Christianity is a grotesque blight!

[erwinl]

Have you? You try it first!

But... what do you think will be the result?

If the POPE says he does not believe the arrantly insane claptrap of the Jesus farcical and self-admitted (Luke 16:31) pointless (2 Chronicles 7:14) melodrama... then he is hoaxing billions of simpletons.

And if he says he believes it... then he is an abject imbecile just like the billions he is grifting.

So you go ask him and find out which.... is the Catholic Corporate CEO an abject imbecile... or a psychopathic predator???

No I haven't. It's not important enough for me to do this.
But for you it seems an important issue.

What I do know is that the Pope keeps an audience every Wednesday and the present one has specifically said that anyone was welcome to participate.
That would mean you as well.
I must say, I actually was tempted to participate, when we were in Rome, a few years ago.
But me participating would probably mean somebody else, for whom it would mean a lot more than it would for me, could not go. So I didn't.
Seemed like the decent and polite thing to do.

I do encourage you to go. Whatever you may think about the Catholic Church, or the Christian belief in general, the present Pope is surprisingly approachable.

 

[Wudang]

Stating FACTS that are proven by oodles of historical facts and by facts of reality and rationality and science and decency is not an opinion.

Then when queried you should be able to provide reference to said facts and not quote other peoples opinions. This is a very basic principle that you seem to ignore. Rip the passion out of your statements for a minute. Use propositional logic if you are comfortable. Ask yourself what statements you are making and how they are backed by references.
I was not trying to be insulting referring to "A Rulebook for Arguments". It was written to teach college students the difference between writing about how they feel about and how to write a coherent argument that demonstrated the truth or logic of what they are saying. I have referred a number of friends to this book and found value in it myself.

 

[theprestige]

No I haven't. It's not important enough for me to do this.
But for you it seems an important issue.

What I do know is that the Pope keeps an audience every Wednesday and the present one has specifically said that anyone was welcome to participate.
That would mean you as well.
I must say, I actually was tempted to participate, when we were in Rome, a few years ago.
But me participating would probably mean somebody else, for whom it would mean a lot more than it would for me, could not go. So I didn't.
Seemed like the decent and polite thing to do.

I do encourage you to go. Whatever you may think about the Catholic Church, or the Christian belief in general, the present Pope is surprisingly approachable.

I suspect the Pope would argue that while these audiences are a balm to the faithful, they are also an opportunity for redemption of the unbeliever, the infidel, and the cynic.

 

[Leumas]

No I haven't. It's not important enough for me to do this.

And infinitely less for me.

But for you it seems an important issue.

And you would be utterly wrong.

Talking to the Pope of the most disgusting religion and the longest running and most egregious hoax wreaked upon humanity is less of a concern to me than the centipede I squashed last night while walking my dear dog.

What I do know is that the Pope keeps an audience every Wednesday and the present one has specifically said that anyone was welcome to participate.

And to me jumping in a cesspool of fetid waste would be less disgusting.

I do encourage you to go. Whatever you may think about the Catholic Church, or the Christian belief in general, the present Pope is surprisingly approachable.

And I give as much thought about this as I would about the pests I trample upon while walking with my canine companion three times a day.

 

[Leumas]

I suspect the Pope would argue that while these audiences are a balm to the faithful, they are also an opportunity for redemption of the unbeliever, the infidel, and the cynic.

And he would be either an imbecile to argue that... or a charlatan... because he is not redemptive nor can he give redemption to anything or anyone.

The "unbeliever" in a hoax and the "cynic" about a Zombified human sacrificed ill begotten son of a celestial slave mongering, ethnic cleansing, racist lover of Sumerian pimps and grifters do not need redemption... let alone from a delusional foppish buffoon.

And calling the people who have not fallen for his risible religion's hoodwinking "infidels", proves that he is either an abject charlatan... or a wretched imbecile for arguing any such claptrap.

 

[Leumas]

Jesus is making use of the words of Micah (Micah 7:6).

