The Historical Jesus.

[heretic888]

the show does explain the effects of volcanic ash on a climate. we're not just talking a little bit of dust here.

We're not just talking about a little plot of land here, either.

Egypt was a freakin' *huge* nation (still is, really). The amount of ash that would be needed to cause "plagues" (I'm still not quite sure how the ash could mimic these "plagues" --- could anyone give a medical basis for this claim??) would be stupendous.

Laterz.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

We're not just talking about a little plot of land here, either.

Thera's explosion devastated a good portion of the Med, and brought an end to the Minoan culture.


The Egyptians were largely located in the Nile Delta. It isn't inconceivable that Thera's explosion wracked the region...including Egypt's Nile Delta, and then the story grew with the telling.

Were there literally seven plagues as described in the Bible? Probably not. However, Thera's explosion would have been remembered and embellished...it was the most significant geological disaster of that millenium in that part of the world.

Some speculate the Noachian flood could have been the flooding of the Black Sea by the Mediterranean.

Apply Occam's razor, and I think these speculations make a bit more sense than the traditional explanations as given in the Bible.


Steve

 

[Cruentus]

Apply Occam's razor, and I think these speculations make a bit more sense than the traditional explanations as given in the Bible.

Well, science can bring to light some of the writings in ancient texts.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by heretic888
We're not just talking about a little plot of land here, either.

Egypt was a freakin' *huge* nation (still is, really). The amount of ash that would be needed to cause "plagues" (I'm still not quite sure how the ash could mimic these "plagues" --- could anyone give a medical basis for this claim??) would be stupendous.

Laterz.

I need to echo nightengale here. Watch the show. I saw the episode that she was refering to, and they did a pretty good job of explaining the volcano theory.

PAUL

 

[heretic888]

Well, science can bring to light some of the writings in ancient texts.

I have found that what is much more commonplace is that certain modern individuals, oftentimes who lack a professional background in any formal science, retroactively project scientific theories and discoveries onto ancient texts in some attempt to vindicate criticism of them.

I need to echo nightengale here. Watch the show. I saw the episode that she was refering to, and they did a pretty good job of explaining the volcano theory.

I'll try and catch it when I get a chance.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Heretic,

Geologists have established Thera blew up. They know the Minoan culture was wiped out by it. They've determined that a resultant Tsunami wiped out portions of the coast of Greece and hit Egypt. They know from taking core samples the spread of the thermoplastic flow and that ash settled in Egypt. They know from the explosion of Krakatoa that such an event can have dynamic impacts on populations hundreds of miles away. Thera blew up around the time that Ramses lived. Some archeologists suspect he was the pharoah mentioned in the Bible.

So...this isn't pseudo science. What's your beef?

Now...insofar as speculating that the effects of this catastrophe might have led to the description of the "plagues" of Moses described in the Bible...is that such a far jump?

Or would you prefer to believe them interecessions on the part of The Lord?

Perhaps you'd like to believe the ancient Greek Gods really did in fact throw huge boulders at each other?

Or maybe that Atlantis really existed?

My point is this...it is very likely that oral history...and later written history...corrupted and embellished historical events to the point where geological events of this magnitude became miracles. That isn't so implausible, is it? The sky darkens, a huge rumbling is heard and a huge choking and hot cloud of dust settles over the land...primitive people are going to run with that and make it an act of God. Or Gods.


Steve

 

[Rich Parsons]

Let us not forget that much of the Nile Delta including Alexandria ended up in the bottom of the Med after an earth quake.

Modern day Egypt is large.

Ancient Day Egypt was along the the Nile. Yes it is a long river, yet look at the population size and the technology of the day. Almost every human of the time lived along rivers or coast line.

Given these assumptions or facts or little details you could see how a plague could in affect been seen to have happened.

Now, do I know that such a thing happened? No I do not. I can read about the Volcano's and the other events tat we can Carbon Date and make a hypothesis just like anyone else.

Now, I do believe that many of the stories of the Bible Old and New Testament were taken from common fold lore and adopted to better be able to absorb the various peoples of the region.

Just my Opinion
:asian:

 

[heretic888]

Thera blew up around the time that Ramses lived. Some archeologists suspect he was the pharoah mentioned in the Bible.

Emphasis on the "some". I already provided a much more plausible time for the purported Jewish exodus, although it doesn't really detract from your hypothesis any.

So...this isn't pseudo science. What's your beef?

I misinterpreted the original post on it. I thought it was some self-appointed agenda to "prove" the Bible right, which would indeed make it pseudo-science.

