles and death of Jesus, had these things occurred; who wrote an account of the Jews, covering this period, and discussed the very questions that are said to have been near to Christ's heart, never once mentioned the name of, or any deed connected with, the reputed Savior of the world.

In the closing years of the first century, Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, wrote his famous work on "The Antiquities of the Jews." In this work, the historian made no mention of Christ, and for two hundred years after the death of Josephus, the name of Christ did not appear in his history. There were no printing presses in those days. Books were multiplied by being copied. It was, therefore, easy to add to or change what an author had written. The church felt that Josephus ought to recognize Christ, and the dead historian was made to do it. In the fourth century, a copy of "The Antiquities of the Jews" appeared, in which occurred this passage: "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

Which is little, if nothing.

So anyone with intellectual integrity, unblinded by the desire to prove their religious faith, must be skeptical of a historical person with the same skepticism any rational man would apply towards miracles of walking on water or raising the dead; be they by Jesus of Nazareth, or Jesus of Guadalajara.

The problem in this 'debate' is that my position is being consistently represented as a belief system on equal footing with the belief systems of Christians. It's not, it's a system devoid of belief, and founded on unbiased critical thinking.

Which is like comparing apples to dogshit.

Chantress
12th September 04, 12:42 PM
There is little objective, conclusive evidence (the New Testament is not even remotely objective) that "Jesus Christ" existed.

In fact, there's much more evidence of another man, at the same time, wandering around creating miracles, healing the sick, and opposing the establishment.

His name was Apollonius of Tyana.

[url]While Constantine had his vision and converted to Christianity, the Emperor Aurelian earlier had a similar vision of the appearance of Apollonius during his march against Tyana. He decided to spare the inhabitants and erect a temple instead, which seems to suggest some political motivation for the propagation of Apollonius. The importance of Apollonius in history was acknowledged even by Christian writers as Cassiodorus, who recognized his reputation as a saint. Later medieval Christians always viewed the Apollonius story as a Roman innovation used as an attack on Christianity, or when admitting his existence, as a sorcerer who made a pact with Satan. What is far more likely is that Apollonius was a fabrication used as an attempt to include the rapidly spreading Christian faith. If so, theologians are readily acceptable to the idea that concepts were borrowed from Jesusí story for inclusion to that of Apollonius, yet are far more hesitant to recognize the effect of Apollonius on the teachings and story of Jesus.

So the entire premise of your question is wrong. Not everyone 'believes' there was a specific historical figure named Jesus in Palestine around 30 AD. Certainly there were individuals named Jesus (Yeheshua/Joshua/etc), and it's possible that one was politically active.

Here's what the scholars of antiquity say about the subject:



Which is little, if nothing.

So anyone with intellectual integrity, unblinded by the desire to prove their religious faith, must be skeptical of a historical person with the same skepticism any rational man would apply towards miracles of walking on water or raising the dead; be they by Jesus of Nazareth, or Jesus of Guadalajara.

The problem in this 'debate' is that my position is being consistently represented as a belief system on equal footing with the belief systems of Christians. It's not, it's a system devoid of belief, and founded on unbiased critical thinking.

Which is like comparing apples to dogshit.

The primary problem with your conclusion that "So anyone with intellectual integrity, unblinded by the desire to prove their religious faith, must be skeptical of a historical person with the same skepticism any rational man would apply towards miracles of walking on water or raising the dead; be they by Jesus of Nazareth, or Jesus of Guadalajara." is that even the Jews and Muslims recognize him as a historical figure. These are the people that hinge their faith on other characters in history, and in the case of Judiasm, have a hard time reconciling their faith with the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man that lived in the early part of the first century AD. To say that Jesus of Nazareth didnt exist is about as ignorant a statment as saying that King Tut didnt exist, or Alexander the Great, or Hannibal the conqueror, or....

Shroomed
12th September 04, 01:13 PM
To say that Jesus of Nazareth didnt exist is about as ignorant a statment as saying that King Tut didnt exist, or Alexander the Great, or Hannibal the conqueror, or....

Incorrect. Multiple, undisputed records of all three of these people exist from the proper time period. Even Tut's body has been found.

All Big J has going for him is a book in which large bodies of water split apart and people talk to burning trees.

Merauk
12th September 04, 01:23 PM
There is little objective, conclusive evidence (the New Testament is not even remotely objective) that "Jesus Christ" existed.

Josephus wrote about him though his accounts were later adjusted to fit the needs of the Church. The general agreement is though that Jesus existed as a person. Anyone interested in history around the time of Jesus should read History of the Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews, they are pretty interesting and largely factual.

Chantress
12th September 04, 02:31 PM
All Big J has going for him is a book in which large bodies of water split apart and people talk to burning trees.

Incorrect sir. I admit I do not have my reference material readily available to me here at work, but I will gladly supply some evidence for your consideration after I get home.

GrimwoodCT
12th September 04, 03:31 PM
Incorrect sir. I admit I do not have my reference material readily available to me here at work, but I will gladly supply some evidence for your consideration after I get home.

Have Jesus summon it for you.

imported_Blazer
12th September 04, 03:33 PM
heh i dont care what "race" he was.

vilesoul
12th September 04, 04:22 PM
if he was from that part of the world he was arabic.

Not white, asian, black, eskimo, indian, native american, aztec, incan, mayan, or whatever else.

Anyways, i think it's hard to believe since we keep protraying that part ofthe world as some dirt-ridden sand clod, even though it's not.

Kiko
12th September 04, 04:50 PM
Whoever He was, whatever He looked like, He loves you all even when you fight for or against His existence. No, I'm not getting further involved. I hate bloody repeats.

Cybsled
12th September 04, 06:14 PM
He was probably an alien ;(

Shroomed
12th September 04, 08:09 PM
Hopefully not one of the ones in those movies Phrack says you watch when you get lonely.

Ouden
12th September 04, 08:30 PM
This man is Jesus:

imported_Blazer
12th September 04, 08:36 PM
This man is Jesus:


DADDY!

Thespis
12th September 04, 09:52 PM
The Muslims call him a prophet. The Jews in a manner of speaking think of him as a "usurper", but both religions which oppose Christianity acknowledge his existence. Even historians acknowledge his existence. What's generally debated is his divinity and "miracles".

Phrost
13th September 04, 08:29 AM
The Muslims call him a prophet. The Jews in a manner of speaking think of him as a "usurper", but both religions which oppose Christianity acknowledge his existence. Even historians acknowledge his existence. What's generally debated is his divinity and "miracles".

God you're fucking obtuse.

Re-read what I wrote. All historians don't 'acknowledge his existence', outside of the fact that it was a common name in a turbulent time... if you go to Mexico City, odds are you'll find a guy named Jesus that's politically active too.

