I love this forum

[Gnosital]

Kate wrote

I'm guessing 2. That's a fair number. Enough to share, but not a crowd, like 3.

But "imaginary" plays in there, I'm sure.

Surely there have been a "fair number" more than 2 of us lost and searching raving atheist souls who have sought the serene wisdom and inspired guidance of the great and wonderful Lillith!! And you can't possibly be suggesting that she might (gasp!) LIE about something like that in her neverending quest for the last word???

I must admit I'm feeling a bit nauseated at her desire to be naked in a rattlesnake pit. That is some pretty vicious animal abuse. blech.

[Kate]

It's not lying. It's storytime. She likes books.

I think the snakes would just ignore her. Professional curtesy, and all. Not a scene I'd like captured on film, however. shudder

scathach wrote

That dusty old minge stroker Lily is a whore???????? Who knew there was a market for fat old harpies who smell like cat litter.

:lol::lol::lol: Pathetic.

She is a lonely old fart, isn't she? I almost feel sorry for her. "Atheists, I wish I could quit ya."


I love this forum!

scathach,
Don't insult cat litter. I bet cat litter smells a lot better than her. :lol:

Oh!
AND I L -O-V-E THIS FORUM!

Philboid Studge wrote

Lilyy (may I call you Lilyy?), Meanwhile, since your Lilyy incarnation, you've iterated and reiterated this business of weighing "the evidence (honestly) and comes to a different conclusion about its persuasiveness than I have, I have no problem with that." At face value, that seems like a reasonable stance. But do you know anyone who fits this description?

Yes. To your last question. I have a fair number of private conversations going and, without the constant adolescent attempts at humor and the vulgarities (such as we see here with scratchhappy and her faithful echo) they have been edifying and entertaining.

Philboid, I swear, on one hundred of those books you don't believe in, that I thought I had answered Choob's question. What more can I say than what I said? If Herod's archives turn up and do not support the historical claims of the NT, I will shrug and walk away.

It is too bad that you don't like it when I voice my frustrations. You all do it regularly and with far less wit than I do. Why the double standard?

As far as my latest "incarnation" goes, Lilyy is the necessary means of getting around the system which tells me that there is already a user "Lily". Since I can't remember my password anymore and don't want a new one, the extra y seemed like the obvious thing to use. Sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar.

I have to admit that I am curious and interested in the question you said you had as a follow-up to what I wrote.

Choobus wrote

Lily! This is amazing. In fact, it's an occasion worthy of verse:


Holy Mary
mother of God!
Show me your tits
and I'll show you my knob.
You squeezed out a bastard;
no fault of your own,
but now you are carrying some sort of clone;
a magic one,
truly,
there can be no doubt,
because if there were
it would all come to nowt.
So praise him we say,
praise him indeed.
He's ever so useful
to further our greed.
As a patsy that is,
that's what he's for
Jesus the saviour,
and idiot whore.
Do you do anal?
Do you do anal?
Do you do anal,
like God?

What the hell are you on about, awesome choobus, you are probably thinking Lily. And who can blame you? It is somewhat unusual for me to break out in spontaneous bad verse, that's clear. This is why:

"I think just about the only thing that would do it is the discovery of Herod's archives."

That is mind boggling to me, especially after all the guff you have recently spouted concerning your hard core bible chops. Maybe I'm ignorant, so let's pretend I'm an uneducated fool who knows nothing. If I ask you why proof via Herod's records is enough to make or break your faith (which I has assumed was based on something more spiritual and could not, therefore, be swayed by an inconvenient fact), what would you say?

Choobus,
I like this verse so much I want to know if you composed it and if you have more under your sleeve.
I really liked it.
Something about the word 'anal' turns me on, like it does to god.

[Choobus]

HC, I pulled that out of my arse!

[Choobus]

lilyy wrote

Philboid, I swear, on one hundred of those books you don't believe in, that I thought I had answered Choob's question. What more can I say than what I said? If Herod's archives turn up and do not support the historical claims of the NT, I will shrug and walk away.

I didn't feel like you answered my question Lily. The reason I was so surprised was that of all the things to change your mind, a missing document seems rather trivial. After all, it's not impossible for the record of Jesus to have been purged from Herod's myspace papyrus. That sort of thing happened in Egypt all the time. Similarly, why only Herod? The Romans kept good records, and there's no clear cut mention of Jesus in their records (an arguable point I know). The real point, though, is this: how can you possible distinguish between the historical Jesus as a man and as the son of God? He could have left an identical trail in history in either case. You seem to be saying that if there was a man called Jesus who did the stuff in the bible then he was definately the son of God, but if there was no such man then everything else is wrong as well. That seems to me to be an extreme point of view, bitch.

Choobus wrote

I didn't feel like you answered my question Lily. The reason I was so surprised was that of all the things to change your mind, a missing document seems rather trivial. After all, it's not impossible for the record of Jesus to have been purged from Herod's myspace papyrus. That sort of thing happened in Egypt all the time. Similarly, why only Herod? The Romans kept good records, and there's no clear cut mention of Jesus in their records (an arguable point I know). The real point, though, is this: how can you possible distinguish between the historical Jesus as a man and as the son of God? He could have left an identical trail in history in either case. You seem to be saying that if there was a man called Jesus who did the stuff in the bible then he was definately the son of God, but if there was no such man then everything else is wrong as well. That seems to me to be an extreme point of view, bitch.