Now...insofar as speculating that the effects of this catastrophe might have led to the description of the "plagues" of Moses described in the Bible...is that such a far jump?

Nope.

Or would you prefer to believe them interecessions on the part of The Lord?

I'm actually more interested in the truth than in a "preference".

Perhaps you'd like to believe the ancient Greek Gods really did in fact throw huge boulders at each other?

Not particularly. Then again, it doesn't really matter to me.

Or maybe that Atlantis really existed?

Maybe it did.

My point is this...it is very likely that oral history...and later written history...corrupted and embellished historical events to the point where geological events of this magnitude became miracles. That isn't so implausible, is it? The sky darkens, a huge rumbling is heard and a huge choking and hot cloud of dust settles over the land...primitive people are going to run with that and make it an act of God. Or Gods.

Although I agree with your basic line of thinking here, I just have to add: "Primitive"?? Heh, that's treading dangerous waters, bucky.

Laterz.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by heretic888
Emphasis on the "some". I already provided a much more plausible time for the purported Jewish exodus, although it doesn't really detract from your hypothesis any.
. . .

Heretic888,

I really do enjoy reading your informed posts. I do not think you will find any one thing that everyone on this planet will agree too. I agree that your explanation is just as plausible, given the feel we get for those leaders then from a perspective in today's world.

Looking forward to more discussion ty everyone
:asian:

 

[hardheadjarhead]

"Primitive"?? Heh, that's treading dangerous waters, bucky.

Hardly. If some evangelist wants to flame me for not buying into a literal interpretation of the Bible, so be it.



Steve

 

[heretic888]

Well, seeing as how this thread's kinda died down a bit, I guess I'll just continue from what the last post said...

Hardly. If some evangelist wants to flame me for not buying into a literal interpretation of the Bible, so be it.

Heh. Ok.

So I take it, based on your post, you believe in a non-literal interpretation of the Bible, then?? Care to elaborate??

Laterz.

 

[Cruentus]

I misinterpreted the original post on it. I thought it was some self-appointed agenda to "prove" the Bible right, which would indeed make it pseudo-science.

Someones agenda doesn't make their evidence or their assumption based off that evidence right or wrong. You were willing to jump all over him based off what you thought his agenda was, regardless of the evidence.

Thus, this illustrates how you've been handling this entire thread. YOU have an agenda and a BELIEF. For whatever reason it is vitally important for you to maintain your belief that a historical Jesus Christ never actually existed...that it was a made up story. So, as soon as you smell a somewhat Christian agenda, your ready to try to slam down any evidence they might bring forth, no matter how much or little you may know of that evidence.

So, instead of trying to get to the bottom of something, your trying to slam others beliefs and conjectures. At least, this is the way you come across...like a total A-hole.

Perhaps you think that people don't want to talk with you, or that they would rather let this thread die, because you have such a strong arguement. Your arguement isn't THAT strong. People would rather let the thread die because, well, there seems to be no point. Your looking to pick a part other peoples beliefs rather then have a discussion where we can all learn something.

At least this is the way you come accross. I thought that maybe this was just my perception; that maybe because I am coming from a Christian perspective, I am taking your posts the wrong way. THis can't be the case, however. I have gotton more PM's regarding this thread then any other...and only about half from Christians. Some were just telling me to keep up the good fight...others were telling me not to stoop to your level or to play your game. So...I know I am not alone in this opinion.

Nobody likes to have their beliefs, opinions, or conjectures slammed to the floor in an arrogent way. Sometimes, I have to remind myself of this too...we all need reminders. But when you come across as arrogently as you do somethimes, looking to hammer on peoples beliefs, you are precieved just as badly as a "street corner bible beater" who is only interested in screaming his beliefs at you, treating you as if your opinions don't matter.

Solution: I'd like to see a more 'inclusive' discussion, rather then an exclusionary arguement where you jump all over people for not accepting your beliefs. If we can't have that...then perhaps we should let the thread die.


PAUL

 

[hardheadjarhead]

So I take it, based on your post, you believe in a non-literal interpretation of the Bible, then??

You assume a great deal, heretic.

Regarding theology, I am much more in agreement with you and Bertrand Russel than with Paul.

But I have to agree with Paul on the way you come off.

You don't debate with the hopes of making people embrace your ideas. Obviously you're quite bright, but by arrogating yourself with your condescending arguments you do nothing more than alienate people. I can't respect that.



