Lunatic Fringe

[LanceALott]

The Lunatic Fringe

Permit me to define what I mean by “lunatic.” A lunatic is someone who believes things that are not so.

Every religion believes things, and most likely all of them believe some things that are not so, unless of course their “Truths” are revealed directly from God; and damn near every religion believes that to be the source of their “Truth.”

Some religions believe that God Himself came down to the hot desert, walked with, and talked to some dusty old saint who had bad breath and was in bad need of a bath. Others merely think God, or one of His Holy Spirits, inspired some ugly and lonely old goat that looked like Karl Marx who wrote down precisely what God had told him to write.

We Native Americans went to the mountain, dug a shallow bed in the earth, lay down, did not move, and spent several days without food or water on what we called a vision quest. Perhaps those “inspired” ugly old goats in every religion went on their own vision quest?

For Muhammad, his vision quest was answered by a visit from Allah, Muhammad’s vision of God. For Joe Smith, it was the Angel Moroni. For Black Elk, he saw a vision of a tree that bloomed in many colors. Jesus Christ wrestled with the Devil in His desert. For Buddha, in his vision quest, he never actually saw God; but he became Enlightened, just as all the others BELIEVED had happened to them.

I once asked a Nazarene preacher what Saint John was smoking when he wrote Revelation.

The wise old preacher laughed and told me how John came to write that Book that looks in many ways to me like the work of a raving lunatic:

Saint John’s vision quest was not voluntary. He was thrown on the island of Patmos to die, without food or water. He was in a dehydrated, delusional, and starving state (like the Native Americans) when old John had his vision. He wrote it down in a Book that became the Book of Revelation in the Christian New Testament of the Bible.

One can only wonder what similar kind of vision quest of one lunatic or another led to all the books of every Bible in every religion?

One Truth is quite clear: Not all of these things people now believe can be so. And given all the weird “Truths” of some God that contradict each other, even within every religion (the lunatic fringe deny those contradictions and believe a false belief that they alone have no contradictions).

One can only wonder why anyone believes that some real God talked to their prophet while some “false” God talked to the Prophet of their enemy.

I suspect it is because their chosen prophet told them something they find valuable, something they want to believe, even if it is not really the Truth right from the lips of the one-and-only God. And then we are forced to wonder if there really is a one-and-only God, and if there is, why in Hell did He chose to speak to my prophet instead of the prophet of my enemies?

Then, you gradually come to the realization of why the dusty old prophet went on his vision quest in the first place. He was trying to solve some problem HIS people faced, and in his delusional state, his vision gave him a breakthrough and he saw the answer to help his people out of the trouble they were in, the time of trouble that caused him to go off the deep end looking for something new, some inspiration.

That Holy Spirit, which probably really came from the mind of the seeker of visions, did not care about the Arabs, or Romans, or American Indians, or Chinese. Abraham was concerned about the trouble facing Abraham. So the answers the seekers found were always for his people alone; or at least it was until a Man from Galilee went on His vision quest.

For the first time I know about, His answer applied to everyone in the whole world, even to His enemies.

Then along came Saul/Paul, and the vision of the Nazarene got lost in a river of Blood that ran as high as a horse’s bridle as Paul’s vision returned Christ’s new way to the old way with a bitter twist of lime, or rather of blood sacrifice, in Paul’s wine to atone for sins.

It was about five hundred years later, after Christ gave up the ghost, when a new Prophet came along with his vision; and once again, like Christ’s vision, Muhammad’s vision was designed to eventually include everyone on this planet. In effect, Muhammad’s vision was Christ’s vision reincarnated, with the deletion of much of the supernatural magic and Son of God stuff of Paul that “Allah” told Muhammad was BS.

And since sane people could see the magic of the Harry Potter supernatural Son of God was simply not there: that no one walked on water, raised people from the dead, or fed the multitudes with three fishes, or turned water into wine, or made the blind see and the lame walk; and one look at Christians proved conclusively that being washed in the Blood of their Lamb did not turn them into good people who deserved to go to Heaven.

The people who had eyes to see, could see through the fog of the “Christian” con game; and they could see that “Christianity” believed many things that were simply not so; and only the lunatic fringe really believed the BS game of the corrupt and self-serving religious “Christian” professionals.

So take Christ, strip him of his magic, take away the belief he was literally a Son of God, keep His wisdom as a Prophet, and you have the foundation for Islam, at least it was the Islam that Muhammad envisioned before his own religion also got hijacked.

So here we are thousands of years later, and how in Hell can we know whose vision was correct? How can we know whose spirit really spoke the Truth, the universal Truth, and not just a “Truth” some Jew wanted to hear, like the Children of Israel were God’s Chosen People?

I guess, we’ll just have to go on another universal one world vision quest? Or assume we already have it right, and prepare to kill or convert all those people in the lunatic fringe of every other religion; but then, if we do that, we have either become a Muslim, or we have joined our own lunatic fringe.

I suggest a new vision quest and find a better way, one that truly works in the best interests of everyone on this planet, because I can already see too damn many of that lunatic fringe who think they are on my side. But then I can also see all those religious professionals that propagate false beliefs who will be stripped naked and exposed as the Whores of Babylon they are, and then will lose their job. So once again they will try to enlist the armies of the new Rome to nail my butt to a new Cross, to silence me.

Hey, just because John was delusional does not mean he did not see some truths, such as who the real enemy of Christ was. It was the religious professionals like Paul who profit from propagating false beliefs and creating all those crazy followers of the lunatic fringe.

So either we get it right in our vision quest, or we also become a new faction of the lunatic fringe?

[greginboise]

OK

OK


Terse, yet succinct. ;D

[ilovelucy]

;D ;D

At first I thought we were talking hair here....

[LanceALott]

Blondie: It is very presumptuous to claim to be able to break down and anlayze other people's views and religions.

Lance: Presumptious, yes; but necessary! There is only one world, and we all live in it. Sure the lunatics live in their own reality, but they also live in ours; and some of them, like List, are very dangerous to the people around them, like their family, or JonBenet, or you and me. When they hear their voice from the sky...

Freedom of religion, freedom to belieive any darn fool thing you want to, simply cannot be extended to include the lunatic fringe of any religion. The question is how do you look into their eyes and seperate the lunatics from the sane?

Blondie: Lance, take the pills, really, they might help.

Lance: Maybe it does take a lunatic to identify a lunatic?



http://websleuths.com/forum/tm.asp?m=24185&p=1&tmode=1

[lucyagain]

HOw do you separate believers in God from lunatics?

[LanceALott]

Lucy: HOw do you separate believers in God from lunatics?


LanceLott: I think it depends on whether their God is real or imaginary.

[arod]

HOw do you separate believers in God from lunatics?


To start with, it's maybe not such a great idea to ask a lunatic to answer that question. ;)

[LanceALott]

Lucy: HOw do you separate believers in God from lunatics?

Arod: To start with, it's maybe not such a great idea to ask a lunatic to answer that question.

LanceLott: So she didn't ask you.

[lucyagain]

In some people's minds, all those who believe in God are lunatics, then....

Arod. You have a point, love.

[lucyagain]

Okay.

Dismiss God. Who cares but a bunch of us loonies.
Dismiss all religion. Nonsense anyway.

Dismiss all talk about anything that pertains to a higher intelligence in the universe, including all thoughts of sprituality.....

Have fun talking about food and the weather.....

[LanceALott]

Lucy: In some people's minds, all those who believe in God are lunatics, then....

LanceLott: Yes, but those who BELIEVE that way, that there is no God, they are lunatics if there really is a God, because then the athesists would be believing things that are not so.

The agnostics, however, canot be wrong.

[lucyagain]

Agnostics are simply those who want to sit on a fence post and wait and see....

Dismiss all Christianity right now. Ban it. Ban us who believe. Build concentration camps for us now just like the Indians had their reservations. We are a blight on Your society....We deserve to be isolated amongst ourselves and contained. We are postively dangerous!

[LanceALott]

Lucy: We are postively dangerous.

LanceLott: Actually some "Christians" are quite dangerous. They have some beliefs that are not only not so, but the future of their illusive beliefs will get extremely dangerous to them and to everyone within their reach as those false beliefs begin to fail and they need a scapegoat to blame.

Please notice the quotations marks around "Christians."

[LanceALott]

Lucy: Agnostics are simply those who want to sit on a fence post and wait and see....

LanceLott: Probably some who think there MAY be a God do fit your description. Some of us take the Ten Commandments more seriously than the "believers." There is one that says "Thous shalt not bear false witness."

For me to say "there is a God," when the reality is I do not know; that would break this Commandment. If there is a God, and He wanted me to be able to tell you there is, then it seems it's His job to remove all doubt so I can obey Him.

[Ed Edwards]

christians are people who try to be like Christ.

"christians" are people who try to
act like they are Christians for their personal
advantage.

By definition "Lunatic Fringe" cannot be
the majorty, just a unusually noisy minority.

[LanceALott]

Ed: By definition "Lunatic Fringe" cannot be
the majorty, just a unusually noisy minority.

LanceLott: Are you telling me the majority can't be wrong? That a belief if it is accepted by a whole bunch of people must be right? If all Christians believe Christ was the Son of God, does that in itself make Him the Son?

If that is what you are saying, then you just gave all Muslims a free pass.

[Ed Edwards]

;D LanceLott, i was bailing out your sinking ship.
And you want to critique my bailing method?

Most Muslims deserve a free pass.
It is their lunatic fringe that is the problem.
BTW, the Muslim lunatic fringe is a Muslim
problem as well as ours.

[LanceALott]

Ed: Most Muslims deserve a free pass.

LL: As usual, I agree with you, because I suspect most Muslims are really agnostics who play the religious game for fun and profit, and therefore do not really believe in Gods that are not real.

[Lazarus]

The Lunatic Fringe

Permit me to define what I mean by “lunatic.” A lunatic is someone who believes things that are not so.


No. I will not allow you to corrupt the language in order for you to be able to debate matters only on your own terms. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lunatic Since I know what you are suggesting is false, I would be DELUSIONAL if I accept it as if it was true. But I would not be a lunatic if I did so:


lunatic

\Lu"na*tic\, a. [F. lunatique, L. lunaticus, fr. luna the moon. See Lunar.] 1. Affected by lunacy; insane; mad.