There's solid evidence to show that the "Jesus of Nazareth" myth was swiped from that of Apollonius of Tyana. And at the very least, there was much more written about him at the time, than there was about "Jesus".

You can believe what you chose, just don't suggest to the rest of us that it's real.

Shorrtee McHeals
13th September 04, 09:22 AM
Phrack, you need to read a book called "The Case for Christ" by Strobel.

Jesus was a real person. But no, I dont think he was white.

Chantress
13th September 04, 10:10 AM
Phrack, you need to read a book called "The Case for Christ" by Strobel.

Jesus was a real person. But no, I dont think he was white.

As I have effective illustrated in other posts, Phrack is only interested in being intellectually lazy and will not consider evidence or material writen for the opposing side of his argument. I illustrated this by reccomending books for him to read. He responded with books for me to read in return, which I did. There is no evidence thus far that he has considered any of the material I suggested, and when challenged he never responds, so that he could truely examine both sides of the argument rather than just the one side he wants to see. I was not able to get to my post on historical evidences while at home last night. I will try to get to it in the next couple of days. Probably tomorrow morning.

Thespis
13th September 04, 01:37 PM
God you're fucking obtuse.

Re-read what I wrote. All historians don't 'acknowledge his existence', outside of the fact that it was a common name in a turbulent time... if you go to Mexico City, odds are you'll find a guy named Jesus that's politically active too.

There's solid evidence to show that the "Jesus of Nazareth" myth was swiped from that of Apollonius of Tyana. And at the very least, there was much more written about him at the time, than there was about "Jesus".

You can believe what you chose, just don't suggest to the rest of us that it's real.


Talk about a double standard, LoL. I wonder how many voices are inside your head other than your own.

Phrost
13th September 04, 02:00 PM
Phrack, you need to read a book called "The Case for Christ" by Strobel.

Jesus was a real person. But no, I dont think he was white.

Oh shit, Shortee says Jesus was real! I guess I should stop arguing now.

Phrost
13th September 04, 02:02 PM
Talk about a double standard, LoL. I wonder how many voices are inside your head other than your own.

Just the Voice of Reason, Cpt. Fruit Loop.

By the way, you perform any miracles lately? You know, you're supposed to be able to, if you do it in "Jesus' Name".

Give it a shot... I've got a gallon of water in my fridge, and wine would hit the spot right now.

Phrost
13th September 04, 02:06 PM
As I have effective illustrated in other posts, Phrack is only interested in being intellectually lazy and will not consider evidence or material writen for the opposing side of his argument. I illustrated this by reccomending books for him to read. He responded with books for me to read in return, which I did. There is no evidence thus far that he has considered any of the material I suggested, and when challenged he never responds, so that he could truely examine both sides of the argument rather than just the one side he wants to see. I was not able to get to my post on historical evidences while at home last night. I will try to get to it in the next couple of days. Probably tomorrow morning.


I'm sorry I've got a fucking life and can't attend to your needs there Missy.

You've not provided a single bit of objective, independent evidence supporting your claims. Hell, I proved the flawed reason in the CS Lewis quote from your sig, to which you did little more than stick your fingers in your ears and go "LALALALALALALA" to said reason while hoping to win the argument by attrition, with me just giving up on responding to said garbage.

Post Non-Christian, objective sources (you know what 'objective' means, don't you?), and I'll give them consideration. Otherwise, you might as well be quoting the Bible in support of the Bible.

Thespis
13th September 04, 02:10 PM
Just the Voice of Reason, Cpt. Fruit Loop.

By the way, you perform any miracles lately? You know, you're supposed to be able to, if you do it in "Jesus' Name".

Give it a shot... I've got a gallon of water in my fridge, and wine would hit the spot right now.


You are grossly misinformed. Those other voices in your head that you won't admit to apparently grossly influence your interpretation. Nice selective reasoning though. /applaud

Phrost
13th September 04, 02:12 PM
Just answer the following questions to establish, once and for all, what kind of people with which I am debating this subject:

Yes or no here please, no himing and hawing.

1. Do you believe Jesus walked on water, defying the laws of physics?

2. Do you believe Moses parted the Red Sea using magic powers given to him by God?

3. Do you believe Jesus came back to life after being dead?

4. Do you believe that when you die, you're going to a place of eternal bliss?

Please answer these questions so we can proceed.

Phrost
13th September 04, 02:13 PM
You are grossly misinformed. Those other voices in your head that you won't admit to apparently grossly influence your interpretation. Nice selective reasoning though. /applaud

Much like your scholarly skills, you're overestimating your knowledge of psychology, Fruit Loop.

Answer the above questions.

Thespis
13th September 04, 02:30 PM
Much like your scholarly skills, you're overestimating your knowledge of psychology, Fruit Loop.

Answer the above questions.


So you can twist my answers much as you twist everything else to suit your perspective? Why should I further contribute to your enjoyment when you've already demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about? There won't be any resolution no matter how much we go back and forth blasting each other. In short, this is becoming even more pointless than it started out being, hard as that may be to imagine. Oh, and I wasn't referring to anything substantially psychological, but then, you wouldn't understand. You're good at dissembling though, so you'd avoid whatever points were made anyway.

Phrost
13th September 04, 02:36 PM
So you can twist my answers much as you twist everything else to suit your perspective? Why should I further contribute to your enjoyment when you've already demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about? There won't be any resolution no matter how much we go back and forth blasting each other. In short, this is becoming even more pointless than it started out being, hard as that may be to imagine. Oh, and I wasn't referring to anything substantially psychological, but then, you wouldn't understand. You're good at dissembling though, so you'd avoid whatever points were made anyway.

I have no intention of misrepresenting your answers.

Your answers alone will speak for themselves.

So answer the questions, please.

Bukow
14th September 04, 12:30 AM
The fact that there's a book entitled The Case for Christ indicates that there must also be a case against Christ, or the former never would have been written.

I take no position on this, by the way. I don't know enough, nor do I care. The myth has wrought enough damage on its own.

Halfrican
14th September 04, 02:27 AM
Just because there is a movie named The Terminator, must mean Arnold is sent from the future to kill us.

Cybsled
14th September 04, 06:50 AM
Heh...ever see that MAD TV sketch where the Terminator is sent back to save Jesus? One of the few funny bits on that show.

Sinerin
14th September 04, 10:02 AM
he must be a nigger if he got crucified
j/k

Phrost
14th September 04, 10:37 AM
Answer the questions.

joen00b
14th September 04, 10:56 AM
If Jesus was merely a man, as he always claimed to be, he could not have walked on water. Ain't gonna happen. As for turning water to wine? Hmm, that's a toughie, I wouldn't expect him to be duplicite in his attempts to show the masses he was the son of God, but perhaps he was good at Sleight of Hand? Moses parting the Red Sea is a iffy one too, as they'd found evidence in the Red Sea of something weird happening (the water level rose tremendously at one point, and only that one point).

