JERUSALEM, Israel (AP) -- Greek Orthodox and Franciscan priests got into a fist fight Monday at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Christianity's holiest shrine, after arguing over whether a door in the basilica should be closed during a procession.

Dozens of people, including several Israeli police officers, were slightly hurt in the brawl at the shrine, built over the spot where tradition says Jesus was crucified and buried.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/27/israel.priests.fight.ap/index.html

Is Christianity a form of humor? Good question. I suspect the folks in the picture below would answer in the affirmative:

http://www.clowning4christ.com/junior%20and%20lala.jpg

Much of what constitutes humor is derived from the incongruous and the nonsensical. And sure enough, more than a few of the teachings of Christianity seem quite nonsensical or self-contradictory. For example, ask any fundamentalist how Judas Iscariot died (did he hang himself, or did he fall and split open?) and you'll be treated to a hilarious verbal jigaboo-dance ("He hanged himself, THEN the rope broke and he split open...the author just left out the first part"). Or we can wonder what the Last Judgment will be like: Will we be judged according to how we treated one another ("I was hungry and you gave me no food...I was thirsty and you gave me no drink...") or according to whether we believed in the Jesus story?

You sure are trying to assure yourself, again and again, that the Bible isn't true, I'll give you that.


Petr

You sure are trying to assure yourself, again and again, that the Bible isn't true, I'll give you that.

Why would I do that? If the Bible is true, then it's true; if it's not, then it's not. I make my judgments on the basis of evidence and logic alone. I'm not the type of person to believe that reality is influenced by my desires. Are you?

If you want to, you're welcome to try to resolve the contradictions I mentioned in my last post, but I don't think it's possible to do it in any sensible way.

Your perception of reality is definitely influenced by your desires. Our presuppositions determine to a very great degree of what we make out of the empirical evidence at hand.

A creationist looks at the nature and sees an evidence for design. An evolutionist looks at the nature and sees just a "green machine" that has produced itself.

You quite obviously do not want the Biblical worldview to be true (your obsessions about Hell alone prove that), and that influences your judgment, whether you admit it to yourself or not.

"Men despise religion; they hate it and fear it is true."

-Blaise Pascal


Petr

Your perception of reality is definitely influenced by your desires. Our presuppositions determine to a very great degree of what we make out of the empirical evidence at hand.Perhaps you have noted that evolution is accepted by a wide variety of biologists from a variety of religious and cultural backgrounds. The ONLY people who reject evolution are religious fundamentalists. What does that tell you?


A creationist looks at the nature and sees an evidence for design. An evolutionist looks at the nature and sees just a "green machine" that has produced itself.There is no evidence that anything in nature was "designed," but even if there were, that would by NO means imply that the Bible is correct. It could just as easily mean that one of the creation stories from one of the other thousands of world religions was correct. Or it could mean that the universe was created by alien beings from a parallel universe. The number of possible designers is infinite; hence, even if it could be proved that the universe were designed, that would not increase the probability that the Biblical account of creation is correct the least bit.


You quite obviously do not want the Biblical worldview to be true (your obsessions about Hell alone prove that), and that influences your judgment, whether you admit it to yourself or not.Then why did I believe in both the Bible and in Hell for the first 30 years of my life? The answer is simple: I believed in the Bible until I learned more about its origins and began to think more critically about the teachings and assumptions of Christianity. Up until that point, there had been many teachings of the Church with which I was uncomfortable, but I believed they were true anyway, since my attitude has always been that just because I don't want something to be true, that doesn't change the fact that it is true. In fact, I have been inclined my whole life to give the Bible and Christianity the benefit of the doubt, but little by little, I was forced to accept the reality that I was lying to myself. I had to confront the fact that many teachings of my religion made no sense and were irrational.


"Men despise religion; they hate it and fear it is true."

-Blaise PascalPascal is wrong there (just as his famous Wager is full of holes). Most people are in love with the thought of living after death and being reunited with lost loved ones. Believe me, I wish it were true. I don't want to go into oblivion. But my wish to live forever does not justify a belief on my part that I will live forever. I need some evidence, e.g., a direct message from God (not an umpteenth-hand written message from someone who claimed to have been inspired by God).

Men also love religion because it acts as an all-purpose psychological crutch. It explains that which men do not yet understand. Once that was simple natural phenomena such as thunder and lightning; today it's much deeper stuff like the origin of life. From time immemorial, whatever has not been understood in natural terms has been attributed to "the gods" or to God. It's an easy way to get an answer, even if it's the wrong one.

- "Men also love religion because it acts as an all-purpose psychological crutch. "


You so utterly stereotypical "former believer" that has to obsessively prove to believers that "I've grown up and you haven't."

(yawn)


Petr

Contrary to what you probably think, Petr, I am not an atheist. I am basically an agnostic. I have no problem whatsoever admitting the possibility that a Supreme Being exists. I have hardly ruled that out. Heck, I can't even rule out that Jesus was, in fact, God-made-flesh (though there is no more evidence of that than there is that Mohammed is God's last and greatest prophet).

What I do know, however, is this:

(1) The Biblical story (stories, actually) of creation is not literally true.

(2) The Bible contains many self-contradictions (such as the death of Judas).

(3) Many Christian teachings either make God out to be unjust (e.g., the doctrine of original sin) or make no sense at all (e.g., the idea that a perfect Being can change his mind if enough prayers are said).

There are just so many things that undermine the credibility of the Bible. If God (or angelic messengers) spoke to people on a regular basis during Biblical times, then why doesn't He continue to do so now? If miracles could be performed by the Apostles, then why aren't miracles performed today? (Snake-handling doesn't count.)

Here's a favorite discrepancy of mine. If Adam and Eve were the first people, then why don't religions older than Judaism (e.g., Hinduism, Zoroastrianism) name them as such in their creation stories? You'd think that Adam and Eve would have passed on the details of their experience with God to their children, who would have passed it on to their children, and so on. But apparently no one ever heard of Adam and Eve until the ancient Hebrews came out with the book of Genesis. There are no ancient cave drawings of the Garden of Eden; no mention of the clever Serpent or the Tree of Knowledge. Why not?

Face it, Petr: None of it makes any sense, and the only reason you believe it is because you're afraid not to. I was the same way for a while, and I didn't change because I "grew up"; I changed simply because I finally had to admit to myself that I didn't really believe in those fairy tales, and my only "sin" in not believing in them was that of being 100% honest.

I have honestly faced all these objections you present, and I haven't found any of them really unsurmountable.

I was raised in an atheist family, and got religion in my teens. You can shove that fear-argument of yours to an appropriate place.


And as for God being unjust: CS Lewis realized that there must some kind of transcendental principle buried in men for them to even get an idea in the first place that there are some things that are "just" or "unjust".

"The problem of evil" is therefore, juridically speaking, INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE against the existence of God. At the most, you can try to claim that the creator of this world is evil, like Gnostics.


Petr

I have honestly faced all these objections you present, and I haven't found any of them really unsurmountable.

I was raised in an atheist family, and got religion in my teens. You can shove that fear-argument of yours to an appropriate place.Your uncalled-for hostility demonstrates that I've most likely hit the nail squarely on the head with my assessment. Learn to debate like an adult, keeping your emotions in check, or don't waste my time.


And as for God being unjust: CS Lewis realized that there must some kind of transcendental principle buried in men for them to even get an idea in the first place that there are some things that are "just" or "unjust".CS Lewis made all sorts of unjustified leaps and assumptions, and this is just another example of that. The idea of "justice" does not need to rest on a transcendental principle; it can be defined in purely naturalistic terms: e.g., as "the state which exists between parties when no party has deliberately harmed any other party more than it has been deliberately harmed." In other words, justice can be defined as a state of mutual equilibrium regarding what has been done to and by different parties, as the symbol of the lady holding the scales would suggest.

What accounts for man's innate sense of justice and injustice? His evolved ability to reason, albeit imperfectly, coupled with his evolved sense of "right" and "wrong." The latter is almost certainly the result of man's evolution as a social creature whose life generally depends on interactions with others. A balance is struck between pure selfishness, which has some selective advantage, and pure altruism, which also has some limited selective advantage. When the two general traits are combined in the context of social interaction, the optimum probability of survival is achieved.


"The problem of evil" is therefore, juridically speaking, INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE against the existence of God. At the most, you can try to claim that the creator of this world is evil, like Gnostics.Of course the problem of evil doesn't rule out the existence of some God. It simply makes the existence of the perfectly loving, omniscient, and omnipotent God of revealed religions such as Christianity extremely implausible. Much more reasonable possibilites include a God who doesn't care about people, a God who doesn't see things in terms of "good" and "evil," or no supernatural God at all.

- " Your uncalled-for hostility demonstrates that I've most likely hit the nail squarely on the head with my assessment. "


What a childish attempt at psychoanalysis. I just happen to be of that humorless type that has no patience for fools. I was only looking an excuse to drop this tedious thread.



- "The idea of "justice" does not need to rest on a transcendental principle; it can be defined in purely naturalistic terms: e.g., as "the state which exists between parties when no party has deliberately harmed any other party more than it has been deliberately harmed."


What is so "naturalistic" about being upset of someone "deliberately harming" someone else if your own interests have not been hurt? It's really not your business, you know.

Darwinian morality is really simple: "you are entitled to everything you can get away with."


And you are making things unnecessarily complicated. You erect a strawman by talking about "justice." We mean simply the very idea THAT SOMETHING SHOULDN'T BE LIKE THAT.

The very essence of godless immorality appropriately is: "whatever is, is right."

Without transcendental, objective moral law, there is no reason to say about ANYTHING that "it shouldn't be like that".


And can you answer me what is your level of education?

I really do not intend to talk now about these "same-old, same-old" issues that I have dealt with million times already, not at least with some guy whose views on evolution are that of layman.


Petr

Is Christianity a form of humor? No, certainly not. That is not its designation at all.

- " Your uncalled-for hostility demonstrates that I've most likely hit the nail squarely on the head with my assessment. "

What a childish attempt at psychoanalysis. I just happen to be of that humorless type that has no patience for fools. I was only looking an excuse to drop this tedious thread.I am hardly a fool, and my beliefs and conclusions put me in the company of nearly all the greatest modern scientists and thinkers, whereas you share your blindness with all the drooling fans of Billy Graham, Benny Hinn, Robert Tilton, and Jimmy Swaggart. And I'm not going to waste my time debating someone who feels the need to resort to ad hominem attack whenever he can't rebut a point, so this will be my last post on this thread.



- "The idea of "justice" does not need to rest on a transcendental principle; it can be defined in purely naturalistic terms: e.g., as "the state which exists between parties when no party has deliberately harmed any other party more than it has been deliberately harmed."

What is so "naturalistic" about being upset of someone "deliberately harming" someone else if your own interests have not been hurt? It's really not your business, you know.Simple: When we see someone harm someone else for insufficient reason, our instincts are toward outrage because we realize that such an offender, or those who imitate him, could conceivably harm us next. Hence, we desire to purge such offenders from our society. I am postulating that primitive men who had this instinct toward outrage at what we call "injustice" were more likely to survive by removing the "loose cannons" from their midst, thus making their tribes/societies stronger and further increasing their probability of procreation.


Darwinian morality is really simple: "you are entitled to everything you can get away with."There is no such thing as "Darwinian morality" in any "transcendental" sense. What we consider our "moral" instincts have evolved into their current state precisely because, in the context of society, a person who selfishly tries to get all he can take at the expense of others is more likely to be subject to retaliation, and thus less likely to survive, than someone who minimizes the role of conflict in his life.


