Carmella Prochaska #fundie

Carmella Prochaska #fundie christianforums.com

I don't think there is a comparison with other religious figures. You can visit the grave of Muhammed & Buddha & see the place where their bodies are resting. You can visit the Sepulchre site but Jesus' body isn't there. His body is gone.

146 comments

Prager, and some people think it wasn't a burial chamber.

Surprise surprise, Christians, reworking/ retelling the resurrection story. Great intellectual insight to report this as happening.

[Edit note to John the Australian below:
The great pyramid wasn't opened till about 300 AD. It was empty when first raided.]]]. Was it ever a burial chamber? Maybe it was never intended to contain a body

Basic, basic, basic Christianity, genuine fundamental Christianity, is retelling the Gospel till Judgment Day. Resurrection is number one on the list of elements described. Jesus is reported to have been witnessed by some 500 people after the resurrection. The assumption is that Christianity would never have made it anywhere if key elements weren't largely believed when they are reported to have happened. Josephus, the Jewish historian, understood what converts to Christianity were saying. That Messiah had come.

There is an amazing lack of basic Christian/ biblical literacy. Some of the questions/ statements here show nearly no understanding of the basic gospel historical accounts = the socalled synoptic gospels. This post is made as if it is a novel insight.

old comment by Xotan

But the question really is, where is Jesus's grave. Don't you know the history of Jerusalem. It was literally flattened by the Romans in the Jewish war (CE 70) when the temple itself was destroyed. It was so flattened that whole areas were wiped out and former streets and sidtricts could not be identified because all landmarks were obliterated. The Holy Sepulchre is a pious wish fulfillment.The Bar Kochba rebellion c. 132 finished off what might have remained as the area was levelled and a new, Romancity was built. Nothing - nothing - of the old Jerusalem was left. Read Sebag-Montefiore's fascinating book on Jerusalem. And get off your high horse. Your boasting is undignified and unworthy of what Jesus represents.

old comment by Baked Goods

You can visit the Sepulchre site but Jesus' body isn't there. His body is gone.

Yes because Captain Piccard went back in time and beamed him up. Jesus now lives happily in the future, replacing Diana Troy as the counselor aboard the Enterprise, because Riker finally knocked her up. And whenever he gets homesick, he goes to the holodeck where Lt. Cmdr. Data has programmed a simulation of ancient Rome, where instead of trying to crucify Jesus, the Romans cheer for him and sing "he's a jolly good fellow..." in chorus and the emperor offers Jesus the hand of his daughter. The daughter is different every time so Jesus never gets bored...... err, ahem, sorry.

@Mudak

Point of order: there's no gravesite for Mohammed either.

There is certainly a gravesite. Though, whether there is anyone buried in that grave or not is another matter. Although personally I really wouldn't want to take the conversation in that direction with a Muslim person.

old comment by Captain Bacardi

Muslims, citing their holy book, which appears to have every bit as much credibility as the Christian Bible considering that Muslims use the exact same defenses in favor of it as Christians use for the Bible, make the argument that Jesus wasn't really crucified but rather that a criminal was made to look like Jesus and was crucified in his place. He lived on earth a little longer and was later assumed into heaven by God.

"That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;" - Sura An-Nisa, ayat 157-158

This interpretation of events offers as credible an explanation for witness accounts as the one you offer. Please provide further evidence as to why we ought to accept the Christian explanation of events over the Islamic one.

Captain, still haven't tried the Coruba have you?

It all depends on whether you think Muhammad was a neurotic, borderline, psychotic, epileptic with delusions of grandeur, a brutal murdering, wife beating pedophile or simply deceived by an entity referring to itself as Gabriel?

Social/ Cultural relativism has possibly got you by the gonads, but not I.

Captain, when Fundie meets anti Fundie, the two forces do not annihilate each other in all circumstances. Depending on the spin vector the Fundie may absorb all of the energy of the anti-Fundie pairs and become a Super Fundie.

I believe in spirits and that many, if not most, of the events of Muhammad's life happened as the Koran records them.

Thus Muhammad was both deceived and deceiver - as the Koran itself says, allah hu akbar, allah is the greatest deceiver of them all.