Lord, have mercy on my son; for he is lunatic. --Wyclif (Matt. xvii. 15).

2. Of or pertaining to, or suitable for, an insane person; evincing lunacy; as, lunatic gibberish; a lunatic asylum.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.




Every religion believes things,...


True.

... and most likely all of them believe some things that are not so,...


Possible, but that would mean it likely that no religion--not even yours--is completely "true".


... unless of course their “Truths” are revealed directly from God;...


Well, if God has revealed the truth, then no man might argue against it forever. ;)


...and damn near every religion believes that to be the source of their “Truth.”


"That"? So God is a thing and not a Supreme Being?


Some religions believe that God Himself came down to the hot desert, walked with, and talked to some dusty old saint who had bad breath and was in bad need of a bath.


Which ones? ::)


Others merely think God, or one of His Holy Spirits, inspired some ugly and lonely old goat that looked like Karl Marx who wrote down precisely what God had told him to write.


Which ones?


We Native Americans went to the mountain, dug a shallow bed in the earth, lay down, did not move, and spent several days without food or water on what we called a vision quest.


Forgot your peyote or mesc? ;D Smoke a rope. 8)


Perhaps those “inspired” ugly old goats in every religion went on their own vision quest?


Perhaps the planet Mars is, at its core, really made of green cheese?


For Muhammad, his vision quest was answered by a visit from Allah, Muhammad’s vision of God.


Allah visited old Muhammad? Link to the Quran?


For Joe Smith, it was the Angel Moroni.


I think the typesetter dropped the letter "c". ;D


For Black Elk, he saw a vision of a tree that bloomed in many colors.


Black Elk perhaps saw the Tree of Life? Been there myself. Nice place. ;D


Jesus Christ wrestled with the Devil in His desert.


Where does the Bible record a wrestling match? ::)


For Buddha, in his vision quest, he never actually saw God; but he became Enlightened, just as all the others BELIEVED had happened to them.


Do you believe that you have an identity and that you have had certain experiences in your life? If so, then "believing" things is not such an alien concept--and had God spoken directly to you, then you would have two choices: believe that you are insane or believe that you were chosen. There is really no middle ground, is there? :o


I once asked a Nazarene preacher....


Hmm. Now Jesus was called a "Nazarene"--so it is possible that there are a bunch of people claiming to be similarly "called" but the way this is phrased might lead to an ambiguity in belief that a person is who or what they claim to be outwardly. Fundamentally, a "Nazarene" is somebody who gets little or no respect--much like a "hick" in more modern times.


...what Saint John was smoking when he wrote Revelation.


Smoking really did not catch on until after Tobacco was discovered in North America (where the Native Americans had been blissfully addicted to the Nicotine in it since time immemorial) after the voyage of Columbus--so the premiss of the question is known to be false... ::)


The wise old preacher laughed and told me how John came to write that Book that looks in many ways to me like the work of a raving lunatic:


In many ways, you look to me to be the work of a raving lunatic since the "wise old preacher" knew that your question was loaded with feces...


Saint John’s vision quest was not voluntary.


Are you suggesting that God imposed Himself upon John is some unwelcomed way? ::)


He was thrown on the island of Patmos to die, without food or water.


By whom? What was the date? And where did he find implements to write it al down?


He was in a dehydrated,...


Medical records? ::)


...delusional,...


Psychiatric diagnosis? ::)


...and starving state...


If it is a time between meals, have I not at least started to "starve"? ::)



...(like the Native Americans)...


Which Native Americans?


...when old John had his vision.


What is the source of this information? Did you check out the "Nazarene's" story--or did you just "take his word for it"? ::)


He wrote it down in a Book that became the Book of Revelation in the Christian New Testament of the Bible.


Amazing that John would be so deprived (involuntarily) and yet enough of stable mind to remember to bring along a pen (quill?) and scroll for relating his adventures in the Spirit, right? ;D


One can only wonder what similar kind of vision quest of one lunatic or another led to all the books of every Bible in every religion?


Well, you may wonder, but I am not sure that there are Bibles in EVERY religion. If so, then that is news to me.


One Truth is quite clear: Not all of these things people now believe can be so.


Between different religions? Obviously. But, within the limits of, say, Christian Orthodoxy, it does seem at least possible that Christianity is internally consistent. If so, then your prior statment is, of course, quite incorrect--from that point of view, anyway.


And given all the weird “Truths” of some God that contradict each other, even within every religion...


Again, you have not demonstrated that within the bounds of Christian Orthodxy, that Christianity is internally inconsistent--you have merely asserted it without foundation....


(the lunatic fringe deny those contradictions and believe a false belief that they alone have no contradictions).


...And then tried to castigate and denigrate anyone who might dare to disagree with you as some sort of "lunatic". But, all you really have done is make some stuff up, then try to pre-empt any sort of serious examination of the subject matter because you are probably unable to demonstrate the thing that you assert in any clear and convincing way. Why else go out of your way to impugn the character of those who do not agree with you--even before they have had a chance to speak? ::)


One can only wonder why anyone believes that some real God talked to their prophet while some “false” God talked to the Prophet of their enemy.


One can only wonder many things if one never gets off one's ass and investigates anything but instead sits around pontificating to the rest of the world from one's fat ass. ::) However, if one opens one's eyes, then one may come to know that envy is a powerful motivator of human beings to try to possess the things that another is believed to have--or even better than they if that was possible. ::)


I suspect it is because their chosen prophet told them something they find valuable, something they want to believe, even if it is not really the Truth right from the lips of the one-and-only God.


One can be very suspicious if one wants to be. Indeed, I think it would be very easy to get people to believe something that they truly want to believe--like they are doing fine in God's eyes, that all is well between them and the true God, etc. What is most inexplicable is why any Jew might want to take to the various prophet's of Judaism--when all they seemed to do was run around in sackcloth and ashes--when they weren't bare-ass naked--telling the Jews that if they did not repent of their wicked ways, then God was going to smite them in some terrible way. Yes, most of those prophets were stoned, stabbed, or otherwise put to death--and yet the message did fall on some very few receptive ears. But, it is very hard to believe that it was a message that they really WANTED--who really wants to be told that they are wrong? It happens but it is rare.


And then we are forced to wonder if there really is a one-and-only God, and if there is, why in Hell did He chose to speak to my prophet instead of the prophet of my enemies?


Who is forcing you? What makes you think your God is "in Hell"? And which prophets, specifically, are you writing about?


Then, you gradually come to the realization of why the dusty old prophet went on his vision quest in the first place.


I do? ::)


He was trying to solve some problem HIS people faced,
...


Whose people? ::)


...and in his delusional state, his vision gave him a breakthrough and he saw the answer to help his people out of the trouble they were in,...


"Delusional people"--people who do not face reality but make up a reality that suits them--are probably the least likely to achieve a "breakthrough" vision that would answer a real-world problem. For example, suppose that I am a cashier, and due to my error, the till comes up short $99 at the close of my shift. If I am really delusional, then I might insist that the $99 exists in the funds that were tabulated despite the reality of them having been mistakenly handed as $1 in change to a grateful customer. Whereas, if I acknowledge the error, and offered to repay the missing money, I just might get to keep my job. However, if the boss thinks I am delusional (because I insist the missing money exists in the short stack), then quite likely I will get fired. The point is that those who deal with the world from falsehoods rarely succeed over the long haul.


... the time of trouble that caused him to go off the deep end looking for something new, some inspiration.


Here, I must say that your premiss seems a bit contradictory. How delusional can he have been if he was "with it" enough to recognize that there was a real problem in need of a real solution but one that would not yield to more conventional approaches? Rather than "lunacy" you seem to have described a profound intelligence and wisdom. ::)


That Holy Spirit, which probably really came from the mind of the seeker of visions,...


According to the Bible, Jesus Christ, Book of John, Chapter 3, Verse 8, "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit." Your hazarding a guess as to the origin of the Holy Spirit ("...where it comes from...") seems to contradict the words of Jesus Christ, "...but cannot tell...." ::)


...did not care about the Arabs, or Romans, or American Indians, or Chinese.


Why would the Holy Spirit not care about these groups of individual people? ::) Is God partial?


Abraham was concerned about the trouble facing Abraham.


How long did it take you to realize that? ;D


So the answers the seekers found were always for his people alone;


Well, that may have been the limit or bounds upon the communication, but truth is truth regardless of race.



...or at least it was until a Man from Galilee went on His vision quest.


Actually, He was a Nazarene. ::)


For the first time I know about,...


Argument from ignorance? ::)


...His answer applied to everyone in the whole world, even to His enemies.


Obviously, then, you have not looked into the matter very deeply. Exodus 22:21, "You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him..." To attempt to argue that this "vision" is only applicable to the people who received it is silly since it expresses how the stranger is to be treated. Obviously it covers strangers--be they freind or foe.


Then along came Saul/Paul, and the vision of the Nazarene got lost in a river of Blood that ran as high as a horse’s bridle as Paul’s vision returned Christ’s new way to the old way with a bitter twist of lime, or rather of blood sacrifice, in Paul’s wine to atone for sins.


Except that it was Jesus who said of the cup, "This cup is the new covenant in My BLOOD, which is shed for you" (Luke 22:20) --Paul simply recounted the events and Jesus' words, "..do this in remembrance of Me." (Luke 22:19). It was Jesus who instituted the Lord's Supper. And it was Jesus who said,


Jhn 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

Jhn 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.


Any careful reading of the New Testament gospels will reveal that Jesus intended to offer Himself as sacrifice in atonement for the sins of the world. I suspect that if you do not believe that, then you believe in and would offer a works only based religion where you and others might "earn" admission to God's Kingdom either by good works or by holding to a "perfect" set of beliefs. But if you fail, then you would be condemned by your own standards. ::)


It was about five hundred years later, after Christ gave up the ghost, when a new Prophet came along with his vision; and once again, like Christ’s vision, Muhammad’s vision was designed to eventually include everyone on this planet.


More like six-hundred years. "Design?" ::)



In effect, Muhammad’s vision was Christ’s vision reincarnated, with the deletion of much of the supernatural magic and Son of God stuff of Paul that “Allah” told Muhammad was BS.