And you are making things unnecessarily complicated. You erect a strawman by talking about "justice." We mean simply the very idea THAT SOMETHING SHOULDN'T BE LIKE THAT.Well, of course things would be much less complicated if I just agreed with you that "justice is a concept that comes from God," right? :rolleyes:


The very essence of godless immorality appropriately is: "whatever is, is right."Maybe that's the way things are, and maybe it isn't. I am simply arguing the point that transcendental or "supernatural" morality might not exist at all. If it doesn't, then our wishing for it to exist does not change things one bit.


Without transcendental, objective moral law, there is no reason to say about ANYTHING that "it shouldn't be like that".Correction: Without such transcendental moral law, there is no transcendental reason to say "it shouldn't be like that." But people will still think "it shouldn't be like that" on account of their innate instincts. They will still feel discomfort in the pit of their stomachs, etc., upon hearing of gross injustices.


And can you answer me what is your level of education?I have a master's degree in engineering physics. Why you needed to know that, I don't know.


I really do not intend to talk now about these "same-old, same-old" issues that I have dealt with million times already, not at least with some guy whose views on evolution are that of layman.And you're an "expert" on evolution, I presume?

- “I am postulating that primitive men who had this instinct toward outrage at what we call "injustice" were more likely to survive by removing the "loose cannons" from their midst, thus making their tribes/societies stronger and further increasing their probability of procreation.”


Pretty lame speculation. Anyways, what about “injustice” directed towards those who are NOT part of your tribe? How about a sneak attack on some unsuspecting other tribe, butchering them from ambush, stealing their goods and slowly torturing survivors alive? “Native Americans” used to do that quite often.

Animals, too, may react harshly on those members of the pack that began acting wildly. They do not care about non-members of the pack.



- “There is no such thing as "Darwinian morality"…”

You’ve got that one right!



- “a person who selfishly tries to get all he can take at the expense of others is more likely to be subject to retaliation, and thus less likely to survive, than someone who minimizes the role of conflict in his life.”


Two points: A) why should I care about my long-term survival, or of my community? I’ve got only one life to live, and perhaps I don’t want to grow too old anyways?

B) Darwinistically, I am entitled to everything THAT I CAN GET AWAY WITH. For example, I could be a model citizen in public, and in private I could satisfy my personal appetites by quietly kidnapping, raping and mutilating to death young girls and boys, in the Sadean fashion. As long as my conscience doesn’t bother me, and no-one finds out, why not?

Darwinian “morality” doesn’t offer any protection whatsoever for small and insignificant parties, only for those who can defend themselves.



- “Well, of course things would be much less complicated if I just agreed with you that "justice is a concept that comes from God," right? ”

Clumsy dodge. It is amazing that men are capable of any kind of idealism at all.



- “But people will still think "it shouldn't be like that" on account of their innate instincts. They will still feel discomfort in the pit of their stomachs, etc., upon hearing of gross injustices.”

And they cannot find any “rational” justification for those feelings. They have been implanted in them by their Creator, as Romans 1 states.

Also:

He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end. Ecclesiastes 3:11

Do you think that animals should be treated humanely? Well, do you think that your pet cat would feel any moral outrage if it would see you slowly skinning some other animal alive, and then giving its remains for it to eat?



- “I have a master's degree in engineering physics. Why you needed to know that, I don't know.”

Because that means that biology (or geology) isn’t your field.


Petr

For example, I could be a model citizen in public, and in private I could satisfy my personal appetites by quietly kidnapping, raping and mutilating to death young girls and boys, in the Sadean fashion.

Well, the good news is that with the Jew god, you can have both theism and Sadaenism:

Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves

The truth is Petr, it is our inborn consciences that allow us to reject the Jew god and his works, and this is how we know the Bible and natural morality have nothing to do with one another.

It is you, after all, who must argue against 'natural morality' with your abominable notion of permanent torture for not believing in your god.

It is you, after all, who must argue against 'natural morality' with your abominable notion of God 'hating' children before they are born (Esau).

It is you, after all, who must argue against 'natural morality' with your abominable god and his petty demands, contradictions, golden hemmheroids, and so forth.

As a representative of the Jew's beast-god, you have no claim on morality whatsoever. It is YHVH that taught Jews that it was fine to cheat and lie to non-Jews, and now you try to compain about their behavior while trying to appropriate their noxious demon for yourself.

What could be more pitiful?

Wintermute

To quote William Blake, "there is no natural religion."

Keep your sanctimonious Deistic nose out of this thread.


Petr

To quote William Blake, "there is no natural religion."

http://www.blakearchive.org/cgi-bin/nph-1965/blake/erdman/erd/@Generic__BookTextView/66067

To quote William Blake,

To me who believe the Bible & profess myself a Christian a defence of the Wickedness of the Israelites in murdering so many thousands under pretence of a command from God is altogether Abominable & Blasphemous. . . .

Question, Petr: do you defend the Wickedness of the Israelites in murdering so many thousands under the pretense of a command from God?

the Jewish Scriptures which are only an Example of the wickedness & deceit of the Jews & were written as an Example of the possibility of Human Beastliness in all its branches . . .

Hmmm. Seems Blake thought the Old Testament - i.e. your holy book - was an example of the wickedness and deceit of the Jews, and also an example of Human Beastliness in all its branches. Do you differ from Blake in this? Then why do you insist on quoting him as if he agreed with you?

Is it because you're an unregenerate liar, and cannot feel shame at leading readers into believing something that is not true, such as the fanciful idea that Blake agrees with you?


That God does & always did converse with honest Men Paine never denies. he only denies that God conversd with Murderers & Revengers such as the Jews were. & of course he holds that the Jews conversed with their own [self will]<State Religion>which they calld God & so were liars as Christ says

Here you have it from your own source: the Jews conversed with their own self will and called it God.

I must ask: are you not doing this now?

As I have said before, YHVH and common decency do not overlap at any point.

It is dishonest to pretend Blake takes your opinion of the Bible.

It is dishonest to pretend that your abominable book has anything to do with morality. It taught Jews that it was 'holy' to cheat non-Jews, and you both complain of these "god" instructed actions while trying to force the Jew god on your co-racialists.

Could anything be more pathetic?

WM

Keep your sanctimonious Deistic nose out of this thread.

People with sanctimonious noses shouldn't throw stones, Petr. That's what I think.

WM

If God saw it fit to order Israelites to wipe out Midianites, He has His reasons for it.

Your beloved Greeks often gave the same treatment to other Greek cities in their internal wars.

Check out this comprehensive treatment of the subject. As a Holocaust denier you should appreciate it:


"Good question…What about God’s cruelty against the Midianites?"


http://www.christian-thinktank.com/midian.html


Petr

- "It taught Jews that it was 'holy' to cheat non-Jews, ..."


You keep mixing Torah with Talmud.


"One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you (Ex. 12:49)."

Both Moses and prophets are full of denunciations of people who oppress "widow, orphan and stranger."

Ezekiel 47:21 So shall ye divide this land unto you according to the tribes of Israel.
Ezekiel 47:22 And it shall come to pass, that ye shall divide it by lot for an inheritance unto you, and to the strangers that sojourn among you, which shall beget children among you: and they shall be unto you as born in the country among the children of Israel; they
Ezekiel 47:23 And it shall come to pass, that in what tribe the stranger sojourneth, there shall ye give him his inheritance, saith the Lord GOD.


The judgment of Midianites, Canaanites and Amalekites were exceptions, same kind of divine punishments as the dectruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, only realized through human agents.

(Likewise, destructions of First and Second Temple by Babylonians and Romans were Divine jugdments on Israelites.)


Petr

Your beloved Greeks often gave the same treatment to other Greek cities in their internal wars.

Not willing to acknowledge any of the facts I brought up in the Blake discussion?

Changing the subject so soon?

Not willing to discuss the relationship of Yahvistic 'morality' and natural morality?

Why are you avoiding my questions about how natural morality is revolted by your doctrine of hellfire?

Here we see Petr's modus operandi: change the subject. When in doubt, ignore all points raised and treat the discussion as pretext for a sermon, usually from a low rent apologetics index.

Well, I'm not buying any today, son.

I'm just going to keep on reminding people how you can only avoid questions and then later claim to have 'won the debate'.

Behold the servant of Christ: there is no truth in him.

WM

Once again, I don't care about what Blake wrote elsewhere. I use some of his nice quotes just to annoy you.

I couldn't care less of what some artificial imaginary "natural morality" of fallen men thinks about the Holy Bible.

The fact that the idea of Hellfire disturbs them is just an indication of their guilty consciences.


Petr

- "Hmmm. Seems Blake thought the Old Testament - i.e. your holy book - was an example of the wickedness and deceit of the Jews, and also an example of Human Beastliness in all its branches."


And like I proved elsewhere, Blake apparently matured and came to appreciate the Hebrew Scriptures in a new manner.


"The Old & New Testaments are the Great Code of Art "

...

The Greek Muses which are not Inspiration as the Bible is. Reality was Forgot & the Vanities of Time & Space only Rememberd & calld Reality Such is the Mighty difference between Allegoric Fable & Spiritual Mystery Let it here be Noted that the Greek Fables originated in Spiritual Mystery & Real Vision [P 72] and Real Visions Which are lost & clouded in Fable & Alegory [which] <while> the Hebrew Bible & the Greek Gospel are Genuine Preservd by the Saviours Mercy The Nature of my Work is Visionary or Imaginative it is an Endeavour to Restore <what the ancients calld> the Golden Age

...


http://www.thephora.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3559&page=1&highlight=blake


Petr

- "Here we see Petr's modus operandi: change the subject. When in doubt, ignore all points raised and treat the discussion as pretext for a sermon, usually from a low rent apologetics index."


Quit whining about sour grapes, you disgusting hypocrite.


Petr

Ignorant about the Bible too, I see.

Jews like to make a lot of all the 'love thy neighbor', 'love the stranger' talk in the Bible.

They're lying, of course.

You think that I have confused the Torah and the Talmud. I have not.

- "It taught Jews that it was 'holy' to cheat non-Jews, ..."


You keep mixing Torah with Talmud.

It is you who are ignorant and/or lying about your own tradition, since it is so shameful.

I will allow that you might be the victim of bad translation, but Christers are such notorious liars that the web of lies that they have woven stretches back over the centuries, right back to the first English translations (and before, of course - but you are probably the victim of a more recent translation).

That Jews may treat non-Jews differently is a matter of Biblical principle: otherwise what are we to make of - to pick one passage among many - Deuteronomy 14:21?

14:21
Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God.

Here God tells the jews - a 'holy' people - that they may feed (or sell!) dead things they've found to aliens or strangers within their gates.

You will perhaps explain how this squares with your 'equal treatment for all' misrepresentation of the Bad Book?

Another note for people who want to pretend that YHVH, or Jews, care about non-Jews, according to "the Bible":

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:4t4lHRDbXEwJ:www.nybooks.com/articles/7345+love+stranger+ger&hl=en

As an expression of gratitude, let me correct your mistake about the Old Testament. To refute my interpretation of Lev 19.18 (that in "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" the word "neighbor"—Hebrew re'a—means "fellow Israelite") you appealed to Lev. 19.34 and Dt. 10.19. Neither of these texts, however, refers to the re'a. Both speak of the ger, a term which in Deuteronomy meant "migratory worker," a lower-class alien who might be fed food unfit for Israelites, Dt. 14.21; notice that he is not to be loved "as yourself," but merely to be "loved," i.e. given friendly treatment. In Leviticus (a later text) ger has come to mean a "proselyte," i.e. one who has become a fellow Israelite and must therefore be given full benefit of the Law. (See the study of the history of these terms in my Palestinian Parties and Politics, Columbia University Press, 1971, pp. 178-82 and 276-78.) That re'a means "fellow Israelite" is the consistent teaching of all the oldest rabbinic commentaries on the Old Testament laws involving the term. I spare you the references, since I don't suppose you could check them anyhow, but if you want them, I'll be glad to supply. Meanwhile, let me add one piece of friendly advice: Henceforth do not hastily think others as ignorant as yourself.