See: Salman Rushdie on Satanic Verses.
See: The innocence of Islam
http://www.youtube.com/verify_controversy?next_url=/watch%3Fv%3DJsIqjg3VkrE

Now posting this link is a test of censorship I suppose. Are the moderators of this blogosphere willing to lose their heads for freedom of speech and first amendment rights.

old comment by Captain Bacardi

Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy Jamaican rum, and "Captain Coruba" admittedly does have a rather nice ring to it. As it stands, however, it just wouldn't be particularly authentic to name myself after a brand of which I have yet to partake. Sadly enough for this story, when the opportunity to booze arises I'm actually a bit more likely to go with "Glenfiddich" or "Macallan", if you catch my drift. Not to worry -- I'll certainly take your recommendation under advisement.

"It all depends on whether you think Muhammad was a neurotic, borderline, psychotic, epileptic with delusions of grandeur, a brutal murdering, wife beating pedophile or simply deceived by an entity referring to itself as Gabriel? "

Poisoning the well. Muhammad's moral bearing has nothing to do with whether his message was "inspired" or not. Unlike others here, I think you're quite intelligent -- I expected more from you than the most basic of fallacies.

"Social/ Cultural relativism has possibly got you by the gonads, but not I."

It's not a matter of relativism. Relativism implies that one view is as good as another... I'm quite open to the idea that one of you is quite right and the other is quite wrong. I'm an agnostic, perhaps in the most Socratic sense possible (or I try to be, at least). I know that I know nothing -- so teach me. Explain to me why I should accept the Bible instead of the Qur'an using arguments that Muslims do not utilize as well. This is important -- after all, if I pick your book instead of theirs and it turns out you were wrong and they were right, I'm condemned to that same hellfire you claimed you were saving me from. In a real sense, my damnation will be on your head... you don't want that, do you?

old comment by Captain Bacardi

"Thus Muhammad was both deceived and deceiver - as the Koran itself says, allah hu akbar, allah is the greatest deceiver of them all."

Allah -- an Enlish transliteration of "Al-ilah"; "the God." Fun fact: Arab Christians pray to "Allah al-ab" (God the Father), "Allah al-ibn" (God the Son), and "Allah al-ru? al-quds" (God the Holy Spirit).

Akbar -- "The Greatest"

I'm just saying... wow. You just called God the greatest deceiver of them all. That one's on you. As for the Qur'an, it is simply saying that "God is the Greatest"... a sentiment with which I'm sure you strongly agree, no?

"See: Salman Rushdie on Satanic Verses.
See: The innocence of Islam "

Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses was a novel, not a history. The so-called "Satanic Verses" themselves are apocryphal at best. Christianity is not without its own apocrypha -- books and sayings attributed to writers who, had they penned writings, most certainly would have been "inspired" in exactly the same manner as the canonical scriptures. If we should accept he validity of the Satanic Verses as having been actually spoken by Muhammad, why should we not accept, say, the Gospel of Thomas as having actually been written by the Apostle Thomas? Why must the attribution be false when it comes to Thomas yet true when it comes to Muhammad?

As for the Innocence of Islam... this is an appeal to the consequences of a belief. It's a common logical fallacy. You are arguing that Islam must be false because it leads to reprehensible behavior. Sadly, the consequences of a belief have no bearing on whether that belief is true. If you are wrong and Islam is correct, Muslims are simply fulfilling the will of God, who is the definition of "Good" exactly in the same manner which you consider your God to be the definition of "Good."

If God commanded you to sacrifice your first-born son, would you do it?

I am sure this sounds like relativism to you. It isn't. You simply have yet to give me reason to accept your paradigm over theirs, using arguments they can't use as well. That's all I'm asking for.

Thanks Captain, do you in fact hold a skipper's ticket? You'd appreciate some of the things Jesus said about chains of command.

I'm not nearly as interested with inspired writing as I am with dictated writing. If the bible can be demonstrated fallacious in any substantive way I'm to be condemned.

But as Sir Conan Doyle surmised: When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable it seems it must be the truth.

That was from memory: I've just reached for the real thing:- "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." - Arthur Conan Doyle

Macromorphic evolution and abiogenesis happen to be impossible. Thus any form of deism instantly becomes cogent.

The new testament is a well corroborated book as far as historical accounts go. No serious jurist has problems with that statement.

Jesus quoted from the old testament and said things that are either insane or correct. Philosophically He is challenging to say the least.

Ergo - Joshua's sun dial must have been halted. How did God do that? Does it matter that much?

Epistemological brick walls have been encountered with both empiricism and logic. Eg. Godel's theorem, Fitch's paradox, Planck, Heisenberg, Schrodinger.

Conclusion. Christianity happened past tense and is happening present tense. Obviously this is a thumb-nail. I'm off to a Symphonic recital tonight. Must dress for the occasion.

