Let's put lilbuddha in charge

13567

Comments

  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Gah! Stooping to a Rickroll is low, even for a rodent.
  • One good dick deserves another.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    mousethief wrote: »
    One good dick deserves another.

    Not necessarily.
    Just in case you're confused, please refer to this instructional video.
  • No, thanks. But bless your heart for your kind offer.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Would it be so bad if Littlebudda was in charge? Certainly can’t be worse. LB for PM
  • Note to self: Set up payment installment plan for Hugal.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    That holiday fund is building up nicely
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    I think I'd be pretty happy with lilbuddha in charge. Sure, we'd occasionally get into intense arguments, but I'd at least believe I was arguing against someone who has a clue.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited February 6
    Hugal, remember the NDA you signed, should anyone else enquire as to your rate of compensation
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Don’t worry my lips are sealed.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Is the diversity of what they're sealed to part of your service?
  • RooK wrote: »
    Is the diversity of what they're sealed to part of your service?
    Jealous much?
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    RooK wrote: »
    Still going, I see.
    LOL it hurts when I see them fall over.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    RooK wrote: »
    Is the diversity of what they're sealed to part of your service?
    I would answer that but my lips are sealed
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Translation:
    "Mmmmf mmmfff mmf mmmmph."
  • Oh fuck. Now we have had privileged access to the fantasies of several shipmates. I feel indelibly soiled.
  • RooK wrote: »
    Translation:
    "Mmmmf mmmfff mmf mmmmph."
    Sounds like someone has experience...

  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Sounds like you get volume discounts on gimp suits.
  • RooK wrote: »
    Sounds like you get volume discounts on gimp suits.

    Sounds like your witty comeback subscription expired.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Your words are remarkably unmuffled, considering.
  • LeRoc wrote: »
    RooK wrote: »
    Still going, I see.
    LOL it hurts when I see them fall over.
    It's the bungee jumper I feel sorry for.

  • We interrupt this gif festival to return to the topic of this thread.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Your. Exact. Words, addressed to me:
    You said your position is that the Bible doesn't contain errors
    Actually, I said this:
    You said your position is that the Bible doesn't contain errors, just that interpretations change over time. I challenged the position that translation differences cover every biblical problem.
    Perhaps not perfect shot on goal, but still in the penalty area.

    Link to thread

    I'm not letting this go ("this" being your repeated allegation that I said the Bible doesn't contain errors, and your repeated denial that you had ever alleged this).

    What you said after the words I quoted is irrelevant (although addressed by me later in that thread).

    The fact is you misrepresented me by that statement, denied doing so, and did both repeatedly when challenged.

    You are constantly doing this sort of thing.

    Your attempt at minimizing your misrepresentation, instead of owning up to it: "Perhaps not perfect shot on goal, but still in the penalty area" speaks volumes in terms of the lack of respect it displays for what other people are saying.

    It's far worse than "not a perfect shot": it is demonstrably untrue. And the only way your slight can be "still in the penalty area" is if your intent is to do damage based on falsehoods rather than actually responding to what's actually being said.

    Apparently what matters to you (it's certainly your modus operandi) is to throw mud, who cares whether it's inaccurate or not, and hope some of it sticks - and then that your opponent gets bogged down in responding.

    From your perspective, yeah, it's not perfect shot, but who cares, you're still shooting more or less the right way. From the hip. Whether or not you actually misrepresented your interlocutor is trivial, secondary to your aims. From this I conclude you're not here to learn, or indeed to discuss. Why are you here?

    I suggested some really simple guidelines, here and here that could help us engage with each other, more constructively, but no, you're rather return to venting bile, apparently on the assumption that all christians with any respect at all for the Bible, be they inerrantists or not, are kooks who drank too much kool-aid and you know far better - despite us never finding out exactly how you know better.

    I can't bring to mind a single positive assertion on your part about your belief system. If there are any they are drowned out by this constant, rude, inaccurate spleen you pour out about why what everybody else thinks your distorted view of what everybody else thinks is so obviously wrong.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    Eutychus wrote: »
    ...I can't bring to mind a single positive assertion on your part about your belief system. If there are any they are drowned out by this constant, rude, inaccurate spleen you pour out about why what everybody else thinks your distorted view of what everybody else thinks is so obviously wrong.
    Ahh-men.