Steve

 

[heretic888]

Oh boy. Back at it again, Paul??

Ummmm.... why exactly are you now commenting on something said about two pages back?? Something which you had ignored previously??

Anyways....

Someones agenda doesn't make their evidence or their assumption based off that evidence right or wrong. You were willing to jump all over him based off what you thought his agenda was, regardless of the evidence.

Ok, Paul, that's not how the scientific method works. If you come into the process with a truth assumption already layed down, you are not using science to try and find the answer or the truth to the problem or question. You are using science to try and validate your own personal beliefs. An example of this is the flood research people that already assume the Bible is literally/historically true and that the Deluge did happen (proof or not), and then basically go about collecting evidence to "prove" their religious beliefs to others.

As I stated on the creationism thread, you already have the conclusion figured out in your head and are just using "science" to amass the details to "prove" that conclusion right. And that, my friends, is pseudo-science. In real science, the conclusion is the end point, not the beginning.

And I didn't "jump all over him". All I said was that, based on what little I knew of the program, it sounded like pseudo-science. But, I was clearly mistaken, and admitted that. So, why are you even bringing this up??

Thus, this illustrates how you've been handling this entire thread. YOU have an agenda and a BELIEF.

*chuckles* Doesn't everyone??

Yes, my "agenda" is to express what I believe to be true and criticize that which I believe to not be true. My "belief" is that it is highly unlikely that a historical Jesus existed (among other things). DEAL WITH IT.

For whatever reason it is vitally important for you to maintain your belief that a historical Jesus Christ never actually existed

I've actually never said there is no way a historical Jesus actually existed, only that it is exceedingly unlikely.

a historical Jesus Christ never actually existed...that it was a made up story.

This makes the false assumption that something not exisiting historically and something being "a made up story" are the same thing.

So, as soon as you smell a somewhat Christian agenda, your ready to try to slam down any evidence they might bring forth, no matter how much or little you may know of that evidence.

*chuckles* What evidence??

I criticize that which I believe to not be true. Something you seem to be doing now, Paul. You are dangerously flirting with hypocrisy here.

So, instead of trying to get to the bottom of something, your trying to slam others beliefs and conjectures.

I criticize views that I do not believe to be true. Big deal.

If someone posits a view I believe to not be true, I request evidence. If that evidence does not hold out, I continue my criticism. So far, that has continued to occur in this thread.

I have also not made any kind of "rigid" position on any of this one way or another. I never adamantly stated that the "plague/volcano" special was pseudo-science, only that it sounded like pseudo-science (based on the limited description I had heard). Likewise, I never adamantly stated that Jesus did not exist, only that it was extremely unlikely.

You, however, seem to be more than rigid on your positions right now and in the past, as well.

At least, this is the way you come across...like a total A-hole.

Well, the admins obviously don't think so. Nor does anyone else that has participated in this thread outside of the random "why are you picking on Jesus??" complaints.

You seem to have the mistaken impression that I am somehow obliged to treat any and all viewpoints as if they have equal scientific/historical validity. I can assure you, I am not.

From where I'm standing, a lot of these complaints (including some of yours) resemble individuals afraid of having their beliefs questioned. Too bad.

Perhaps you think that people don't want to talk with you, or that they would rather let this thread die, because you have such a strong arguement.

Paul, please try and use logic every now and then. I revived this thread to discuss the last poster's interpretation of the Bible, not to go back over either the volcano or Jesus theories. That is something you are individually guilty of, my friend.

Your arguement isn't THAT strong.

It was apparently strong enough to ruffle your feathers. So much so that you resorted to ignoring most of my "evidence" and selectively cut-and-pasting what I said to declare yourself the "winner". Do we really need to rehash all this again??

People would rather let the thread die because, well, there seems to be no point.

Some do, some don't. I know you're a Christian, Paul, but you don't have to make black-and-white generalizations about everything.

Your looking to pick a part other peoples beliefs rather then have a discussion where we can all learn something.

*chuckles* Allow me to quote the post I revived this thread with:

"So I take it, based on your post, you believe in a non-literal interpretation of the Bible, then?? Care to elaborate??"

Oh yeah, really picking apart there.

At least this is the way you come accross. I thought that maybe this was just my perception; that maybe because I am coming from a Christian perspective, I am taking your posts the wrong way. THis can't be the case, however. I have gotton more PM's regarding this thread then any other...and only about half from Christians. Some were just telling me to keep up the good fight...others were telling me not to stoop to your level or to play your game. So...I know I am not alone in this opinion.