Anon,
I'm not saying the burden of proof is with you. I'm suggesting you simply do it. Satisfy your own requirement to know.

Go into the laboratory and starting with inorganic material make life. How hard can it be? NASA and SETI folks expect to find it all over the place.

Or starting with single celled organisms coax them into any description of multicellular activity that is genuinely novel. Siphonphores for example - simple things like them. Just take a bacterium of some description and entice it/ them into atypical behaviors. How hard can that be. It must be happening so very frequently? It simply "must" - where must is the basis of your entire world view.

old comment by RighteousSlave

I have studied all the original books of koran and after many years of research I am finally convinced that it is without reasonable doubt of the devil. Did you know Mohamed raped children that his armies kidnapped from Jews and Christians and the koran orders doing that.
From the original arabic Koran ch23: "And take their young children but use them kindly they are made halal for you, so Allah the merciful wills it."
Buddha was into beastiality and his father clearly influenced by Judo-Christian morality did'nt approve. which is why Budhha the sheep and goat lover left his house and went into the jungle to live his life in unbriduled sin. PETA is an American cult that takes it's inspiration from the satanic "mohatma".

Nothing comes close to Christianity, except for Jewism which all history experts say was like a free trial version of Christianity to prepare humanity for the ONE TRUE FAITH!!!!

old comment by Captain Bacardi

Sadly, no skipper's ticket here. This name was inspired by a quick glance at my liquor cabinet some five odd years ago. I suppose under some accident of fate depending upon a different juxtaposition of bottles I could just have easily been J. Bean Macallan, Captain Cuervo, Jack D. Magellan, or Johnnie "Grey Goose" Myers the Fifth.

"I'm not nearly as interested with inspired writing as I am with dictated writing."

Well, when I speak of "inspiration", I should make clear that I speak of it in the traditional sense -- not "inspiring" so much as "God-breathed" -- theopneustos. Just to remove any confusion, are you saying that you believe in verbal inspiration, where God dictated the exact words to the writers, who acted as scribes?

"Macromorphic evolution and abiogenesis happen to be impossible. Thus any form of deism instantly becomes cogent. "

I should clarify my position for the sake of this discussion. I'm an agnostic. Unlike most atheists, I hypothesize that there is indeed something out there beyond our material world. What I don't know is its nature, and I have my doubts as to whether objective knowledge can be obtained about it at all. Some would say that I'm a "deist", but that doesn't seem to fit -- I don't deny that miracles or revelations might be possible. The only knowledge that I have is that I don't know.

old comment by Captain Bacardi

"Macromorphic evolution and abiogenesis happen to be impossible. Thus any form of deism instantly becomes cogent. "

I'm not arguing from a materialist standpoint, but rather from a Muslim one. Muslims claim that Jesus was a prophet, that the Old Testament prophets were prophets, and that Muhammad is the seal of the prophets.
Muslims make the same claims for their Qur'an as you do for your New Testament. The same arguments you levy against the Qur'an can be levied against the New Testament as well. It seems to me that it boils down to a matter of blind choice -- but unlike Pascal's Wager, if I pick the Bible and pick wrong, eternal hellfire awaits me.

"The new testament is a well corroborated book as far as historical accounts go. No serious jurist has problems with that statement.

Jesus quoted from the old testament and said things that are either insane or correct. Philosophically He is challenging to say the least."

The New Testament is a collection of books. Those books didn't initially come bundled together -- the earliest Christians were very divided upon what constituted the proper canon of the New Testament. For all of God's "verbal dictation", he did not seem to see fit to dictate an actual Table of Contents! Christians were divided upon the canon for years -- some thought that Revelations and some of the epistles were not inspired while others thought that the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermes, and plenty of other books were. History is not quite so clear cut as you seem to think. Now, how is it that you know, without a shadow of doubt, that what you possess in your New Testament included ALL of the books God actually dictated and none of the books that he didn't? Furthermore, what is to be said for earliest Christians who possessed no such certainty and actually had to do the "sorting out", as it were?

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

@Philip-George

Credible witness, 500+ , were prepared to say they had seen Jesus alive after the crucifiction date aka the Jewish passover eve.

