|
Post by pim on Nov 25, 2018 16:28:11 GMT 10
How do you know they were "happy"? Do you really buy that 18th century Rousseau "noble savage" stuff?
Yes yes I know. You won't address the "noble savage" myth. Instead you'll try for a distraction whereby you pretend that I'm some sort of apologist for the American god botherer. Troll on, fruitcake!
Meanwhile there's the inconvenient fact of an indigenous society in decline. Doesn't sound too happy to me. Read your own c&p. That's if you're literate enough.
Oh by the way that's a sneer. I figured that your unedifying schadenfreude over a man's violent death deserved a good sneer.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Nov 26, 2018 10:49:41 GMT 10
So … now other people may end up endangering their lives in an attempt to recover the body of the stupid American fundy who got himself killed because he was attempting to spread his christian bullshit about his god delusion to people who were perfectly happy living without all that delusional garbage. Faaaaaaaaark … what a dumb, selfish twat this fundy-mental theist turned out to be.... Whilst I agree it was sad that the person was killed doing what he thought was the right thing ... As observed on another discussion board ... a couple of observations from that poster: If God exists and he wanted that tribe to know his cute stories about talking snakes and arks etc then he would just magic the entire Bible direct into their brains.
Conclusion;
a) God does not exist
Or
b) God does not want that tribe to know his cute stories about talking snakes and arks etc.I disagree. Programmed love isnt love at all.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Dec 11, 2018 23:07:55 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 12, 2018 3:36:35 GMT 10
W-e-ll, Americans don't really need Old Nick with his pitchfork. Who needs him when you've got Trump!
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 15, 2018 7:07:35 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Dec 15, 2018 21:29:46 GMT 10
What is an atheist?
Is it a religion of some sort?
Or is it a label by religionists stuck on people who refuse to believe a god delusions is a real god?
Me? I'm merely a non-believer of unproven bullshit of any kind, religious or otherwise.
Nothing more, and nothing less.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 16, 2018 0:08:37 GMT 10
Me? I'm merely a non-believer of unproven bullshit of any kind, religious or otherwise. Nothing more, and nothing less. ...Do you really believe that? Where's your proof? You are a liar, btw. Everyone believes in things they can't prove. You have to at least believe your 5 senses are reliable, even though you can't prove it.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 16, 2018 18:47:45 GMT 10
Poor KTJ, he doesn't get it that if ... 1. He looks like an atheist; 2. He waddles like an atheist, and ... 3. He quacks like an atheist ... He must be an atheist. That’s according to his own "logic" whereby the only evidence that "proves" anything is empirical evidence. And yet despite all empirical evidence, KTJ insists that ... ... and doesn’t see the absurdity. Kinda touchingly quaint in its own sweet way
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 17, 2018 0:22:45 GMT 10
He's blissfully ignorant. He doesn't realize there are unproven assumptions that need to be be made before science can even be practiced.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 17, 2018 11:08:55 GMT 10
Inw:
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 19, 2018 12:06:51 GMT 10
Me? I'm merely a non-believer of unproven bullshit of any kind, religious or otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 19, 2018 12:15:17 GMT 10
Atheists don't solve exponential equations because they don't believe in higher powers.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Dec 24, 2018 17:46:54 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 8, 2019 9:49:34 GMT 10
...Matthew 28:18-20 is the reason.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 22, 2019 5:54:35 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 22, 2019 5:56:12 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Jan 25, 2019 12:52:48 GMT 10
from The Press…Getting a rare good laugh from the Good BookBy JOE BENNETT | 5:00AM — Wednesday, 23 January 2019The Bible has given Joe Bennett a laugh for the first time.WELL NOW, here's a first. The Bible just made me laugh.
It's a fine read, the Bible. If you leave out the supernatural stuff, the begat stuff, and the rules stuff — no shellfish or sodomy on the Sabbath — it's full of wise and lovely words. “For dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt return.” … “Hath the rain a father?” … “A merry heart doeth good like a medicine; but a broken spirit drieth the bones.” Take the superstition out of it and the Good Book's a good book. But it's not generally thought funny.
For a long time The Bible was almost the only book. First printed in English in the 16th century it was the one book the literate were sure to have read and the illiterate to have heard read. Such was its pre-eminence that its images entered the everyday language.
So if you speak of a lamb to the slaughter, or a fly in the ointment, you're quoting the Bible. If you go the extra mile or you fight the good fight or you rise and shine you're quoting the Bible. If you escape by the skin of your teeth or if you live by the sweat of your brow or if you go by the letter of the law, it's the Bible you are quoting. And whether you consider the fruit of your loins to be the salt of the earth or a thorn in the flesh, you are quoting, in either case, whether you realise it or not, the Bible.