  • Now that's a serious statement by Eutychus. I have noticed in lb a certain inaccuracy, but didn't really put much weight on it, as it's normal on the internet. It does make the internet a frustrating medium.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    I would agree that this is something I find on the internet in general, certainly not specific to lilbuddha. People can say you are saying something you're not. It is very frustrating, especially when the person refuses to believe your clarification and insists you meant something nasty between the lines that you didn't mean (I've never experienced that with lilbuddha, to be fair). I put this sort of thing down to differences in communication style - someone who communicates in a certain way expects others to use that way too. For instance, if you make little indirect jabs in a seemingly polite post, you are more likely to read genuinely polite posts in the same way. Equally, because I am very specific and literal in my communication, I can read others like that, when they are not being so literal.

    I will say, as an observation, that what Eutychus is experiencing with lilbuddha, I have experienced with Eutychus in the past - where he said I was saying something I wasn't, and I had to point this out more than once, and I got a bit frustrated (and the frustration was on both sides, so my communication was no doubt lacking/annoying too). I find both lilbuddha and Eutychus can be similar in being very persistent and forceful in debate, focusing on points of disagreement, and on clarifying their own points, which I suppose may sometimes make them less attentive to all the details of what the other person is saying. I am not saying this in a hellish way (I may well be the same myself) but an observation, and a speculation as to how/why it might happen. I know it's not deliberate. Maybe a single-minded, earnestness type thing.
  • I accept that in parts.

    What I don't accept in this specific instance is the fact that @lilbuddha incontrovertibly misrepresented me, repeatedly claiming I'd said there were no errors in the Bible, and then repeatedly claiming when challenged that she'd never made any such claim, and then instead of acknowledging the obvious when confronted with the evidence, trying to minimise its importance instead of fessing up.

    This attitude drags the debate away from the matter in hand and submerges it in trying to address @lilbuddha's resulting misinformed views.

    If somebody challenges my take on what they've said by quoting back to me their exact words, and I realise I've misread them, I'll acknowledge that. @lilbuddha prefers to continue using what she's understood, rather than go back and read the original, and compounds the miscommunication as a result.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    Yes, that's fair comment.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    No, fuck you, link to the beginning of this. If you are going to link, the whole thing needs context. Including your first response which was essentially "You cannot comment because you mightn't be a Christian."
    What you said after the words I quoted is irrelevant (although addressed by me later in that thread).
    Bullshit. The entire exchange is relevant. You keep trying to reframe this, but that is not your choice.
    To condense this for those not willing to read the original thread. (For certain values of condense, unfortunately.)
    Doublethink offered a description of a path where people thought less of the errors in the bible and more the interpretation changes to deal with the nasty bits in the Bible.
    You said this is where you were at.
    I asked how translations could explain away a command to commit genocide. Yes, I used the wrong word, but interpretation has the exact same problem.
    You responded by attacking the fitness of a possibly non-Christian person to speak on this. Which, despite being a category error, is also ignoring that avowed Christians have the same view.
    You also included an attack on my character, implying that I am acting in bad faith.
    I responded with a logic refutation. And a statement that what you said could be a dodging of the issue.
    And a reiteration that I am addressing inerrancy and that it is incompatible with Jesus. Though, again, I say translation errors, interpretation errors/changes fit the same as previously.
    You try a redirect accusing me of accusing you, which hasn't happened yet.
    Then you try, again, to other me and then control how I can interact with the discussion by framing this as an "interfaith" issue. Which it is not. and again try to frame this as me being a meanie and telling you what you think.
    I point out that I might be a bitch, but it doesn't make me wrong. And a reminder that this is all inside an ongoing discussion, so treating it as an "attack" on you is out of context. And another reminder that I am speaking the the logic of what you wrote, not telling you what you think.
    The next exchange is a condensed repeat on both sides.
    You then continue the othering attempt at a re-frame.(attempted ad hominem)
    I then said
    You said your position is that the Bible doesn't contain errors, just that interpretations change over time.
    Here is the first thing that I've said that resembles what you have previously accused me of. So, unless you have a time machine and saw this before I typed it, you owe me an apology. Actually, I think several.
    But now we are back to the post that started this.
    Eutychus wrote: »
    The second is that it may not be so much that the bible has errors, so much that the interpretations we have of it change over time - and that dynamic change may also be divinely inspired.
    That's where I'm at.
    not so much X, but Y is commonly used to discount X. In fact, I've never heard it used in any other way. True, it does not explicitly deny the possibility of X, but it does remove its importance at the very least.