Well, my fine turner of elegant phrases, how the hell was I supposed to understand what hard core Bible chops are? Did I not indicate that I was guessing at your question?

Now that I understand it, I will answer it. It doesn't matter if it is Herod's archives or Roman archives. If real, reliable, historical records show up that clearly disprove the historical claims of the New Testament, then I will be saddened but will walk away. I can only attribute your surprise at this to the different scholarly worlds we inhabit. History, even ancient history, is not some sort of subjective game. There are standards for weighing evidence. There are ways to authenticate the age of papyrus, the inks, etc. There are specialists in languages who can authenticate that the language and the supposed age of the document are a match. There is much more but that is enough for our purposes.

In the hopes that this will be clearly understood, let me say as plainly as I can that I consider the Gospel writers to be honest witnesses of the events they describe. I believe that Jesus did what they say he did and that he is who he claims (on their testimony) to be. If that is not the case, the edifice falls, sweet knees.:rolleyes:

[Choobus]

It's not the "different scholarly worlds" we inhabit (although we surely do) that I find odd. For one thing, although hjistory is not arbitrary it is often vague, and sometimes ambiguous. Proving that somethng did not happen seems like an almost impossible task (perhaps this is your real point).


incidentally, even if the Gospel writers were completely honest, we don't have what they wrote we have translations of copies of translations of copies etc etc so why are you willing to give them such weight? What are the odds that there are phrases in the Gospels that have little or nothing to do with the original meanings or any actual events? And, are you suggesting that there are no contradictory statements in the gospels, nutjob?

lilyy wrote

I have a fair number of private conversations going and, without the constant adolescent attempts at humor and the vulgarities (such as we see here with scratchhappy and her faithful echo) they have been edifying and entertaining.

Boooooooooooooooring........

Choobus wrote

It's not the "different scholarly worlds" we inhabit (although we surely do) that I find odd. For one thing, although hjistory is not arbitrary it is often vague, and sometimes ambiguous. Proving that somethng did not happen seems like an almost impossible task (perhaps this is your real point).


incidentally, even if the Gospel writers were completely honest, we don't have what they wrote we have translations of copies of translations of copies etc etc so why are you willing to give them such weight? What are the odds that there are phrases in the Gospels that have little or nothing to do with the original meanings or any actual events? And, are you suggesting that there are no contradictory statements in the gospels, nutjob?

I don't think a single document could possibly bear the weight that you seem to be assigning it. But that is not my "real point". My belief (or disbelief) hangs on the nature of the evidence. In history, reliable conclusions can only be reached if a particular period is well documented. Such conclusions are, up to a certain point, contingent on better or further evidence turning up. If there is a lot of evidence for a particular event, the likelihood that our understanding will be radically altered later seems remote.

If, say, we turned up a weekly log of all the criminal matters dealt with during the period 15 BC and 15 AD and there were no mention of anything remotely like what is described in the New Testament, that would be suggestive. If we found many such gaps of reliably known events missing, the documents would be far less damning. If we found every known event known to us from other sources documented in the logs, that would be a great big red flag.

I don't know how much further I can press this scenario. It is all so highly speculative.

As far as the Gospels are concerned, it is true that we do not have the autographs. But we don't only have copies of copies of copies of translations. The Gospels were written in the Greek that was the lingua franca of the time and place. St Augustine, in the early 4th century wrote a whole treatise on the perils of translation. This was not a mystery to the early Church.

There are some 5000 full and partial manuscripts out there and more will no doubt be discovered. There is a whole field of study devoted to studying, emendating and translating these texts. They are found near and far from the scene of the "crime". Their agreement with each other is quite conclusive. In today's Bibles the relatively few passages that are found in one manuscript but not in another (the story about the woman taken in adultery, is one such) are usually bracketed with a note explaining that.

Of course there are contradictory passages in the Gospels! They are eyewitness accounts (in 3 cases) and a researched account of a three year ministry! We have always known that. But, the very fact that those inconsistencies have been faithfully recorded and never brought into harmony is pretty compelling testimony that the authors were honest witnesses and that their heirs were honest in transmitting what they received as the Gospel.

So, are you still a heathen or have I converted you, my little snuggle bunny?

[Gnosital]

HomoCyclist wrote

Boooooooooooooooring........

Indeed. It's no wonder she has no friends. Apparently we're the only people polite enough to tolerate her.

Again with this "fair number". It almost seems like the old lady is making things up in order to gain some imaginary upper hand in a non-existant debate. What a sad, lonely, dried-up old lady. It's kind of amusing though, how she has the hots for our dear Dr. Choobus. Poor guy!

[Choobus]

converted me? :lol::lol::lol:

you might be able to turn me gay, but that's about it I'm afraid!

Choobus wrote

converted me? :lol::lol::lol:

you might be able to turn me gay, but that's about it I'm afraid!

You mean, you aren't gay? I wish you had said something sooner! I would have been a trifle more reserved in my mode of expression :lol::lol::lol:

[Choobus]

Let's just say I'm gay for Jesus. (and moleman, but mostly Jesus).