If the Son of God came in the flesh as Jesus Christ, then the "prophet" Mohammed was an anticlimactic fraud. Given the amount of blood on Mohammed's hands, it is doubtful that Jesus and Mohammed had much in common. ::)


And since sane people could see the magic of the Harry Potter supernatural Son of God was simply not there: that no one walked on water, raised people from the dead, or fed the multitudes with three fishes, or turned water into wine, or made the blind see and the lame walk; and one look at Christians proved conclusively that being washed in the Blood of their Lamb did not turn them into good people who deserved to go to Heaven.


You are really into earning your place in God's Kingdom, aren't you? ::) Do you "deserve" to go to heaven? ::) ::)


The people who had eyes to see, could see through the fog of the “Christian” con game; and they could see that “Christianity” believed many things that were simply not so;


Your claim is that there are false things in the Christian faith: please demonstrate that Almighty God is incapable of such works. ::)


...and only the lunatic fringe really believed the BS game of the corrupt and self-serving religious “Christian” professionals.


Again, your resorting to a pre-emtive ad hominem attack only serves to illustrate the weakness in your argument--there is nothing to support your set of opinions but even more of your opinions. ::)


So take Christ, strip him of his magic, take away the belief he was literally a Son of God, keep His wisdom as a Prophet, and you have the foundation for Islam, at least it was the Islam that Muhammad envisioned before his own religion also got hijacked.


Matthew 16:15-19:




Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


John 10:36:


(Jesus answered Them)...do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming' because I said, "I am the Son of God'?



So here we are thousands of years later, and how in Hell can we know whose vision was correct?


If you wind up in Hell, then some other guy's vision was correct. ;D


How can we know whose spirit really spoke the Truth, the universal Truth, and not just a “Truth” some Jew wanted to hear, like the Children of Israel were God’s Chosen People?


If you do not have the Holy Spirit, then you cannot be guided to the truth.


I guess, we’ll just have to go on another universal one world vision quest?


Jesus said, "Seek and you will find" and "knock and it will be opened to you" and "Everyone who asks receives." It is as simple as that. You are working much too hard at earning a place in paradise. ::)


Or assume we already have it right, and prepare to kill or convert all those people in the lunatic fringe of every other religion;


With ideas like that, you place yourself squarely in the camp of the lunatic fringe. ::)


...but then, if we do that, we have either become a Muslim, or we have joined our own lunatic fringe.


If you think that Islam is the way, then know that Jesus claimed to be "the way" before Mohammed was even born. ::)


I suggest a new vision quest and find a better way, one that truly works in the best interests of everyone on this planet, because I can already see too damn many of that lunatic fringe who think they are on my side.


I see you as the lunatic fringe. ::) ;)


But then I can also see all those religious professionals that propagate false beliefs who will be stripped naked and exposed as the Whores of Babylon they are, and then will lose their job.


And if you are propagating any false beliefs then you will obtain the judgment that you would have imposed upon others--upon yourself. ::)


So once again they will try to enlist the armies of the new Rome to nail my butt to a new Cross, to silence me.


You have just entered the Twilight Zone. There is a signpost up ahead. It says. "Beware the lunatic fringe". ;D Just because you are paranoid, it does not mean that you don't have any real enemies. ;D


Hey, just because John was delusional...


Are you a psychiatrist and were you a witness to his condition? ::)


... does not mean he did not see some truths, such as who the real enemy of Christ was.


The real enemy of Christ was Satan. Notice the past tense. ::)


It was the religious professionals like Paul who profit from propagating false beliefs....


Paul did not "profit" from spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. If you have any evidence to back up your insinuation, then produce it.


... and creating all those crazy followers of the lunatic fringe.


You are a person who believes that your set of belieifs is the only possible correct interpretation of the Bible. To my way of thinking, that makes you a religious zealot and thus a prime candidate for that very group that you claim to dislike so intensely.


So either we get it right in our vision quest, or we also become a new faction of the lunatic fringe?


If you read my signature line, then the reader will know where you are coming from. ::)

[LanceALott]

Lazarus, have you always been a babbling idiot, or did you become one after you started believing things that are not so?

You seem to think you are some kind of great debater, but all I see is a masterdebater, or something like that.

If you have any questions in the above crap you want me to address, ask them one at a time, insted of trying to baffle us with bull shit.

He aint no materdebater but probably a religious masturbator.

[truelies]

Gee LL, I thought he was refuting your BS. And very well I might add.

[LanceALott]

Truelies: Gee LL, I thought he was refuting your BS. And very well I might add.

LL: Please pick what you consider his best "refute."

[LanceALott]

Yukon: He aint no materdebater but probably a religious masturbator.

LL: Okay, you spell better than I do. Actually that's what I was thinking, but I'm a nice guy.

[truelies]

Truelies: Gee LL, I thought he was refuting your BS. And very well I might add.

LL: Please pick what you consider his best "refute."




Since your entire post was BS and since ALL of his was an excellent refutation, trying to pick the best would be splitting hairs to an inordinate degree.

[LanceALott]

Truelies: Since your entire post was BS and since ALL of his was an excellent refutation, trying to pick the best would be splitting hairs to an inordinate degree.

LL: Just like I thought, you seem to be another little phoney "Christian" since you have nothing intelligent to say either, so you back the shotgun approach, hoping maybe one bee bee will hit something.

But then, the lunatic fringe cannot answer any single point with reason, since they start with assumptions that are not so, thump their idol (Bible) and therefore they have no proof, nor logic, only great faith in themselves and in their lunacy because they follow someone who heard voices from the sky.

[Lazarus]

Lazarus, have you always been a babbling idiot, or did you become one after you started believing things that are not so?



You have not established either that I am "a babbling idiot" or that anything that I believe "is not so". Therefore, the premiss of your question is false. However, if you believe the premiss of your question, then you have started believing "things that are not so". ::)


You seem to think you are some kind of great debater, but all I see is a masterdebater, or something like that.


Again you resort to the ad hominem personal attack when your argument is bereft of support. Either support your ideas with facts, evidence or pure reason--or admit your error. ::)


If you have any questions in the above crap you want me to address, ask them one at a time, insted of trying to baffle us with bull shit.


You may address all of the issues I raised in my prior post to you, ONE AT A TIME, or ALL AT ONCE. That you seem to assert that you are incapable of responding to counterpoints ON ALL ISSUES YOUR RAISED, then perhaps the "error" or "fault" lies with you in raising so many issues to begin with? Anyway, it would seem so to me since you are now crying foul that you are incapable of supporting your views unless the issues are raised to you in some particular manner that is prescribed ONLY by you. As for your use of vulgarity, it has no place on this forum outside of the Inferno--and it does not make you seem in the least bit wiser or more informed when you use it. And, BTW, it does not help make your Belief System (BS) seem the slightest bit more appealing or credible.

So, you have done a VERY selective edit of the Bible and the Quran--and created a religion for yourself that is works-based rather than faith-based. It is not as if there have not been thousands of similar such religions in the past that have tried to enslave men and women into trying to earn entry to paradise--while trying to convince them that OTHER's religions are false with clever arrangements words and by other means--so what? ::)

[Lazarus]

He aint no materdebater but probably a religious masturbator.


The colloqial "ain't" contraction might be legitimate for use in English as a substitute for the longer "am not" phrase...

"I am not an athiest."

--or--

"I ain't an athiest."

However, "aint" is not a word. As you have tried to use "aint"--a proper contraction would be "isn't" or the longer form, "is not"... However, even then, you have included a "no" which would form a double negation.

So, let's look at the logical transformations of your statements....

"He aint no materdebater..."

"He isn't no materdebater..."

"He is not no materdebater..."

"He is materdebater..."

BTW, LAL did spell it "masterdebater" rather than "materdebater" so, substituting...

"He is masterdebater..."

Now, that I have a proper English translation, "Thank you." :)

"...but probably a religious masturbator."

Probably means more likely than not likely. Evidence?

Is a person who is not actively engaged in the act of masturbation a masturbator? If not, then it would seem that in order for your statement to carry weight about any person, then that person would have to be actively engaged in masturbation for more of their time than not. Given the requirements of life: to eat, sleep, bath, prepare meals, dress, commute, work, etc.--your statement following the word "...but..."is probably a lie. and yet another ad hominem attack. ::)

[Lazarus]

Gee LL, I thought he was refuting your BS. And very well I might add.


Thank you, truelies. I believe that is about the nicest thing that I have read that you stated in reference to me. :)

[Lazarus]

Truelies: Gee LL, I thought he was refuting your BS. And very well I might add.

LL: Please pick what you consider his best "refute."




Since your entire post was BS and since ALL of his was an excellent refutation, trying to pick the best would be splitting hairs to an inordinate degree.


Now I owe you an apology, It seems I posted my prior post too soon. This was definitely even a nicer thing to say. Thanks again. Sorry, that I did not read ahead. :) ;D

[Lazarus]

But then, the lunatic fringe cannot answer any single point with reason, since they start with assumptions that are not so, thump their idol (Bible) and therefore they have no proof, nor logic, only great faith in themselves and in their lunacy because they follow someone who heard voices from the sky.


The problem, LANCEALOTT, is that every point you posted was answered--and you have not rebutted the refutation. So far, all you have done is complain about the method used rather than the substance of the criticism. You seem like a whining spoiled brat who cannot deal with legitimate criticisms of what you post. You made specific claims about what the Bible represents, specific claims about what Jesus represents, and you received specific requests for you to support your views in the light of the cited and quated references that were presented to you.

Thus far, all you seem to be able to do is WHINE about methods, rather than support the substance of your assertions. That's the point, now, is it not? ::)

[LanceALott]

Lazarus: Thus far, all you seem to be able to do is WHINE about methods, rather than support the substance of your assertions. That's the point, now, is it not?

LL: No, the point is there is so much crap that you have buried any good points you might have had. I am asking for one good point you put a lot of faith in, and I can see you have none.

[LanceALott]

Laz: You have not established either that I am "a babbling idiot" or that anything that I believe "is not so".

LL: You established that with your babbling post.

[LanceALott]

LL:: You seem to think you are some kind of great debater, but all I see is a masterdebater, or something like that.