It would have behooved Jesus to read the book mentioned in this post.

That book of opinions, would have given Jesus opinions on how to quote anonymous comedians with proper citations.

Instead Jesus left it up to anonymous comedians to quote him quoting other anonymous comedians but making it look like they are his bad jokes as his argument.

Even jokes can be arguments, though the reasons may seem silly.

Living on earth may be tough, but it includes a free ride
around the sun every year.¹​

_________________
1. Anonymous, Cool Funny Quotes, http://coolfunnyquotes.com. Accessed 2/6/17

 

[Steve]

Imaginary charaters cannot read, quote, or cite.

 

[Leumas]

Imaginary charaters cannot read, quote, or cite.

But...

...verse 26 starts with a direct quote from Jesus because...

... Verse 30 has a single quotation mark because Jesus is quoting someone... and Jesus is quoting the other people...

...If you can find out what Jesus was quoting...

... Jesus is quoting someone/something. If we can find out what he was quoting...

Jesus is making use of the words of Micah (Micah 7:6).

...As I recall Jesus was suppose to replace the mercy shield on the arc of the covenant...

And I wonder what the PAPA with his obscene ring and foppish dress and preposterous shoes and the rest of the buffoons who serve him would be talking about to the audience every Wednesday... and what would be the point of attending said audience?

What I do know is that the Pope keeps an audience every Wednesday and the present one has specifically said that anyone was welcome to participate....

I do encourage you to go....

And when this PAPA argues...

I suspect the Pope would argue that while these audiences are a balm to the faithful, they are also an opportunity for redemption of the unbeliever, the infidel, and the cynic.

Is he a delusional wretch or a consummate charlatan?

 

[Foster Zygote]

And I wonder what the PAPA with his obscene ring and foppish dress and preposterous shoes and the rest of the buffoons who serve him would be talking about to the audience every Wednesday...

Don't forget the silly hat!

...and what would be the point of attending said audience?

I suppose the point would be the same as the point of your posts here.

And when this PAPA argues... Is he a delusional wretch or a consummate charlatan?

If you get access to his internal thoughts you could answer that question.

 

[Leumas]

Then when queried you should be able to provide reference to said facts and not quote other peoples opinions.

But the book you suggested I should read opinionates that quoting the opinions of even anonymous comedians IS an argument.

Even jokes can be arguments, though the reasons may seem silly.

Living on earth may be tough, but it includes a free ride
around the sun every year.¹​

_________________
1. Anonymous, Cool Funny Quotes, http://coolfunnyquotes.com. Accessed 2/6/17

This is a very basic principle that you seem to ignore.

But as you see from the above quoted part of the the book, it says that quoting even anonymous comedians is a valid argument.

Rip the passion out of your statements for a minute. Use propositional logic if you are comfortable.

(1) It is not my statement... it is one I agree with and am quoting, by a guy who is more worthy than all the Popes and bishops and priests that ever existed along with their theology and passionate false statements about their delusions regarding a Zombified human sacrificed ill begotten son of a celestial slave mongering, ethnic cleansing, voodoo rituals prescribing, witches proscribing, lover of Sumerian pimps and grifters.

(2) The book you told me to read says that quoting, even anonymous comedians, constitutes a valid argument.

Ask yourself what statements you are making and how they are backed by references.

These are the statements I am making

• "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." ― Steven Weinberg

And they are backed up by "mountains of evidence" from historical FACTS and facts of REALITY... as you have fully agreed.

An opinion supported by mountains of evidence.

Indeed...

As the book you told me to read said, quoting someone is a valid argument.

Whose do you think is a more worthy opinion to cite... some unknown comedian's... or Steven Weinberg's a

... Nobel laureate in physics.... In 2004, he received the Benjamin Franklin Medal of the American Philosophical Society, with a citation that said he was "considered by many to be the preeminent theoretical physicist alive in the world today." He was elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Britain's Royal Society, the American Philosophical Society, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

 

[Leumas]

Don't forget the silly hat!