Where are their statements? If they are credible, then there must be independent sources that attest to this. If they are contained in a source which aims to show that Jesus is risen, then it is difficult to accept their credibility unless you have something else to establish the credibility of each individual involved. If the testimonies are from a single source or closely related group of sources, again, you need independent confirmation before you can reasonably state that the testimonies are credible. If you are relying purely on the New Testament, then simply asserting that the sources are credible would not pass muster with historians, let alone lawyers; it is then a matter of faith.

old comment by Holy Paladin

@ Captain Baccardi

--Hmm... I very well might be, for all you know.--

You SEE!!! I KNEW it!!!! No one in there right mind would want to associate with muslems ESP. after 9/11 if they were not muslems and would be quick to say something like "No wait friend, I am Christian/Jewish/Catholic" well okay maybe not Catholic, or an atheist would say "F**K YOU I DONT BELIEVE IN THE STUPID ALLAH" or some other such thing as you atheists normally say. BUt noooo, you basically just PROVED your guilt.

-- How do I know you're not one, trying to make Christians look like idiotic a******s? --

That typical muslim double bluff wont work on me Captain Crunch, you are WAY out of your league.

-- And how exactly does that refute my point? --

I'm sorry there was a point somewhere in between all the elitist psuedointellectual dick waving?

-- Ad hominem doesn't make for a very logical argument... but hey, when that's all you've obviously got... --

Yet you are the one who indirectly called me an idiotic a******e. So I guess that is all YOU had Captain Crunch Mohamhead? Go suicidebomb your family so we dont have to break a sweat cleaning away vermin like you from the face of God's Earth.

old comment by Captain Bacardi

@Holy Paladin

"-- I find what your doing here rather enjoyable so far--

It is written as you're and not "your". "

Humbug! You caught me there, you miserable son of a bitch! Bah; we both know that the demiurge, who acts as moderator over this entire forum as well as over the whole of reality, happened to catch my proper wording and changed it before you had a chance to write your correction. Woe are us, my dear friend, that we ought to have such powers set against us! We would be friends if not for the fact that the powers in control over reality have charge over both of us! As for me, however, I will not correct that mistake, as it was not my fault... blame Yaldabaoth and not me for making the changes to your perception which led to you interpreting my grammatically correct terminology as "your" instead of "you're"!!! You and me, my friend, are the victims of a divine conspiracy here! We must aim towards fighting that enemy which works towards pitting us against each other rather that fighting amongst ourselves!

"Aren't you NOT suppose to drink alcohol as a muslem? That is a double fail, first you fail FOR being a muslim and then you fail AT being a muslim..... DOUBLE FAIL!"

I never claimed to be a good Muslim. I claimed to be a supposedly "Socratic Agnostic" who very well *MIGHT* be a Muslim. I attach no particular label or value to any of these terms. I adore my alcohol regardless of the label you decide to attach to me. If I am a Muslim, I'm a goddamn hypocrite of the highest order... now, what what your fucking point again?

(And yes. According to my Book... you win teh Internetz. Awesome trolling. I'm as impressed with you as I am with Phillip-George(c)2013 - just passing... and yes, under my own most fallible opinion I'm rather sure you're the same person. I only complain here insofar as I think you could be pursuing much more worthy targets... but who am I to judge such things, oh wise one?)

Are you paraphrasing

Righteous Slave - thanks? Is the quote a paraphrase or the hadiths ???

[Second Edit:
Pedophilia in the Hadith

1. Sahih Hadiths of al-Bukhari (810-870)
1a. "Narrated Hisham’s father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old." [Bukhari 5:236, p.153]

I don't think too many have trouble with Muhammad taking a nine years old wife]

Gay - necessarily vague
Tolerance - necessarily vague
Inclusion - necessarily vague

allah hu akbar:
Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

If you haven't seen this site it is a good source
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

old comment by Captain Bacardi

Bah; there is no "fickle finger of fate." Now it's my turn to introduce you to *MY* holy scriptures... there is no fate, only chaos.

http://principiadiscordia.com/
http://www.rawilson.com/trigger1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Illuminatus!_Trilogy

(For the record... you rock. Everything deserves to be challenged, especially atheism and agnosticism, as they are the closest to the "truth" [whatever that may be... and no, that's not relativism -- I really want to know] as most human thought has come. I've come to the conclusion that you're on the up-and-up... well done. Keep up the good work!)

old comment by Captain Bacardi

Take your time. Unless I'm mistaken (and I apologize if I am), you're somewhere in Oceania while I'm in North America. Our time zones are a bit off, to say the least. Do I think you're a "troll" (someone making comments simply to garner responses)? Absolutely. Do I think you are ill-intentioned? Not even in the least bit, as even Socrates was a troll if you ask the people with whom he argued. As human beings, we are rather sad creatures... we work so hard at trying to understand an unlimited universe while using limited minds and methods. Scientific knowledge fails us when we try to understand God because our scientific knowledge is so very limited (it MUST be, considering the fact that our brain power is so limited in comparison to the knowledge that there is to be had of the Universe). All I'm saying is that, in comparison to what can be known about the Universe, we know next to nothing in the overall scheme of things.