Laz: Again you resort to the ad hominem personal attack when your argument is bereft of support. Either support your ideas with facts, evidence or pure reason--or admit your error.

LL: Your above statement is evidence that you are not really interested in the topic, but rather in proving that you are superior to me as a debater; and you are failling, you "ad hominem" idiot. Take your fancy latin debate words and stick them where the sun does not shine you smug incompetent frat fag.

And if you want to come back with an intelligent discussion with some substance instead of form only, fine, otherwise, stick it.

[Lazarus]

Lazarus: Thus far, all you seem to be able to do is WHINE about methods, rather than support the substance of your assertions. That's the point, now, is it not?

LL: No, the point is there is so much crap that you have buried any good points you might have had. I am asking for one good point you put a lot of faith in, and I can see you have none.


I back up my words with deeds. You simply whine because your BS is not swallowed wholesale and without question. ::) Any time you want to argue the substance of what I posted, you can quote me and pick it up. Until then, everything I have posted stands in opposition to your views--and remain unchallanged on the subtance of the issues you raised. Deal with it. ;D

[Lazarus]

Laz: You have not established either that I am "a babbling idiot" or that anything that I believe "is not so".

LL: You established that with your babbling post.


Again, you have not challanged my first post on this thread, but have merely resorted to whining about my methods and to using ad hominem attacks. ::)

[LanceALott]

So we agree: there is nothing in your post you want to defend.

Hey, I agree with you. It would embarrass you. do not bring up any of those babling "points," where people can see them in the light of day.

When all you've got is BS, pile it deep, limprod.

[Lazarus]

LL:: You seem to think you are some kind of great debater, but all I see is a masterdebater, or something like that.



Laz: Again you resort to the ad hominem personal attack when your argument is bereft of support. Either support your ideas with facts, evidence or pure reason--or admit your error.



LL: Your above statement is evidence that you are not really interested in the topic, but rather in proving that you are superior to me as a debater;


No it isn't. It is expository that lays bare your debating tactic for the reader to see clearly what is transpiring--you have not supported your views--and have resorted to attacking your critics at a personal level.


and you are failling, you "ad hominem" idiot. Take your fancy latin debate words and stick them where the sun does not shine you smug incompetent frat fag.


Really, LAL, these gratuitous personal attacks (on your part) are not called for. All you have to do is adequately defend your BS. But, it seems that since you are unwilling or unable to do so, you feel the need to lash out at me. Pitiful, really. ;D


And if you want to come back with an intelligent discussion with some substance instead of form only, fine, otherwise, stick it.


It is you who has resorted to these personal and gratuitous attacks, and has steadfastly refused to defend your Belief System (BS). It is really not my fault if your BS is not planted on a more firm foundation. ::)

[Lazarus]

So we agree: there is nothing in your post you want to defend.


We don't agree. You have not defended your post from my critque of it. You have not buttressed your arguments, but have instead resorted to the tactics of a troll--engaging in an argument about methods instead of substance, and resorting to insults and personal and gratuitous ad hominem attacks upon those who disagree with you.

Your act is wearing quite thin. ::)


Hey, I agree with you. It would embarrass you. do not bring up any of those babling "points," where people can see them in the light of day.


My post stands "as is" in contrast to yours--which you have not defended. Let the readers read, then. But knock off this senseless attempt to make yourself feel better by attacking me rather than the substance of what was posted. ::)


When all you've got is BS, pile it deep, limprod.


Again, you are name-calling because it seems that you have run out of arguments and legitimate counterpoints. Let me know when you want to stop hijacking your own thread, okay? ::)

[LanceALott]

My argument says:

The Lunatic Fringe

Permit me to define what I mean by “lunatic.” A lunatic is someone who believes things that are not so.

Every religion believes things, and most likely all of them believe some things that are not so, unless of course their “Truths” are revealed directly from God; and damn near every religion believes that to be the source of their “Truth.”

Some religions believe that God Himself came down to the hot desert, walked with, and talked to some dusty old saint who had bad breath and was in bad need of a bath. Others merely think God, or one of His Holy Spirits, inspired some ugly and lonely old goat that looked like Karl Marx who wrote down precisely what God had told him to write.

We Native Americans went to the mountain, dug a shallow bed in the earth, lay down, did not move, and spent several days without food or water on what we called a vision quest. Perhaps those “inspired” ugly old goats in every religion went on their own vision quest?

For Muhammad, his vision quest was answered by a visit from Allah, Muhammad’s vision of God. For Joe Smith, it was the Angel Moroni. For Black Elk, he saw a vision of a tree that bloomed in many colors. Jesus Christ wrestled with the Devil in His desert. For Buddha, in his vision quest, he never actually saw God; but he became Enlightened, just as all the others BELIEVED had happened to them.

I once asked a Nazarene preacher what Saint John was smoking when he wrote Revelation.

The wise old preacher laughed and told me how John came to write that Book that looks in many ways to me like the work of a raving lunatic:

Saint John’s vision quest was not voluntary. He was thrown on the island of Patmos to die, without food or water. He was in a dehydrated, delusional, and starving state (like the Native Americans) when old John had his vision. He wrote it down in a Book that became the Book of Revelation in the Christian New Testament of the Bible.

One can only wonder what similar kind of vision quest of one lunatic or another led to all the books of every Bible in every religion?

One Truth is quite clear: Not all of these things people now believe can be so. And given all the weird “Truths” of some God that contradict each other, even within every religion (the lunatic fringe deny those contradictions and believe a false belief that they alone have no contradictions).

One can only wonder why anyone believes that some real God talked to their prophet while some “false” God talked to the Prophet of their enemy.

I suspect it is because their chosen prophet told them something they find valuable, something they want to believe, even if it is not really the Truth right from the lips of the one-and-only God. And then we are forced to wonder if there really is a one-and-only God, and if there is, why in Hell did He chose to speak to my prophet instead of the prophet of my enemies?

Then, you gradually come to the realization of why the dusty old prophet went on his vision quest in the first place. He was trying to solve some problem HIS people faced, and in his delusional state, his vision gave him a breakthrough and he saw the answer to help his people out of the trouble they were in, the time of trouble that caused him to go off the deep end looking for something new, some inspiration.

That Holy Spirit, which probably really came from the mind of the seeker of visions, did not care about the Arabs, or Romans, or American Indians, or Chinese. Abraham was concerned about the trouble facing Abraham. So the answers the seekers found were always for his people alone; or at least it was until a Man from Galilee went on His vision quest.

For the first time I know about, His answer applied to everyone in the whole world, even to His enemies.

Then along came Saul/Paul, and the vision of the Nazarene got lost in a river of Blood that ran as high as a horse’s bridle as Paul’s vision returned Christ’s new way to the old way with a bitter twist of lime, or rather of blood sacrifice, in Paul’s wine to atone for sins.

It was about five hundred years later, after Christ gave up the ghost, when a new Prophet came along with his vision; and once again, like Christ’s vision, Muhammad’s vision was designed to eventually include everyone on this planet. In effect, Muhammad’s vision was Christ’s vision reincarnated, with the deletion of much of the supernatural magic and Son of God stuff of Paul that “Allah” told Muhammad was BS.

And since sane people could see the magic of the Harry Potter supernatural Son of God was simply not there: that no one walked on water, raised people from the dead, or fed the multitudes with three fishes, or turned water into wine, or made the blind see and the lame walk; and one look at Christians proved conclusively that being washed in the Blood of their Lamb did not turn them into good people who deserved to go to Heaven.

The people who had eyes to see, could see through the fog of the “Christian” con game; and they could see that “Christianity” believed many things that were simply not so; and only the lunatic fringe really believed the BS game of the corrupt and self-serving religious “Christian” professionals.

So take Christ, strip him of his magic, take away the belief he was literally a Son of God, keep His wisdom as a Prophet, and you have the foundation for Islam, at least it was the Islam that Muhammad envisioned before his own religion also got hijacked.

So here we are thousands of years later, and how in Hell can we know whose vision was correct? How can we know whose spirit really spoke the Truth, the universal Truth, and not just a “Truth” some Jew wanted to hear, like the Children of Israel were God’s Chosen People?

I guess, we’ll just have to go on another universal one world vision quest? Or assume we already have it right, and prepare to kill or convert all those people in the lunatic fringe of every other religion; but then, if we do that, we have either become a Muslim, or we have joined our own lunatic fringe.

I suggest a new vision quest and find a better way, one that truly works in the best interests of everyone on this planet, because I can already see too damn many of that lunatic fringe who think they are on my side. But then I can also see all those religious professionals that propagate false beliefs who will be stripped naked and exposed as the Whores of Babylon they are, and then will lose their job. So once again they will try to enlist the armies of the new Rome to nail my butt to a new Cross, to silence me.

Hey, just because John was delusional does not mean he did not see some truths, such as who the real enemy of Christ was. It was the religious professionals like Paul who profit from propagating false beliefs and creating all those crazy followers of the lunatic fringe.

So either we get it right in our vision quest, or we also become a new faction of the lunatic fringe?

[LanceALott]

For the sake of simplicity, I will break my own argument down into small parts that even Lazarus should be able to understand:

The Lunatic Fringe

Permit me to define what I mean by “lunatic.” A lunatic is someone who believes things that are not so.

[Lazarus]

[quote author=LanceALott link=board=4;threadid=964;start=30#25129 date=1043523406]
For the sake of simplicity, I will break my own argument down into small parts that even Lazarus should be able to understand:

The Lunatic Fringe

Permit me to define what I mean by “lunatic.” A lunatic is someone who believes things that are not so.



==>I have already replied to every part of your argument, here: http://nopc.antares-dev.com/yabbse/index.php?board=4;action=display;threadid=964;star t=15

It is apparently too difficult for you to read my reply to your post, and reply to it--so obviously there is no point continuing...


No. I will not allow you to corrupt the language in order for you to be able to debate matters only on your own terms. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lunatic Since I know what you are suggesting is false, I would be DELUSIONAL if I accept it as if it was true. But I would not be a lunatic if I did so:


lunatic

\Lu"na*tic\, a. [F. lunatique, L. lunaticus, fr. luna the moon. See Lunar.] 1. Affected by lunacy; insane; mad.