What about Noah and his Ark? All them animals and such, and what about Fish? How dd he get them on the Ark?

Just a few questions of my own.

Sithray
14th September 04, 11:41 AM
Just the Voice of Reason, Cpt. Fruit Loop.

By the way, you perform any miracles lately? You know, you're supposed to be able to, if you do it in "Jesus' Name".

Give it a shot... I've got a gallon of water in my fridge, and wine would hit the spot right now.

No more Miracles through man according to Revelation.

Phrost
14th September 04, 12:09 PM
But you do believe that certain individuals, through magical powers, have in the past, suspended the laws of physics, yes?

Kiome
14th September 04, 12:10 PM
In my mind its a matter of Faith. If you believe that Jesus existed and preformed miracles, then that is your belief. End of story. If you don't then thats your belief that you are entitled to it. No amount of qouting books or others arguments will change anyone's mind if that is what they have chosen to believe. I myself believe that he existed. I won't try to change anyone else's view, nor will I berate or belittle anyone who believes different from me. Faith is something that is your own, not something anyone can force or convince someone to have. There are books and theories that prove and disprove whether Jesus was man or myth. Most have you asking more questions, than getting any answers. Its a crap shoot. But I guess we'll all find out in the end what is the truth.

joen00b
14th September 04, 12:15 PM
Kiome, run! Run fast, run hard, and don't look back! Oh, you, poor woman! this place is dangerous!

Kiome
14th September 04, 12:23 PM
:jawdrop:

Phrost
14th September 04, 12:28 PM
In my mind its a matter of Faith. If you believe that Jesus existed and preformed miracles, then that is your belief. End of story. If you don't then thats your belief that you are entitled to it. No amount of qouting books or others arguments will change anyone's mind if that is what they have chosen to believe. I myself believe that he existed. I won't try to change anyone else's view, nor will I berate or belittle anyone who believes different from me. Faith is something that is your own, not something anyone can force or convince someone to have. There are books and theories that prove and disprove whether Jesus was man or myth. Most have you asking more questions, than getting any answers. Its a crap shoot. But I guess we'll all find out in the end what is the truth.

So basically what you're saying is that if I feel I am the emperor of planet X083pQ, and I have divine copulation rights with your children, then that's just peachy with you!

Please shut the fuck up and leave the arguing to the grown folks.

Kiome
14th September 04, 12:54 PM
Others posted their opinions, I posted mine. Never mind, I'm not trying to get in any pissing contest.

Thespis
14th September 04, 01:18 PM
Others posted their opinions, I posted mine. Never mind, I'm not trying to get in any pissing contest.

Don't sweat it Kiome, heh. Phrack just likes trying to bait people and entertain himself with his occasional cleverness.

Thespis
14th September 04, 01:25 PM
And... to answer any of Phrack's and joe's proposed questions and have them grasp the answers, they'd have to understand the position opposed to them, which they do not. It would be like someone having only the most basic understanding of rocket science or nuclear physics asking someone much more familiar with the subjects to explain how it all works. The trick is putting it in terms the less understanding person can relate to and make sense of. This "analogy" can be flipped both ways to both sides of the "argument". Yes I've studied my "side" of things a lot more than the other, but I've also studied the other "side" for years and have studied both for close to 20 years. They didn't answer my questions which I asked first, don't expect me to answer theirs.

Phrost
14th September 04, 01:28 PM
A. Nothing of the sort. I merely like holding people's irrational views to rational examination.

B. Nobody asked for anyone to post such a trite, milquetoast opinion in this discussion, much less your trite, milquetoast opinion.

C. So far we've only had one taker on the question. What's the problem, refuse to stand up for ALL of your beliefs, when the ridiculous ones are brought up?

Thespis
14th September 04, 01:40 PM
A. Nothing of the sort. I merely like holding people's irrational views to rational examination.

B. Nobody asked for anyone to post such a trite, milquetoast opinion in this discussion, much less your trite, milquetoast opinion.

C. So far we've only had one taker on the question. What's the problem, refuse to stand up for ALL of your beliefs, when the ridiculous ones are brought up?


A. You've admitted you simply enjoy arguing with people you perceive as stupid.

B. I don't care what was asked for or not asked for. You dish it out, expect it in return.

C. I can and do stand up for ALL of my beliefs. The ones you perceive as ridiculous, I do not perceive as ridiculous. That's the problem, my basis of belief and yours are very different and are going to come to very different conclusions based on what we accept to be true. No matter how I respond to any of it, nothing will be accomplished by it. Just as you never responded to questions I asked, and still refuse to acknowledge it. Hold yourself to the same standards. You come across like just because you believe what you believe to be true, that you don't need to validate it in the same fashion that you expect others to validate the beliefs you disagree with. It all comes down to perception.

Chantress
14th September 04, 01:50 PM
Ok, so I said I would post historical evidence that was not of Christian origin that this Jesus character actually did exist. So here you are.

1) Cornelius Tacitus - Born AD52-54, a Roman historian, Roman Governor of Asia. He wrote regarding the burning of Rome, "Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order.

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed. "

2) Lucian of Samosata-Was a satirist of the second century who make refernces to specifically referenced the historical figure in his work The Passing Peregrinus where he states, "...the man who was crucified in Palestine because he ontroduced this new cult into the world...Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were all brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws"

3) Flavius Josephus - Sorry you attemt to discredit his works is to no avail. His original works were tranlsated into arabic in his manuscript of "Kitab Al-Unwan Al Mukallal Bi-Fadail Al-Hikma Al-Mutawwaj Bi-Anwa Al-Salsafa Al-Manduh Bi-Haqaq Al-Marifa"

4) Sectonius - Another Roman Historian who was also a court official under Hadrian referneces in his works the Jews constantly making trouble with the Christians.

5) The Jewish Talmuds refence his existence.

6) Even the Encyclopedia Brittanica refences him as an actual historical figure, and gives him a 21300 word write up.

The educated do not try to deny his existence. Only those with an agenda. On another note, I have yet to see one piece of OBJECTIVE evidence that he does not exist. Thus far everything I have read, and yes I took the time to order and read the books that Phrack suggested, were all vane attempts at blatantly discreditting Christianity. None of them approached it form an objective perspective. Every single one of them were discreditable within the first 100 pages, most within the first 10. Of course, the morally lazy* would love to believe them, and will push them as books of wisdom that all should read. I found them about as factual as "My Life" by Bill Clinton.



*this statment is not intended in any way to imply that anyone who is not a Christian is morally lazy. The writer of this piece fully understands and comprehends that people can have morals without religion, and respects people who have a good set of morals.

Chantress
14th September 04, 01:56 PM
Just answer the following questions to establish, once and for all, what kind of people with which I am debating this subject:

Yes or no here please, no himing and hawing.