It is a telltale of the original Pope being a rabbit... Peter Rabbit.

I suppose the point would be the same as the point of your posts here.

So the Pope, every Wednesday, holds an audience to tell the attendees that Christianity is a grotesque blight and that Jesus is a Zombified human sacrificed ill begotten son of a celestial slave mongering, ethnic cleansing, voodoo ritual prescribing, witches proscribing, racist lover of Sumerian pimps and grifters???

If you get access to his internal thoughts you could answer that question.

Why go that far... there are numerous ways with which a discerning rational decent logical and well educated person in 2023 can distinguish a hoaxing charlatan from a delusional simpleton. Any person who pretends/believes that he is the redemptive CEO of the Jesus Global Corporation of Human Blood Sacrifice... is... by definition... either the former or the latter... or even both perhaps.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Leumas, do you think most of your interlocutors are Christians?

Do you think that disagreement with some of what you say and the way you say it is defending Christianity, even when the poster makes no comment on the truth claims of Christianity?

Do you think it is possible to both disagree with Christianity and disagree with you?

 

[Foster Zygote]

So the Pope, every Wednesday, holds an audience to tell the attendees that Christianity is a grotesque blight and that Jesus is a Zombified human sacrificed ill begotten son of a celestial slave mongering, ethnic cleansing, voodoo ritual prescribing, witches proscribing, racist lover of Sumerian pimps and grifters???

Your question wasn't, "what is the pope's point in holding these audiences?", it was, "what would be the point of attending said audience?". I supposed that the point of you attending such an audience would be the same as the point of your posts here, whatever that is.

In light of that, would you like to have another go at a relevant response?

Why go that far... there are numerous ways with which a discerning rational decent logical and well educated person in 2023 can distinguish a hoaxing charlatan from a delusional simpleton. Any person who pretends/believes that he is the redemptive CEO of the Jesus Global Corporation of Human Blood Sacrifice... is... by definition... either the former or the latter... or even both perhaps.

Which is just an even more loquacious way of saying that the current pope is either deluded or lying. Let's break down what you've said above.

* There are numerous ways to distinguish a liar from someone who is deluded.

* Anyone who pretends/believes he is the representative of God is either a pretender or a believer - or simultaneously honest and dishonest.

So my observation still stands, as you have no way of knowing which condition is true. And no, one can't really knowingly lie and delusionally believe a falsehood at the same time.

If you concentrate more on the syntax of your statements and less on the word count, you might have more success in convincing your readers of your insights.

 

[The Man]

But the book you suggested I should read opinionates that quoting the opinions of even anonymous comedians IS an argument.

The part you quote says "can be" not "IS".

But as you see from the above quoted part of the the book, it says that quoting even anonymous comedians is a valid argument.

Now you've just tacked on something else, "valid" along with replacing "can be" with "IS". What you quoted makes no remarks to validity.

(1) It is not my statement... it is one I agree with and am quoting, by a guy who is more worthy than all the Popes and bishops and priests that ever existed along with their theology and passionate false statements about their delusions regarding a Zombified human sacrificed ill begotten son of a celestial slave mongering, ethnic cleansing, voodoo rituals prescribing, witches proscribing, lover of Sumerian pimps and grifters.

(2) The book you told me to read says that quoting, even anonymous comedians, constitutes a valid argument.

Not by what you quoted from it.

These are the statements I am making

• "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." ― Steven Weinberg

Wait, didn't you just say above "It is not my statement..." but now included as "These are the statements I am making".

And they are backed up by "mountains of evidence" from historical FACTS and facts of REALITY... as you have fully agreed.

As the book you told me to read said, quoting someone is a valid argument.

Whose do you think is a more worthy opinion to cite... some unknown comedian's... or Steven Weinberg's a

Again not by what you quoted from the book and weren’t you arguing before that the quotation wasn't “even an argument”.

(1) No it would not... it is not even an argument... it is a quote that I agree with and which I think is clever and quite right... and expresses my thoughts more eloquently than I would say them.