Lord, have mercy on my son; for he is lunatic. --Wyclif (Matt. xvii. 15).

2. Of or pertaining to, or suitable for, an insane person; evincing lunacy; as, lunatic gibberish; a lunatic asylum.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


Now, I did the first one for you. But I don't have unlimited time to play these sorts of "games" with you. If you have any problems with the rest of my critique, you are going to have to quote me in reply. Otherwise, I assume you agree with me. ;D

BYE! ::)

[LanceALott]

This is my definition, my hypothesis. It is what this thread is about. If you want to make another definition, start your own damn thread.

Permit me to define what I mean by “lunatic.” A lunatic is someone who believes things that are not so.

If you cannot stick to the topic/problem I am presenting, then you are merely obsficating. If you don't want to discuss this definition, then get the Hell out of Dodge, idiot.

A lunatic is someone who believes things that are not so.



Is not "so" to whom? You see? That's where you are completely clueless.

[LanceALott]

Badnews: Is not "so" to whom?

LL: If it is not so, then it is irrevant to whom. I'm talking about the real world, not the world of beliefs.

Bad: You see? That's where you are completely clueless.

LL: I'm clueless? Are you trying to assume BELIEF = REALITY = TRUTH?

Are you trying to assume BELIEF = REALITY = TRUTH?









Absolutely. MY belief equals MY reality which equals MY truth.

I have no problem if it doesn't match yours. I can live with the fact that you believe whatever you wish.

Can you say the same about another?

[LanceALott]

Absolutely. MY belief equals MY reality which equals MY truth.

Lance: Ithink There is a reality that rules over your beliefs. there is a truth that may not equal your "truth."

Bad: I have no problem if it doesn't match yours.

Lance: See, there is an example where your "truth" has already failed. Because:

Bad: I can live with the fact that you believe whatever you wish.

Lance: No, you can't live with my beliefs if they include some stupid belief that I can smack you in the head with a rock so my delusional God will bless me. Then, You can die with your belief, but you can't lve with it.

Bad: Can you say the same about another?

Lance: Absolutely not! It is dangerous to live in a world where people believe some things that are not so, and I have no intention of submitting to your lunacy if it poses a danger to me or to others.

Let me say something extremely profound to you, LAL....

"Like...whatEVER" ~badnews~ 1/25/03

Have a nice day. :)

[LanceALott]

Bad: Let me say something extremely profound to you, LAL....
"Like...whatEVER" ~badnews~ 1/25/03

LL: There really are people out there who BELIEVE you are part of the Great Satan, and if they kill you, they will get 72 virgins in Heaven. And they are deadly serious about this belief that is not so. If that's a "whatever" to you, then my response is

Whatever.

Have a nice day

Really, LAL, just because you are WRONG in your beliefs and your reality, who am I to tell you? ;D

[Lazarus]

This is my definition, my hypothesis. It is what this thread is about. If you want to make another definition, start your own damn thread.

Permit me to define what I mean by “lunatic.” A lunatic is someone who believes things that are not so.

If you cannot stick to the topic/problem I am presenting, then you are merely obsficating. If you don't want to discuss this definition, then get the Hell out of Dodge, idiot.


BUT, if you would stop perverting the language, then just perhaps what you perceive to be "topic/problem" would be a pointless waste of time to even discuss. As for where I post and what I post, THAT would be my responsibility--and at my option. If you don't like it, then I suggest you lodge a complaint with the administration of this forum. I don't think it will get you anywhere, but you can always try it. ;D BTW, you asked for permission to do it, and it was denied. I am perfectly "on topic" in giving a response.

Your definition is not granted. "Permit me to define..."

PERMISSION DENIED. ;D ;D ;D

[LanceALott]

Lararus: Your definition is not granted. "Permit me to define..."
PERMISSION DENIED

LL: Okay, end of discussion then. You do not want to discuss the topic I proposed, and you have a right to remain silent. I suggest you exercise that right, and stop making a fool of your self by trying to continue an argument you have refused to enter.

[Lazarus]

Lararus: Your definition is not granted. "Permit me to define..."
PERMISSION DENIED

LL: Okay, end of discussion then. You do not want to discuss the topic I proposed, and you have a right to remain silent. I suggest you exercise that right, and stop making a fool of your self by trying to continue an argument you have refused to enter.


LAL proposed to define "Lunatic" as "somebody who believes something that is not so".

Lazarus point out that the definition of "lunatic" WAS NOT SO.

Therefore, by LAL's defintion, LAL is a "Lunatic".

Yes, why bother discussing matters with an admitted (and self-professed) lunatic (LanceALott)? ::)

;D

Of course, if you won't concede the point, then your premiss is known to be false and any conclusion you reach is not sound.

If you will concede the point, then there is no point to your screed.

Have a nice day. :)

Just because you don't believe in something doesn't make it false...to others. You presume that only you are right when you do this. Even YOU must admit that's being naive.

[LanceALott]

Bad: Just because you don't believe in something doesn't make it false...to others.

LanceL: My God postulate: I believe there MIGHT be a God, or there MIGHT NOT be a God.

Bad: You presume that only you are right when you do this.

LL: I am right in my God postulate. There is absolutely no chance I can be wrong. And it makes no difference what you believe.

Bad: Even YOU must admit that's being naive

LL: So who is being naive?

[Lazarus]

Just because you don't believe in something doesn't make it false...to others.


Quite right--even in a purely objective reality a person may be in error, not believe something, and that does not make what the person is in error about false. For example, just becuase a person does not believe there is a God, does not mean that there is no God in reality--and it does not make God "false" to others.


You presume that only you are right when you do this.


If a person believes that their opinions--no matter how bizarre--are "facts" then they are presumptive in the manner you suggest--perhaps delusional--perhaps psychotic--perhaps even insane or lunatics. If the person's opinions are factual, then they are not delusional. If a person is in error on a few points of fact, that does not make them delusional--especially if they are open to revising their opinions in the light of evidence that their opinions are in error. However, if a person will not budge an opinion--despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then the person is probably delusional. If that delusional state has become so intense, that a person is unable to function (for example, the person hears "voices" that are not there; the person sees things that no other person can see; the person believes things that are grandiose or paranoid), then the person is probably psychotic.

Typically, it is only when a person reaches such a state that the term "lunatic" might be applied--especially if they act out their psychotic fantasies.

Typically, "insane" is a LEGAL term meaning that the person was not legally responsible for their unlawful actions.


Even YOU must admit that's being naive.


I would say that it is arrogant to assume that all of one's opinions MUST also be facts. It would be naive of me if I accepted another person's opinions as if they MUST be facts.

Bad: Just because you don't believe in something doesn't make it false...to others.

LanceL: My God postulate: I believe there MIGHT be a God, or there MIGHT NOT be a God.

Bad: You presume that only you are right when you do this.

LL: I am right in my God postulate. There is absolutely no chance I can be wrong. And it makes no difference what you believe.

Bad: Even YOU must admit that's being naive

LL: So who is being naive?


Well, let me ask you this, then...who was it that disagreed with someone else's philosophy about dropping a VC from a helicopter and because that person disagreed with the person for dropping the VC out of the helicopter suggested that they would "eliminate" the person for doing so?

Does this sound rational...I mean especially since we were speaking in the hypothetical?

You are inflexible. Which means you are stubborn and are unwilling to even examine the philosophies of others because you have already come to the conclusion that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Can't help you out with that, my friend.

[Lazarus]

My opinions are ALL based on fact therefore correct.


Ah, but that's what they all say.... ;)

[LanceALott]

Badnews: Well, let me ask you this, then...who was it that disagreed with someone else's philosophy about dropping a VC from a helicopter and because that person disagreed with the person for dropping the VC out of the helicopter suggested that they would "eliminate" the person for doing so?

LanceLott: Go read my answer to that post again. I did not just disagree with you philosophically. You took a position that is illegal, a violation of US law, a violation of the Law of Land Warfare, and a violation of the UCMJ. As an officer sworn to defend the Constitution against all enemies (including you)... you made it my duty to eliminate you, because there was no other way to stop you from violating those laws in the situation you described.

Bad: Does this sound rational...I mean especially since we were speaking in the hypothetical?

LL: Correction, you were speaking hypothetically. I was teaching you what the law says, and what it says my duty would be; and I was warning you I would do my duty if you left me no other sane choice, I'd put one between your eyes.

Bad: You are inflexible.

LL: You damn right I am, when it comes to the law, or my duty. And don't you forget it.

Bad: Which means you are stubborn

LL: Absolutely!

Bad: and are unwilling to even examine the philosophies of others because you have already come to the conclusion that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

LL: Correction again. I have come to the right conclusion precisely because I have already examined the philophies of others, and I have examined the law, and know what my duties are undr that law. And you are right, if you try to throw that guy out of the chopper in front of me, it will not be long before even you know it was the wrong thing to do.

Lance: Ithink There is a reality that rules over your beliefs. there is a truth that may not equal your "truth."

Here's the problem with all of your rhetoric. You perceive the world in much the same manner that Bad or I or anyone else does. You use the same five senses to experience the world. You may have eaten different things, read different things, and altogether had different experiences from Bad. This will give you a different world view from his. No two people have the same experiences so no two people view the world exactly the same.

Logically there is a reality out there apart from our perceptions of it. However, it is a hypothetical abstract because no human being could possibly experience that reality apart from their perceptions of it. Therefor reality and truth remain subjective. Your statement that A truth or reality rules over Bad's beliefs is irrational. His beliefs form his reality. There is NOTHING that rules over that. His reality will only be altered by the discovery and correction of (apparent) perception errors. In other words if we find a new truth we alter our perceptions of reality.

What you are doing is claiming that YOUR perception of reality is closer to objective reality than Bad's. How do you know this? Well you perceive it to be so. Bad does not have any reason to accept that YOUR perceptions of HIS views of reality have ANY validity. In other words it is the height of foolishness and arrogance to go around telling other people how they should perceive reality. All you can do is share YOUR perception of it and, hopefully, offer a good explanation for YOUR beliefs.

[LanceALott]

OAG: What you are doing is claiming that YOUR perception of reality is closer to objective reality than Bad's. How do you know this

LanceLott: Quite simply becaquse my preception of reality in my God postulate cannot be wrong:

THERE MAY BE A GOD!