Or, at least you say you're not alone.

Even if your PM claim is true, there also seems to be another assumption you seem to constantly make in this discussion: popularity does not confer legitimacy.

Nobody likes to have their beliefs, opinions, or conjectures slammed to the floor in an arrogent way. Sometimes, I have to remind myself of this too...we all need reminders. But when you come across as arrogently as you do somethimes, looking to hammer on peoples beliefs, you are precieved just as badly as a "street corner bible beater" who is only interested in screaming his beliefs at you, treating you as if your opinions don't matter.

This really comes down to a matter of ego, from where I'm standing. Everyone wants to be treated as if their beliefs are as equal and valid as all others. They're afraid of being questioned. The basic mentality is: "All opinions should be equally treasured and nurtured and thus NOBODY TELLS ME WHAT TO DO." Thus, they rationalize that the questioner is "an *******" or "has an agenda" or "had bad experiences with Christianity".

What this really comes down to, Paul, is that you don't like me questioning your beliefs. So, you're not alone in that opinion. Big deal. Your fear and/or "hurt feelings" is not enough reason for me to shut up.

If the discussion actually offends you that much, then the answer is simple: don't participate. Its not exactly brain surgery.

Solution: I'd like to see a more 'inclusive' discussion, rather then an exclusionary arguement where you jump all over people for not accepting your beliefs. If we can't have that...then perhaps we should let the thread die.

No, you want me to treat your beliefs as if they are right from the outset, and my beliefs as if they might be right. Like I said before, Paul, you are flirting dangerously with hypocrisy here. Very dangerously.

*chuckles* Laterz.

 

[Nightingale]

ok...

this is starting to bug me.

I'm the one that brought up the TV show and got jumped on for it...

and I'm female.

so please stop referring to me as "him"

ok?

 

[heretic888]

You assume a great deal, heretic.

Not really. I made an inference based on the content of your post. I was obviously mistaken. It happens.

Regarding theology, I am much more in agreement with you and Bertrand Russel than with Paul.

What makes you think my "theology" is at all similar to Betrand Russel's?? Talk about making assumptions....

But I have to agree with Paul on the way you come off.

You don't debate with the hopes of making people embrace your ideas. Obviously you're quite bright, but by arrogating yourself with your condescending arguments you do nothing more than alienate people. I can't respect that.

*chuckles* Obviously, there is some miscommunication here.

I do find it humorous, however, that the ones that claim I am being "condescending" were always the first ones to start making personal attacks. Very curious, no?

ok...

this is starting to bug me.

I'm the one that brought up the TV show and got jumped on for it...

and I'm female.

so please stop referring to me as "him"

ok?

Many apologies, Nightingale. :asian:

Heh. Laterz.

 

[Nightingale]

the assumptions people make are amusing...

people assume I'm male (even with a girly username like "Nightingale") because I'm a martial artist.

then, people assumed I was a christian and had some kind of pro-bible agenda because I pointed people to an interesting TV show that happened to reference the bible.

then, people assumed the TV show had to have a Christian agenda because it referenced the bible.


Interesting that every assumption was false.

 

[heretic888]

the assumptions people make are amusing...

people assume I'm male (even with a girly username like "Nightingale") because I'm a martial artist.

then, people assumed I was a christian and had some kind of pro-bible agenda because I pointed people to an interesting TV show that happened to reference the bible.

then, people assumed the TV show had to have a Christian agenda because it referenced the bible.


Interesting that every assumption was false.

Yeah.... life's funny like that.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by heretic888
Oh boy. Back at it again, Paul??

Ummmm.... why exactly are you now commenting on something said about two pages back?? Something which you had ignored previously??

Anyways....

Yup...I'm at it 'again'... dur-dur-dur :erg:

Also...since this is the internet, if I get busy I'll be late posting...so what?

Ok, Paul, that's not how the scientific method works. If you come into the process with a truth assumption already layed down, you are not using science to try and find the answer or the truth to the problem or question. You are using science to try and validate your own personal beliefs. An example of this is the flood research people that already assume the Bible is literally/historically true and that the Deluge did happen (proof or not), and then basically go about collecting evidence to "prove" their religious beliefs to others.

O.K....now this is just a flippin idiotic attempt to try to defend you position. First of all...what do you call "Hypothesis"? It's a question based off an ASSUMPTION, of which goes through a series of tests to prove or disprove the assumption.