Love the 'stranger' - ger - means to tolerate the local cheap labor. Later it means, don't kill proselytes. Love your neighbor - re'a - means love other Jews. Nothing here that is morally surprising or impressive or even different from the Talmud, much as Christians like to lie about that.

Virtually every extant translations of the Bible lies about this topic, and millions upon millions of Christians, fooled into believing that the Bible isn't the portable piece of Jewish filth that it is, as bad as the Talmud in every way, go on lying to each other and to converts.

Just as Petr is doing here.

The Bible says 'love thy neighbor'? You should have understood implicitly, it was too good to be true. Jews, and YHVH their demon, don't think in those terms.


WM

And like I proved elsewhere, Blake apparently matured and came to appreciate the Hebrew Scriptures in a new manner.


"The Old & New Testaments are the Great Code of Art "

This is asinine, Petr.

Blake was obviously able to persuade himself of many things regarding the Old Testament. Every sane being forced into the confines of that nightmarish text must lie about it in some way in order to preserve their sanity.

One of the lies that you prefer, I have shown above.

As to this being a new understanding of the Old Testament, how is it inconsistent with his regarding Jews as liars? He explains here and elsewhere how he reads the Bible 'against the grain' or 'in its infernal sense' and did so throughout his whole career.

Your claiming that Blake became a ignorant fundie like yourself late in life is a lie that you can't begin to support - instead you post unrelated materials that you make unsupportable claims for.

Show us where Blake took back his judgement on the Jews. Show us where Blake developed a liking for bloodshed - as you know, he couldn't stand depictions of warfare, and complained of its presence in Shakespeare and the Classics. In one moment of notable lunacy, he blamed the religious wars of Europe on people reading the Classics.

I admire Blake for taking the steps necessary to neutralize the evil of the Jewish bible. I do not admire you for lying about him.

WM

Your source, Morton Smith, is a malicious anti-Christian liar. (Peas and a pod...)

Check out one other hoax he tried to perpetrate:

Does Secret Mark prove the church suppressed the truth at will?

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qbadmark.html

Excerpt:

""The manuscript has not, therefore, been subjected to the normal and necessary rigors of scholarly and scientific verification. Consequently, some scholars doubt the authenticity of the discovery [TN: footnote cites Skehan, Brown, Quesnell]. Jacob Neusner, who knew the late Professor Smith as well as anyone, has recently described this writing as 'the forgery of the century'. That this epistle apparently (and conveniently) lends a measure of support to Smith's controversial contention that Jesus was a magician, perhaps even a homosexual, only adds to the suspicion that this Clementine epistle may wel be a fake." [SHJ:526-527] "


Petr

Your source, Morton Smith, is a malicious anti-Christian liar. (Peas and a pod...)

We're not arguing secret Mark, Petr. We're arguing the meaning of two Hebrew words.

I'm not surprised that you're running away from your own arguments and into that spastic spamming mode - AGAIN.

You haven't acknowledged that Dt 14 makes a lie of your claim that you can't treat Jews and strangers (ger) differently.

Obviously, you are in a hurry to get people's minds off that fact, since you are now spamming and not even stopping to defend your lies.

Can you even feel shame, Petr, or has the LORD purged it from your breast?

Nor have you addressed the issue of 'neighbor' being a mistranslation, since re'a does not mean 'neighbor', but fellow Israelite.

If you have a problem with the Hebrew, why don't you look up the passages in a Concordance and show the whole board that I'm wrong?

I'll tell you why: you already know the concordance is on my side, and you're hoping that another trip to the apologetics kitty is going to save your bacon.

It won't.

Think, Petr: Why would a Christian have to run away from the truth?

Is it because there is no truth in you? Is it because that is the only way your book and its sh*t demon can be defended?

Answer, please.

WM

- "You will perhaps explain how this squares with your 'equal treatment for all' misrepresentation of the Bad Book?"


Heck, I'm not trying to pretend that the Bible advocates some kind of liberal democracy. These kind of regulations were mild exceptions from a rule. Aliens were treated decently enough.

If aliens wanted better treatment, they could convert to the religion of Yahweh.

Even in the New Testament, we Christians are forbidden to bring our internal disputes to be judged by a heathen, as if we could not settle things ourselves.


- "The Bible says 'love thy neighbor'? "

Another shameless strawman. I didn't say anything about "neighbor." My quotations from Moses and Ezekiel dealt specifically with a "stranger" and his rights.

Once again, you shamelessly put words in my mouth.


Petr

"Virtually every extant translations of the Bible lies about this topic, and millions upon millions of Christians, fooled into believing that the Bible isn't the portable piece of Jewish filth that it is, as bad as the Talmud in every way, go on lying to each other and to converts.

Just as Petr is doing here."


Shut up already, you pretentious piece of dung.


- "You haven't acknowledged that Dt 14 makes a lie of your claim that you can't treat Jews and strangers (ger) differently."

And why are you such a selfish egomaniac that you cannot comprehend that I cannot answer all points in one nanosecond?


Petr

Shut up already, you pretentious piece of dung.

Petr, in order to show the gallery that I am a pretentious piece of dung, you must first engage my arguments.

This you have not done.

You will not defend your view of Blake, oscillating between - according to you - posting them to annoy, or posting unrelated quotes to conclusions that have nothing to do with the text quoted.

Instead of dealing with how 'natural morality' deals with issues of fairness - e.g. God 'hating' Esau, or eternal hellfire, you simply post to an unrelated apologetic site regarding Biblical battles (and a very poor one, too, I must say).

Instead of dealing with the translation of two Hebrew words, which is easily done via an online concordance, you again link to an unrelated apologetics site - about Secret Mark. Which, in addition to being irrelevant, does not support your own stated opinion about Morton or Secret Mark. It simply finds the whole matter 'questionable'.

At this point, son, you're not even defending your diversionary tactics!

I said that strangers - ger - are actually migratory workers. You do not argue with this.

I said that 'neighbor' - re'a - mean 'fellow israelite' and not 'neighbor' as thousands of years of lying Christers insist. You have a golden opportunity to prove me wrong here, bucko. Why are you not leaping at the chance?

Finally, Dt 14 shows clearly that you are lying about equal treatment for ger. You respond by saying, 'Heck, I'm not trying to pretend that the Bible advocates some kind of liberal democracy.' Does this mean that accept the applicability of Dt 14 to our discussion? ("It's OK to sell them rotten meat" vs. ""One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you") that sojourneth among you (Ex. 12:49)."Tomorrow, when there is more time, I will present more quotes that prove that Jews and non-Jews were not equal or to be treated equally in 'gods' sight. YHVH hates Esau, as you know. At least you aren't trying to argue that.

As I said earlier, the Torah and the Talmud come to the same point on this topic, though I am not confused as to which is which. You seem to think, on the other hand, that YHVH has any concern at all for non-Jews. According to OT, this is not the case. Non-Jews are, according to Isaiah and others, going to be slaves, and those who do not serve will be killed.

For bringing this up, we are all treated to some prime Petr scatology:

Shut up already, you pretentious piece of dung.

This is good, coming from a defender of the OT - the most scatological 'holy' book in history:

Malachi 2:3 I will rebuke your seed, and spread dung upon your faces

Ezekiel 4:12 - And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man...

Ezekiel 4:15 Then he said to me, Behold, I have given you cow's dung for man's dung,
and you shall prepare your bread thereon.

Isaiah 36:12 hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?

Thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, Petr - and then post it on the Phora.

I've left off the 'golden emerods' story - surely you should be able to share some of the goodness of your own spiritual life with the gallery, no?

For myself, a humble disciple of Orpheus, I remind you and everyone reading this that a sensible and good religion, without sh*t eating or sh*t smearing or golden emerods or any of that Judaic/Yahvistic nastiness is still availible to you.

To every white here: come home to the Gods that love you. There is no reason to remain among the sh*t traders like YHVH or Petr, who both wish to subordinate you to alien - and dirty - practices.

A clean religion that never heard of, or promulgated, such filth, awaits.

Their god: "for you shall smash their altars, and break down their pillars, and cut down their shrines . . . for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God "(Ex. 34:13 - 14)

http://www.institute-for-afghan-studies.org/images/buddha_d3.jpg

Our god: "God Himself, the father and fashioner of all that is, older than the Sun or the Sky, greater than time and eternity and all the flow of being, is unnamable by any lawgiver, unutterable by any voice, not to be seen by any eye . . . Why should I further examine and pass judgement about Images? Let them know what is Divine, let them know: that is all. If a Greek is stirred to the remembrance of God by the art of Pheidias, an Egyptian by paying worship to animals, another man by a river, another by fire, I have no anger for their divergences; only let them know, let them love, let them remember."(Maximus of Tyre, 8th Oration)

http://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/CGPrograms/Cast/image/D042.jpg

Harder to imagine a more proufound difference in approach. I think it's pretty plain who the good guys are and who are the insane monsters.

WM

P.S. The 'neighbor' mistranslation is directly applicable to your lie about the worth and rights of non-Jews, Petr. Another example of how the Bible and the Talmud are of one mind about us filthy gentiles.

My link was quite relevant, and your hypocrisy is revolting.

By trying to argue that Jesus was a magician and a homosexual, Morton Smith clearly revealed himself to an extremely biased scholar.

And you had the nerve to SCREAM BLOODY MURDER when Fade was relying on “dishonest” Conrad Black on issues concerning Roosevelt.



- “I said that strangers - ger - are actually migratory workers. You do not argue with this.”

I very well might argue with this when I just have some time to look into the issue.

Can you imagine just what kind of image – that of a pampered brat – you give of yourself when you demand that your opponent deals with all the petty issues that you can come up with in a blink of an eye?


ALIENS WERE TREATED DECENTLY ENOUGH IN THE MOSAIC LEGISLATION.

(What do you expect, should they had been given free social security the moment they crossed the border?)

Deuteronomy 10:

17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:
18 He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment.
19 Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.



- “I said that 'neighbor' - re'a - mean 'fellow israelite' and not 'neighbor' as thousands of years of lying Christers insist. You have a golden opportunity to prove me wrong here, bucko. Why are you not leaping at the chance?”

Because I was not in a mood to appease an anti-Christian maniac who shamelessly put up a strawman for himself to poke on.



And save me from your stinking quasi-Victorian prudery on excrement.

Ever heard of performance art? Greek Cynic philosophers did worse stuff than that.


Petr

And since you spoke about Isaiah:


(Isaiah 56)

Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;

7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

(Matt 21:1, Mark 11:17, Luke 19:46)

8 The Lord GOD, which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.



Lord Jesus Christ clearly implicated in Gospels that He himself, His body, was the true House of the Lord on earth, and that all the peoples of the earth would be invited to this temple - and he quoted this Isaiah chapter when he cleansed the temple from moneylenders.


Petr

"To every white here: come home to the Gods that love you. There is no reason to remain among the sh*t traders like YHVH or Petr, who both wish to subordinate you to alien - and dirty - practices."


Yes, come to Zeus and his bumboy Ganymedes!


GODS THAT LOVE YOU?

In Epicurean, Stoic and skeptical philosophy, gods are emphatically not interested with goings and coming of men

Hey Winnie, ask Prometheus how much gods love men!