It’s just self-inconsistency all over the place, again what exactly is it about these people doing evil things that classifies them as “good people”. That’s the fundamental self–inconsistency of the #1 of the statements you claim to be making that you claimed is not your statement and you argued is “not even an argument” but now arguing that it “is a valid argument” while only quoting that it can be an argument, as opposed to “IS” an argument and no reference to validity in that quote.

 

[Chanakya]

I don't think I've ever posted in a moderated thread before! As far as I remember. Curious how long it takes to show up! It's 7:45 AM on the clock now.

Just how perfidious was Jesus? If he ever set eyes on a watch, would he compulsively knock down whoever was wearing it and steal the watch? Was Jesus so arrantly ignorant that he wouldn't even know how to tell the time? Was Jesus so perfidiously dishonest that he would lie when people asked him the time?

Edited by jimbob: 

moderated thread

 

[Leumas]

Your question wasn't, "what is the pope's point in holding these audiences?", it was, "what would be the point of attending said audience?".

No it was not... it was

And I wonder what the PAPA with his obscene ring and foppish dress and preposterous shoes and the rest of the buffoons who serve him would be talking about to the audience every Wednesday... and what would be the point of attending said audience?
...

I supposed that the point of you attending such an audience would be the same as the point of your posts here, whatever that is.

My "posts here" are about how Christianity is a grotesque blight and an egregious hoax and that Jesus is a turpitude.

In light of that, would you like to have another go at a relevant response?

Yes... that Christianity is grotesque insanity and a pernicious scam and that the Zombified human sacrificed ill begotten son of a celestial slave mongering, ethnic cleansing racist lover of Sumerian pimps, called Jesus is a disgusting turpitude.

In other words...

• "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." ― Steven Weinberg

* There are numerous ways to distinguish a liar from someone who is deluded.

Yes... many of those are used by criminal profilers and psychiatrists and psychologists and Jurors and Police and FBI etc. etc.

* Anyone who pretends/believes he is the representative of God is either a pretender or a believer - or simultaneously honest and dishonest.

So my observation still stands, as you have no way of knowing which condition is true.

Nope... criminal profilers and psychologists and the FBI etc. etc. prove your above statement wrong.

And no, one can't really knowingly lie and delusionally believe a falsehood at the same time.

Yes they can.... for example every single cult leader ever... say like Jesus and David Koresh and Paul and Martin Luther and Joseph Smith and Jim Jones and Muhammad etc. etc. etc... not to mention of every dastardly Bishop and priest of Christianity and their head CEOs of the Global Human Sacrifice Cult.

If you concentrate more on the syntax of your statements and less on the word count, you might have more success in convincing your readers of your insights.

 

[Leumas]

Just how perfidious was Jesus?

The New Tall tales testifies that the answer to the above is... pathologically!

If he ever set eyes on a watch, would he compulsively knock down whoever was wearing it and steal the watch?

That is not perfidy... it is thuggery and villainy.

However... the New Tall tales attests that he was both as well as perfidious too.

Was Jesus so arrantly ignorant...

according to the New Tall tales... irrefragably yes... e.g. he did not know that mixing spittle with dirt and rubbing it in a blind man's eyes is a risible idiocy.... or that castrating oneself for his delusional kingdom's sake is a sordid insanity... and that prohibiting divorce is an abject benightedness.

Was Jesus so perfidiously dishonest that he would lie...

Most definitively... yes... as arrantly evinced by his actions and words throughout the New Tall tales... e.g. his mendacious circus show with Lazarus' collusion.

 

[Leumas]

The part you quote says "can be" not "IS".

And when it be, it IS... hence... it IS.

Much like an apple can be green... and a green apple IS green.

...It’s just self-inconsistency all over the place...

No it is not... unlike the Buybull and the New Tall tales, which are definitely...

...just self-inconsistency all over the place...