See here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypothesis

But besides that...we are not just talking about science and history...this question also involves religion. Science does a great job of explaining "how", but not such a good job of explaining "why", which religion/philosephy is designed to explain. Anyways...

As I stated on the creationism thread, you already have the conclusion figured out in your head and are just using "science" to amass the details to "prove" that conclusion right. And that, my friends, is pseudo-science. In real science, the conclusion is the end point, not the beginning.

Sorry...I haven't been following the creationism thread. So how does it feel to be wrong again?

And I didn't "jump all over him". All I said was that, based on what little I knew of the program, it sounded like pseudo-science. But, I was clearly mistaken, and admitted that. So, why are you even bringing this up??

Ohhhh.....wow. You admitted to being wrong once. Someone save it quick before he realizes what he has done. :shrug:

I bring it up because your behavior is unbarable. You alienate others so you can raise yourself on a pedistle....and it wasn't like you just said something, and now its over. You will continue...on and on and on...until people stop talking to you....so you can then 'believe' that you must have completely crushed everyone in an arguement.

Gosh...your such a man....

*chuckles* Doesn't everyone??

Yes, my "agenda" is to express what I believe to be true and criticize that which I believe to not be true. My "belief" is that it is highly unlikely that a historical Jesus existed (among other things). DEAL WITH IT.

Deal with it? Oh....we all have been....believe me. Your agenda is very clear also. Its just to bad that you feel the need to criticize what you believe to be untrue. It's not dealing with your beliefs that is a problem. It's not dealing with a discussion either. It's dealing with YOUR behavior.

I've actually never said there is no way a historical Jesus actually existed, only that it is exceedingly unlikely.

This makes the false assumption that something not exisiting historically and something being "a made up story" are the same thing.

Now your playing semantics.

*chuckles* What evidence??

There you go again with your arrogent behavior.

I criticize that which I believe to not be true. Something you seem to be doing now, Paul. You are dangerously flirting with hypocrisy here.

WRONG! In a discussion forum, I state my beliefs, LISTEN to others, and discuss the issues. I am not out to be critical of someone elses beliefs. However, when someone is critical of mine...sometimes I can't help but get in their face. YOU sir, are the one who have been critical of others beliefs and evidence since the beginning of this discussion.

I criticize views that I do not believe to be true. Big deal.

The "Big Deal" is that how you behave is not condusive of a good discussion.

If someone posits a view I believe to not be true, I request evidence. If that evidence does not hold out, I continue my criticism. So far, that has continued to occur in this thread.

I have also not made any kind of "rigid" position on any of this one way or another. I never adamantly stated that the "plague/volcano" special was pseudo-science, only that it sounded like pseudo-science (based on the limited description I had heard). Likewise, I never adamantly stated that Jesus did not exist, only that it was extremely unlikely.
You, however, seem to be more than rigid on your positions right now and in the past, as well.

First of all...because of YOUR beliefs and assumptions, there is no amount of evidence out there that anyone could bring you that would "hold out" enough for you. So what's the point of asking for it anyways? The only point I can see is that you do it so you can slam and criticize others.

Am I 'rigid' in my beliefs? Why yes....that's because I have balls. You should get some. I don't sit on the fence out of fear that God forbid I might be wrong. If I am wrong...the great...I learned something. I am not so "rigid", though, that I can't discuss issues with people who don't agree with me. But, I am a little too 'rigid' to let people slam on my beliefs w/o me saying something on the matter.

Well, the admins obviously don't think so. Nor does anyone else that has participated in this thread outside of the random "why are you picking on Jesus??" complaints.

Don't be so sure about what the "admins" think. Just because you play by the rules, it doesn't mean you can't still act like a jerk. I've been suspended before because others acted like jerks, yet I got mad and responed too quickly. The "admins" agreed with my viewpoint and that the other party were the jerks...however, I still broke the rules. Point is, you can be a jerk without the admins jumping down your throat if you play by the rules. Also, just because someone doesn't want to say something to your face because they don't want to cause trouble, that doesn't mean that they aren't thinking it. Something for YOU to think about....

You seem to have the mistaken impression that I am somehow obliged to treat any and all viewpoints as if they have equal scientific/historical validity. I can assure you, I am not.

No...but I believe that you ARE required to at least respect others viewpoints....yet at this, you have failed horribly.

From where I'm standing, a lot of these complaints (including some of yours) resemble individuals afraid of having their beliefs questioned. Too bad.

WRONG AGAIN! At least when it comes to me...I can't speak for other people who believe in a historical Jesus. I don't mind having my beliefs questioned...I do mind not having my beliefs respected.

