DO NOT SAY YOU DID NOT KNOW.

YOU CAN'T NOT LOOK, CAN YOU? 

THIS IS THE INVASION.

** you do not have permission to see this link **

YOU THOUGHT THERE WOULD BE FLYING SAUCERS DIDN'T YOU? 

First an old friend...

** you do not have permission to see this link **

And then an interview with another person, a minister this time, who also had her crisis of faith but remained inside.  I was very touched by this conversation.  I'm endlessly fascinated by those who made a different choice than me.  I have not abandoned the idea that there may be something I can learn from them.  I would be interested in other folk's responses. 

** you do not have permission to see this link **

Actually the question was offered to all the universe.   I'm glad Dan's money will go to a good cause but other than that I'm mystified by his presence.

All speculation, of course, as one can’t get into the head of another, and from all indications, in this case, it would certainly not be a positive thing to do. To be honest, just reading his posts makes me feel soiled and in desperate need of a shower.

I’m sure if he responds to this, which I really hope he doesn’t, although to be perfectly honest I couldn't care less, it’ll be met with the same scorn he unleashes at every possible opportunity.  As that old song of Mason Proffit says, “that don’t bother me at all.”

I can only imagine he’s an internet troll who gets his kicks not on ** you do not have permission to see this link ** but by trying to rile things up. On the About page of his blog, he actually calls himself this. However, it is possible that he's just being sarcastic.  

I’m sure it won’t be lost on any that he wants us to visit his blog and to like his posts! Truth, it seems, wins out over manners, which he seems never to have been taught or learned over however many years he’s happened to have lived.

It's not the first time we've seen people come confident they are going to prove Bart wrong. And although they’ve been every bit as arrogant, they did, to their credit, show a lot more civility. Wasn't it just a month or so ago that we had someone who had just started looking into some particular thing and already had shown how Bart was mistaken? No qualifications of any kind as far as I can tell. Just their assertions.  Believe them or else. If not, it is at your peril! 

Bart has a huge following, so dansanta2003 believes he can use this forum alongside his winning personality and charm to attract people to his blog.

Why would you spend money in order to penetrate a paywall supporting a scholar you claim to hate, openly present obnoxious, stupid opinions and when challenged, bristle, hurtling insults and attacks?

If I made up a list of things to do, that wouldn't even make my top twenty.

And one more thing on this. I didn't say anything that couldn't be aired on the BBC. I was deliberately calibrating my language both to your repeated provocation and to this forum.

If you want me to show you foul-mouthed, I could. And every word of it would be earned. Whatever contempt I have expressed to you so far is considerably less than what I actually, and quite defensibly, feel toward you.

But I'm not interested in getting a lecture on civility in discourse from you, who have called one or another forum participant, “low IQ,” gullible,” “cultist.” “scoundrel,” “Satanic,” “a shell of a human,” “a mockery made by Satan”. 

Don’t piss on my leg, then act shocked when I respond with profanity by demanding, "What the f*ck is wrong with you?"

But everything that followed to justify it was transparently antisemitic.

And then there was your attacking Judith's perfectly good English. And all the other personal attacks (me as gullible, BDE as whatever it was you think he was, and so on). 

Porphyry said 
Here: "Oh, I’m an antisemite, I would think, maybe I can shed some light on the subject."
Do you not think that counts as antisemitic? 
  

Of course not. Saying so doesn't make the statement antisemitic in itself. I might've said it sarcastically. Please try again, scoundrel. 

Here: "Oh, I’m an antisemite, I would think, maybe I can shed some light on the subject."

Do you not think that counts as antisemitic? 

>> keep your foul mouth shut and stop insulting people in an indeed gratuitously way.

You really aren't in a position to lecture me. And my insults are entirely warranted. 

Porphyry said
Why are we being subjected to this ass-hat? Seriously. 
Nothing in his posts merits our time or consideration. He is ignorant, self-righteous, glibly and gratuitously insulting, manifestly and proudly antisemitic. 
  

So you keep attacking my persona and my image, despite pretending to talk to somebody else. I believe you should be muted for 30 days based on your comments. 

As I said, post a god damn quote from my comment that is antisemitic. 

Until then, keep your foul mouth shut and stop insulting people in an indeed gratuitously way.

Just one sentence will do. 

I might give it consideration. 

One.

You must have missed the part where I noticed that her post, the one you objected to, was grammatically flawless.

Now go suck on your humble pie, you ignorant and over-confident twat. 

Nothing in his posts merits our time or consideration. He is ignorant, self-righteous, glibly and gratuitously insulting, manifestly and proudly antisemitic. 

Stephen said
Dan if you get something wrong so fundamental, so easy to check, how am I supposed to take you seriously? 

 Ok, at this point of time I will require you to stop addressing me. You're either a troll or just low IQ. There is absolutely nowhere in that video that you posted as argument Dale Martin saying he is a Christian or he does believe in God. Dale Martin goes to church, correct. Dale Martin is interested in doing theology and explaining theology, correct, which is even more concerning, because he attempts to muddy it or corrupt it in a way that his audience will lose faith. But neither of these two points are proof that he believes in God. He is an Atheist; his work so far is secular. He speaks like an Atheist. And now, like a satanist, he is interested of non-secular field, the theology, specifically to advance his agenda. 

And of course you're here to set us all straight.  

Why, of course. My blog is "against heresies 5 at wordpress dot com". Not sure why wordpress put a "5" in it. Please like, share and subscribe. I think it's enough to read one single article very carefully to see Bart Ehrman exposed.

Porphyry said
Forget about the attacks on BDE and the proudly worn antisemitism. 

Oh, I'm sorry that I insulted your preacher and your god Bart Ehrman, I promise I will do it again.

Antisemitism? Where? I must invite you like your other team mate, to quote ad literam from my deleted comment (now deleted comments), where I said anything remotely antisemitic, racist or even hateful. I am already convinced that you can't. Until then, I will ask of you to stop addressing me, because you just proven yourself of a false accuser and a scoundrel, you try to denigrate me by lying about my persona. Which is exactly of what you are accusing me bellow that I did to Judith. 

Judith is presumably a native speaker, and not one prone to typos. 
  

I wasn't talking about typos. And correct, it's a shame that a native speaker, who probably is mono-lingual too, isn't capable to express himself/herself clearly or, at least, better than an ESL person like me. Now, begone!

Forget about the attacks on BDE and the proudly worn antisemitism. This is amusing. 

Judith is presumably a native speaker, and not one prone to typos. The line he quotes is grammatically perfect, if somewhat more complex than "see spot run."

Dan, on the other hand, is obviously not a native speaker. 

Why does he feel the need to attack her perfectly good English?