And yet they convinced the CEO foppish PAPA and other executive fops of the Global Corporation Of Human Blood Sacrifice, of the existence of Zombies and a celestial raping slave mongering lover of Sumerian pimps and grifters.

 

[The Man]

And when it be, it IS... hence... it IS.

So now your statement that is not your statement "is" an argument? When you were arguing before that it wasn't even an argument?

Much like an apple can be green... and a green apple IS green.

While a red apple isn't, so any apple can be green but may not be.

No it is not... unlike the Buybull and the New Tall tales, which are definitely..

Great, and again, what criteria makes these people doing evil things good people?

You didn't say the statement wasn't your statement and then include it as one of your statements?

You didn't argue that the not your statement that is now your statement wasn't even an argument and now proclaim "hence... it IS." an argument?

And yet they convinced the CEO foppish PAPA and other executive fops of the Global Corporation Of Human Blood Sacrifice, of the existence of Zombies and a celestial raping slave mongering lover of Sumerian pimps and grifters.

Evidently, just evil people doing evil things.

 

[Foster Zygote]

No it was not... it was

And I wonder what the PAPA with his obscene ring and foppish dress and preposterous shoes and the rest of the buffoons who serve him would be talking about to the audience every Wednesday... and what would be the point of attending said audience?

Which changes what, exactly? Do you think that your opinions regarding the pope's fashion sensibilities add some context that invalidates my earlier observation?

My "posts here" are about how Christianity is a grotesque blight and an egregious hoax and that Jesus is a turpitude.

I'm glad you finally cleared that up.

I think I can safely say that the point erwinl was making is that you're here attacking Christianity on a forum filled mostly with atheists. If what you're saying is really as important as you seem to think it is, why not try convincing some actual Christians?

Yes... that Christianity is grotesque insanity and a pernicious scam and that the Zombified human sacrificed ill begotten son of a celestial slave mongering, ethnic cleansing racist lover of Sumerian pimps, called Jesus is a disgusting turpitude.

In other words...

• "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." ― Steven Weinberg

So, "Christianity baaaaaaaaad!".

OK, now what?

Yes... many of those are used by criminal profilers and psychiatrists and psychologists and Jurors and Police and FBI etc. etc.

So you've employed these methods to determine whether the pope is knowingly promoting beliefs he knows to be false, or genuinely believes the Christian mythos?

Nope... criminal profilers and psychologists and the FBI etc. etc. prove your above statement wrong.

Well then please do enlighten us as to which is the case with the current pope.

By the way, you should be aware that the abilities of criminal profilers, psychiatrists, psychologists, police, FBI etcetera to determine whether someone is lying or not are frequently greatly exaggerated, in much the same way that martial arts abilities are exaggerated, often for entertainment purposes. You can't convict someone based on, say, a criminal profiler's assurance that he's lying - you still need actual physical evidence. So even if you found a psychologist who offered assurances that Pope Francis is lying when he says he believes in a resurrected Jesus, the son of God, there will certainly be others who say the opposite, or at least that the former's claim is unfounded.

Yes they can.... for example every single cult leader ever... say like Jesus and David Koresh and Paul and Martin Luther and Joseph Smith and Jim Jones and Muhammad etc. etc. etc... not to mention of every dastardly Bishop and priest of Christianity and their head CEOs of the Global Human Sacrifice Cult.

While I think it's possible to be reasonably sure that someone like Joseph Smith was a lying grifter who inadvertently stumbled into a con that paid off beyond his wildest dreams (right up until he was killed by a mob), the argument that you know what every clergyman in the history of Christianity was thinking is just ridiculous. And the argument that all of them were/are both knowingly lying about their own belief, and simultaneously delusional believers themselves, is even more ridiculous.

Wondering if a clergyman actually believes the myth he preaches, or sees through the holes in those claims and is merely going through the motions for some other reason, is a valid question. By observing that you have no way of accessing the inner thoughts of Pope Francis to know which side of that fence he falls on, I wasn't even disagreeing with you.