Now, to address your comment, I'm don't recall saying that I believe in *anything* involving "randomness." I believe that existence is chaotic, not random, and that the chaos around us very much adjusts itself to what we are looking for. It is almost as though there is a "Satan" but no "God", and that "Satan" is the very subconscious processes of our own minds, doing its best to convince us to accept the reality around us despite whatever objections we may have to the contrary.

I fear that I've said too much.

old comment by Captain Bacardi

@Ingrateful Horrorfilled FlyBy

The moderators have the IP addresses of everyone who posts here. They know who the sock puppets are. The fact that they don't comment or do anything about it reaffirms the core nature of this place -- namely, that free speech has its value and should not be interfered with simply because someone is taking advantage of the system to do annoying things.

The trolls will leave sooner or later. They are annoying to most while some of us see them as a source of entertainment. Most would advise that you simply ignore them... I'd argue that you're best off engaging them, that you might look to ensure that your own views are built on solid ground while honing your ability to counter ridiculous arguments. Christians often call the Bible their "sword" but the only real sword is your own sense of reason. Look for individuals such as the trolls at hand as an excuse to sharpen your "sword" -- it's your only weapon in any worthwhile debate, after all.

old comment by Holy Paladin

@ Cap'n Crunch

Pish, I could point at a random person and accuse you of being them too. But just because I say, for example, that you are Hasan Prishtina, doesn't make you Him, does it? I'm not Mr. Phillip-George unfortunately, though luckily I do personally know him. Before him and I were saved, we lived lives of unrepentant sin, as rampant nightclub dwellers, remorseless gamblers, occasional highwaymen, and two lost souls who shared a bond of passionate yet terribly misguided intimacy. It is not until one night as we both lied naked outside a popular house of sin, having lost our lives' savings to the very cloths on our tender bods to a couple of cackling lesbians from San-Fran, when from the very aether, Jesus Christ the Lord savior, materialized right before our eyes in a splendorous Elvis costume. His fiery words setting our vice-ridden spirits ablaze, and from the ashes of sinful souls rose two righteous and totally Hetero Christian men, proud, honorable and exceptionally well-hung... ah-hem... well anyway as you may or may not know, the rest is history. Consequently the two of us are living proof that gayness is a spiritual addiction that can be defeated. Now, in penance, we try to show the misguided gay people a path out of their sickness as often as possible.

old comment by Holy Paladin

-- Scientific knowledge fails us when we try to understand God --

Agreed. Let's first put aside all the sociocultural fairytales, regardless of their geographical or chronological origin, and tuck away all the many idols made of clay, stone or ink. "Science" is the human understanding of the interactions of matter and energy. "God" is the philosophical symbol of the infinity that begot all things and the many known/unknown laws that manage them. At a personal level for an individual, it is a symbol that sometimes represents a deliberately unreachable ideal, to aid the ascension of human intellect beyond the already known, sometimes it is a sanctuary for the fragile human psyche against the ravages of probability, sometimes it is an imaginary mirror placed far away that reflects back the bigger picture to make us realize how insignificant we are in the grander scheme of things, and to the pursuer of the philosophical truth, that symbol may just be a guiding beacon at the very never-end of the path of knowledge. Attempting to quantify such a complex symbol with the knowledge of mere matter and energy is far more futile than an attempt to find the numerical value of the mathematical infinity.

The closest my own limited understanding can get to comprehending "God" using the modern scientific lexicon is through the following statement: "An infinite space, permeated by infinite energy through infinite time, bears infinite potential". There is that classic adage regarding 10 thousand monkeys, typing on 10 thousand typewriters etc. but what if there was no limit on the number of monkeys, typewriters and years? Then could they not potentially write everything that has ever been written or would be written, and even that which would never be written?

old comment by RighteousSlave

>>Holy Paladin

What an inspirational story! My respect for
Mr. Phillip-George grows even greater. If the
two of you can defeat the demons of faggotry,
then everyone else can as well. Hallelujah!