LanceLott: Quite simply becaquse my preception of reality in my God postulate cannot be wrong:

THERE MAY BE A GOD!


You are impossible. ;D

[LanceALott]

OAG: Here's the problem with all of your rhetoric

LanceL: Stop right there. I am not some kind of politician, nor a butt f*cking fraternity brother on a debate team. I am a mathematician, and I do not deal in rhetoric, or propaganda, or Sophistry, or any of your fancy word BS.

I deal in logic. I deal in reality, I deal in truth.

Furthermore, it is not about logic. In torturing and killing prisoners it's about the law. It's about being a criminal, and it's about my duty as an American officer.

Don't give me this "perception" crap. Would you like for me to show you what the law SAYS?

[LanceALott]

LL:THERE MAY BE A GOD!



Bad: You are impossible

LL: Well, at least I'm impossible to prove wrong. And you know what? I planned it that way.

LL: Well, at least I'm impossible to prove wrong. And you know what? I planned it that way.


I am perfectly comfortable with your thinking/knowing you are right.

Ain't my job to prove anyone's right or wrong about anything. Only YOU have to live with yourself...not I.

[LanceALott]

Bad: Only YOU have to live with yourself...not I.

LL: Right, unless some voice from the sky tells me to off you; and then,... well maybe what the heck, maybe you'll get 72 virgins in Heaven? I MEAN, YOU'RE A PRETTY NICE GUY.

I'm afraid you live in the same world I do. Whether you like it or not, you do have to live with me, or die, no matter how damn crazy I am.

I'm afraid God's answer to Cain was "Yes, you are your brother's keeper, unless you want him to be your undertaker. Ignore him at your own peril."

I'd be your best friend after one beer...for which you would pay. :)

[Lazarus]

OAG: What you are doing is claiming that YOUR perception of reality is closer to objective reality than Bad's. How do you know this

LanceLott: Quite simply becaquse my preception of reality in my God postulate cannot be wrong:

THERE MAY BE A GOD!


It either is the case that there is a God or it is not the case that there is a God. There is a definite truth of the matter--it is NOT a "may" situation. If it is the case that there is a God, then your statement that "there MAY be a God" is quite wrong--for if God exists, there is no "may" about it. Similarly, if there is no God, then your statement that "there MAY be a God" is quite incorrect. For in that case, there is no question that there is no God.

Now, if all you mean is short-hand for the universal truth:

"It is the case that there is a God OR it is NOT the case that there is a God"

--then I have no problem with what you are trying to say. However, if you mean that the truth value of either predicate is forever indeterminate, then I must disagree.

There is a God. That's my reality. If you hold that either there is no God or that there may be a God, then you do not agree with me. ;D

I think the L.S.D. just kicked in.

[LanceALott]

Bad: I'd be your best friend after one beer...for which you would pay.

LanceL; You got a deal! What kind of beer do you like? Jeez, I' much rather buy you a beer than shoot you, cause my aim is betting kind of bad in my old age.

You got a deal! What kind of beer do you like? Jeez, I' much rather buy you a beer than shoot you, cause my aim is betting kind of bad in my old age.


I don't drink beer unless it's really hot and I'm at the river...I'll just pretend I'm ordering a beer and order a Louis XIII, shoot it, and stiff you with the bill. ($75.00 per shot) ;D

LanceLott: Quite simply becaquse my preception of reality in my God postulate cannot be wrong:

THERE MAY BE A GOD!


That's it??? That's the whole reason you believe you have a better perception of reality than Bad?

THERE MAY NOT BE A GOD. This is an equally valid premise.

LanceL: Stop right there. I am not some kind of politician, nor a butt f*cking fraternity brother on a debate team. I am a mathematician, and I do not deal in rhetoric, or propaganda, or Sophistry, or any of your fancy word BS.

Math has no place in ontological discussions.

I deal in logic.

Then you should see that my point was eminently logical.

I deal in reality

How does one deal in reality? Do you need a liscense for that? How's the market? These sort of foolish statements are not raising my esteem for you.

YOUR reality is where YOU live. You cannot deal it out like a hand of cards to other people.

I deal in truth.

Truth is subjective. Everyone believes they possess truth. It is what guides us in our daily operations. What is true to you may be false to me. You can no more deal out YOUR truth to the rest of us than you can your reality. All you can do is share your thoughts and opinions for better or worse. Some may agree with you. If your truth has a universal ring to it a whole lot of people will agree with you. I can pretty much guarantee that for every one of your truths there is someone out there who will disagree. They might be wrong but good luck convincing them of it if it is a heartfelt truth for them.

Furthermore, it is not about logic. In torturing and killing prisoners it's about the law. It's about being a criminal, and it's about my duty as an American officer.

Sell it to Scorsese. I'm not interested in that part of your debate.

Don't give me this "perception" crap. Would you like for me to show you what the law SAYS?


"Perception crap"?? Well thank you for at least dignifying my thoughts with some sort of recognition. That you find them to be crap is merely your perception. Do I want you to give me your perception of what the law says? Sure go ahead.

[LanceALott]

OAG: There may not be a God.

LanceLott: That is the same statement with diferent words. It is mathematically the same as "There may be a God." Both have the same truth value. They are True, always, no perception, no BS, no shit.

OAG: Truth is subjective.

LL: Truth IS never subjective. Reality exists, but we humans usually must guess at what the truth IS. BUT MY GOD POSTULATE IS UNQUESTIONABLY TRUE, NO MATTER WHICH WAY YOU SAY IT. -- There may or may not be a God.

OAG: Everyone believes they possess truth.

LL: But as I have said before BELIEF does not equal Truth, and you cannot substitute one for the other. A belief is our best guess, and sometimes our best guess fails.

OAG: It is what guides us in our daily operations.

LL: Absolutely! I agree with the point above. Belief is necessary, but when our beliefs are not so, when we believe an illusion, no matter how damn desirable that illusion may look, we have crosed the line into fantasy land and our actions will not work the way we want them to. Our actions will not lead to the results we want.

OAG: What is true to you may be false to me.

LL: Wrong! What is true is true, period; and it does not matter whose best guess is right. If it is right, if it is reality, my truth cannot be wrong to you. For both of us There may or may not be a God, no matter how we say it. My truth is your truth, whether you like it or not. The only people who can potentially be wrong are those who say there is a God, or those who say there is no God.

OAG: You can no more deal out YOUR truth to the rest of us than you can your reality.

LL: The hell I can't! I just did! And my truth is your truth, no matter which way you over reach for too much certainty: THERE MAY BE A GOD!

OAG: All you can do is share your thoughts and opinions for better or worse.

LL: Unless you carefully choose your thoughts and opinions so they cannot be false, as I did.

OAG: Some may agree with you.

LL: Everyone must agree with me whether they like me or not, unless of course they want to step off the line of reality and step into some lunatic fringe cult.

OAG: If your truth has a universal ring to it a whole lot of people will agree with you.

LL: The Truth always has a universal ring to it, and sane people cannot disagree if it really is the truth.

OAG: I can pretty much guarantee that for every one of your truths there is someone out there who will disagree.

LL: I have only told you one of my "truths." Find me a sane person who can disagree with my God postulate. Your guarantee is flawed, it is wrong, your best guess just failed you.

OAG: They might be wrong but good luck convincing them of it if it is a heartfelt truth for them.

LL: If their belief is not so, they are not sane people; and it does not matter how much faith they put into their false belief. If they are honest and sane, they are forced to agree with me, even if they do not want to.

LL: Truth IS never subjective. Reality exists, but we humans usually must guess at what the truth IS. .

What do you mean usually? Humans can ALWAYS only guess at what the truth is. It is always subject to our perceptions. How can it be otherwise? Even after it goes through our limited and imperfect filters we then have to communicate it with each other. Communication from one human being to another is never perfect. Misunderstandings are probably more than norm than anything approaching perfect understanding.

BUT MY GOD POSTULATE IS UNQUESTIONABLY TRUE, NO MATTER WHICH WAY YOU SAY IT. -- There may or may not be a God.

That is a different postulate from your previous one. You didn't say "may or may not" previously.

LL: But as I have said before BELIEF does not equal Truth, and you cannot substitute one for the other. A belief is our best guess, and sometimes our best guess fails.

When you state the truth you are only stating what you BELIEVE to be true. You cannot state anything like objective truth because it is not objective coming from you or me or anyone else. It is only a statement of subjective truth. No matter how you slice it you are only stating a belief. So your statement that belief does not equal truth is absolutely correct. Therefor what you believe to be truth may actually be falsehood. The only person who would know that for sure is God. As one human being with subjective views of the truth to another I would suggest that you always bear in mind that you are no more in a position to tell me about objective truth than I am to tell you. We are both merely free to express our individual views and either agree or disagree as to what we believe to be true.

LL: Absolutely! I agree with the point above. Belief is necessary, but when our beliefs are not so, when we believe an illusion, no matter how damn desirable that illusion may look, we have crosed the line into fantasy land and our actions will not work the way we want them to. Our actions will not lead to the results we want.

That is painting with an awefully broad brush. Often, our fialure to receive the results we desire do not stem from the truth or falsehood of our beliefs. Sometimes shit happens. It also happens that we may achieve our desired results even if we are in lala land. The latter is especially true if the results are intangible or internal. The results may be just as "lala" as our original fanastic beliefs.

LL: Wrong! What is true is true, period; and it does not matter whose best guess is right. If it is right, if it is reality, my truth cannot be wrong to you. For both of us There may or may not be a God, no matter how we say it. My truth is your truth, whether you like it or not. The only people who can potentially be wrong are those who say there is a God, or those who say there is no God.

You are way too stubborn to be rational. The statement there may or may not be a God is not a statement of truth but of equivocation. There is no logic there because it amounts to saying that anything is possible. Give me a logical mathematical representation of the above statement. Infinite possibility isn't a statement of logic or mathematics. It is the perfect statement of equivocation. It is not necessarily a universal truth it is simply inarguable because of the scope. In order to deny the above statement one would have to prove that something was not possible and the very cognitive awareness of that thing would make it possible.