Just like Julian the Apotate had to borrow so much from the Christians he hated, so you must peddle quasi-Christian notions about "loving gods" in a pagan garb.


"The fifth part of these I order to be expended on the poor who serve the priests, and the rest must be distributed from me to strangers and beggars. For it is disgraceful when no Jew is a beggar and the impious Galileans [the name given by Julian to Christians] support our poor in addition to their own; everyone is able to see that our coreligionists are in want of aid from us."

http://campus.northpark.edu/history/Classes/Sources/Julian.html


Petr

Lord Jesus Christ clearly implicated in Gospels that He himself, His body, was the true House of the Lord on earth, and that all the peoples of the earth would be invited to this temple - and he quoted this Isaiah chapter when he cleansed the temple from moneylenders.

So much the worse for him. This confirms me in my view of Yehushua as a Schneerson style gentile hater. Below are some more words of Isaiah, which you may not want us to hear.

10 And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee: for in my wrath I smote thee, but in my favour have I had mercy on thee. 11 Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the forces [3] of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought. 12 For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.

Uncomfortably like our own age, isn't it? Strangers to build their walls, kings to minister unto them, our forces and kings given unto them . . .

Is that what you want for gentiles?

It's more offensive than when your 'prophet', Ezekiel, had to eat all that sh*t.

I repeat: religions are available for whites that do not involve sh*t eating or self hatred.

By trying to argue that Jesus was a magician and a homosexual, Morton Smith clearly revealed himself to an extremely biased scholar.

Does it indicate to you that he doesn't know Hebrew? If you have a problem with his Hebrew - which of course, you can't - then you might have brought it up. As it is, you're just admitting that you told a lie about the contents of the Bible which you are now desperate to divert attention from.

And you had the nerve to SCREAM BLOODY MURDER when Fade was relying on “dishonest” Conrad Black on issues concerning Roosevelt.

I 'screamed bloody murder' because Fade told a lie about me. I also demonstrated that Black could not be trusted with telling the truth about Jewish power, which Fade falsely presented as me 'rambling' about 'using Jewish sources'. He then went on to say that I was a hypocrite for using Jewish sources myself, A PRACTICE I HAVE NOT COMPLAINED ABOUT.

You clumsily tried to cover for him, but also missed the point: CONRAD BLACK IS NOT JEWISH. That you are unashamed to bring up your ignorance and malice yet again only confirms for me how truly filthy Christians are. There is obviously no lie you could be ashamed to tell. I truly think that your hate-obsessed 'savior' has burnt all the goodness out of you, leaving the pinched, crabby monster we see before us.

Can you imagine just what kind of image – that of a pampered brat – you give of yourself when you demand that your opponent deals with all the petty issues that you can come up with in a blink of an eye?

This is genuinely insane, Petr: the translations of ger and re'a are critical to your point. Unless you can show that I am wrong about their translation, you are openly revealed as a liar. AGAIN.


ALIENS WERE TREATED DECENTLY ENOUGH IN THE MOSAIC LEGISLATION.

A very different claim than what you were arguing, which is that there was one law for the Jew and the Stranger.

Now you know that isn't true, so you change your argument and hope no one notices.

What a slimy wretch you are, Petr. Mind can be twisted into any shape, and any shape can be assumed to escape difficult situations.

On the internet, no one knows you're a cephalopod.

WM

Just like Julian the Apotate had to borrow so much from the Christians he hated, so you must peddle quasi-Christian notions about "loving gods" in a pagan garb.


Another predictable topic change from Petr the loser.

More important points that he can't answer are wished away by his spastic one-thought per post posting style.

And finally, as the Christian cherry on top, ignorant smears about a religion he doesn't understand.

In Epicurean, Stoic and skeptical philosophy, gods are emphatically not interested with goings and coming of men

Epicuran and skepical philosophy are emphatically not religion, and the Stoics attacked them for their impiety.

Shall I quote some Aurelius for you, or do you yield the point?

Your ten thousanth lie of the day, and still you won't stop.

You might take a look at the Maximus of Tyre quote, or:

While I am unable to bear the dire pangs of body
And spirit, wandering forever near the edges of death,
I, Tychus, by Mars' divine love am saved.
This little thanks-offering I dedicate in return for his great caring.

(a poem of thanksgiving from a shrine on the Moselle, first or second century C.E.)

Christian ignorance is a fathomless abyss.

Christian shame and Christian conscience, on the other hand, are shallow pools.

Will you apologize for telling lies about other religions?

If you won't apologize for telling lies about your own - that strangers and Jews are to be treated the same - I suppose not.

What a reprehensible piece of filth you are.

WM

P.S. I did get a laugh out of your defense of YHVH's obsession with sh*t. "Haven't you ever heard of performance art?"

BTW, go ahead and tell the gallery about the 'golden emerods' or I will. OR are you too ashamed of your own religion?

- “So much the worse for him. This confirms me in my view of Yehushua as a Schneerson style gentile hater.”


This confirms my notion that you might be demon-possessed, driven by devils to an unholy crusade against Jesus Christ and His servants.



- “It's more offensive than when your 'prophet', Ezekiel, had to eat all that sh*t.”

Listen you little prude, it was a PROPHETIC FORESHADOWING of the coming siege of Jerusalem, when food would be desperately scarce and people would have to make cakes out of their own excrement. Reality is ugly.

And would you like to describe us some of the wilder tricks that Greek philosophers employed to impress their audience?



”10 And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee: for in my wrath I smote thee, but in my favour have I had mercy on thee. 11 Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the forces [3] of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought. 12 For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.”


This is messianic stuff, concerned with the end of the world, and idiotic pagans like you should leave interpretation of such matters to experts.

God will break the power of pagans someday, not men.



- “very different claim than what you were arguing, which is that there was one law for the Jew and the Stranger.”

What a lowly sophist you are. I was directly quoting Moses. Except for a few tiny exceptions, (like that carcass ruling) the Law WAS the same. You could not deny stranger from his wages, while Talmud says that you can.



- “What a slimy wretch you are, Petr.”

Once again, I have defeated your slimy accusations. Once again you, you pampered little princeling, are acting like sore loser.


Petr

- "... ignorant smears about a religion he doesn't understand."

You just described your entire approach to Christianity.

You have never ever apologized any of your lies about Christianity.


Petr

Another fun part of arguing with Petr - since he rarely bothers to read his sources, they often end up making an idiot out of him.

First, he wants to tell us that Hellenism is actually Skepticism and Epicurianism:

In Epicurean, Stoic and skeptical philosophy, gods are emphatically not interested with goings and coming of men

Then he quotes Julian the Blessed, who first used Hellenismos as a term for our religon, who explains:

Of the philosophers, however, only those who put the gods before them as guides of their intellectual life are acceptable, like Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics . . . only those who make people reverent . . . not the works of Pyrrho and Epicurus . . .

Pyrrho and Epicurus, of course, represent the Skeptical and the Epicuran school, who were denounced for impiety, just as I said. They have nothing to do with Hellenismos.

Of course, we're still waiting for Petr to retract his lie about Stoicism, but knowing Christians as I do, getting one to tell the truth is like trying to pry a nickel away from a Jew.

In another embarrasing throw away, Petr shoots for the other foot:

Hey Winnie, ask Prometheus how much gods love men!

Is Petr really putting forth Prometheus, who suffered for our sake - to give us fire! - as an example of how gods dont love men?

Since his own sad, murderous religion relies so heavily on Prometheus' example - please see Simone Weil's marvelous essays on this very topic - it hardly seems fitting for him to raise the topic. Oh well.

Once Petr has started lying, it will take him days to stop, if ever.

He won't even relent on the howlers he's been caught with earlier in the thread - I won't hold my breath waiting for a hopped-up Jew to grow a conscience.

Wintermute

You have never ever apologized any of your lies about Christianity.

Pitiful comeback, Petr.

I've caught you lying about Christianity on this very thread, and I've documented it. It hardly seems fitting for you to even bring the subject up.

Equality for Jew and Stranger? Then you will perhaps explain Dt 14 please?

Anyway, please name one lie I've made about Christianity.

I hardly need to point out how desperate you've become, being unable to defend your own imbecilities, but finding time to attack me for supposed misdeeds you can't even quote!

And, as the malicious Christian cherry on top of your Sundae of ignorance, you're not even going to apologize for telling a lie that I've now documented, regarding Hellenismos, the gods, and love.

Pathetic, but verging on outright evil.

The filthy Jew spirit is strong in you.

Wintermute

This confirms my notion that you might be demon-possessed, driven by devils to an unholy crusade against Jesus Christ and His servants.

Demon possessed. You mean, like these guys?

http://www.neepawa.ca/lily/images/lily2001/shriners.jpg

No comment.

Wintermute

Except for a few tiny exceptions, (like that carcass ruling) the Law WAS the same

YHVH - the "god" of tiny exceptions.

Our God is a Mighty God! - except for tiny exceptions (like being defeated by rival Chamosh).

Our God is an honest God! - except for tiny exceptions.

Our God never changes! - except for tiny exceptions.

I now see that Jews do indeed come by their Talmudical, hairsplitting skills honestly - they inherited from their Father!

WM

Listen you little prude, it was a PROPHETIC FORESHADOWING of the coming siege of Jerusalem, when food would be desperately scarce and people would have to make cakes out of their own excrement. Reality is ugly.

Petr has just called me a prude for finding Ezekiel's sh*t eating grotesque. I'm not sure how I feel about that.

He doesn't mention how YHVH seems to be obsessed with the stuff - making Ezekiel eat it ("you shall eat it as barley cakes"), threatening to spread it on peoples faces, the golden 'emerods'.

Why won't Petr tell us about the golden emerods?

WM

This is messianic stuff, concerned with the end of the world, and idiotic pagans like you should leave interpretation of such matters to experts.

God will break the power of pagans someday, not men.

YHVH, not God, hates gentiles and wishes to see them serve the Jews.

This is what you are trying to apologize for:

”10 And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee: for in my wrath I smote thee, but in my favour have I had mercy on thee. 11 Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the forces [3] of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought. 12 For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.”

As I said, strangers building their walls and the kings and forces of the gentiles being made to serve the Jews, and destroying those that resist, describes our current situation perfectly.

This is what your religion is about. No wonder you have to lie about, distract, misrepresent, and constantly apologize for it. It is objectively a shameful thing.

Your cheap, trinket-hawking "god", Petr, is utterly transparent. Why should you want to hide the words of Isaiah, if, as you say, Yeheshua thought so very highly of them.

Here are some more of Isaiah's 'holy' prophecies:

Thus says the LORD: "The wealth of Egypt and the merchandise of Ethiopia, and the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over to you and be yours, they shall follow you; they shall come over in chains and bow down to you. They will make supplication to you, saying: 'God is with you only, and there is no other, no god besides him [Isaiah 45:14]

Gotta love that bit where YHVH promises 'merchandise'. Who else but a Jewish god would offer tchochkes? Or make you eat sh*t?

You have eaten it down like barley cakes, Petr. And now you are very, very sick inside.

Please see to that - it could be fatal.

WM

More on your "loving" Jesus, and mendacious translations made by previous generations of Christers:

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/toexist/ltn13.html

He wanted to make Isaiah's dream come true (see Matthew 3:3; 4:4; 8:17; 12:17; 13:14; Mark 1:2; Luke 3:4-6; John 1:23; 12:38-41), to bring the Kingdom of God to earth, to fulfill his god's promise to Abraham, a less innocent promise than it is generally interpreted to be because the word "bless" in Genesis 26:4 is euphemistically translated. The transliterated Hebrew word is "barak" which is a primary word meaning to kneel (for barak translated kneel down or kneel, see Genesis 24:11; II Chronicles 6:13; Psalms 95:6; for barak translated as curse or cursed, see Job 1:5; 1:11; 2:5; 2:9).

