Page 43 of 53

Re: The NT was written in the 2nd century

Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 5:26 pm
by Penelope
Stahrwe:

It is an attempt to bait me to a new discussion. Usually it is successful but sometimes I'll choose to ignore them liked the multiple examples of such posts which recently appeared.
It is an attempt to bait you, I agree.
Frank:

Let’s just hope the churches do not get too stupid before they die entirely.
But they will die proclaiming the name of 'their' Jesus - of course they will - I have heard it from the pulpit even here in Atheist England.

You are fulfilling the scripture for them! Tat, you must know this. How I wish we could prove it wrong.

Re: The NT was written in the 2nd century

Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 6:13 pm
by Vishnu
We can't discuss the videos because there it no text provided to base the discussion on.
That's a lie. WE can, and WE have because WE actually watched the videos. Now, if YOU can't discuss the videos because YOU have NOT watched them nor found a transcript of them, then YOU are just shit out of luck. No one is stopping you from watching but you.

I know that in my own experience, and I am confident in saying I speak for many people here, I can discuss videos I have actually seen, and I do it quite often, even without EVER having a written transcript. I've discussed many, MANY movies without ever having a written transcript of it. I've likewise discussed many a television program, vhs, and dvd with people even though none of us ever had a written transcript.

How were we able to accomplish such an amazingly impossible feat you ask?

Because we all WATCHED the videos. THAT is how we all obtained information about them and thus were able to discuss them.

You repeatedly demand a transcript in a tone as though it is somehow OWED to you. Now, if someone does do such thing, then that's good, they are a nice person. But NO ONE, not even the maker of these videos owes it to you to make a transcript and if we continue to opt not to make one then none of us have done a damn thing wrong. We are not under an obligation to include you in the discussion at all, and we are especially not obligated to include you in the discussion on your own terms, i.e., you will only read a written transcript rather than watch.

If YOU refuse to WATCH a VIDEO, then that is on you and no one else and so you are just shit out of luck. And if you have no knowledge of the contents of the videos, that does not mean you get to still participate in the discussion about it by just trying to 'guess' what is in them until someone provides the contents to you on your own terms.

If some folks are having a conversation right in front of you in Spanish, and you happen to not be able to speak Spanish, those folks are NOT obligated to translate THEIR conversation into Spanish for you just so you can be included in the conversation. Nope, if YOU have refused to learn Spanish then you are just shit out of luck- you don't get to participate in the conversation. And just because no one has provided a translation of their conversation for you does not mean you get to interject yourself into the conversation anyway even though you have no knowledge of the subject of the discussion, and just because YOU lack that knowledge does not mean you get to just 'guess' or 'assume' what the subject of their conversation is about and just interject comments into their discussion anyway. Nope, no one is under any obligation to just let you into the conversation anyway nor does anyone owe it to you to translate it, and if they decide not to translate their conversation, they have not done a damn thing wrong and they are not being rude or inconsiderate for doing so. The fact that YOU won't learn Spanish is all on you.
Now, if someone DOES translate the conversation for you, then that's cool, they are a nice person, doing you a FAVOR that they do not owe you. But if they opt not to, then you are just shit out of luck, and just out of the conversation.

WE have watched the videos, and so WE will continue to discuss these videos as we have been, since WE actually know the contents and thus are in a position to discuss them, unlike yourself.

That being said, I think I'll now join the movement to stop feeding the troll.

Re: The NT was written in the 2nd century

Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 6:54 pm
by Frank 013
Vishnu,

Yea, stahrwe complains as such…
What data, what information? Lies and misinformation about Mithraism and Marcion? I don't even see much if any support for the gnostic position promoted by this discussion. We can't discuss the videos because there it no text provided to base the discussion on.
What stahrwe seems unable to fathom is the fact that the information is right there in the videos we watched… we do not need to post it because it is there to see and since we watched them we can discuss it. If stahrwe had bothered to watch them he would realize this and the fact that the sources he gave were solidly refuted by the video as well.
In addition the text is also right there, the screen shots of the source material is included in the video… another thing he would know if he watched the videos…

Anyway I will no longer post to stahrwe his thinking and logic are ruined by his beloved yet horrible book and there is no give and take with him… only disruptive assertions from him.

So, what was your favorite part of the videos?