    You then accuse me of attacking you from the very first which I have demonstrably not been doing.

    I then said
    Dude. I am telling you I see problems with an error-free bible that is only "mistranslated"*. I illustrated one of the problems with that view as I see it. Colourfully, I will admit.
    That is the ball I kicked in your direction. You can address the ball or complain about form. Your choice of course.
    You then said I said you said something I didn't say you said and tried to say that English doesn't mean what it actually does.
    And then, and this is hilarious, tried an appeal to authority with yourself as that authority. Bless your heart if that isn't the most precious example of the Dunning–Kruger effect that I have ever seen.
    And you gave me a homework assignment on a tangent with which I also disagree, but I'm not draining my will to live reading a thread that you are proud of.
    Speaking of which, the rest of the interaction is more of the same, with me accepting you don't think the bible is free of error. Though I do say I think you are seeking to minimise those errors.
    Then you shit your britches and we are here.
    Not addressing all the bullshit in your post individually, but I will comment this far. I come to SOF with the honest intention to discuss the issues that arise. I do not paint all of any group with the same brush and I keep my arguments within the context of the issue. In other words, I discuss Christianity within the confines of Christianity. Witnessed by Christians often agreeing with me. Not all of them, of course, but some. But unless there is magic in the waters of baptism that confers special vision to one's eyes, the Bible is literally an open book that anyone can read. OK, technically several books that not everyone agrees should be there or what their importance is, but still openly available.

    As to why you attack my character, I would assume that you want to minimise the discussion of error without painting yourself as an inerrantist. Sorry, but self-renewing cake does not exist.
  • Now that's a serious statement by Eutychus. I have noticed in lb a certain inaccuracy, but didn't really put much weight on it, as it's normal on the internet. It does make the internet a frustrating medium.
    Dude. :expressionless:
    If you think something I say is wrong, speak up. I don't promise to immediately acquiesce, but I do listen.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    I accept that in parts.

    What I don't accept in this specific instance is the fact that @lilbuddha incontrovertibly misrepresented me, repeatedly claiming I'd said there were no errors in the Bible, and then repeatedly claiming when challenged that she'd never made any such claim, and then instead of acknowledging the obvious when confronted with the evidence, trying to minimise its importance instead of fessing up.compounds the miscommunication as a result.

    Taking this and what you said a couple of posts above leads to the answer. lilbuddha has great trouble understanding much in the way of discussion or argument; as a result, she can't answer what has been said. What she does is to think of something she can answer, attribute that to you, and then put in whatever bright idea has come into her head.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited February 10
    Gee D wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    I accept that in parts.

    What I don't accept in this specific instance is the fact that @lilbuddha incontrovertibly misrepresented me, repeatedly claiming I'd said there were no errors in the Bible, and then repeatedly claiming when challenged that she'd never made any such claim, and then instead of acknowledging the obvious when confronted with the evidence, trying to minimise its importance instead of fessing up.compounds the miscommunication as a result.

    Taking this and what you said a couple of posts above leads to the answer. lilbuddha has great trouble understanding much in the way of discussion or argument; as a result, she can't answer what has been said. What she does is to think of something she can answer, attribute that to you, and then put in whatever bright idea has come into her head.
    Read the fucking thread in question. Hell, read my synopsis. It is fairly accurate to what went down and in what order.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    I did not have the required fucks to give to endure the entire linked thread, but what I did review clearly showed yellibuddha reading assertions into Eutytrash's posts which were clearly not there.

    The most obvious being that the suggestion lilbuddha should not comment for lack of religious credentials, in place of what was actually stated. Which was a weary comment from Euty about not trusting the process due to lilbuddha not offering an alternate philosophy to defend reciprocally, and perhaps only engaging enough to find points to gnaw.