A person, or nation, is blessed consequent to acknowledging subordination, by kneeling before the god, person, or nation that confers the blessing (italics and brackets added, RSV; see also Genesis 12:2-3; 18:18; 22:18; 28:14 and 26:4): "I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give to your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall bless [kneel] themselves."



. . . though you, all the peoples of the earth shall be cursed.

Hmmm. It does make much more sense that way.

WM

Julian the Accursed was force to ape Christianity in MANY, MANY issues, like teaching the masses, and not just priests, about their religion.

Paganism was back then so rotten that it could not give support for his empire, not in its ancient form. "Pagan reformation" was considered necessary.


“Pyrrho and Epicurus, of course, represent the Skeptical and the Epicuran school, who were denounced for impiety, just as I said. They have nothing to do with Hellenismos.”


What is ”Hellenismos?” Who are you to define what the REAL Greek spirit was? (What is your nationality?)

Oh, I forgot. You are spoiled little turd who believes exactly in those things that he wants to believe in. You think that your desires define reality.

(Perhaps Stoicism didn't emphasize the indifference if gods QUITE as heavily as these two other schools of thought. I'll make you that concession, for teh sake of argument.)


“Is Petr really putting forth Prometheus, who suffered for our sake - to give us fire! - as an example of how gods dont love men?”


Yeah, I MOST CERTAINLY DO! By not telling people what other gods thought about that, you are employing a veritable BIG LIE technique.


”The Greek god Prometheus championed the cause of humans against the gods. The gods became jealous of the success of mankind and demanded more offerings in order to try and starve humans into submission. A meeting was arranged by Prometheus to decide which parts of sacrificial victims were to be given to the gods.

Prometheus prepared an ox and arranged the most succulent parts of the meat in the skin of the ox and placed them at one side. The bones he covered with a layer of fat. Zeus chose the tempting fat portion but, when he delved further and found nothing but bones, he flew into a rage.

In his anger at being tricked, Zeus deprived mankind of fire but the resourceful Prometheus went to the island of Lemnos. Stealing a spark of the holy fire, Prometheus enclosed it in the hollow stem of a fennel plant and transported it back to men.”

http://www.fantasycollectiblescenter.com/goebel/gm116010.html

(In an even groovier version gods chain Prometheus to a rock and send an eagle to tear out his liver on a regular basis…)



- “Equality for Jew and Stranger? Then you will perhaps explain Dt 14 please?”

You are reading the Holy Bible with utter woodenness, worse than a worst fundamentalist. First off, don’t use anachronistic words like “equality.” Moses says that the Law is to be implemented in Israel in the same manner to an Israelite and a stranger – EXCEPT for a few minor clauses that he explains later. Just like in any constitution.



- “Anyway, please name one lie I've made about Christianity.”

Just one example:

“I have to say: the modern consensus that fundamentalist Christians are so psychologically twisted by their upbringings and belief systems that they are compelled to both project these forbidden contents onto others and then to punish them, is unquestionable. The modern fundamentalist who will not rest until the child reflects his own diseased inner world of sexualized torture and abomination is just the same as the Inquisitor who will not stop torturing a woman until she starts spouting the 'correct' details, such as those regarding the devil's huge, scaly, and icy cold penis.”

http://www.thephora.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2823&page=2&pp=10&highlight=scaly


I think most fundamentalist Christians would say that you are lying about their inner feelings and motivations.



- “I hardly need to point out how desperate you've become, being unable to defend your own imbecilities, but finding time to attack me for supposed misdeeds you can't even quote!”

I think every sane reader of this thread will realize with what kind delusional, unbalanced, stinking hypocrite I’m dealing in here.


Petr

And just to show how seriously I take the principle of truth, I hereby ask from all who might read this thread:


Do you think that I have employed lies on this thread? Do you think that I'm being insincere?

(rude and un-apologetic, yes, but dishonest?)


Or am I just dealing with a truly delusional spoiled brat that screams about "dishonesty" and "lies" every time he gets an answer that displeases him?

Answer me. I want to know that I am not among loons.


Petr

"More on your "loving" Jesus, and mendacious translations made by previous generations of Christers:"


And you dare to accuse me of spamming. You have no shame. YOU are the incarnation of a Pharisaic spirit, thanking gods that you are not like those filthy Christians.


Petr

Paganism was back then so rotten that it could not give support for his empire, not in its ancient form. "Pagan reformation" was considered necessary.

I guess you've forgetten about all that your arch-murderer Constantine did to destroy the empire from within, necessitating a complete rebuilding of the temple and priesthood system. But then I forget, you don't have any shame, and therefore don't need to present facts, or respond when they are presented, or feel remorse at having borne false witness.

And you dare to accuse me of spamming. You have no shame. YOU are the incarnation of a Pharisaic spirit, thanking gods that you are not like those filthy Christians.

Yes, I dare accuse you of spamming. You brought the whole Jesus-temple-Isaiah business into this thread, and I wasn't about to let you get away with it.

What is ”Hellenismos?” Who are you to define what the REAL Greek spirit was? (What is your nationality?)

Hellenismos is the name of Greco-Roman paganism, as given by Julian. It is the common name used by practitioners of Greco-Roman paganism, though it is also called Alethes Logos. Practitioners, modern as ancient, allow for Orphic, Stoic, Pythagorean, and Platonic strands, but not Epicurian or Skeptic. It stains even your pitiful record to be caught lying about something you have no understanding of.

You are spoiled little turd who believes exactly in those things that he wants to believe in.

There's that Petr scatological fixation, second time in the thread.

Ye shall eat it as barley cakes, Petr. Now tell us about the golden emerods.

Perhaps Stoicism didn't emphasize the indifference if gods QUITE as heavily as these two other schools of thought.

Stoicism didn't emphasize the indifference of the gods AT ALL. It ACTIVELY DENOUNCED Epicurians and Skeptics, as did Julian in the souce you quote.

This is a perfect example of how dishonest you are. It isn't a matter of you disagreeing with me: it's you blatantly presenting false information and refusing to retract it when corrected.

Yeah, I MOST CERTAINLY DO! By not telling people what other gods thought about that, you are employing a veritable BIG LIE technique.

About this, you are ignorant too. Your understanding of paganism comes from a few collections of myth and some feverish Bible Apologetics site's visions of paganism - utter trash, as I have shown time and again.

Moses says that the Law is to be implemented in Israel in the same manner to an Israelite and a stranger – EXCEPT for a few minor clauses that he explains later.

Our God is a God of tiny exceptions. Yes, you already told us this.

“I have to say: the modern consensus that fundamentalist Christians are so psychologically twisted by their upbringings and belief systems that they are compelled to both project these forbidden contents onto others and then to punish them, is unquestionable. The modern fundamentalist who will not rest until the child reflects his own diseased inner world of sexualized torture and abomination is just the same as the Inquisitor who will not stop torturing a woman until she starts spouting the 'correct' details, such as those regarding the devil's huge, scaly, and icy cold penis.”

There is nothing even slightly controversial about that quote. I would say that most people who have to deal with the poor souls that have been twisted by the Old Testament would agree with me. Christers are nasty people, as you've proven again and again.

The above is not about Christianity, except tangentially. It is about fundamentalist Christians, and it is an accurate portrait, drawn from life.

Please try again. As you have accused me of lying about Christianity, you must have at least one example.

Finally, nothing about you misappropriation of Blake, your unsupported claims that he views the Bible as you do, the natural tendency of the unperverted conscience to recoil at the abominations of the Bible, including the hating of Esau and gentiles, and the doctrine of eternal hellfire, nothing about ger, nothing about re'a, all dropped down the memory hole . . .

Just some references to turds, and some unsupportable claims about me lying, topped off with some lies about paganism.

Oh, and a claim that I'm posessed by demons.

Standard issue Petr posts, in other words.

WM

- “I guess you've forgetten about all that your arch-murderer Constantine did to destroy the empire from within, necessitating a complete rebuilding of the temple and priesthood system.”


Did Constantine raze their temples or killed their priests? Give of some evidence for this.

Why did Julian had to urge pagans to imitate Christians:

“In 362 Julian sent this missive to Arsacius, high priest of Galatia. He complained that while the traditional rituals had been restored, the Christians continued to gain converts. This angered Julian because he considered Christians atheists. Julian went on to demand that the priests in Galatia put their beliefs into positive social action, such as copying Christian charity, care for the dead, and a holy lifestyle. He then proceeded to lay down a series of prohibitions. No priest was to go to a tavern, frequent the theatre, or engage in a base profession. Julian then commanded that Arsacius set up hostels for charity in every city in Galatia. Furthermore, 1/5 of 30,000 modii of wheat and 60,000 pints of wine allocated to Galatia were to be used for charity distribution. Julian told Arsacius that the helping of the community by the priests was the way of the forefathers, with such practices dating back to the time of Homer.[[84]] ”

http://www.roman-emperors.org/julian.htm

Have you ever went to a bar or gone seeing some trashy movie? Just curious.



- “You brought the whole Jesus-temple-Isaiah business into this thread, and I wasn't about to let you get away with it.”

You brought Isaiah and Yahweh’s alleged hatred of other nations into this discussion.



- “Practitioners, modern as ancient, allow for Orphic, Stoic, Pythagorean, and Platonic strands, but not Epicurian or Skeptic.”

Tell us about your creed and catechism. I want to see what you insignificant losers are up to.



- “It stains even your pitiful record to be caught lying about something you have no understanding of.”

Then dare not, you Pharisee, to object when Christians interpret Torah differently than Talmudic Jews. You have no proper understanding on Biblical issues at all.

- “including the hating of Esau and gentiles, and the doctrine of eternal hellfire, nothing about ger, nothing about re'a, all dropped down the memory hole . . .”

What makes you think that you could properly understand any of these doctrines? (And you keep sneakily implying that Christians are required to hate all pagans).



- “Your understanding of paganism comes from a few collections of myth and some feverish Bible Apologetics site's visions of paganism - utter trash, as I have shown time and again.”


Your understanding of Christianity comes from a few maliciously misinterpreted Biblical passages and some feverish Internet Infidels site's visions of Christianity - utter trash, as I have shown time and again.



- “Our God is a God of tiny exceptions. Yes, you already told us this.”

Tell us about the consistent and admirable morality of Greek gods.



- “There is nothing even slightly controversial about that quote. I would say that most people who have to deal with the poor souls that have been twisted by the Old Testament would agree with me.”


So you are still unrepentant. I’m telling you, dirtbags like you make me more and more interested in the doctrine of predestination – you seem to be in a hardened state.

(We know your kind of definition for a “fundamentalist.” All people who take Bible seriously.)

You said, in essence, that most Christians are frustrated sexual perverts, and will not take it back. I see.


And mostly you have a sneaky lawyer-sense not to tell direct lies that you could get caught with – so you rely mostly on truly vicious generalizations.

If I would have said: “ancient Greek paganism idolized pederasty,” would you call that a lie?



- “As you have accused me of lying about Christianity, you must have at least one example.”

You lied that Yahweh demands people to sacrifice their firstborn sons to Him.



“…your unsupported claims that he (Blake) views the Bible as you do,…”

Where did I say that? I very early made it clear that I disagreed with him on great many things. I only said that he seemed grow out of some of his early prejudices against the OT.


Petr

- "YHVH, not God, hates gentiles and wishes to see them serve the Jews."


No He won't, for Jews themselves became pagans when they rejected the Messiah.

Besides, all nations on earth have an opportunity to get on God's good side.