But asking you to show respect...yea...I gues thats just "too bad".

Paul, please try and use logic every now and then. I revived this thread to discuss the last poster's interpretation of the Bible, not to go back over either the volcano or Jesus theories. That is something you are individually guilty of, my friend.

Try not to be such an A-hole "every now and then." And...I don't care why you revived this thread...its all along the same lines. The last posted would have explained his position on his interpretation of the bible, and if it didn't coincide with yours, you would have pissed all over it. Same thing you've been doing from the beginning. [/QUOTE]

It was apparently strong enough to ruffle your feathers. So much so that you resorted to ignoring most of my "evidence" and selectively cut-and-pasting what I said to declare yourself the "winner". Do we really need to rehash all this again??

No...your arrogence stinks enough to ruffle my feathers. Don't think that your arrogence and your argument are one in the same.

Some do, some don't. I know you're a Christian, Paul, but you don't have to make black-and-white generalizations about everything.

*chuckles* Allow me to quote the post I revived this thread with:

"So I take it, based on your post, you believe in a non-literal interpretation of the Bible, then?? Care to elaborate??"

Oh yeah, really picking apart there.

But it doesn't matter. You'll ask him to elaborate, he will, and if doesn't coincide with your beliefs then you'll piss on it. This is what you've been doing thusfar, so why should I think that you'd change your behavior?

Or, at least you say you're not alone.

Even if your PM claim is true, there also seems to be another assumption you seem to constantly make in this discussion: popularity does not confer legitimacy.

First off...why would I lie to you? At least I am man enough to use my real name and contact information. I am also man enough to tell the truth. I can't say the same about you.

This really comes down to a matter of ego, from where I'm standing. Everyone wants to be treated as if their beliefs are as equal and valid as all others. They're afraid of being questioned. The basic mentality is: "All opinions should be equally treasured and nurtured and thus NOBODY TELLS ME WHAT TO DO." Thus, they rationalize that the questioner is "an *******" or "has an agenda" or "had bad experiences with Christianity".

What this really comes down to, Paul, is that you don't like me questioning your beliefs. So, you're not alone in that opinion. Big deal. Your fear and/or "hurt feelings" is not enough reason for me to shut up.

If the discussion actually offends you that much, then the answer is simple: don't participate. Its not exactly brain surgery.

It's not a matter of ego...its a matter of respect. You treat those who don't believe the same as you with very little respect. This is my problem. Ask anyone who has been on this forum with me where there has been a heated discussion....I can handle when people don't agree with me. I can handle having my beliefs questioned.

I shouldn't have to handle people who don't respect my or others opinions. Neither should anybody else. THATS what it comes down to.

Another problem that I have as well is your elitist attitude. You take the position that not all 'beliefs' are equal so you can then take the position that yours are 'better' then everyone else around you who doesn't agree. You have yet to prove that your "opinions" are superior then anyone elses...and you won't. THATS WHY THEY ARE "Beliefs" AND "opinions"... not facts; no ones is 'better' then anyone elses unless it can be "imperically" proven, at which point the opinion/belief must become fact.

No, you want me to treat your beliefs as if they are right from the outset, and my beliefs as if they might be right. Like I said before, Paul, you are flirting dangerously with hypocrisy here. Very dangerously.

*chuckles* Laterz.

No...I just want you to treat other opinions with respect. You can disagree with me...fine. I recognize that I might be wrong, even though I don't believe that I am. If you would do the same, life would be so much easier.

Now...does your behavior annoy me enough to stay off the thread. No...it annoys me so much more. It annoys me so much that I am not going to let you dominate a thread as you disrespect and "traunce" all over my beliefs. If I did what you are doing to a buddhist, hinduist, or athiest, I'd be blamed for being an intolerant SOB. So...what does that make you?

It's not about who's right or wrong, or who's afraid to have their beliefs challanged, or anything like that. Not anymore, at least. It's about respecting other opinions...

thats all...

PAUL

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Nightingale
ok...

this is starting to bug me.

I'm the one that brought up the TV show and got jumped on for it...

and I'm female.

so please stop referring to me as "him"

ok?

:rofl:

Sorry...I think that was my fault. You are correct, you were the one who got jumped on for bringing up the TV show. I got a little mixed up because the last question was directed towards steve, so I just wrote "him," and it looks like we kept going with it.

I never thought you were a him....even though you could probably beat up most guys:boxing:

Sorry again!