1. Do you believe Jesus walked on water, defying the laws of physics?

2. Do you believe Moses parted the Red Sea using magic powers given to him by God?

3. Do you believe Jesus came back to life after being dead?

4. Do you believe that when you die, you're going to a place of eternal bliss?

Please answer these questions so we can proceed.

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) It is my hope and desire

Your turn,

1) Do you believe that through processes of evolution life came from non life?
2) Do you believe that at some point in history man evolved from some lesser form of homosapien and that given enough time man will evolve into a greater more effecient form of being?
3) Do you believe in survival of the fittest theory?
4) Do you believe that science, when practiced correctly, can never be wrong?

Simple yes or no, please explain any no's so that we can pin down exactly what it is that you are proposing.

Chantress
14th September 04, 02:05 PM
Post Non-Christian, objective sources (you know what 'objective' means, don't you?), and I'll give them consideration. Otherwise, you might as well be quoting the Bible in support of the Bible.

Hmm, pot calling the kettle black...every book your reccomended I read was nonobjective.

In other news....see a few posts up where I did just as you requested.

Also, the CS Lewis quote is an illustration. Illustrations prove nothing. They just illustrate. In this case it illustrates exctly how absurd the notion of "Origin of Species" evolution really is.

In retort, I effectively illustrated how you took the passages from the Bible out of context, to which you proverbially stuck your finger in your ears and went crying about how you did not do it.

Nuku_Unu
14th September 04, 02:07 PM
A. Nothing of the sort. I merely like holding people's irrational views to rational examination.

B. Nobody asked for anyone to post such a trite, milquetoast opinion in this discussion, much less your trite, milquetoast opinion.

C. So far we've only had one taker on the question. What's the problem, refuse to stand up for ALL of your beliefs, when the ridiculous ones are brought up?
The answer to your five or so questions can only be answered by one answer if you believe in the bible so it makes the questions rhetorical and not worth answering. However if you really need to read it then Yes to all the questions. Its all about faith.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=faith

joen00b
14th September 04, 02:24 PM
1) Do you believe that through processes of evolution life came from non life?
2) Do you believe that at some point in history man evolved from some lesser form of homosapien and that given enough time man will evolve into a greater more effecient form of being?
3) Do you believe in survival of the fittest theory?
4) Do you believe that science, when practiced correctly, can never be wrong?

Simple yes or no, please explain any no's so that we can pin down exactly what it is that you are proposing.

1)Yes. That exact phrasing can be used in the creationsim argument as well.
2)I believe in Evolution. I've not been alive so long as to witness it, but historians have written of species that we can prove have evolved from their writings.
3)Most certainly. Being an American Indian, I am forced to concede that Might DOES Make Right, as my people's lands were summarily wrenched from them and they were forced into near extinction by the Anglos. That is proof and truth. The Americans attempted Genocide on the American Indians, but ya don't see the world crying for us as they do the Jews and Blacks.
4)The phrasing of this is scientifically wrong as nothing is constant. Even Math has flaws, and it is widely considered one of the most constant forms of science ever conceived. 'Never' is the keyword here, so no, the wway you say it, it cannot be.

Merauk
14th September 04, 02:29 PM
I have yet to see one piece of OBJECTIVE evidence that he does not exist.

It is impossible to prove a negative.


C. So far we've only had one taker on the question. What's the problem, refuse to stand up for ALL of your beliefs, when the ridiculous ones are brought up?

I donít believe the bible is a literal history book, though many parts of it have been proven factual true. Some parts of the bible I believe are mans interpretation of things they didnít fully understand (creationism as written, the earth being the center of the universe, etc.) other parts I think are an accounting of Godís interaction with the world.

1. Do you believe Jesus walked on water, defying the laws of physics?
Yes

2. Do you believe Moses parted the Red Sea using magic powers given to him by God?
I believe that Moses stuck out his hand and God parted a sea (the bible does not name the sea) . There is some actually scientific back up to this occurring. There is a reef between Egypt to the north side of the Red Sea. Oceanographers believe that in 1500BC that this reef was much closer to the surface and during times of high wind it would become dry creating a land bridge. Factually it probably happened but do you ascribe the natural phenomenon to the hand of God?

3. Do you believe Jesus came back to life after being dead?
Yes

4. Do you believe that when you die, you're going to a place of eternal bliss?
Yes

Faith is faith, not fact. I like to think there is room for both in the world and while it is almost impossible to empirically to prove a miracle has occurred I do think there are several examples of them in both recent and past history that are not entirely explainable. Many instances in the bible are factually provable as happening but the question becomes do you believe it was just nature or was it nature acting according to Godís will. That is where one has to make a decision based on faith.

Thespis
14th September 04, 03:40 PM
2)I believe in Evolution. I've not been alive so long as to witness it, but historians have written of species that we can prove have evolved from their writings.

Wrong. Historians and scientist have proven that some species formerly existed that no longer exist today. There is no proof of any transition between one species into the evolvement of a new species, hence the Evolutionist's fond use of their term "missing link". Their theory has an awful lot of missing links. At least that's my understanding of it since I last looked into the above related issues. It has been a year or two since I've looked into them in depth. However, as could be said about what I believe, you believe what you believe to be true based on what you do see and have heard.

I do applaud you actually thinking about what was said and responding rather than sticking your fingers in your ears and simply objecting based on your existing belief.

Halfrican
14th September 04, 04:26 PM
Everyone shut the fuck up, if you don't want to believe in jesus don't believe in jesus for fucks sake. Just hope you are right. If you want to believe in Jesus more power to ya, but get good at masturbating. The End

Thespis
14th September 04, 04:32 PM
Now for the questions... Merauk covered (I must admit to my surprise, and I've scrolled up to double check the right name next to the post, lol) several of the questions fairly well, roughly very close to what I was thinking regarding your questions.

First to address joe's issue of Jesus humanity versus divinity. I think many already know roughly how it is explained, but to summarize... His humanity comes from his birth mother Mary. As the Bible explains it, his divity comes from His conception in her womb from God's Holy Spirit. At various points in the Bible, it explains that the "sin" and imperfections of humanity are passed down through the "seed" / line of the paternal side. Jesus skipped this by being conceived "perfectly" from the Holy Spirit "dabbling" in Mary's womb, thus the balance of His humanity and divinity.

1) So, yes I believe Jesus, as a result of his power and authority, walked on water and performed many miracles because His "Father" in Heaven was the author of those universal laws that were "defied".