    Which, as I type it, I recognize that there was perhaps an implied position that Eutychus just ignored. One of the reasons I barely bother spending time outside of Hell is the general failure to consider the Null Hypothesis in any aspect of anything, and whenever I've tried I've been readily dismissed as being anti-religion. Which is true, but also a logical fallacy.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    I accept that in parts.

    What I don't accept in this specific instance is the fact that @lilbuddha incontrovertibly misrepresented me, repeatedly claiming I'd said there were no errors in the Bible, and then repeatedly claiming when challenged that she'd never made any such claim, and then instead of acknowledging the obvious when confronted with the evidence, trying to minimise its importance instead of fessing up.compounds the miscommunication as a result.

    Taking this and what you said a couple of posts above leads to the answer. lilbuddha has great trouble understanding much in the way of discussion or argument; as a result, she can't answer what has been said. What she does is to think of something she can answer, attribute that to you, and then put in whatever bright idea has come into her head.
    Read the fucking thread in question. Hell, read my synopsis. It is fairly accurate to what went down and in what order.

    I did and stand by what I said
  • There is no such thing as a null hypothesis in matters of belief: even a purported absence of beliefs is a positive statement about the world and its functioning which requires proposing and defending. Without that work, its proponents do not get to fling rocks at anyone else.
  • Doublethink offered a description of a path where people thought less of the errors in the bible and more the interpretation changes to deal with the nasty bits in the Bible.

    This is not what I wrote. What I wrote was:
    Re stonespring’s comment, if you believe that the divinely inspired bible could err, why would it do so - I suppose I have two possible views of that, one is that divine inspiration is filtered through humans who are fallible. The second is that it may not be so much that the bible has errors, so much that the interpretations we have of it change over time - and that dynamic change may also be divinely inspired.

    Which I later clarified in response to you:
    I was thinking that, in the current context, very few people cite the bible as justification for genocide (in the sense of going out and slaughtering people wholesale) - whereas hundreds of millions of people cite it, for example, to condemn abortion. As far as I know the bible actually says nothing directly about abortion at all. Which illustrates what I mean about changing interpretations.

    (The “lens that corrects for error” is what I would call a new interpretation.)

    I should be clear that I am not inerrantist, I don’t claim the bible is without error.

    In other words, I was trying to specify that most controversies in the current age about what the bible does and doesn’t say are about interpretation of the text. I was not saying advocating genocide is less important, but it’s less common.

    I have gone to the trouble of quoting all that, because your paraphrases tend to tilt the argument. Which is, I think, partly what Euty’s issue is with you. You read in stuff that is not there, and then become aggressive about it.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    One of the hard things about Hosting is avoiding making inferences which seem obvious to the Host. We are here to read the lines, not between them.

    But there are exceptions. Commandment 4 confers on Hosts and Admin the need to judge whether disagreements and increasingly personal comments are being fuelled by personality conflict. That does involve us in some measure of inference.

    I infer from the contents of the posts whose meaning is mutually disputed that there is indeed a personality conflict in play here, which is affecting balance in interpretation. And Hell is the right place to vent such clashes. If this one hadn't ended up here a DH Host would have had to say take it here or drop it. And maybe we should have done that earlier. Hostlite got a bit too light, maybe? I'd put my hand up to that.

    I also think Doublethink's example is helpful.

    Having Hell as a safety valve.is a very good idea.
  • This spat between Eutychus and lilbuddha has been going on for some time - I've been involved in other threads where their engagement has become acrimonious. When there's an ongoing antipathy, it makes it harder for those involved to get beyond the continuing feelings from the previous occasions.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    I suppose I'm used to vigorous disagreement, CK. Purgatory and DH have a lot of that. Personally, I'm cautious about judging the jump from conflict of ideas (normal Purgatory and DH) to conflict of personalities ("get thee to Hell if thou wantest, but shut thy gob here", to paraphrase C4).

    But I'll get into hot water from Doc if I get too Styxey here! For information only!
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Damn right.
  • Doublethink offered a description of a path where people thought less of the errors in the bible and more the interpretation changes to deal with the nasty bits in the Bible.