>>Captain Bacardi

Atheists like to ask if a God created the
universe, then who created this God. And who
created God number 2 and number 3 and so on.
But the Atheist equation for God feels rather
blasphemously glib, where they argue that
there would have to be an infinite series of
Gods, one begetting the next. And they ask
which is the real God amongst them, if any.
They point to individual finite instances
within eternity and ask which of these is God.
Now, the nearest "Instance", for the lack of a
better word, whatever it may be, led to the
big bang. Is that instance "God"? But some
instance must have come before that, and one
before that.

God =! 1st Instance or 2nd Instance or the nth instance of creation.

Because "God" symbolizes the infinite and
humanly observed instances are but mere finite
events. So logically...,

God = All instances that came before existence emerged from an infinitely small point,
and all the instances that shall occur until the last atom has decayed into a puff of pure energy,
and all the instance that follow after that.

Alpha and Omega, if you may.

Infinity not only doesn't NEED a creator, it
cannot logically HAVE a creator. Because "a
creator" suggests an outside source. An
outside source cannot exist because infinity,
by definition, can have no boundaries to be
outside of. Now, call this infinity by
whatever name, you cannot logically deny it,
or its influence on all existence.

old comment by Holy Paladin

@Cap'n Crunch

-- I believe that existence is chaotic, not random, --

Chaos is an illusion, for there is none but the order of God. We are like ants crawling on a boundless persian rug, who are too tiny to observe its pattern and too stupid to comprehend it even if we could somehow observe it in its entirety. Chaos doesn't exist, there is order and then there is order that is as yet beyond our intellectual grasp.

@RighteousSlave

Pah, Atheists and their pedantic questions.

They ask, if there is God, why is there desease?
It is because man lacks greater understanding of his own biology.

They ask, if there is God, why are there natural disasters?
It is because man lacks greater understanding of his own environment.

They ask, if there is God, why are there crimes?
It is because man lacks greater understanding of his own society.

How is it fair to blame "God" for our own lacking?

But perhaps they would like to ask, why did God put that "lacking" in man?
It is because a creature is a tiny component of a much greater whole, and to question man's lacking is to question why a windshield wiper, or a carburetor cannot by itself function as an automobile.

old comment by Holy Paladin

@Old Viking

-- Thus endeth the International Bombast Competition. --

Far from it wrinkled one, unless the Atheists (and Socratic Agnostics) of the local community except the flaws of their heathenish logic, and the leader of their coven offers the hand of his eldest female child of reasonable years, and 5 pounds of organic potatoes, as a sign of the community's humility and atonement.

If the said leader may not have a daughter, or a daughter who hasn't started to menstruate, or is too butch, then he may have to offer another 5 pounds of potatoes, organic and properly sacked, as reasonable compensation in her place.

If the daughter is a fatty, the amount of potatoes may vary from 50-100 pounds depending on her weight and appetite.

old comment by Captain Bacardi

@Old Viking

Hallelujah to that! Frankly, I think Holy Paladin is adorable. He/She/It just tries SO hard to sound smart and knowledgable. It's rather endearing, really. Sadly, Holy Paladin loses points because its trolling methods are rather stale, predictable, and lacking in inspiration. It's like you want to give a courtesy chuckle here and there for all the effort you KNOW is going into its posts but, what it boils down to, I guess, is that it's simply hard to really give a fuck.

So call it a pity vote but I'm voting for Holy Paladin. Holy Paladin is like "the Little Engine that Could" of trolling. Keep trying there, little fella. I'm sure you'll rise to mediocrity some day. On that note, however, I'm moving on from this "thread."

old comment by Holy Paladin

@Cap'n Crunch

-- Frankly, I think Holy Paladin is adorable. He/She/It just tries SO hard to sound smart and knowledgable. --

Tsk, tsk, not all have to TRY plebeian.

-- Sadly, Holy Paladin loses points because its trolling methods are rather stale, predictable, and lacking in inspiration. --

Ad hominem? Brilliant.

-- It's like you want to give a courtesy chuckle here and there for all the effort you KNOW is going into its posts but, what it boils down to, I guess, is that it's simply hard to really give a f**k. --

Gave enough of a f**k to post this uninspired twaddle. *sigh* Such fundiesque hypocrisy.

-- So call it a pity vote but I'm voting for Holy Paladin. Holy Paladin is like "the Little Engine that Could" of trolling. Keep trying there, little fella. I'm sure you'll rise to mediocrity some day. --

Awww don't bweak my widdle heart now.