LL: The hell I can't! I just did! And my truth is your truth, no matter which way you over reach for too much certainty: THERE MAY BE A GOD!

There may not be a God. Contrary to your logic those are not identical statements. Nor is the statement There may or may not be a God the same thing...You might argue that positing the possibility for the existence of a thing IMPLIES the possibility for non-existence but I could then simply argue that your statement of a half truth leaves the other half open to falsehood so it is not a staement of truth after all.

LL: Everyone must agree with me whether they like me or not, unless of course they want to step off the line of reality and step into some lunatic fringe cult.

I have just spent two posts NOT agreeing with your statement. In fact you had to revise your statement in order to make it inarguable. Of the two of us I would suggest that YOUR brand of thought is more likely to lead you into a lunatic fringe cult.

LL: The Truth always has a universal ring to it, and sane people cannot disagree if it really is the truth.

It is that sort of thinking that leads to despotism. To be absolutely convinced that YOUR truth is a universal truth and dismiss any possibility that it may not be is very foolish indeed. I can pretty much guarantee that thinking that way will lead to unhappiness at some point.

LL: I have only told you one of my "truths." Find me a sane person who can disagree with my God postulate. Your guarantee is flawed, it is wrong, your best guess just failed you.

Well it is difficult for me to plead my own case for sanity because I'm sure that many insane people do not know they are insane. However, as one who believes himself sane, I have demonstrated the flaw in your original postulate. That you revised it and claim it is merely restatement makes me question your level of sanity somewhat.

LL: If their belief is not so, they are not sane people; and it does not matter how much faith they put into their false belief. If they are honest and sane, they are forced to agree with me, even if they do not want to.

"If their belief is not so" means what exactly? If they do not believe that there may or may not be a God? Since that statement is equivocal there IS no possibility to agree or disagree. That doesn't make you a harbinger of undeniable truth it merely makes you an idiot stating the painfully obvious. Any actual truth you might present is going to be subjective and arguable by sane and/or insane people. Your insistance that anything you might say will force people to agree with you is beyond arrogant to utterly foolish.

There may be a three headed, 60 foot long dragon living in the unexplored depths of the ocean. There may not be. Have I stated something profound, some inarguable truth, or something utterly stupid?

[arod]

OAG: What you are doing is claiming that YOUR perception of reality is closer to objective reality than Bad's. How do you know this

LanceLott: Quite simply becaquse my preception of reality in my God postulate cannot be wrong:

THERE MAY BE A GOD!

Truly one cannot be wrong if one says nothing; and it is in that sense that your "postulate" is unassailable. :)

[ilovelucy]

It has always bothered me somewhat that we have to be dead before we find out what the truth is about God....life is possibly just the rehearsal....

God doesnt exist. He is a creation of the aristocracy to give the peasants meaning to their useless lives.

[ilovelucy]

And who is to say that the peasants feel that way about their lives?

Some of the richest people I have known have committed suicide. Why is that?

[LanceALott]

OAG: To be absolutely convinced that YOUR truth is a universal truth and dismiss any possibility that it may not be is very foolish indeed.

LL: It is more folish to say it isn't when you cannot give me a single possibility that does not fit in my unerversal truth. My God postulate describes the universal set in mathmatics. Within the word "may" it also contains all the possiblities in "may not." The universal set includes all possibilities, and both statements describe exactly the same set. It is a valid concept in sets, logic, and in math.

It is perhaps beyone your ability to understand, but just because you are wilfully stupid does not make my truth wrong. What you argue or believe does not effect the truth value of my postulate. It is true.

Apparently you do not understand the meaning of "true."

Either give me a counter-example or go on making a fool of yourself. BTW, do not waste your time looking for a counter-example, because it is the null, or empty, set. It does not exist. I carefully defined my God postulate so it could not be false. That is the meaning of "True" and it has nothing to do with the fact I am one of those f*cking geniuses in math.

Truth rules over the opinions of all men, genius and fool alike.

OAG: To be absolutely convinced that YOUR truth is a universal truth and dismiss any possibility that it may not be is very foolish indeed.

LL: It is more folish to say it isn't when you cannot give me a single possibility that does not fit in my unerversal truth. My God postulate describes the universal set in mathmatics. Within the word "may" it also contains all the possiblities in "may not." The universal set includes all possibilities, and both statements describe exactly the same set. It is a valid concept in sets, logic, and in math.

It is perhaps beyone your ability to understand, but just because you are wilfully stupid does not make my truth wrong. What you argue or believe does not effect the truth value of my postulate. It is true.

Apparently you do not understand the meaning of "true."

Either give me a counter-example or go on making a fool of yourself. BTW, do not waste your time looking for a counter-example, because it is the null, or empty, set. It does not exist. I carefully defined my God postulate so it could not be false. That is the meaning of "True" and it has nothing to do with the fact I am one of those f*cking geniuses in math.

Truth rules over the opinions of all men, genius and fool alike.


You didn't carefully design anything. All you've done is idiotically stated something obvious. There is nothing true nor false about your statement. It cannot be described as either. Truth is an irrelevant concept to your postulate.

I always love a self-professed genius. You guys are a barrel of laughs at parties.

[LanceALott]

God Postulate


Definition 1. = a mathematical statement is a statement that is either true or false, but not both.

For example, suppose:

A = There is a God.

Definition 2. The symbol “~” assigns the opposite truth value to a statement, so

~A = There is no God.

Then both A and ~A are mutually exclusive mathematical statements and they have the opposite truth-value; therefore A + ~A = the total of all possibilities in the universe (if it is not in one, then it is in the other) which is called the Universal set. (Definition 1 insures there are no elements True/false that could be counted twice.)

Definition 3. Of (the mathematical connector “or” = combines the truth-value of two statements). If either statement is true, then the combined “or” statement is also true. An “or” statement can be false only if both the combined statements are false.

“A or ~A” is a new mathematical statement that is always true, since A and ~A cannot both be false..

And hence, “THERE MAY BE A GOD, or maybe not,” is always a true statement because:

The word “may” expresses a different concept from the word “is.” The word “may” contains/implies its own negative “may not, and describes the Universal set;” Whereas “is” excludes its own negative and describes a more limited set.

So To simplify, using the world “may”: “THERE MAY BE A GOD,” says it all; and it is by itself a true statement whether there is, or is not, a God.. and anyone who does not KNOW this truth believes something that is not so, and therefore has joined the realm of the lunatics.

Because of the mathematical properties of the Universal set, at this point we know the truth about God exists in the Universe; even though at this point we do not know if God exists, nor do we need to know that right now...

And if you insist on being willfully stupid, OR IF YOU REALLY ARE STUPID, and say you refuse to accept my God Postulate, then I will surrender to your truth and use the “opposite” of my God Postulate to appease you, so we may go on and discuss something important.

You win! God Postulate = “THERE MAY BE NO GOD.

[arod]

And hence, “THERE MAY BE A GOD, or maybe not,” is always a true statement <snip>

Likewise, the statement, "x is less than, greater than, or equal to 0" is always true - and worthless, because you don't know anything more about x for having read the statement than you did before. Unlike the statement, 1+1=2, nothing can be exrapolated from it.

As I've said many a time, all spoken precepts with any value rest on something unspeakable which appears to be nothing. By contrast, what LAL's "postulate" rests on really IS nothing. :)

God doesnt exist. He is a creation of the aristocracy to give the peasants meaning to their useless lives.


http://www.niagara.com/~freedom/accniag/hammer.gif


Comrade Yukon ............. Go fuck yourself. ;D

[LanceALott]

Arod: Unlike the statement, 1+1=2, nothing can be exrapolated from it.

LaL: I suppose for those who can only think small, or for those who want to exploit beliefs, you have a point; but for those who think big, as in the Universal Set as a place to start, a place where Truth exists, for us a great deal can be extrapolated from either God Postualte.

For instance, a great philosopher once went the next step and said, since we now know Truth exists, permit me to make a definition: TRUTH IS GOD.

Any idea who that great philosopher was?

Arod: Unlike the statement, 1+1=2, nothing can be exrapolated from it.

LaL: I suppose for those who can only think small, or for those who want to exploit beliefs, you have a point; but for those who think big, as in the Universal Set as a place to start, a place where Truth exists, for us a great deal can be extrapolated from either God Postualte.

For instance, a great philosopher once went the next step and said, since we now know Truth exists, permit me to make a definition: TRUTH IS GOD.

Any idea who that great philosopher was?



Many philosopher's and religious type people have said that. It's either God is Truth or Truth is God. Doesn't have to be Christian of Judisam or Islam. Many have said that.

[LanceALott]

Youcon: God doesnt exist. He is a creation of the aristocracy to give the peasants meaning to their useless lives.

Lonestar: Comrade Yukon ............. Go fuck yourself

LaL: Yukonn makes a valid point. there are many "christians" and "Muslims" who invent a God that does not exist and use it precisely the way Comrade Yukonn said they do. For them He is the big terrorist in the sky that's gonna get you if you don't do what the ruling class tells you God wants you to do. __

But if you live by God's way, which the authorities tell you is God's way, then you will be richly rewarded by the crooked God whose favor can be courted by sucking up to Him, selling out your free will, becoming a slave for whomever can speak for the false god.

But if that God does exist, He has not been heard of since He parted the Red Sea, if He ever really did that., Heck, that Guy whose favor can be bribed by being good didn't even lift one finger to help His own Son in His hour of need on the Cross. -- If Jesus, He, could not court God's favor, then who in Hell can?

Even so, Comrade Yukonn should read my above post before he says no God exists, even if I agree the crooked God Yukonn was thinking about probably does not exist, in my OPINION.

[LanceALott]

Lonestar: Many philosopher's and religious type people have said that. It's either God is Truth or Truth is God. Doesn't have to be Christian of Judisam or Islam. Many have said that.

LaL: Ah, yes! Many. There are even references in the Old Testament I believe; but the greatest of the great philosophers, the one you respect I believe, the one I was think of who said it was The Lord Jesus Christ.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Lonestar: Many philosopher's and religious type people have said that. It's either God is Truth or Truth is God. Doesn't have to be Christian of Judisam or Islam. Many have said that.