2) Merauk covered this one, but yes I believe the 10 plagues of Egypt happened and the sea was parted. Moses didn't do it. He obeyed God, and God exercised His power in response to Moses' obedience. To toss out another one on top of this, it has been proven factually that there was once a world wide flood. They even "believe" they found the remains of Noah's famous ark and have video footage out there showing an extremely old and large boat shaped wooden object high up a mountainside over in that area with no idea how it got there. The Bible says that when the water receded, the ark came to rest on a mountain. If I remember right (it's been like 10 years since I've seen this), shifting snow uncovered it and it was found in a location virtually unreachable. I don't know what has happened with it since then, and I realize there is no proof of what it actually was. joe, those fish didn't need to be on board, they live in water remember? When people think of these Biblical accounts or stories, they too often think of them in terms of human limitation. Through Noah's obedience, God exercised his power to aid in what He wanted accomplished. Yes it sounds extremely extraordinary, when you think of it in purely human terms.

3) Yes I believe Jesus died and rose from the dead. I think my answers to the first two questions probably explains why I believe this. In terms of the "why" it happened, it was the transition from God's Old Testament law to the New Testament salvation. Jesus, God in human form, became the perfect sacrifice to pay the price of sin, no longer needing the same Old Testament requirements for serving God. This didn't change what sin was or wasn't, it changed how it was "answered" for. This is the point that the majority of Jews parted with Christianity and why they continue to adhere to Old Testament structure. It is also the point that a lot of things in the Bible change in the progression of God's plan for humanity and where a lot of opponents come up with their perceived inconsistencies.

4) Yes I believe in Heaven & Hell and that because of my faith in the death and ressurection of Christ that I'll be going to Heaven when I die. I'm far from perfect in my belief, but I continue to make an effort. If you have some understanding of how "it all works", you'd know that from a realistic standpoint, God takes the role of a loving parent who sometimes has need of discipline for His children. It also explains the concept of His forgiveness. We can't possibly always understand why He does what He does, but we often do much later when we look back in hindsight. I can say the same of my upbringing with my parents. Looking back I didn't understand some things (stuff that had nothing to do with Christianity) that they tried to teach me, but later in life I did understand things like why they wanted me to not play with fire or steer clear of a hot stove, etc. Remember there is a difference between discipline and punishment. One is to bring correction and hopefully teaching no matter how much it pains the parent, the other is to bring consequences for willful disobedience despite knowledge of right and wrong.

5) The "power" to do miracles came from Christ's authority over creation. His disciples, aka the apostles, were granted a measure of this power to aid in the spread of Christianity and to help "finish" what Christ started. I have heard of unexplained "miracles" (and when I say miracle, I mean unexplained results that contradict what's expected) even today and believe they are still possible when in line with God's will. Those "miracles" don't come from us, they come from God. In order to really understand what is meant, you'd first have to understand other foundations. Kind of like needing to understand addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division before you can understand geometry and algebra. Real Biblical "power" comes from truth and embracing that truth through faith.

Having said all that, I'd be surprised if much of it made sense to those who disagree. Regardless, you're free to believe what you believe. I'll exercise my right to believe what I believe, without trying to shove it down anyone's throat. I'm content to leave it at that. If you have more questions, I'll even try to answer them, even if the questions I asked go unanswered.

Halfrican
14th September 04, 04:34 PM
Does anybody read all this shit?

Merauk
14th September 04, 04:36 PM
Does anybody read all this shit?

I certainly don't. Make sure you give Morely some negative feedback today.

Thespis
14th September 04, 04:36 PM
Everyone shut the fuck up, if you don't want to believe in jesus don't believe in jesus for fucks sake. Just hope you are right. If you want to believe in Jesus more power to ya, but get good at masturbating. The End


LoL Plexor, in a round about way, I agree with you. I'm happy to leave this issue alone. Phrack keeps telling me to answer his questions though, without answering the ones I asked him first. It seems that he'd like to believe that his perceived superior intellect and belief in what he believes grants him a superior position free from the same standard he tries to hold others to.

joen00b
14th September 04, 05:44 PM
Wrong. Historians and scientist have proven that some species formerly existed that no longer exist today. There is no proof of any transition between one species into the evolvement of a new species, hence the Evolutionist's fond use of their term "missing link". Their theory has an awful lot of missing links. At least that's my understanding of it since I last looked into the above related issues. It has been a year or two since I've looked into them in depth. However, as could be said about what I believe, you believe what you believe to be true based on what you do see and have heard.

I do applaud you actually thinking about what was said and responding rather than sticking your fingers in your ears and simply objecting based on your existing belief.

Yeah, Darwin was so full of shit, he had no idea what he was talking about and spent all his years just making the shit up on the fly. Ok, sure, whatever.

Halfrican
14th September 04, 05:52 PM
According to your logic then, Moses knew what he was talking about.

Phrost
14th September 04, 06:17 PM
Will read and respond when I've got time.

Bukow
14th September 04, 06:35 PM
1) Do you believe that through processes of evolution life came from non life?
2) Do you believe that at some point in history man evolved from some lesser form of homosapien and that given enough time man will evolve into a greater more effecient form of being?
3) Do you believe in survival of the fittest theory?
4) Do you believe that science, when practiced correctly, can never be wrong?

Simple yes or no, please explain any no's so that we can pin down exactly what it is that you are proposing.

1) Yes
2) Part a -- Yes. Part b -- no, not necessarily. There is no reason to think man will necessarily evolve into a "greater" species; instead, we will probably only evolve into the type of beings that reproduce the most given the made-made environment in which we exist.
3) As an evolutionary theory, or in terms of an ethical one? To the former, yes; to the latter, no.
4) Scientific conclusions are often wrong. I do not believe the scientific <i>method</i> can be wrong. However, it is only a belief, not faith. If shown that the method is defective, I will believe it can be wrong as it presently exists.

Thespis
16th September 04, 01:42 AM
Yeah, Darwin was so full of shit, he had no idea what he was talking about and spent all his years just making the shit up on the fly. Ok, sure, whatever.

I wasn't referring to Darwin making anything up. He never claimed to have found the "missing links" that were the supposed transitions from one old species to a new one. The term "missing link" came from evolutionary scientists.

joen00b
17th September 04, 09:02 AM
I suppose they are called Missing Links because they are perhaps... MISSING? Evolution does happen, it has been proven, I don't have the sources readily available to me but it has been proven in many areas. Perhaps not Evolution as a whole, but you certyainly can't prove your side of the argument, so stick to what is proven.

I don't think man came from Monkey type of Evolution, but I believe certain species have changed, their changes have been documented and we know these things to be true.

Were there any outside of 'Jesus Nutriders' that saw him do his miracles? In all of Chantress' sources, they all agree: He did exist, but not one historian outside of the Bible claims that he did these miracles. Am I to believe that David Koresh was the Second Coming? He had many followers that believed him to be, so it must be true. Of course everyone outside his influence, including historians, will write him as a nutcase.

I'm just using logic here to be Devil's Advocate.

