godspell said
I am now reminded why I stopped talking to you, but know you are always in my prayers. In the odd chance that I remember to say them before falling into a dead stupor every night. 😉
Notice how it’s not just me. You need to stop trying to guess people’s motives.
godspell said
Given your latest threadbare attempt at a thread, I’d say the guessing part of the program is over. 🙄
I will ask you not to reply to my threads anymore. I am not interested in anything you have to say anymore. And I cannot bare your responses anymore. Please, do not bother me and stay as far away as possible from all my threads. I don’t want to see or hear anything from people as deranged as you again. Hope you understand. Thanks
I understand all too well. I would prefer to have nothing more to do with you either, and since you have no interest in or understanding of scholarship, I’m not sure what you think you’re doing here. I’ll try to comply. But if you say something factually untrue, I don’t promise not to respond. You have no right to make such a request. It’s actually pretty deranged for someone to think they have that right on an internet forum.
And in that vein–‘bear’–not ‘bare’.
Still think I was overreacting, Robert?
godspell said
I understand all too well. I would prefer to have nothing more to do with you either, and since you have no interest in or understanding of scholarship, I’m not sure what you think you’re doing here. I’ll try to comply. But if you say something factually untrue, I don’t promise not to respond. You have no right to make such a request. It’s actually pretty deranged for someone to think they have that right on an internet forum.And in that vein–‘bear’–not ‘bare’.
Still think I was overreacting, Robert?
I ask you to stay away from MY THREADS. Go somewhere else.
Read you like a book.
Full of self-hate, project it outwards.
You’re just as crazy as Damian. But with a less cool name. 😀
Just FYI, I wasn’t angry at you at all–until you said you didn’t know who Stephen Miller is. He’s orchestrating the imprisonment and death of children. That’s who he is. Who the fuck are you?
Who the fuck are you?
An odd question from someone who claims to be able to “read you like a book”.
Even if I was presupposed to explain myself to you I doubt you would ever understand.
One thing though. You started with me sure enough but over time you’ve managed to alienate everyone you’ve had any interaction with on this forum in all precisely the same way. Damian is merely the latest. Have you ever paused to consider that, if you have a problem with everyone else and they all have the same problem, even though they’ve never met each other, that the actual problem might be…you?
Says the guy taking incredibly lame revenge on his parents by posting at a subscription-only message board?
I never really worry too much about alienating words on a screen. When you have friends in three dimensions, that’s not such a crucial issue. But for the record, I have my well-wishers online as well.
I’ll worry about me. You do you. 😀
James Tabor, about 70 percent through The Jesus Dynasty, says that Eusebius and Ephiphanius give us different lists of the men who succeeded James the Just, whom he takes to be Jesus’ brother. “They both record Simon as second, and one named Jude or Judas as third. But then they follow with a list of twelve men, who they say all ruled … in succession down to the reign of the Emperor Hadrian … (135). (But) we know that Simon himself continued his rule until at least A.D. 106, …”
How do we know this?
It seems to me unhelpful to respond to someone’s argument by claiming that they only hold their views because they are biased due to their faith.
People *can* be biased due to their faith, or due to their anti-faith stance. It is a useless exercise for anyone to speculate about others’ biases. In many cases, even those who are sure of their own lack of bias may well be dishonest, or badly self-deluded.
Damian gave an argument (I couldn’t disagree with him more). Maybe he is Catholic, or maybe he only claims to be Catholic, and is secretly a Buddhist (but only on Tuesdays): who cares? Let’s focus on his argument: do the premises support the conclusion or not?
Omar6741 said
It seems to me unhelpful to respond to someone’s argument by claiming that they only hold their views because they are biased due to their faith.People *can* be biased due to their faith, or due to their anti-faith stance. It is a useless exercise for anyone to speculate about others’ biases. In many cases, even those who are sure of their own lack of bias may well be dishonest, or badly self-deluded.
Damian gave an argument (I couldn’t disagree with him more). Maybe he is Catholic, or maybe he only claims to be Catholic, and is secretly a Buddhist (but only on Tuesdays): who cares? Let’s focus on his argument: do the premises support the conclusion or not?
Damian explicitly said “I don’t believe they were Mary’s children because my religion says she was a virgin all her life.” He didn’t say this at first (which was dishonest), but he admitted it in response to direct questioning (which at least shows he was raised with a good Catholic aversion to direct lies, which some Catholics try to get around with mental reservations, but being raised Catholic myself, I know that dodge).
I agree completely with your argument that both theists and atheists may be objective or biased (because personality patterns don’t change when beliefs do), but when somebody tells you he’s biased, believe him. Damian only questions whether Jesus had blood siblings because of his religious beliefs, and that doesn’t constitute an argument.
And just to be clear, the same applies to that subset of atheists who only believe Jesus didn’t exist at all (making the existence of his siblings a moot point) because their religion (which they refuse to acknowledge as such) tells them that all theist-related beliefs should be dismissed without exception, even if there is no need for any religious faith to believe in them. It’s just a game for them, a way of scoring symbolic points against a largely unwitting adversary, but history is supposed to be a serious form of inquiry–and they lack the intellectual substance to recognize this. Again, personalities remain consistent. People who are stupid and dishonest as theists will be equally stupid and dishonest as atheists.
Robert said
He’s following the brief report in The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis (** you do not have permission to see this link **.
As I was reading Tabor, he was indicating that there was evidence independent of Epiphanius and Eusebius which would show that Simon continued his rule until 106. You think Tabor meant something else?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)