LaL: Ah, yes! Many. There are even references in the Old Testament I believe; but the greatest of the great philosophers, the one you respect I believe, the one I was think of who said it was The Lord Jesus Christ.

Correct me if I'm wrong.


I can't find that phrase in the bible, maybe you can.

[arod]

Arod: Unlike the statement, 1+1=2, nothing can be exrapolated from it.

LaL: I suppose for those who can only think small, or for those who want to exploit beliefs, you have a point; but for those who think big, as in the Universal Set as a place to start, a place where Truth exists, for us a great deal can be extrapolated from either God Postualte.

No doubt - and every bit of it is lies. It's hardly suprising that a serpent would find value in such extrapolations. :)

[Lazarus]

God doesnt exist. He is a creation of the aristocracy to give the peasants meaning to their useless lives.


http://www.niagara.com/~freedom/accniag/hammer.gif


Comrade Yukon ............. Go fuck yourself. ;D


And the horse he rode in on.

Yukonn, "FYAFTHYRIO". ;D

And if you insist on being willfully stupid, OR IF YOU REALLY ARE STUPID, and say you refuse to accept my God Postulate, then I will surrender to your truth and use the “opposite” of my God Postulate to appease you, so we may go on and discuss something important.

You win! God Postulate = “THERE MAY BE NO GOD

Fine.

There may or may not be invisible blue faeries dancing on the bridge of your nose right now.

There may or may not be gigantic space aliens with multiple appendages orbiting the earth in cloaked spaceships.

There may or may not be flesh eating bacteria lurking on your unused toothbrush just waiting to eat your face.

There may or may not be actual chemical/electrical activity in your brain at this moment allowing you to come up with useless drivel.

Look at me I'm a genius mathmetician too. I not only postulated one measly universal truth but a whole slew of them.

[LanceALott]

Yes, OAG, now you are getting with it.

TRUTH EXISTS!

And you have learned how to state soemething that is true, although I tend to agree that your truth is probably not going to lead anywhere. However, the Truth that Jesus defined, I mean for Christ's sake look where this has already led mankind; and by God some of it is good for us.

Philosophical definition: TRUTH IS GOD.

And do you know something else? Muhammad also started his religion with that same philosophical definition. And when you take the human image and personality out of it and focus on just the philosophical definition alone, then Christ/Muhammad's definition is also the definition of the athesists.

So what we have here is common ground, something on which we all can agree, a definition of Truth!

And after we agree on at least this much of what Truth/God is, then I bet we all can agree that Truth/God/reality rules the universe, even though God may mean different things to all of us at this point, at least we still can find common ground in the words, unless you are just some asshlole playing games and refusing to see the common ground that exists.

[Ed Edwards]

Truth is NOT some ideal.
Truth is NOT some though pattern.
Truth is NOT some paradigm.
Truth is a person.
Truth is the person Jesus.
The Holy Bible tells about Him.

I have a problem with PC=political correctness.
It is PC to search for the Truth, but if you
ever find it, you will immediately be labeled
a "bigot".

In April 1952 someone pointed out to me
this verse from the Holy Bible, New Testament
segment, Book of Romans:

Romans 10:9 (nKJV):
if you confess with your mouth
the Lord Jesus and believe in your
heart that God has raised Him from
the dead, you will be saved.

In April 1952 i first confessed that
"Jesus is Lord" while believing that
God had indeed raised Jesus from the
dead. Then Jesus became not only
my Lord but from that day forward,
my Savior as well. And it is true today,
Fifty years later: Jesus is still my Lord
and still my Savior.

[Ed Edwards]

I am a Fundamentalist Christian
(also known as a Jesus Phreque :) )

A Fundamentalist Christian believes this:

1. The inspiration and infallibility of Scripture

2. The diety of Christ

3. The substitutionary atonement of Christ's death

4. The literal resurrection of Christ from the dead

5. The literal return of Christ in the Second Advent

[Ed Edwards]

TRUTH EXISTS!Amen, LanceALott!

But the TRUTH is a person and that
person is named Jesus.

John 8:31-32 (nKJV):
Then Jesus said to those Jews who
believed Him, "If you abide in My word,
you are My disciples indeed.
32 And you shall know the truth,
and the truth shall make you free."

[LanceALott]

Ed, I know you believe those things; and I know you put great faith in your beliefs; but does that faith make your beliefs true?

[Ed Edwards]

Ed, I know you believe those things; and I know you put great faith in your beliefs; but does that faith make your beliefs true?
Short answer: Yes.

I need to go to church and teach the guys
in my Sunday School class about the 18th
chapter of John. A longer answer will wait.

John 18:38 (KJV):
Pilate saith unto him,
"What is truth?"

Apparently Jesus never answered
Pilate's question. So i guess we each
should answer it for ourselves.
My answer is that Jesus Himself is Truth.
TMOOMV = the milage of others may vary

[buzaw]

Good preachin Ed. I might add that Jesus himself claimed to be truth in John 14:6. He could say that for these reasons:

1. His miracles proved him to be the son of God.
2. The OT prophecies of him fit perfectly with the historical events of his life and death.
3. His teachings and principles are the only ideology that has produced freedom, prosperity and blessing in the history of the world since his death.
4. His own prophecies concerning the world to come and specifically concerning Israel have and are being fulfilled.

So yes, Jesus is truth. 8)

Yes, OAG, now you are getting with it.

TRUTH EXISTS!

And you have learned how to state soemething that is true, although I tend to agree that your truth is probably not going to lead anywhere. However, the Truth that Jesus defined, I mean for Christ's sake look where this has already led mankind; and by God some of it is good for us.

Philosophical definition: TRUTH IS GOD.

And do you know something else? Muhammad also started his religion with that same philosophical definition. And when you take the human image and personality out of it and focus on just the philosophical definition alone, then Christ/Muhammad's definition is also the definition of the athesists.

So what we have here is common ground, something on which we all can agree, a definition of Truth!

And after we agree on at least this much of what Truth/God is, then I bet we all can agree that Truth/God/reality rules the universe, even though God may mean different things to all of us at this point, at least we still can find common ground in the words, unless you are just some asshlole playing games and refusing to see the common ground that exists.


I've learned nothing about the truth from this conversation with you that I did not already know.

My previous statements were not statements of truth, they were nonsense. That is what you have NOT learned here. You are unable to see that you have been spouting nonsense.

[LanceALott]

OAG: That is what you have NOT learned here. You are unable to see that you have been spouting nonsense

LaL: If common ground, peaceful agreement, rule of law, is nonsense, to Hell with you, you are not a civilized human, you are a selfish son of a bitch who can never live in a world where other people exist and have a right to persue happiness. You are a selfish SOB who thinks he has some kind of right or duty to tell eveybody else how to live, like you are some kind of fucking God.

And in my world, you deserve your land, which is six foot wide, six feet long, and six feet deep.

LaL: If common ground, peaceful agreement, rule of law, is nonsense, to Hell with you, you are not a civilized human, you are a selfish son of a bitch who can never live in a world where other people exist and have a right to persue happiness. You are a selfish SOB who thinks he has some kind of right or duty to tell eveybody else how to live, like you are some kind of fucking God.

Well how fucking self-righteous and self absorbed can one idiot possibly get????

I refer to one of your posts as nonsense, which it was, and all of a sudden I'm some sort of anti-christ with no redeeming qualities. Judging from how easily you get your undies in a bunch I'd have to guess that you are either a very effeminate little queer or a little girl parading as a grown man.

And in my world, you deserve your land, which is six foot wide, six feet long, and six feet deep.

If you weren't so laughably stupid and inept I might consider this to mean that you wish me dead. It may very well be that WAS your intended meaning however you are in no position to render me dead so your wishing me so means ZIP.

If my pointing out a bit of foolishness on your part causes you to react with a death wish I suggest that you perhaps need to seek professional help with your issues. A reasonable person would simply admit that what they had posted was indeed crap and even laugh it off. I feel very sorry for you.

[LanceALott]

OAG, may your future bring Peace, Bread, and Land to you.

OAG, may your future bring Peace, Bread, and Land to you.


That's a nice sentiment. I am entirely at peace, I'm allergic to bread and I have all the land I can manage to grow lawn on. I can only hope, for you and everyone else, that life treats you as well as it has me. My only hope for my own future is that things continue to be as wonderful as they are at this point in my life.

[LanceALott]

OAG: I can only hope, for you and everyone else, that life treats you as well as it has me

LaL: You wish has been granted. For a kid who was born with no shoes or coat in Wyoming's winter, I've done quite well. Everyone should be as lucky.

But I've got a growing problem with my home. The damn foundatin is sinking on one end, but I can't sue my builder, because I built this beautiful home myself. -- The whole county is built on a clay that expands when wet and shrinks when dry. It'll take about twenty grand to jack it up and put pilons down to something solid. I can handle that.

I believed I had done it right back then, but that's one of those beliefs that just was not so. I doubt anyone gets it right all the time, and we all pay in one way or another for our mistakes.

[Ed Edwards]

Good preachin Ed. I might add that Jesus himself claimed to be truth in John 14:6. He could say that for these reasons:

1. His miracles proved him to be the son of God.
2. The OT prophecies of him fit perfectly with the historical events of his life and death.
3. His teachings and principles are the only ideology that has produced freedom, prosperity and blessing in the history of the world since his death.
4. His own prophecies concerning the world to come and specifically concerning Israel have and are being fulfilled.

So yes, Jesus is truth. 8)


I'll double AMEN your post, Brother Buzsaw
and raise you a '\o/'PRAISE THE LORD! '\o/'

[buzaw]

OAG: I can only hope, for you and everyone else, that life treats you as well as it has me

LaL: You wish has been granted. For a kid who was born with no shoes or coat in Wyoming's winter, I've done quite well. Everyone should be as lucky.



That makes three of us with ties to wonderful Wyoming. Trulies' wife came from the Lander, Riverton area and I was raised in Lander. Where were you born. You still in Wyo? I'll understand if you'd rather keep that info off line.

[LanceALott]

Buzz: That makes three of us with ties to wonderful Wyoming. Trulies' wife came from the Lander, Riverton area and I was raised in Lander. Where were you born. You still in Wyo? I'll understand if you'd rather keep that info off line.

LaL: I was born in Torrington, on the b