Definition of a pagan: anyone who worships creation rather than the Creator, and/or thinks he can contact divinity in any other way than through Jesus Christ.

I deal further on this issue here:

"Why Talmudic Judaism is just another flavor of paganism "

http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14992


Petr

Yes indeed, tell us a bit more about YOUR god(s). What kind of morality they prescribe for mankind, and on what basis?


“Pyrrho and Epicurus, of course, represent the Skeptical and the Epicuran school, who were denounced for impiety, just as I said. They have nothing to do with Hellenismos.”

Because they made the official gods of the state look ridiculous or irrelevant?

Because they made Platonic and Aristotelian philosophical abstractions look just as artificial as they were?

Why were they lesser Greeks than Stoics?

(Perhaps you haven't noticed this little thread of mine:

http://www.thephora.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4023&highlight=petr


AND, should you ever come to power, what would be your policy towards Christians who take their religion seriously?


Petr

Petr's performance thus far on The Phora has convinced me that he amply deserves to dine with Ezekiel :D

Why, you're welcome freddy. We all know that in tight situations you can't be too picky about your energy sources.

Just ask post-WW II German POWs.


Petr

OK, I'm bored now.

As with the Rodney Stark, Blake, and Eternal Universe threads, I am prepared to give you the last word. Indeed, I was planning on simply making one final response to Fade and then leaving the board, when he beat me to the punch. Hence I am unsure of what to do with all of the evidence I've compiled regarding Bacque's thesis.

A brief overview of the points in contention:

Where did I say that? I very early made it clear that I disagreed with him on great many things. I only said that he seemed grow out of some of his early prejudices against the OT.

You said that Blake had 'grown up' or otherwise abandoned his views of the Old Testament, which he most certianly did not. If anything, his reading of the OT and indeed the whole Bible, became more idiosyncratic as he grew older. He always regarded the contents of the OT as essentially false, written by lying Jews. On the other hand, he found the doctrine of the ancients sublime, except for their accounts of war (which he opposed in the OT as well). The best he could do to make the historical record match what he felt to be true was to suppose that the actual doctrines which were supposed to be in the Old Testament were to be found in the 'stolen' books of the ancients, which were presumably the true religion, only stolen by those rotten Greeks and then appended with war stories, which he hated.

You never did answer my question about the opening to 'Milton', which you are so fond of quoting. It refers to the 'stolen' works of the ancients. From where were they stolen?

I'll let that one go. My main goal here is to get you and others to read more Blake, because - other than his convoltued hermenuetics - he is a marvelous poet and insightful man.

He may even have some use to the White Nationalist movement. His account of Jesus, from the 'Everlasting Gospel', is especially interesting, and I include some of the more pungent passages below. Like the Old Testament, he reintrepreted most of Christian doctrine to accord with his own beliefs (remember 'if Chrisitanity were morality, then Socrates would be the Savior'?).

He objected to the enervating pseudo morality of the Gospels, which he supposed to be alterations of Christ's actual doctrine:

He who loves his Enemies betrays his Friends
This surely is not what Jesus intends

Also, like Nietzche, he had little use for standard notions of Christian humility:

God wants not Man to Humble himself
This is the trick of the ancient Elf

. . .

If thou humblest thyself thou humblest met
Thou also dwellst in Eternity
Thou art a Man God is no more
Thy own humanity learn to adore

. . .

Humility is only Doubt
And does the Sun & Moon blot out

Are you beginning to get the picture? Blake is the sort of 'Christian' that only NeoNietzche could love. Indeed, after accusing Mary of adultery in the poem, he veers perilously close to Nietzche's insights on good and evil:

Good & Evil are no more
Sinai's trumpets cease to roar
Cease finger of God to Write
The Heavens are not clean in thy Sight
Thou art Good & thou Alone
Nor may the sinner cast one stone
To be Good only is to be
A Devil or else a Pharisee

Blake's ultimate statement to people like you, Petr, occurs in the closing lines of his poem:

The Vision of Christ that thou dost see
Is my Visions Greatest Enemy
Thine has a great hook nose like thine
Mine has a snub nose like to mine

In other words, you worship a Jewish Christ. Blake does not: in the marginalia, he observes "I always thought that Jesus Christ was a Snubby or I should not have worshipd him if I had thought he had been one of those long spindle nosed rascals "

Finally, in the astonishing last verse he claims that ordinary Christians like you, who read the Bible 'black' where he reads 'white', are comparable to Caiphas and Melitus, who were responsible for the deaths of Jesus and Socrates, respectively.


Thine is the Friend of All Mankind 5
Mine speaks in parables to the Blind
Thine loves the same world that mine hates
Thy Heaven doors are my Hell Gates t
Socrates taught what Melitus
Loathd as a Nations bitterest Curse 10
And Caiphas was in his own Mind
A benefactor of Mankind
Both read the Bible day & night
But thou readst black where I read white

And THAT, Petr, is why I accuse you of lying when you tell me that he achieved an Orthodox understanding of the Bible as he ages. It is a false idea which presents Blake in exactly the opposite way than he wished, and hence is the worst sort of falsehood.

Moving on:

Because they made the official gods of the state look ridiculous or irrelevant?

Because they made Platonic and Aristotelian philosophical abstractions look just as artificial as they were?

Why were they lesser Greeks than Stoics?

This is donkeyish argumentation, even for you. Did you even bother to read the quote - from your own source - that denounces Skepticism and Epicurianism?

Does it make sense to you that two movements which deny the gods would be of no interest to religous people?

Also, you seem to have mentally tripped over the word Hellenismos. It does not mean anything that came out of Rome and Greece - otherwise Christianity would be accounted Greco-Roman paganism. Is that what you are arguing.

To show what a genuinely retarded view you insist on presenting - even after it has been proved wrong - consider 'Judiasm', which is also a national name. Is Christianity 'Judaism'? Is Spinoza 'Judaism'? Is Saint John of the Cross 'Judaism'?

Do you see how aggravating and moronic your contention that everything that came out of Greece or Rome - even atheistic movements - are somehow a part of Greco-Roman religion really is?

Go back and examine your own Julian quote. He explains it all there.

Also, as for your second lie, that Stoics say the gods are not involved in our life - which you change to 'don't emphasize as much as Skeptics or Epicurians' is a flat, outright, untruth, which you persist in spreading AFTER HAVING BEEN PROVEN WRONG. As a Christian, of course, you are used to being proved wrong again and again and again. It's how your loathsome religion propagates, on the backs of the mentally infirm and the hateful. I suppose since there is no shortage of the cruel or the stupid, your religion will continue to prosper, just as rats and roaches do with piles of garbage. There is nothing I can do about that.

For more information about the Stoics and the Gods, see: http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:Hm0nXIbIF8YJ:www.san.beck.org/GPJ5-StoicPhilosophers.html+stoic+gods&hl=en

That's a cached page, and the word gods will be highlighted in green, making the task of seeing actual Stoic beliefs about the Gods quite simple, as opposed to the lies that Petr is spouting.

What kind of morality they prescribe for mankind, and on what basis?

Two basic documents, just to give the idea. The Golden Verses, ascribed to Pythagoras, are important:


Honor first the immortal gods, in the manner prescribed, and respect the
oath.

Next, honor the reverent heroes and the spirits of the dead by making
the traditional sacrifices.

Honor your parents and your relatives. As for others, befriend whoever
excels in virtue.

Yield to kind words and helpful deeds, and do not hate your friend for a
trifling fault as you are able. For ability is near to necessity.

Know, then, these things, and practice restraint over the following:
appetite, first, as well as sleep, lust, and anger.

Do nothing shameful in private or with another.

Respect yourself above all.

Practice justice in word and deed, and do not get in the habit of acting
thoughtlessly about anything.

Know that death comes to everyone, and that wealth will sometimes be
acquired, sometimes lost. Whatever griefs mortals suffer by divine chance,
whatever destiny you have, endure it and do not complain. But it is right
to improve it as much as you can, and remember this: Fate does not give very many of these griefs to good people.

Many words befall men, mean and noble alike; do not be astonished by them,
nor allow yourself to be constrained.

If a lie is told, bear with it gently.

But whatever I tell you, let it be done completely.

Let no one persuade you by word or deed to do or say whatever is not
best for you.

Consider before acting, to avoid foolishness: it is the worthless man who
speaks and acts thoughtlessly.

Only perform such acts as you will not regret later.

Do not try to do anything of which you are ignorant, but learn what is
necessary; in this way your life will be most pleasant.

You should not be neglectful of bodily health, but take food, drink and
exercise in measure; and by measure I mean whatever you will not be sorry
for.

Practice a way of life that is pure, not dissipated, and guard against
doing whatever incurs envy.

Do not spend in excess like one who is careless of what is good, nor be
miserly; the mean is best in every case.

Always do whatever will not harm you, and think before you act.

Do not let sleep close your tired eyes until you have three times gone over
the events of the day. 'What did I do wrong? What did I accomplish? What
did I fail to do that I should have done?' Starting from the beginning, go
through to the end. Then, reproach yourself for the things you did wrong,
and take pleasure in the good things you did.

Work at these things, practice them, these are the things you ought to
desire; they are what will put you on the path of divine virtue - yes, by
the one who entrusted our soul with the tetraktys, source of ever-flowing
nature. Pray to the gods for success and get to work.

Holding fast to these things, you will know the worlds of gods and
mortals which permeates and governs everything. And you will know, as is
right, nature similar in all respects, so that you will neither entertain
unreasonable hopes nor be neglectful of anything.

You will know that wretched men are the cause of their own suffering,
who neither see nor hear the good that is near them, and few are the ones
who know how to secure release from their troubles. Such is the fate that
harms their minds; like pebbles they are tossed about from one thing to
another with cares unceasing. For the dread companion Strife harms them
unawares, whom one must not walk behind, but withdraw from and flee.

Father Zeus, you would indeed free everyone from many evils if you revealed
to them what destiny they have.

But take heart, for men are descended from the gods, and nature
generously reveals to them everything holy. If you care about these things
at all, you will reform by holding to what I command and save your soul from
these troubles.

Judge all things with reason as your sovereign guide. When you leave the body behind and attain to the free air, you will be immortal, an undying god, a mortal no longer.

Delphic maxims:

Nothing too much
Know thyself
Aid friends
Control anger
Shun unjust acts
Acknowledge sacred things
Hold on to learning
Praise virtue
Avoid enemies
Cultivate kindsmen
Pity supplicants
Accomplish your limit
When you err, repent
Consider the time
Worship the divine
Accept old age

AND, should you ever come to power, what would be your policy towards Christians who take their religion seriously?

That they should be pitied.

Of course, we already know what your theocracy orders towards all those who do not share your beliefs. Don't lie about it Petr - it's in your Bad Book.

Why did Julian had to urge pagans to imitate Christians:

To compete with a rapidly growing cult. Your churches had to do the same thing in the seventies to compete with the various Krishna cults and Jim Jones cults and whatnot. It's hard for reasonable people to match fanatics for adherents in an age of social unrest.

Did Constantine raze their temples or killed their priests? Give of some evidence for this.

Constantine bankrupted the pagan establishment and gave their wealth to bishops. This is why Christians of the period are such murderous, frenzied, swine: the Emperor was goading them along with goodies.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/Constantine.htm

The alliance of Roman autocracy and Christian intolerance was a marriage made in hell. The Universal Church eyed with envy the pagan temples and shrines which, through centuries, had amassed their own riches. As propagandists for Constantine, the Christians had the ear of the emperor and successfully urged him to confiscate temple treasures throughout the Empire, much of it redirected to the ‘One True Faith.’