Phrost
17th September 04, 09:45 AM
Thanks for the bump, forgot the name of this thread. Sorry I haven't been able to respond.

Phrost
17th September 04, 09:54 AM
http://www.cazic-thule.net/forums/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gif A new perspective on th... (http://www.cazic-thule.net/forums/showthread.php?p=111425#post111425) 17th September 04 02:15 AM Thespis

Thespis, you're seriously a pussy.

You actually gave me negative rep for arguing with you in this discussion.

I mean, seriously... that's just embarassing. I'll bet you ran to the principal to tell on kids you picked fights with, after they kicked your ass.

Volunteering to get fucked in the ass by 12 guys in a porn flick wouldn't be half as gay as actually leaving me negative rep.

Does your father know you're such a little faggot?

Merauk
17th September 04, 10:20 AM
Does your father know you're such a little faggot?

http://cazic-thule.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5952

joen00b
17th September 04, 03:23 PM
Ya know, Phrack, our reps, being so huge will have much more impact on his rep. Hehehe!

Phrost
17th September 04, 05:00 PM
Yeah, I think I made that point to him myself.

Again, my apologies for not responding. While I am sitting here in front of my computer, I don't have the time to give to anything more than a smartass response or two.

Thespis
17th September 04, 06:21 PM
I suppose they are called Missing Links because they are perhaps... MISSING? Evolution does happen, it has been proven, I don't have the sources readily available to me but it has been proven in many areas. Perhaps not Evolution as a whole, but you certyainly can't prove your side of the argument, so stick to what is proven.

I don't think man came from Monkey type of Evolution, but I believe certain species have changed, their changes have been documented and we know these things to be true.

Were there any outside of 'Jesus Nutriders' that saw him do his miracles? In all of Chantress' sources, they all agree: He did exist, but not one historian outside of the Bible claims that he did these miracles. Am I to believe that David Koresh was the Second Coming? He had many followers that believed him to be, so it must be true. Of course everyone outside his influence, including historians, will write him as a nutcase.

I'm just using logic here to be Devil's Advocate.

Ahh, so you pick and choose what parts of evolution you believe while claiming it is proven but not pointing to any evidence. Your logic leaves a bit to be desired. They are called "missing links" because they were never found, which leaves a hell of a lot of holes in the theory. Yes a few species have changed over the years, but there is NO proof that any have become a new species which is what evolution has claimed has happened, hence the missing links. You're so convinced that you're right, but so far you haven't supported your belief that you're right or at least even explained why you believe it to be true.

You, like many (not all) others who "find me annoying", merely accept what biased proponents of evolution claim to be true based on their observations (human observations which are open to error). If there was conclusive evidence supporting evolution, it wouldn't be so heatedly debated. And the fact that it is so heatedly debated is not simply due to intellectual laziness or lack of critical thinking. Anyone who actually believes that or would suggest it needs to take the stick out of their ass and re-evaluate their skewed view of the universe.

I don't say that because of my "belief" that I'm right. I say that because even many of the most liberal, intelligent, and strongest supporters of evolutionary science would admit that there are many who oppose them that are intelligent, hard-working, and of sound mind. I'm sure in some cases, their claimed belief is a matter of convenience as Phrack would like to suggest, but I guarantee that is not true of all of them. Phrack simply finds imagined explanations that tie it up into a neat ball of delusion. It helps him sleep at night so he doesn't have to try explaining any of it himself (because he can't) or have an intelligent discussion without resorting to insults.

I've never tried to prove my side of the argument or even claimed it was possible. Can you see the wind? No, but you believe it is there based on the result of its effects; leaves blowing, the swaying of trees, or the breeze on your face. You can't see it, but you know it is there based on what you do see. Yes, this point can go both ways. My point all along has been that both sides are based on belief and faith from the evidence we each choose to "see".

Thank you for further proving my point by picking and choosing what parts of evolution you believe. That is not a bad thing that you do that. It shows critical thinking. Each person accepts various levels of evolution as real or a bunch of crap. The scientific method is merely used to test the possibility that something is valid. There are plenty of scientific theories that have later been found to be completely false or only partially true. That is the "evolution" of science, two steps forward, one step back. It all depends how you define your idea of evolution. Society, science, and nature can all evolve in various ways without contradicting my beliefs regarding creation and the Bible.

Thespis
17th September 04, 06:32 PM
Yeah, I think I made that point to him myself.

Again, my apologies for not responding. While I am sitting here in front of my computer, I don't have the time to give to anything more than a smartass response or two.


LoL Phrack, I couldn't care less about rep. The only point to that was because you're so full of shit talking out of your ass because you can't defend your vaunted beliefs. If you'd have been able to discuss any of this intelligently without resorting to insult because you can't discuss it intelligently, then the rep thing wouldn't be an issue. Only ever had my ass kicked once, and that was in a boxing ring and a close fight.

But you go ahead and try sidetracking some more and keep crying about your negative rep rather than actually respond intelligently let alone actually respond to the points made. Is it even within your power to do so? *laugh* Your "claims" hold no more validity than mine do. You get all wound up, mostly because you can't rile me and get me all flustered like you're used to being able to do to people. Get off the attention trip you're on in your small corner of the internet. You brush it off like you sit back laughing, but the truth is that I get under you skin and it bothers you. *waits patiently for the typical Phrack blustering and sidetracking denial*

Phrost
17th September 04, 06:57 PM
dUDE, YOU'RE A FRUIT LOOP. Err... htf did my Caps Lock get on.

Anyway, yeah, you're a fruit loop. AND a pussy.

So now you're a boxer. Gee... might your real name be MALACHY?

If you think this is my small corner of the internet, you've obviously never been to my website. CTC is small potatoes, which is perfectly fine for a group of mostly ex-gamers who know each other from playing EQ once upon a time. Who the fuck are you again?

Seriously, you're the one who believes in the supernatural. You're the one who believes in a magial jew who came back from the dead after spending 3 days in the 'afterlife' fighting demons like in a bad hacked version of Doom to somehow 'redeem' humanity from the impulses and instincts given us by a sadistic, yet benevolent diety.

And then, when it's put in such terms, making you feel dumb for taking on the Sisyphusian task of trying to rationally explain belief in the irrational, you ACTUALLY GIVE ME NEGATIVE REP for it.

Seriously, you think I'm wound up over you? What, is it the CAPS? Shit whiteboy, that's only because I'm too lazy to type in the ubb code for bold or italics. Don't confuse my enjoyment of making you out to be even more of an ass than you're already reknowned for, for being even remotely flustered with your idiocy.

Hell, you're just a cut-rate version of Donnely. At least he supported his arguments with well-spun facts. Arguing with you is like arguing with a 10-year old momma's boy who's been sheltered from the fact that he doesn't really know shit in the grand scheme of things.