The language we use shapes our mental furniture. So the Bible has influenced every speaker of English, even if he's never read a word of it. And the translation of the Bible that did the influencing is the King James version. It dates from the first decade of the 17th century, the decade in which Shakespeare wrote King Lear. So rich, fresh and muscular was the language then that even a committee could write. Forty-seven scholars contributed to the King James Bible and what they came up with was a masterpiece. But not, it is generally thought, a comic one.
There have been many translations of the Bible since. None compare. You may remember the Good News Bible that emerged to great fanfare when I was a child and was supposed to bring the Bible into the 20th century. Here's how it rendered the dust passage: “you were made from soil and you will become soil again”. It's the Playdough theory of existence. You have to laugh, but at it, rather than with it.
Laughing with the Bible is rare because people take religion so seriously. But in the lavatory this morning, reading a book about literary devices, I came across a passage from the first Book of Kings and there on the throne of my bestial nature I hooted like an owl. The passage was quoted as an illustration of anti-climax, but it is far more than that.
If you don't find it funny, I can't help. A joke explained never made anyone laugh. But it seems to me that these 50 words contain more comic truth about the nature of human life than any sermon. And they're two and a half thousand years old. The subject is a great king called Asa.
“The rest of all the acts of Asa, and all his might, and the cities which he built, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? Nevertheless in the time of his old age he was diseased in his feet.”__________________________________________________________________________ • Julian “Joe” Bennett is a writer, columnist and retired English school teacher living in Lyttelton, New Zealand. Born in England, Bennett emigrated to New Zealand when he was twenty-nine. www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/opinion/110068234/getting-a-rare-good-laugh-from-the-good-book
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 28, 2019 22:16:28 GMT 10
That opinion---What a bunch of vapid, banal, nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Jan 29, 2019 8:45:05 GMT 10
It's humour (ie … funnies) about a book which is full of delusional, vapid, banal nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 29, 2019 11:39:23 GMT 10
It's humour (ie … funnies) about a book which is full of delusional, vapid, banal nonsense. Humour is subjective... clearly. And prejudice such as yours, has never showed much reason.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 29, 2019 12:03:19 GMT 10
"vapid"? "banal"? Like this, perhaps? www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Song+of+Solomon+1&version=ESVI'd definitely call that "erotic". It's when the Bible flicks the switch to "sexy". "Vapid"? "Banal"? I don't think so! Personally I prefer the KJV www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Song+of+Solomon+1&version=KJV but that's just a personal aesthetic view. Then there's the AKJV www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Song+of+Solomon+1&version=AKJV 'Tis said that Shakespeare himself was part of the team set up under King James I with the task of not just translating the Bible into English but of rendering it into an English that was both accessible to the people and imbued with grandeur. When I read the AKJV of "The Song of Solomon" I'd believe it because that stuff would not be out of place in Shakespeare's plays or sonnets. This is the English that travelled. It was during the reign of the Stuarts that the English language took the first giant leaps in becoming a global language by implanting itself in the North American continent - and the Authorised King James Version of the Bible was what those colonists took with them. Read Melvyn Bragg's "The Book of Books" on the subject. Contrast that with 1 Cor 13. First the Modern English version www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+13&version=MEVNow for the AKJV www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+13&version=AKJVBoth the Song of Solomon and St Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians speak of love but each of them approaches it from a point of view that contrasts sharply with the other - but neither contradicts the other. The Greeks call these contrasting but equally valid flip sides of love "Eros" and "Agape". "Eros" was the name of a Greek god and gives us the word "erotic" and needs no further explanation. "Agape" is pronounced as three syllables "ah-gah-pay" and refers to what we might call "platonic" love. Certainly not physical love. It's love without sex. Now if you, KTJ, think that love without sex is delusional then you are the delusional one and you really need to get a life. The best wedding I've ever been to - and no it wasn't mine - was a few years ago in England in a village in Cornwall at which the (Anglican) celebrant, for his homily, took as his texts the Song of Solomon from the Old Testament and St Paul's epistle in 1 Cor 13 from the New Testament. He used them to illustrate love in marriage. And no, this wasn't a Catholic priest talking about stuff he was clueless about, this was a married Anglican clergyman who was young and good looking and had an attractive wife. A bit like the clergyman in Grantchester except that he didn't have a wife but nevertheless inspired a lot of female interest. None of this was delusional and all of it was fascinating. KTJ you spam and troll the board with your boring repetitive vapid banalities but all you succeed in doing is to trumpet your ignorance and cluelessness to the universe.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Jan 29, 2019 20:24:11 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 29, 2019 21:13:35 GMT 10
Typical KTJ, when he finds himself facing a content-rich substantial examination of his vapid banalities he blows a vapid banal fart, turns tail and runs for the hills.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Jan 29, 2019 21:17:23 GMT 10
Once a RC theist, always a RC theist.
Religion is the biggest con-job ever invented by human beings.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 30, 2019 7:19:27 GMT 10
Thank you for that vapid banal fart which proves my point exactly. Now piss off and head for the hills.
|
|