--On that note, however, I'm moving on from this "thread."--

Good, considering you didn't really have any real argument to offer anyway.

old comment by Holy Paladin

@Fuckhole-y Pal Dan

--Yeah you uninspired monkeys! Get your own site!--

No no no, you don't have to, we can all share, can't we?

-- Look at me! I'm the Internet equivalent of the retarded kid who breaks into people's homes so I can smear my crap all over their walls! --

Ha ha ha, I can tell you really hate my guts. But I digress, "breaks into"? This is an open public forum amoeba brain. And I thought you found me obnoxious, why keep posting then? This is the only thread I'm posting in, if you don't have the brains to be original, then go and regurgitate your hackneyed internet memes in another thread. There are lots of them with easy pickings. And if I'm violating any website rules, ask the admins to IP ban me. Must you continue to make a complete fool of yourself like this?

old comment by

Sigh, I guess I'll have a go at it. I know I will probably regret it, but in the name of fairness...

@Holy Paladin

At a personal level for an individual, it is a symbol that sometimes represents a deliberately ................ truth, that symbol may just be a guiding beacon at the very never-end of the path of knowledge.

So which book of the Bible is that from exactly?

"An infinite space, permeated by infinite energy through infinite time, bears infinite potential".

That's nice but there is an obvious flaw in that statement - Time is a construct of the universe, and because the universe is not infinite, time its construct, cannot be infinite as well.

There is that classic adage regarding 10 thousand monkeys, typing on 10 thousand typewriters etc.

How is that analogy relevant to what you said?

It would certainly be prudent to assume that at humanity's current evolutionary stage, our intelligence........may not yet grasp some of the greater complexities of this universe

There is no proof one way or the other. We could be. After all we are a part of the same system.

old comment by ProfessorJimboSpice

#1532611
RighteousSlave

Geez, wonder what happened to all that "free
speech" jazz? People like Fred Phelps get to
picket the funerals of decent people, yet ONE
guy talking in ONE thread needs to be silenced.

Have you just now realized that leftists (including most internet atheists - they're either left-wing or libertarian) are against free speech? They want not only to prevent people saying upsetting things to them (the leftist anti-bullying hysteria focuses on the impact of words as opposed to legitimate physical bullying), but to prevent people ANYWHERE from expressing and discussing dissenting opinions; hence the vitriol of a site like this one. A good example would be Amanda Marcotte's friday article "There are no trolls, only bigots"

Don't let it get to you though, remember that the online atheist crusader looks something like this:

image

@#1532375

Fail, my name has an underline and yours doesn't, are you mad, lil wannabe rapist?

old comment by ProfessorJimboSpice

@Rabbit

"Nope. Hell even the article from Amanda Marcotte had nothing to do with "prevent[ing] people ANYWHERE from expressing and discussing dissenting opinions." Do you even read what you post?"

She compared the offensive sermonizing of Dean Saxton - done in a public space - with trolling directed at a specific person or group.

Then she claimed that trolling was serious business. Quote:

"A lot of trolls are aggrieved white men who, angry that their unearned privileges are under attack, are going to lash out at the people they see taking them away"

This is the same explanation people like Marcotte and Hugo Schwyzer have been providing for spree shootings... And if you don't see this segue as an attempt to suppress free speech I'd suggest you're being deliberately ignorant.

old comment by Rabbit of Caerbannog

"She compared the offensive sermonizing of Dean Saxton - done in a public space - with trolling directed at a specific person or group."

And it wasn't directed at a specific person or group? Say...women on a college campus? Specifically rape victims?

"This is the same explanation people like Marcotte and Hugo Schwyzer have been providing for spree shootings... And if you don't see this segue as an attempt to suppress free speech I'd suggest you're being deliberately ignorant."

Or you're being completely paranoid. You're falling into the trap that I've been seeing a lot recently where people think the suppression of their rights is just around the corner. Whether it be the right to free speech here (though you only have the right not to have your speech squelched by the government, mind you) or the right to bear arms in the debate about gun control or even one's Fourth Amendment rights in the wake of the recent Boston lockdown. But that isn't going to happen. If there are such forces--and I'll say that Amanda Marcotte is not one of them--what power do they actually have?

old comment by Holy Paladin

@#1532639

--So which book of the Bible is that from exactly?--

Exactly? None. I explicitly said that the word "God" is just a symbol of human creation. Surely that doesn't sound very Biblical?