As I said, I've got more important things to do right now, than get back to this discussion. I've always got time to give the good folks at CTC a laugh at the expense of someone like you, but don't take that for more than it is (like you do with everything else, apparently).

You're nothing more than a one-man midget wrestling act in between the real fights around here.

Veldriss
17th September 04, 07:08 PM
Thanks for the laughs Phrack.


You, like many (not all) others who "find me annoying", blah blah blah

What about those of us who find you annoying in spite of whatever your religious beliefs are?

Thespis
17th September 04, 07:26 PM
I see nothing has changed Phrack. *yawn* Your claims regarding me might be more believable if I weren't as well spoken as I am. However, some will agree anyway simply because I disagree with them. "Heaven" forbid I make any kind of stand against the big bad Phrack who can't deal on a rational level with somebody who's prepared to disagree with him.

Dumbass, I never said I was a boxer. It was an amateur bar boxing event for fun, and the fight took place in boxing ring. Yet another example of you foaming at the mouth without having your facts. I do however come from a boxing family. One of my relatives was a trainer for Kenny Lane back in the 50s. My grandpa and several of his brothers were all into boxing on various levels.

I was referring to "this small corner" not your website. You certainly felt the need to defend that even though you still haven't defended your other drivel. As for who I am, I don't have some superiority identity complex like you seem to be hung up on. I didn't ask you to try to have it all make sense and change my mind or even to put it in terms that you think I'd understand. I've studied it quite well enough to understand how they say it works. I asked YOU to explain it, but so far you don't seem to be able to. Maybe you need to go actually research it more in depth first. But again, you sidestep and attempt misdirection. I don't care what I'm reknowned for, so you keep right on with your little game of "making me look bad" and keep crying about my imagined idiocy. I don't care about Donnely, or what you think, or your uncle's brother's friend's former roommate.

As for what I know in the grand scheme of things, time will tell. Arguing with me? I can't speak for you, but I wasn't arguing. That would imply heated irrational blustering. I was attempting to discuss something you apparently aren't prepared to discuss. If you weren't worked up, you'd not need to resort to insult over intelligent discussion. That or you're just too lazy. Anyway, I don't care about the "real fights" around here or even this one. I was merely enjoying what I had thought was starting out as a discussion. You'd rather turn it into a mud slinging contest cuz you apparently can't keep up. Although I'm sure you'll give me another insulting reason of why I'm beneath you. Your insults and blustering doesn't intimidate me. Those who actually do know me, know that I don't let what I believe cloud friendships or having fun, and that I don't try to force it on anyone else. If a discussion opens up, I'm always happy to discuss it.

If you decide you actually might be open to a discussion rather than a name calling contest, let me know. Until then, I will go back to enjoying other threads and discussions.

Thespis
17th September 04, 07:30 PM
Thanks for the laughs Phrack.



What about those of us who find you annoying in spite of whatever your religious beliefs are?


That is also your right :) As is my right to think Phrack is full of himself. I knew going into all this that the "deck" was stacked with people who'd favor Phrack's diatribes. Oops, big word for some readers. Diatribe = criticism.

Phrost
17th September 04, 07:47 PM
I see nothing has changed Phrack. *yawn* Your claims regarding me might be more believable if I weren't as well spoken as I am. However, some will agree anyway simply because I disagree with them. "Heaven" forbid I make any kind of stand against the big bad Phrack who can't deal on a rational level with somebody who's prepared to disagree with him.

Dumbass, I never said I was a boxer. It was an amateur bar boxing event for fun, and the fight took place in boxing ring. Yet another example of you foaming at the mouth without having your facts. I do however come from a boxing family. One of my relatives was a trainer for Kenny Lane back in the 50s. My grandpa and several of his brothers were all into boxing on various levels.

I was referring to "this small corner" not your website. You certainly felt the need to defend that even though you still haven't defended your other drivel. As for who I am, I don't have some superiority identity complex like you seem to be hung up on. I didn't ask you to try to have it all make sense and change my mind or even to put it in terms that you think I'd understand. I've studied it quite well enough to understand how they say it works. I asked YOU to explain it, but so far you don't seem to be able to. Maybe you need to go actually research it more in depth first. But again, you sidestep and attempt misdirection. I don't care what I'm reknowned for, so you keep right on with your little game of "making me look bad" and keep crying about my imagined idiocy. I don't care about Donnely, or what you think, or your uncle's brother's friend's former roommate.

As for what I know in the grand scheme of things, time will tell. Arguing with me? I can't speak for you, but I wasn't arguing. That would imply heated irrational blustering. I was attempting to discuss something you apparently aren't prepared to discuss. If you weren't worked up, you'd not need to resort to insult over intelligent discussion. That or you're just too lazy. Anyway, I don't care about the "real fights" around here or even this one. I was merely enjoying what I had thought was starting out as a discussion. You'd rather turn it into a mud slinging contest cuz you apparently can't keep up. Although I'm sure you'll give me another insulting reason of why I'm beneath you. Your insults and blustering doesn't intimidate me. Those who actually do know me, know that I don't let what I believe cloud friendships or having fun, and that I don't try to force it on anyone else. If a discussion opens up, I'm always happy to discuss it.

If you decide you actually might be open to a discussion rather than a name calling contest, let me know. Until then, I will go back to enjoying other threads and discussions.

You must have spent a lot of time writing that.

'shame I won't bother to read any of it.

Phrost
17th September 04, 07:52 PM
Anyway, to keep the thread rolling along...

So you're a boxer now? :D

Where do you live?

Thespis
17th September 04, 08:12 PM
I don't care what you read. You've already demonstrated your ignorance. Although I find amusing what you refer to as "Testicular Fortitude". No I'm not a boxer now. I'll give you enough credit to say that I'm sure if you really wanted to know where I live that you wouldn't have any trouble figuring it out.

Veldriss
17th September 04, 08:16 PM
I thought you were done replying to Phrack?!?!?!

Halfrican
17th September 04, 09:42 PM
I read Thespis' long post, and he wins! Red for Phrack green for Thespis and Veldriss cuz she's a Brit.

P.S. I like Brits

Phrost
17th September 04, 09:53 PM
I read Thespis' long post, and he wins!

Please use the calendar feature to schedule your congratulatory ball-gargling session.

Halfrican
17th September 04, 09:57 PM
Please use the calendar feature to schedule your congratulatory ball-gargling session.

Go pat yourself on the back and smile at yourself because you think you are so damned good at flaming people. After that lift weights and train in some awkward form of fighting that you think is superior to all other methods so when people point out the blatant fact that you are ugly in RL, you can beat their ass. BTW might want to change your avatar, you are fucking ugly!