    This is not what I wrote. What I wrote was:
    Re stonespring’s comment, if you believe that the divinely inspired bible could err, why would it do so - I suppose I have two possible views of that, one is that divine inspiration is filtered through humans who are fallible. The second is that it may not be so much that the bible has errors, so much that the interpretations we have of it change over time - and that dynamic change may also be divinely inspired.
    Again, not so much X, but instead Y is used to shift towards Y, minimising X.
    And I challenged the idea that the X in this case is not problematic. X being errors. And that is fundamentally part of the problem with the Bible. The thread in which this takes place is about inerrancy. Translation v error is an interesting tangent, still does not change the problem of looking at the Bible as inerrant.

  • RooK wrote: »
    I did not have the required fucks to give to endure the entire linked thread, but what I did review clearly showed yellibuddha reading assertions into Eutytrash's posts which were clearly not there.

    The most obvious being that the suggestion lilbuddha should not comment for lack of religious credentials, in place of what was actually stated. Which was a weary comment from Euty about not trusting the process due to lilbuddha not offering an alternate philosophy to defend reciprocally, and perhaps only engaging enough to find points to gnaw.
    Still not seeing why this is at all relevant. Were I all attack, then I could understand the complaint. However, on this Ship I have defended Christianity, encouraged doubters to not lose their faith, etc. Whilst I do like to explore concepts robustly (AKA argue) I do not do so from an anti-Christian POV. All that should matter in a discussion is the validity of the statements being made.

  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    RooK wrote: »
    I did not have the required fucks to give to endure the entire linked thread, but what I did review clearly showed yellibuddha reading assertions into Eutytrash's posts which were clearly not there.

    The most obvious being that the suggestion lilbuddha should not comment for lack of religious credentials, in place of what was actually stated. Which was a weary comment from Euty about not trusting the process due to lilbuddha not offering an alternate philosophy to defend reciprocally, and perhaps only engaging enough to find points to gnaw.
    Still not seeing why this is at all relevant. Were I all attack, then I could understand the complaint. However, on this Ship I have defended Christianity, encouraged doubters to not lose their faith, etc. Whilst I do like to explore concepts robustly (AKA argue) I do not do so from an anti-Christian POV. All that should matter in a discussion is the validity of the statements being made.

    I'm not meaning to imply that I agree with Euty's assertion that you have no philosophical stance (hence my third paragraph previously), but he most definitely did not come anywhere near saying that you should not participate. That was all your interpretation. Probably more true was that Euty was saying that he does not enjoy participating with you. Is different.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    There is no such thing as a null hypothesis in matters of belief: even a purported absence of beliefs is a positive statement about the world and its functioning which requires proposing and defending. Without that work, its proponents do not get to fling rocks at anyone else.

    Q.E.D.

    A hypothesis with better predictive powers about the subject: The bible is purely hominid-sourced, and total bullshit. And so are you.
  • I'm away for several days and not logged in much, but a few brief comments.

    Basically I agree with @Gee D and @Doublethink above.

    @Curiosity killed I accept there is history here, but the reason I reopened this Hell thread is very specific, it's because @lilbuddha misrepresented me in a way that I found highly offensive, denied she'd done so, and when confronted with the evidence tried to claim it was no big deal. In fact that's still what she's doing:
    still does not change the problem of looking at the Bible as inerrant.

    I find this particularly frustrating because every so often @lilbuddha has an insight that is actually worthwhile.

    If you look at this post of mine on the Hell thread, responding to something she said, I have actually taken up an idea of hers ('lens that corrects for error') and using it as constructive food for thought.

    @lilbuddha if you could find it in yourself to actually acknowledge when you get something wrong, instead of reflexively assume that attack is the best form of defence (as above), and find it in yourself to go along with the guidelines for interacting with people whose beliefs differ from yours that I suggested on the thread, from my perspective your interaction here would be orders of magnitude better received and productive.