--That's nice but there is an obvious flaw in that statement - Time is a construct of the universe, and because the universe is not infinite, time its construct, cannot be infinite as well.--

What do we mean by "Time"? Defined strictly by modern physics it is a measure of the rate of change in the universe, as observed by us humans. When we speak in pre-big bang terms, we obviously cannot associate whatever it was, with time as a measure of change in the unverse. For that which was before, there aren't really any established scientific terms, because we don't yet know what WAS before the big bang. Hence, when I used the term "Time" it was because that is the word that comes closest to the rather abstract thought that I was trying to convey. So time, as a measure of the rate of change BEFORE the big bang, if it could be observed by a human being.

old comment by Holy Paladin

@#1532639

--How is that analogy relevant to what you said?--

The relevance is "chance". If there is no time limit on chance, possibilities become endless. If you throw a 6-sided dice 60 times, mathematically, every side SHOULD come up 10 times. But, you could throw the dice 6 million times and yet never have a span of 60 consecutive throws where each side comes up only 10 times each. But if there WAS no limit on the number of throws then you would have an infinite number of spans of 60 consecutive throws where each side comes up only 10 times each.

--There is no proof one way or the other. We could be.--

Indeed there isn't, my point was merely to keep an open mind towards the possibility that there may indeed be some things in the universe, some patterns so abstract and complex, or maybe their occurrance just so remote, that humanity may never be able to fully grasp them. Hence it would serve us well to always be prepared to be surprised by what this universe has to offer. How long would it take the species of giant sloths to understand the workings of a grand piano? Can they ever? They would require tens of millions of years of very selective evolution to not only have fingers to be able to PLAY the piano, but a cranial capacity that could hold a large enough brain. If they do go through such an evolutionary phase, would they still be just sloths?

--After all we are a part of the same system.--

We are a part of this planet, and our evolutionary development is tied with this planet's environment. So, evolution cannot technically prepare the biological development of our brain to the patterns that exist outside of this planet's environmental domain.

old comment by Sherlock Holmes, troll sleuth extraordinaire

Good FSM what a bloody mess. I've been trying to warn you guys for days, stop taking the bait or the troll will not go away.

Holy Paladin aka RighteousSlave:
That is exactly why troll-hunting is always a bad idea. I've seen it time and time again: some troll starts messing around in a forum, a regular from the forum gets offended and says, hey I'll get this guy, who does he think he is craping all over my community. That's the classic troll-hunter, who decides to troll a troll to teach him a lesson. What the troll-hunter doesn't realize is that for him it is often a one time deal, for a habitual troll it is a way of life. The only way you can really win is by completely ignoring the troll and eventually he'll starve and move on to some other place to leech attention. While I was doing a paper on "online trolling" in college, my student group interviewed a number of experts, and I remember an analogy a clinical psychologist shared with us. He said that a normal person going after a habitual troll is like some bank manager jumping into the MMA ring to teach the bigmouth fighter a lesson. You, can't, win. It's his expertise, not yours.

[cont...]

old comment by Sherlock Holmes, troll sleuth extraordinaire

[...cont]

Also it needs to noted that pro trolls never go after their own kind, their need is attention, not intellectual superiority (which with all due respect to "HolyPaladin aka RighteousSlave" is often the need of the troll hunter.) You started off well, the real troll "Phillip-George aka ProfessorJimboSpice aka lung full of rats aka nameless atheist fundie aka Captain Bacardi aka probably a number of others" recognized your skill, and hinted you to back off or team up: Original Quote

"And yes. According to my Book... you win teh Internetz. Awesome trolling. I'm as impressed with you as I am with Phillip-George(c)2013 - just passing... and yes, under my own most fallible opinion I'm rather sure you're the same person. I only complain here insofar as I think you could be pursuing much more worthy targets... but who am I to judge such things, oh wise one?"

You took it the wrong way and assumed this "Captain Bacardi" persona of the troll was just another regular like yourself, and you broke the first rule of trolling by breaking character and essentially admitting you were actually just trolling the troll. The troll immediately recognized you as a troll-hunter and replied as thus: Original Quote

"So call it a pity vote but I'm voting for Holy Paladin. Holy Paladin is like "the Little Engine that Could" of trolling. Keep trying there, little fella. I'm sure you'll rise to mediocrity some day. On that note, however, I'm moving on from this "thread." "

And look how the tables have turned, the real troll is the good guy and you are now the bad guy, in your own community. Learn from it and move on, or waste your time and stay here, it is your life.

Carmella Prochaska #fundie christianforums.com

146 comments

Confused?