|
|
Post by pim on Jan 30, 2013 0:14:32 GMT 10
I prefer the Waterlily Rockbound Church - the Red Skin Temple of the Cayuse Nation. This religion actually exists -or rather existed. There's even an Australian connection so I reckon that trumps Chuck Norris. One of Australia's Founding Fathers was an American called "King" O'Malley who founded this church in Texas and was its founding bishop. History is silent on whether or not he was the only bishop! King O'Malley has one of Canberra's very ritzy and exclusive "Embassy Row" suburbs named after him: O'Malley. Very exclusive address these days! But O'Malley was a charlatan who ended up Down Under, wracked with tuberculosis, in the early 1890s. He landed in Queensland and claimed to have been cured of his TB by Aborigines. He'd rendered his position untenable in the US through various acts of chicanery. Indeed his entry into what was then colonial Australia was based on a fraud since he passed himself off as Canadian and therefore a British subject. The guy was a spiv, a charlatan and a snake oil salesman, and therefore an excellent migrant to this nation of convicts. He ended up a Minister in the Fisher Labor Government and was instrumental in the Government setting up a publicly owned bank - the Commonwealth Bank, the choice of the location of Canberra, and we owe the American spelling of "Labor" in the Australian Labor Party to this Yank. It's unknown whether O'Malley sought any converts to his "Waterlily Rockbound Church - the Redskin Temple of the Cayuse Nation" in Australia but I urge Buzz seriously to consider taking up the challenge. No, Buzz wouldn't want to do it. Sorry Buzz, I've changed my mind. It's gotta be Garfield. I think he's ripe for conversion. He's heavily into Guns and all the other Tea Party stuff ... except God. I tellsya it's gonna happen, and when it does Garfield will sweep all before him  |
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 30, 2013 11:10:21 GMT 10
I had some plunger coffee with my breakfast. Does that count?
Are you saying I made up the stuff about the Waterlily Rockbound Church - the Redskin Temple of the Cayuse Nation?
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 30, 2013 11:26:16 GMT 10
No Buzz, your endless obsessive repetitious bullshit has long passed the "boring as batshit" marker. You're just as much a target for piss-takes as Matt and his "OMG Jesus is so awesome" drivel.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 30, 2013 12:40:27 GMT 10
...But reading that post of yours I think Matt was the perfect candidate for O'Malley and his brand of snake handlers. The Australian Aborigines can't cure anything and with my own eyes I have seen piles of their corpses and with my own hands unloaded them from the back of Utes and put them in the Morgue. ... Not so sure that Matt would have it in him to walk from Yeppoon in Qld to Adelaide, as O'Malley did. The story that O'Malley had TB is true as is the story that he recovered from the disease. That he attributed his recovery to the ministrations of an Aboriginal companion is O'Malley's interpretation. I'm about as interested in your blanket negative ethnic stereotyping of indigenous australians as I am in your boring-as-batshit obsessions about God's family tree and all that other stuff. Matt is so glued to his computer screen and his commutes between said computer screen and Hillsong, as well as his occasional forays into public spaces where he can give Muslims the Hate Stare, or visit public lavatories where he can be horrified by the litter and the wafting aromas and exclaim "OMG Jesus puhleeze smite the Muslims!" that there is simply no scope in his life for anything else. But you, Buzz, seem to be possessed by the sort of manic obsessiveness that just might lead you to travel on foot from Yeppoon to Adelaide. That's why I thought of you. Then I thought of Garfield because history relates that King O'Malley founded his "Waterlily Rockbound Church - the Redskin Temple of the Cayuse Nation" as a tax dodge. It kinda fits! |
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 30, 2013 15:09:02 GMT 10
Loosen up Buzz, and sing along with Neddy, Bluebottle and Eccles ...