    If you prefer to cultivate the stereotype of permanently aggrieved, closed-minded bitchiness, well, that's your right, but it's a pity.
  • ThunderBunkThunderBunk Shipmate
    edited February 10
    RooK wrote: »
    There is no such thing as a null hypothesis in matters of belief: even a purported absence of beliefs is a positive statement about the world and its functioning which requires proposing and defending. Without that work, its proponents do not get to fling rocks at anyone else.

    Q.E.D.

    A hypothesis with better predictive powers about the subject: The bible is purely hominid-sourced, and total bullshit. And so are you.

    And you. QED.

    ETA: total bullshit because stating that it's hominid-derived actually tells us nothing about it if everything in the ethical/philosophical sphere is hominid-derived, which it must be from the humanist perspetive. There has to be something else that distinguishes it from that perspective: that says why it is better or worse than any other worldview, other than perhaps ontological delusion, which is limited as a critique and certainly not the home run you and your little friend seem to think it is.
  • RooK wrote: »
    There is no such thing as a null hypothesis in matters of belief: even a purported absence of beliefs is a positive statement about the world and its functioning which requires proposing and defending. Without that work, its proponents do not get to fling rocks at anyone else.

    Q.E.D.

    A hypothesis with better predictive powers about the subject: The bible is purely hominid-sourced, and total bullshit. And so are you.

    And you. QED.

    ETA: total bullshit because stating that it's hominid-derived actually tells us nothing about it if everything in the ethical/philosophical sphere is hominid-derived, which it must be from the humanist perspetive. There has to be something else that distinguishes it from that perspective: that says why it is better or worse than any other worldview, other than perhaps ontological delusion, which is limited as a critique and certainly not the home run you and your little friend seem to think it is.

    I thought that "better or worse than any other worldview", should be qualified by "who for". For a tribe in the Amazon, it is likely that their religion suits them, as it probably distils their whole culture. But I don't know how far this can be extended. My father was well suited to being an atheist, mutatis mutandis.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    There has to be something else that distinguishes it from that perspective: that says why it is better or worse than any other worldview

    That's some fractal idiocy you've got going on there.

    1) Why does there have to be anything else? If I asserted that there were Giant Invisible Penguins (which you can not conveniently disprove) and further insisted that said GIPs made me feel safe and loved and guided my morals, is that a "better" worldview?

    2) I suggested that bible-as-bunk hypothesis does a much better job at predicting reality than the never-ending mental gymnastics required to let the bible escape countless instances of falsification. If that's not obviously better, then allow me to introduce you to your wishful thinking.
  • RooK wrote: »
    There has to be something else that distinguishes it from that perspective: that says why it is better or worse than any other worldview

    That's some fractal idiocy you've got going on there.

    1) Why does there have to be anything else? If I asserted that there were Giant Invisible Penguins (which you can not conveniently disprove) and further insisted that said GIPs made me feel safe and loved and guided my morals, is that a "better" worldview?

    2) I suggested that bible-as-bunk hypothesis does a much better job at predicting reality than the never-ending mental gymnastics required to let the bible escape countless instances of falsification. If that's not obviously better, then allow me to introduce you to your wishful thinking.

    I can't answer question 1 without some actual positive input from you, and this is the point I am making. I can't make any comment on your morals without seeing the life into which they guide you.

    Being a peanut gallery is all very well in its way, but don't expect to stand there without having dirty water thrown at you from time to time. Those of us putting our own experience into the debate we are contributing to will get tired of being pelted with misshapen legumes from time to time, and will call your legitimacy into question.

    On the issue of wishful thinking, we all do it. We have to, to get up in the morning. There's yours. You're welcome.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    So, you're saying that after hearing assertion number 1, you wouldn't even voice questions about the probability or associated semantic deficiencies of Giant Invisible Penguins? Interesting.

    Maybe we're not the peanut gallery you think we are. Maybe we're just external voices of reason. I for one am perfectly willing to have my humanism questioned or interrogated as much as you would be curious to try. However, suggestions that we are not entitled to participate because you are overly defended against our philosophy is kind of shitty. And stupid.
  • Doublethink offered a description of a path where people thought less of the errors in the bible and more the interpretation changes to deal with the nasty bits in the Bible.

    This is not what I wrote. What I wrote was: [etc]

    When you quote could you please indicate whom you're quoting?
Sign In or Register to comment.