The assault upon the values that had sustained the Empire for a thousand years was merciless and relentless. It began with Constantine's denial of state funds to the ancient pagan shrines which had always depended on state sponsorship. Never having had full-time fund raisers like the Christian churches the pagan cults immediately went into decline.

But having given the Christians the world, what Constantine could not anticipate was the ferocity of Christian discord, which was to dog his reign and the reign of all who were to follow him.

The Christian 'community' itself had changed as a consequence of the Constantinian revolution. Official recognition of Christianity, the tax exemptions it gave devotees and state patronage made the Christian faith considerably more appealing to opportunistic pagans. Episcopal posts became highly sought after when, in 319, the clergy were exempted from public obligations and, in 321, priests were exempted from imperial and local taxation. Clerics were even placed outside the jurisdiction of normal courts ('Privilegia Ecclesiastica': Decline of Law).

A flood of new converts, many with little or no religious motivation, swamped the church. Fierce rivalries within the Church multiplied, weakened its power and exposed vulnerabilities in both its doctrine and organisation.

[We skip over the brief shining moment of Julian's reign]

In the closing years of the fourth century, draconian laws prohibiting non-Christian beliefs were enacted by the new hero of the Christians, Emperor Theodosius. Heresy was now equated with treason and thus became a capital offence.

Theodosius 'the Great' presided over the destruction of temples and icons, the burning of books and libraries, and a rampage of murder of pagan priests, scholars and philosophers. The wisdom and finesse of an entire civilization was sacrificed on the altar of the Christian godman and delivered Europe into a dark age of barbarism and crass superstition.

Only the very brave, the very foolish or the very hidden would now deny their Christianity. The prologue to the Dark Age had been written.


Like most Bolshevisms and Jewish social movements, the end result was the complete annhilation of civilization.

Tell us about the consistent and admirable morality of Greek gods.

Sure thing.

From Sallustius, On the Gods and the World:

The Gods are always good and always do good and never harm, being always in the same state and like themselves. The truth simply is that, when we are good, we are joined to the Gods by our likeness to live according to virtue we cling to the Gods, and when we become evil we make the Gods our enemies - not because they are angered against us, but because our sins prevent the light of the Gods from shining upon us, and put us in communion with spirits of punishment. And if by prayers and sacrifices we find forgiveness of sins, we do not appease or change the Gods, but by what we do and by our turning toward the divine we heal our own badness and so enjoy again the goodness of the Gods. To say that god turns away from the evil is like saying that the sun hides himself from the blind.

You lied that Yahweh demands people to sacrifice their firstborn sons to Him.

Forgetting about poor Isaac so soon?

I said that this had been the practice, and that it had been replaced by a 'redemption' scheme, 5 shekels per child or something. Anyone can plug 'human sacrifice' and 'bible' into Google and find out for themselves.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=bible+human+sacrifice&btnG=Google+Search

or if you prefer, here (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/human_sacrifice.html).

This isn't exactly controversial among Bible scholars, you know.

You said, in essence, that most Christians are frustrated sexual perverts, and will not take it back. I see

Do you have a better explanation for how all the prolonged torture sessions with witches turned into lurid accounts of sex with the devil? They tortured those women - horribly - until they would start telling stories that complied with the monks own perverted imagination - the devil's engorged black icy penis and so forth.

You can see the same thing in the Satanic Abuse scare of the nineties. More Christers, locking children in a room for hours and hours, until they finally produce what the Christer wants to hear, namely tales of murder and sexual congress with horses.

Christians are sick, sick, sick. The ones who aren't - universally - intrepret the Bible in line with their native Indo European spiritual intuition, i.e. Platonism or some variant therof.

The ones who hold to resurrection of the body and eternal hellfire are nutjobs. Insatiably cruel, just like the Jewish monster they worship. I don't have to tell you this - you've read Jonathan Edwards. He is, like his 'god', a monster. Also see Calvin, Cromwell, the list goes on and on.

Definition of a pagan: anyone who worships creation rather than the Creator, and/or thinks he can contact divinity in any other way than through Jesus Christ.

This is actually not the Christian definition of a Pagan, Petr. Muslims and Jews are not accounted pagan by Christians, and never were.

Since you are a liar, and so proven many times over, I think we can all easily ignore this ploy of yours.

Other than this, I have nothing to say, except:

May the light of the Gods open your eyes, Petr.

Goodbye,

Wintermute

Can't resist:

We all know that in tight situations you can't be too picky about your energy sources.

Ye shall eat it as barley cakes, Petr.

And for the last time, tell us about the golden emerods!

WM

You know, it’s hard for even me to believe, but you are making even NeoNietzsche look good. When I debated him last springtime, I thought I’d never come across of more repulsive opponent. Little did I know.

NN at least had some dignitas in his attitude. You, on the other hand, behave like a hysterical woman when you get mad.

(I’ve heard pagans idealize androgyny. Didn’t Theban seer Teiresias turn into a woman at some point?)

http://polyglot.lss.wisc.edu/classics/CLAS_351/teiresias.html



- “OK, I'm bored now.”

Sure you are, your highness.



(Skipping all that Blake stuff)

I didn't say anything about Blake getting “an Orthodox understanding of the Bible” – he was a wild mystic, and stayed that way until the end.

I said that he “matured and came to appreciate the Hebrew Scriptures in a new manner.”

Not a word about “orthodoxy.”




- “Does it make sense to you that two movements which deny the gods would be of no interest to religous people?”


And who says that Greeks who did not believe in those stupid Olympian gods were any less “Hellenic” than those who didn’t?

(You’ve got the same dilemma here as modern Jews have: do you have to believe in god to be considered a Jew?)



- “Do you see how aggravating and moronic your contention that everything that came out of Greece or Rome - even atheistic movements - are somehow a part of Greco-Roman religion really is?”


Why should we give a #### about the Greco-Roman religion?


- “Also, as for your second lie, that Stoics say the gods are not involved in our life - which you change to 'don't emphasize as much as Skeptics or Epicurians' is a flat, outright, untruth, which you persist in spreading AFTER HAVING BEEN PROVEN WRONG. As a Christian, of course, you are used to being proved wrong again and again and again. It's how your loathsome religion propagates, on the backs of the mentally infirm and the hateful. I suppose since there is no shortage of the cruel or the stupid, your religion will continue to prosper, just as rats and roaches do with piles of garbage. There is nothing I can do about that.”


Winnie the Puke curses, rants and screams to deflect attention from the fact that he is promoting an irrelevant, stupid religion.

How are gods involved in our life, or are they mere abstractions of our own emotions, i.e. a form of self-deification?


Do you support the following Stoic idea? (mentioned in your own link)

“Zeno in his Republic and Chrysippus in his treatise On Government both favored a community of wives with the free choice of partners, sharing paternal affection for all the children alike and, they believed, ending the jealousies arising from adultery.”

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:Hm0nXIbIF8YJ:www.san.beck.org/GPJ5-StoicPhilosophers.html+stoic+gods&hl=en


What is the “Hellenistic” position on such prosaic matters as abortion and homosexuality?




- “This is why Christians of the period are such murderous, frenzied, swine: the Emperor was goading them along with goodies.”


The only frenzied swine around here is you, and you link to some other frenzied swines, with no scholarly credibility whatsoever.

Oh, “jesusneverexisted.com”. You can already tell what quality material we are going to find there.

- “It began with Constantine's denial of state funds to the ancient pagan shrines which had always depended on state sponsorship. Never having had full-time fund raisers like the Christian churches the pagan cults immediately went into decline.”

OOH, THE HORRORS OF HORRORS! The pagan religion was no longer state-supported!

(Do you support the separation of religion and state, by the way?)

And since pagans were so materialistic and corrupt that their laymen wouldn’t even dream of PERSONALLY supporting the temples – most participated in pagan festivals precisely to party and revel at the expense of the state – the religion naturally went into decline!

Can you see now why Julian had to ape Christians and their selfless behavior?

So, even your crappy, insanely biased source agrees that Constantine did not kill pagan priests or raze their temples, merely withdrawing some state funding from them!

It also admits that pagans were so stingy or unbelieving that private donations for temples didn’t exactly come pouring in!

Bwahahaaa!

Now, here we have a nice example of your shyster tactics.

Anyone who read this:

“arch-murderer Constantine did to destroy the empire from within, necessitating a complete rebuilding of the temple and priesthood system.”

would naturally come to conclusion that that Constantine persecuted pagans in a bloody manner.

Afterwards, when this insinuation has been debunked, you can always say that you never exactly claimed that Constantine razed temples and killed priests.

You stinking slanderer!


- "Like most Bolshevisms and Jewish social movements, the end result was the complete annhilation of civilization."

This delusion could be cured here:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qburnbx.html

and here:

http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htm



- “From Sallustius, On the Gods and the World:”

Ooh, you found a one source praising gods in a poetical manner! Can you also tell about the widespread frustration with gods and blasphemy widespread in the late antiquity?

According to Thucydides, Athenians had enough of their religion already during the Peloponnesian war and plague:

"Fear of gods or law of man there was none to restrain them. As for the first, they judged it to be just the same whether they worshipped them or not, as they saw all alike perishing; and for the last, no one expected to live to be brought to trial for his offences, but each felt that a far severer sentence had been already passed upon them all and hung ever over their heads, and before this fell it was only reasonable to enjoy life a little."

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/GreekScience/Thuc.+2.47-55.html


From our old friend Rodney Stark:

And the vast majority of the festivals and special religious 'endowments' are done by the wealthy elite--in Rome, this was the educated as well...

Stark considered the popular level of opinion as well (as opposed to the literary one noted by MacMullen above):

"Nevertheless, I think there may be a substitute for an opinion poll of religious belief in antiquity. What is wanted is a sample of unfiltered public attitudes. Consider, then, the archaeological discovery that the walls of Pompeii abound in extremely blasphemous graffiti and drawings, some of them very obscene as well. While I harbor no thoughts that these were connected to the city's fate, they arouse my deepest suspicions about the overall state of reverence--not simply because some residents were prompted to create them, but because no one was prompted to remove or cover them. MacMullcn commented that "we may take [the existence of similar graffiti] for granted elsewhere, if there were other sites so well preserved" (1981:63). I may be leaping to unjustified conclusions, but these data speak to me of widespread irreverence....Blasphemous graffiti may also reflect that pagan gods were not entirely godlike as we understand that term today (or as the early Christians understood it). While I reserve extended discussion of pagan conceptions of the gods for chapter 10, we may usefully anticipate that discussion here. E. R. Dodds pointed out that in "popular Greek tradition a god differed from a man chiefly in being exempt from death and in the supernatural power which this exemption conferred on him" ([1965] 1970:74). Moreover, while people often appealed to various gods for help,, it was not assumed that the gods truly cared about humans-Aristotle taught that gods could feel no love for mere humans. Classical mythology abounds in stories in which the gods do wicked things to humans-often for the sport of it. Arthur Darby Nock noted that worship of such gods need not have inspired sincere belief." [ROC:200f]

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycatwho1.html



- “The ones who hold to resurrection of the body and eternal hellfire are nutjobs.”

Ha-ha-ha... Your entirely emotional, non-rational attitude on this issue is as clear as it could be.



- “I said that this had been the practice, and that it had been replaced by a 'redemption' scheme, 5 shekels per child or something.”

And I say you are an unrepentant slanderer who cannot prove his accusations. (Slanderer is one of devil’s titles, you know)


- “Anyone can plug 'human sacrifice' and 'bible' into Google and find out for themselves.”

Anyone can do that and find a bunch of low-quality anti-Christian propaganda sites like that one you linked to on Constantine and Julian. “Internet garbage,” as Fade would say.