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 30, 2013 15:27:07 GMT 10
You should have submitted Buzz.  Only kidding ... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 2, 2013 1:19:04 GMT 10
is that scholars who have spent years working on a subject and having their work reviewed by peers and getting qualifications and with letters after their names are ignored by the Muppets of religiosity like that Veritas. So when a PhD writes this for example: It is irrefutable that Judaism is a corruption of Zoroastrianism, and it ought to be widely taught as Professor Lawrence Mills repeatedly said a hundred years ago. That no attempt has been made by the Jewish and Christian religions, by teachers or by scholars, they are proved to be dishonest, and one can only conclude that they are intent on perpetuating the lies that their religions are original. If they are correct that there is one supreme God of goodness, they might be surprised to find he does not have the name they expect, and puts a greater value on truth than they do. www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0200PersiaJudaism.phpThe Muppets of Religion like Veritas try to refute it. Its irrefutable, but they prattle on with no expertise no qualifications, no scholarship and no f***ing idea what they are going on about, and try to refute the world experts. What a f***ing joke these Muppets are. For one, you are backing a few select scholars over a multitude who have claimed the contrary for centuries. Don't accuse me of ignoring scholarship from your few fringe scholars, when you turn a blind eye to the multitude of accredited scholars that disagree with your bullshit. Extract the tree from your own eye, before you complain about the speck in mine, muppet. You refuse to believe in the historicity of Christ due to the alleged 'lack of documentation', yet willingly embrace your suppositions regarding Zoroastrianism with little or no documentation of the religion at all. Your research blatantly reeks of agenda, and that's why you can't be taken seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 2, 2013 1:31:50 GMT 10
everything is a joke to you - you are not interested in History or rational debate or the opinions of peer reviewed and qualified experts. Neither are you, that's why you keep bringing up this Zoroastrianism nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by fat on Feb 2, 2013 15:43:13 GMT 10
I'm about as interested in your blanket negative ethnic stereotyping of indigenous australians as I am in your boring-as-batshit obsessions about God's family tree and all that other stuff. I am telling you what I saw and did - something you have never seen or done - and its not a blanket ethnic anything - the statistics on the aboriginal mortality rate speaks for itself - only you are too ignorant to take that seriously. God's family tree? Its called History - thats HISTORY. He had a wife called Asherah and 70 children before the Zoroastrians. That's factual but you are not interested in reality. It is irrefutable that Judaism is a corruption of Zoroastrianism, and it ought to be widely taught. "Its called History - thats HISTORY. He had a wife called Asherah and 70 children before the Zoroastrians. That's factual but you are not interested in reality." So God does exist then.  |
|
|
|
Post by fat on Feb 2, 2013 20:11:31 GMT 10
So what you are saying Buzz, is that your made up story is the true made up story?
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 2, 2013 23:26:04 GMT 10
is that scholars who have spent years working on a subject and having their work reviewed by peers and getting qualifications and with letters after their names are ignored by the Muppets of religiosity like that Veritas. It is irrefutable that Judaism is a corruption of Zoroastrianism, and it ought to be widely taught as Professor Lawrence Mills repeatedly said a hundred years ago. That no attempt has been made by the Jewish and Christian religions, by teachers or by scholars, they are proved to be dishonest, and one can only conclude that they are intent on perpetuating the lies that their religions are original. If they are correct that there is one supreme God of goodness, they might be surprised to find he does not have the name they expect, and puts a greater value on truth than they do. www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0200PersiaJudaism.phpThe Muppets of Religion like Veritas try to refute it. Its irrefutable, but they prattle on with no expertise no qualifications, no scholarship and no f***ing idea what they are going on about, and try to refute the world experts. What a f***ing joke these Muppets are. (argumentum ad verecundiam), also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is an inductive-reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously: either the authority is not a subject-matter expert, or there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter, or both.[1][2][3] |
|
|
|
Post by fat on Feb 2, 2013 23:54:52 GMT 10
Buzz - there is much evidence for the life of Jesus (even you have admitted it was very likely he lived but then you somehow retreated from that position) but it doesn't suit your hatred of all things Christian and so you now say anything which refutes your position is either delusions, lies or deliberate tampering with the historical record. There is no way we can have meaningful dialogue under those conditions.
Eye witnesses to the things we read in the new testament went to their deaths rather than recant a single word - it certainly does not sound like a made up lie to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 2, 2013 23:57:20 GMT 10
Buzz - there is much evidence for the life of Jesus (even you have admitted it was very likely he lived but then you somehow retreated from that position) but it doesn't suit your hatred of all things Christian and so you now say anything which refutes your position is either delusions, lies or deliberate tampering with the historical record. There is no way we can have meaningful dialogue under those conditions. Eye witnesses to the things we read in the new testament went to their deaths rather than recant a single word - it certainly does not sound like a made up lie to me. This. |
|
|
|
Post by fat on Feb 3, 2013 23:28:48 GMT 10
I rest my case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 4, 2013 4:47:54 GMT 10
How can you believe something for which there is no evidence? Two questions: 1. Do you really believe there is no evidence? 2. Do you have enough evidence to reach that conclusion? I guess we're all in the same leaky philosophical boat then, Buzzy Boy. Grab a pail! |
|