Re: The NT was written in the 2nd century

Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 7:31 pm
by stahrwe
No Horus, No Osiris, No Greek Gods, No Mithra

In Chapter 3; One Among Many Legends, of The Jesus Legend, pages 137-142 the authors review information regarding the potential influence on the formation of Christian doctrine by Egyptian and Hellenistic myths. Eddy and Boyd address theories presented in Deconstructing Jesus by Robert Price and D. G. Bostock "Osiris and the Resurrection of Christ," Expository Times 112 [2001] 265-71. Eddy and Boyd invoke Origen against Celsus and a massive amount of material to assess both the Egyptian influence claims and the Hellenistic ones with the result that of the two, the Hellenistic ones have decidedly more support in the record than the Egyptian influence claims but neither is tenable as it becomes clear from the timeline that Christitianity influenced Mithraism and the early challenges to Christianity were not interested in Egyptian influences.

This is a very brief, summary of a portion of the Chapter cited. I will be happy to provide additional information.

Re: The NT was written in the 2nd century

Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:04 pm
by Interbane
You have to understand the psychology of someone like Stahrwe. Freethinkers realize that the concepts we see in our world are only inaccurately abstracted by words. When we speak of a thing, we are "compressing" it so to speak, with our words. We have to abstract and compress anything and everything if we are to talk about it. While words serve as representatives to these things in our reality, it's important to see behind the words to the actual real-world objects and concepts they are meant to convey. Most of us are able to 'read between the lines' and follow a person's thinking even if he messes up. But rather than discuss the behind-the-scenes concepts, Stahrwe has built his world-view, literally, on words from a book. They are the truth to him. Even though a video can convey all the necessary concepts, a person who is so reliant upon words needs words to attack, if they come from the opposition. Many philosophers have written about the problem of living in the 'world of words', where too much of a reliance on them blinds a person to the way the world actually is.

Re: The NT was written in the 2nd century

Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:09 pm
by stahrwe
Where Might the following be found? Clue, it isn't BT.org.

1. Respect others' opinions: These are Conversations, from the Latin words con ('with') and verso ('opposite') not Conversions. Diverse opinions are to be expected to be expressed in these forums, and they are welcome. Remember, just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean they don't get their say.
2. Be polite: Most participants are fairly worldly, and come from many different cultures-indeed, many different parts of the world. Please refrain from language whose only purpose is offense. Imagine your grandmother reading your posts. Please don't use any forms of expression that you feel would offend her ears.
3. Views expressed here are the views of the poster, and do not reflect the views of the site. We reserve the right to disagree with what you say but defend to the death your right to say it.

Re: The NT was written in the 2nd century

Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:12 pm
by stahrwe
Frank 013 wrote:Vishnu,

Yea, stahrwe complains as such…
What data, what information? Lies and misinformation about Mithraism and Marcion? I don't even see much if any support for the gnostic position promoted by this discussion. We can't discuss the videos because there it no text provided to base the discussion on.
What stahrwe seems unable to fathom is the fact that the information is right there in the videos we watched… we do not need to post it because it is there to see and since we watched them we can discuss it. If stahrwe had bothered to watch them he would realize this and the fact that the sources he gave were solidly refuted by the video as well.
In addition the text is also right there, the screen shots of the source material is included in the video… another thing he would know if he watched the videos…

Anyway I will no longer post to stahrwe his thinking and logic are ruined by his beloved yet horrible book and there is no give and take with him… only disruptive assertions from him.

So, what was your favorite part of the videos?
What would you say if I told you I was blind?
How do the blind watch the videos?

thanks for your sensitivity.

Re: The NT was written in the 2nd century

Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:29 pm
by Frank 013
Stahrwe
What would you say if I told you I was blind?
How do the blind watch the videos?
I begin this with the upmost and sincere apology… to everyone I told I would not post to stahrwe… this needs to be addressed.

Stahrwe… if you are blind why not say so from the beginning? Why imply… no, actually outright say you will not watch the videos and let us think you are capable of the feat… when you actually are not… and besides you can still listen to them can’t you?

Your comments were leading and if you are blind dishonest... and if your not this is just a sick attempt at attention.

That is what I would say if you were blind.

Bye, bye now…

Re: The NT was written in the 2nd century

Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:44 pm
by tat tvam asi
Good point Frank. The deeper questions are how in the hell has a blind man read the posts and typed responses? With help from some one? If so, then why the f!@ck wouldn't the same helper also click play on the video series and continue helping? Oh he's blind alright, blind to logic and reason. And that post was even more idiotic than the former posts...

Re: The NT was written in the 2nd century

Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:50 pm
by Frank 013
Yes, stahrwe does have one skill in abundance… he has the ability to surpass his own stupidness with every new post… even when you thought it no longer possible to get any worse!

Later