Phrost
17th September 04, 10:03 PM
I don't care what you read. You've already demonstrated your ignorance. Although I find amusing what you refer to as "Testicular Fortitude". No I'm not a boxer now. I'll give you enough credit to say that I'm sure if you really wanted to know where I live that you wouldn't have any trouble figuring it out.

Your mistake is assuming I have a desire to put more than a cursory effort into this. I know you're straining your brain right now to come back with something, anything, but I'm busy:

*Doing research for a book I'm writing
*Adding content to my website
*Answering emails from 2 weeks ago
*Sitting on my couch watching the first Austin Powers movie... bleh, TV edit.

You're a diversion for me.

But your persistence is endearing, Malachy.

Phrost
17th September 04, 10:06 PM
Go pat yourself on the back and smile at yourself because you think you are so damned good at flaming people. After that lift weights and train in some awkward form of fighting that you think is superior to all other methods so when people point out the blatant fact that you are ugly in RL, you can beat their ass. BTW might want to change your avatar, you are fucking ugly!

You left out:

* "Stupid head"
* "Poopy pants"
* "Stinky"

Yeah, boxing, judo, and wrestling are akward forms of fighting.

Let's see your picture, cutie pie.

Halfrican
17th September 04, 10:10 PM
I don't consider myself to be something spectacular therefore I do not have a picture of me in my avatar. But by your request for your gay pleasures! Here you go sugar.

Phrost
17th September 04, 10:16 PM
The pic of you in your avatar looks better. Lose the 'burns and grow your hair back out man.

I'll provide the semen, if you want.

Halfrican
17th September 04, 10:21 PM
Can anybody bring back the old-school entertaining Phrack? Please? The Phrack that pioneered the use of the term text-based ass beating? This new Phrack is as int4rw3b intimidating as Kiko.

Halfrican
17th September 04, 10:23 PM
No offense Kiko!

Phrost
17th September 04, 10:30 PM
Sorry. I was actually thinking that same thing myself an hour ago.

It's a question of putting effort into it.

Back when I played EQ, and was married to a hosebeast who I was actively avoiding, I had plenty of time to put effort and thought into posts.

Since kicking her ass to the curb, I've actually been doing things outside of arguing, at least with gamer-types, over inconsequential shit.

Thespis
17th September 04, 10:53 PM
I thought you were done replying to Phrack?!?!?!


I didn't say I was done replying to him. I said I'd be happy to have a discussion if he could set aside the mudslinging. He reminds me of a politician sidestepping the issues to point fingers and call names. Maybe we really should nominate him for president.

Thespis
17th September 04, 11:00 PM
Your mistake is assuming I have a desire to put more than a cursory effort into this. I know you're straining your brain right now to come back with something, anything, but I'm busy:

*Doing research for a book I'm writing
*Adding content to my website
*Answering emails from 2 weeks ago
*Sitting on my couch watching the first Austin Powers movie... bleh, TV edit.

You're a diversion for me.

But your persistence is endearing, Malachy.


I must agree that I made the mistake of thinking you enjoyed intelligent discussion. Another mistake I made was thinking you were capable of intelligent discussion. I wasn't busy straining my brain. I was enjoying a movie with a friend and then also played that game you're not so fond of anymore.

Thanks for the pseudo-intellectual penis contest list of your "busy" schedule. Glad ya find me so endearing. :) *Yawn* G'night Phrack sweetie. Sleep well. I know I will.

Halfrican
17th September 04, 11:01 PM
Leave Phrack alone, this is as sad as watching Mike Tyson fight now.

Thespis
17th September 04, 11:03 PM
Leave Phrack alone, this is as sad as watching Mike Tyson fight now.

Fitting analogy, made me chuckle.

Sithray
18th September 04, 09:16 PM
Every time I see that pic of Plex for some reason all I can think is "Fucking Ni***r", and I'm not even racist. I think it's because I have lub for him. Irish people are white ni***r's anyway, only genetically superior...

Kiko
19th September 04, 06:44 AM
Can anybody bring back the old-school entertaining Phrack? Please? The Phrack that pioneered the use of the term text-based ass beating? This new Phrack is as int4rw3b intimidating as Kiko.

No offense Kiko!

OFFENSE TAKEN!! I'm not here to intimidate, Phrack and maybe a few others do it so well when they give a rat's ass. If I was into such petty crap, I'd give you red rep, but I prefer to deal in positives. You've been offensive for a while, and that's in comparison to a few others here. I hope you were sufficiently rewarded for that jab.
:mad: :slap:

Phrost
20th September 04, 12:27 PM
Fitting analogy, made me chuckle.

So what's up, white boy?

I find it beyond entertaining that the official "Most Annoying Poster on CTC" feels he is entitled to an opinion on anything around here, much less entitled to chime in on the quality of my prose.

You still haven't answered my questions about:

1. Whether or not you believe 2000 year old, second hand accounts of a homeless Jew performing supernatural feats.

2. Where you live, and your "boxing" experience (you brought it up, tough guy).

And Plexor, somewhere along the way you got the impression that it was my job to entertain you. Considering that I don't know you any better than the guys who mow my lawn, your criticism is equally irrelevant.

Thespis
20th September 04, 05:13 PM
So what's up, white boy?

I find it beyond entertaining that the official "Most Annoying Poster on CTC" feels he is entitled to an opinion on anything around here, much less entitled to chime in on the quality of my prose.

You still haven't answered my questions about:

1. Whether or not you believe 2000 year old, second hand accounts of a homeless Jew performing supernatural feats.

2. Where you live, and your "boxing" experience (you brought it up, tough guy).

And Plexor, somewhere along the way you got the impression that it was my job to entertain you. Considering that I don't know you any better than the guys who mow my lawn, your criticism is equally irrelevant.

Apparently you don't read too well either... I commented on both already. As for what I am or am not entitled to, you seem to have missed the fact that I don't care.

P.S. You're whiter than I am. Thanks for changing the avatar, I was getting a blinding glare from it.

Phrost
20th September 04, 05:16 PM
Apparently you don't read too well either... I commented on both already. As for what I am or am not entitled to, you seem to have missed the fact that I don't care.

P.S. You're whiter than I am. Thanks for changing the avatar, I was getting a blinding glare from it.

How was school. What'd the cafeteria have for lunch today, chicken nuggets?

I'm one of the weird ones who actually liked the food in High School.

Thespis
20th September 04, 05:31 PM
How was school. What'd the cafeteria have for lunch today, chicken nuggets?

I'm one of the weird ones who actually liked the food in High School.


Well damn, I'll trade you my pizza for a wholesome tuna fish sandwhich.

imported_Blazer
20th September 04, 06:44 PM
Every time I see that pic of Plex for some reason all I can think is "Fucking Ni***r", and I'm not even racist. I think it's because I have lub for him. Irish people are white ni***r's anyway, only genetically superior...

i have the same problem but i just blame it on rap music.