Yes, I notice that you use Google a lot. Quite a primitive sourcework, I’d say.



- “You can see the same thing in the Satanic Abuse scare of the nineties. More Christers, locking children in a room for hours and hours, until they finally produce what the Christer wants to hear, namely tales of murder and sexual congress with horses.”

May we see some systematic documentation for this? You sound like a witchfinder general yourself, telling horror stories about the dirty deeds of those wicked Christians.

I have heard rumors that a huge numbers of those children that disappear annually in America are sacrificially killed by Satanists and other pagans. Your opinion on that?



- “This is actually not the Christian definition of a Pagan, Petr. Muslims and Jews are not accounted pagan by Christians, and never were.”

My definition is Biblically accurate.


Romans 1:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.


1 Timothy 2:5: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;


2. John:

7Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.


And anyways, you are so full of IT. In many, many, medieval stories and chronicles Muslims are called “pagans” and even “idolaters.” It was not until the dawn of modern era that Christians began to pay notice to the details of Muslim theology.

If Jews were considered anything, they were WORSE than pagans, because they knew the Truth and still did not accept it.

(Likewise, neo-pagans like you are much worse than original, authentic pagans. Anti-Christianity is a part and a parcel of your identity, just like it is with modern-day Jews.

Were you raised in a fundamentalist environment by any chance? I was raised in an atheist family.)


- “May the light of the Gods open your eyes, Petr.”

Stop bootlegging Christian terminology, you hapless neo-pagan.


Petr

- “And for the last time, tell us about the golden emerods!”


Ooh, isn’t this just giggly-giggly.

To begin with, it was pagan Philistines that came up with that idea:

1 Samuel 6:

“ And the Philistines called for the priests and the diviners, saying, What shall we do to the ark of the LORD? tell us wherewith we shall send it to his place. And they said, If ye send away the ark of the God of Israel, send it not empty; but in any wise return him a trespass offering: then ye shall be healed, and it shall be known to you why his hand is not removed from you. Then said they, What shall be the trespass offering which we shall return to him?

"They answered, Five golden emerods, and five golden mice, according to the number of the lords of the Philistines: for one plague was on you all, and on your lords. Wherefore ye shall make images of your emerods, and images of your mice that mar the land; and ye shall give glory unto the God of Israel: peradventure he will lighten his hand from off you, and from off your gods, and from off your land. “


Typical pagan voodoo reasoning, just like Xerxes having the sea scourged. (The text doesn’t even say whether or not the plague stopped after the Ark had departed!)

The LORD was most probably smiting Philistines with a plague, spread by rodents, and bubonic plague develops tumors in some anatomically uncomfortable spots:


“The conclusion of scholars that the disease which struck the Philistines was bubonic plague is well supported; and John Willis has a full discussion of this.F22 A key factor in the evidence is that the disease was likely spread by rats, indicated by the Philistines making golden images of those creatures ("The Hebrews did not distinguish between mice and rats.")F23 Willis quoted the Septuagint (LXX) and the Vulgate versions which declare that, "Their territory swarmed with rats. There was death and destruction all through the city." Of course, rats were a part of the necessary pre-conditions for development of the bubonic plague. Another element in the deadly triangle was the Cheops flea. The flea-infested rat died of the disease; the flea then bit a man, and he died.

The tumors that broke out on the people were often in the armpits, the
groins, etc. Ps. 78:66 has this in the KJV, "He smote his enemies in the hinder parts." Keil interpreted this to mean that, "He smote them with boils on the anus."F24 The Vulgate here reads, "He smote them in the more secret parts of their posteriors."F25

http://www.studylight.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=1sa&chapter=005



And if miss Prude wants to know the social context of this:

"Malachi 2:3 I will rebuke your seed, and spread dung upon your faces"

... it is a prophetic rebuke of the corrupt Levitical priesthood (and their progeny) that dealt with sacrificial animals in the temple of Solomon.

(Julian the Apostate rated Judaism higher than Christianity, partly because it had a regular system of sacrifices, something that pagans could appreciate.)


Behold, I will rebuke your seed, and will spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your feasts; and ye shall be taken away with it.

The idea here relates to the offal and refuse remaining from the butchered animals of the sacrifices. This repulsive figure is an apt description of the final removal of the Jewish priesthood in the overthrow of A.D. 70, in which event the very institution of animal sacrifice was forever terminated. The Law required that this type of animal refuse resulting from the sacrifices should be carried forth and burned on the outside of the camp, or city (Exodus 29:14; Leviticus 4:12; 16:27).

http://www.studylight.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=mal&chapter=002


Petr

- "Hence I am unsure of what to do with all of the evidence I've compiled regarding Bacque's thesis."

By all means, post it. I'm interested.


Petr

Julian the Apostate

How can he be apostate if he was not a Christian in the first place? (nominal Christian does not count)

Petr said;

I was raised in an atheist family.)

Oh yes, the zeal of the convert.

That's the "artist name" he has been given in history books.

He was RAISED as a Christian. Can't we call all kids who dump religion in their teenage years as "apostates"?


Petr

That's the "artist name" he has been given in history books.

The appellation comes from Christian apologists

He was RAISED as a Christian

Not really, his tutor brought him up with the classics and traditional religion and philosophy and that is where his love lay.

Who cares.


Petr

Who cares.

I suppose anyone interested in a great ruler and what made him great.

Pagan revisionists have greatly exaggerated the "greatness" of Julian. Ever since Gibbon, they have tried to re-create him as their own image.

I recommend to you this short biography of his by great Classical scholar Glen Bowersock.

(I don't that have book with me right now, but here's how one reviewer puts it: )

" Bowersock is careful not to romanticize Julian and notes that when he died, practically everyone in Rome breathed a sigh of relief. "

http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674488822/701-1488895-5780365


Petr

Pagan revisionists have greatly exaggerated the "greatness" of Julian. Ever since Gibbon, they have tried to re-create him as their own image.

I recommend to you this short biography of his by great Classical scholar Glen Bowersock.

(I don't that have book with me right now, but here's how one reviewer puts it: )

" Bowersock is careful not to romanticize Julian and notes that when he died, practically everyone in Rome breathed a sigh of relief. "

Thank you for your suggestion. However, in these matters I tend only to read primary sources.

Angler: CS Lewis made all sorts of unjustified leaps and assumptions, and this is just another example of that. The idea of "justice" does not need to rest on a transcendental principle; it can be defined in purely naturalistic terms: e.g., as "the state which exists between parties when no party has deliberately harmed any other party more than it has been deliberately harmed." In other words, justice can be defined as a state of mutual equilibrium regarding what has been done to and by different parties, as the symbol of the lady holding the scales would suggest.


What accounts for man's innate sense of justice and injustice? His evolved ability to reason, albeit imperfectly, coupled with his evolved sense of "right" and "wrong." The latter is almost certainly the result of man's evolution as a social creature whose life generally depends on interactions with others. A balance is struck between pure selfishness, which has some selective advantage, and pure altruism, which also has some limited selective advantage. When the two general traits are combined in the context of social interaction, the optimum probability of survival is achieved.

Hmm, not to cherry pick you apart like a jackal but --- justice and the ideology of the state might have to rest on some kind of transcendental code.

I.E Codex Hammurabi (Hammurabi's code), the ten commandments, constitution (which mentions god) etc..

I think a big reason why the Third Reich failed and collapsed was to most except maybe a few occult in the inner circle of secret societies -- it was not based on something higher than 'itself'.

Angler Contrary to what you probably think, Petr, I am not an atheist. I am basically an agnostic. I have no problem whatsoever admitting the possibility that a Supreme Being exists. I have hardly ruled that out. Heck, I can't even rule out that Jesus was, in fact, God-made-flesh (though there is no more evidence of that than there is that Mohammed is God's last and greatest prophet).

What I do know, however, is this:

(1) The Biblical story (stories, actually) of creation is not literally true.

(2) The Bible contains many self-contradictions (such as the death of Judas).

(3) Many Christian teachings either make God out to be unjust (e.g., the doctrine of original sin) or make no sense at all (e.g., the idea that a perfect Being can change his mind if enough prayers are said).

There are just so many things that undermine the credibility of the Bible. If God (or angelic messengers) spoke to people on a regular basis during Biblical times, then why doesn't He continue to do so now? If miracles could be performed by the Apostles, then why aren't miracles performed today? (Snake-handling doesn't count.)

Here's a favorite discrepancy of mine. If Adam and Eve were the first people, then why don't religions older than Judaism (e.g., Hinduism, Zoroastrianism) name them as such in their creation stories? You'd think that Adam and Eve would have passed on the details of their experience with God to their children, who would have passed it on to their children, and so on. But apparently no one ever heard of Adam and Eve until the ancient Hebrews came out with the book of Genesis. There are no ancient cave drawings of the Garden of Eden; no mention of the clever Serpent or the Tree of Knowledge. Why not?

Face it, Petr: None of it makes any sense, and the only reason you believe it is because you're afraid not to. I was the same way for a while, and I didn't change because I "grew up"; I changed simply because I finally had to admit to myself that I didn't really believe in those fairy tales, and my only "sin" in not believing in them was that of being 100% honest.


Alot of physicists believe in an unmoving mover or a being who is the ruler of infinite dimensions. Isaac Newton did and Newton was Christian.
__

Whats funny about Julian the Apostate is even the pagans didnt care for him or even his version of paganism. I laughed when I read about how when he tried preaching to a crowd(which was largely made up of pagans btw) about the virtues of paganism, the crowd politely ignored him.

Whats funny about Julian the Apostate is even the pagans didnt care for him or even his version of paganism. I laughed when I read about how when he tried preaching to a crowd(which was largely made up of pagans btw) about the virtues of paganism, the crowd politely ignored him.


I am like Julian the apostate I must admit. Since my teenage years. I even burnt my bible at one point for retaliation against the persecution of Galileo by the Christian church.

However, my anger was merely misguided. It should have been placed towards the Catholic church rather than Christianity.


I've started to come back into the fold of Christianity after reading about Calvinism, total depravity, the frozen chosen etc...

I had both Prostestant and Catholic ancestors and I was brought up in a cross section of churches from Anglican to Catholic and perhaps some others -- but I was too young to remember the other ones.

I am like Julian the apostate I must admit. Since my teenage years. I even burnt my bible at one point for retaliation against the persecution of Galileo by the Christian church.


What persecution? Being placed under hourse arrest was just a slap on the wrist. And Galileo was mocked and persecuted more by his scientific peers than by any theologian.

What persecution? Being placed under hourse arrest was just a slap on the wrist. And Galileo was mocked and persecuted more by his scientific peers than by any theologian.

Sounds like revisionism to me.


Actually. it seems to me the Protestants might have been hostile to the new astrological system as well :

IV. Victory of the Church over Galileo

* Publication of his Dialogo
* Hostility of Pope Urban VIII
* Galileo's second trial by the Inquisition
* His abjuration
* Later persecution of him
* Measures to complete the destruction of the Copernican theory
* Persecution of Galileo's memory
* Protestant hostility to the new astronomy and its champions

- "I've started to come back into the fold of Christianity after reading about Calvinism, total depravity, the frozen chosen etc..."


IMHO, one of the most efficient (and entertaining) Calvinist scholars on the Web today is James White from the "Alpha and Omega Ministries"; his articles and blog can be found in here:

http://www.aomin.org/


PEtr

Sounds like revisionism to me.

Call it what you will.


Actually. it seems to me the Protestants might have been hostile to the new astrological system as well :

The Protestants were more hostile to Copernicus than the Catholic church ever was. Copernicus was a Catholic priest btw, and the Pope at the time supported his research into the theory.