Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
If you review the Pilate thread I think Stephen mixed up the levels.
Everyone knows Stephen is not solid on reality. Why are you telling me?
For example I wrote
F1: The only indisputable fact is that the gospellers wrote that Jesus was cruficied by the Romans - with some reluctance - at the behest of the Jewish priests.
Stephen replied:
the other indisputable fact is that (F2): BARRABAS was on a charge of "insurrection"
But F2 is not an 'indisputable fact' - it is a detail within a story and may or may not be true; that is not the definition of a fact!
Again, we all know Stephen cannot distinguish between his private thoughts and reality. So what?
The convo was with you and your tendency to pretend your claims are true by defining the narrative as if your previous claims have morphed into fact.
At least we can see that Stephen is genuinely confused. You have no such excuse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Only if reality exists between your ears. It doesn't.The contradictions in question exist in the bible and in the movie taken and in the collected histories of worldcwar two.
I know you think you see contradictions, I know you also say you know nothing. When you can pull yourself up to logical, and actually show contradictions in reality and not just between your ears, I'll worry.
Created:
Posted in:
Well, how many daughters were really kidnapped? None, because it's a made-up story so no actual daughters were actually kidnapped.
Untrue and illogical. Once you talk of fathers and daughters you have validated the narrative. It is dishonest to get into the narrative and then claim "fantasy" every time your dishonest methodology is called out. If you think none of the story is true, then a debate about a sub plot within the story is not for you. Go to the politics board.
In the thread about the trial of Jesus you are alluding to I'd say things got very confused because of the mixing up the levels of reality and narrative.
There is only one level of reality in the narrative. Your imagination doesn't change that.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but when I do I will be interested to see if I am tempted to say what you pre-quoted me!
What is interesting is if you will be able to resist the temptation to pretend your take is already fact and start pontificating on the intentions and motivations of the author.
But it will be true that the story teller will have very different motivations from those of his characters, n'est-ce pas?
Yes, and you'll go into detail telling us how the characters motivations match your ultra-leftist narrative, as if you wrote the story and everything you think about it is a foregone conclusion.
Created:
Posted in:
You said I brought it up. You did. And you did not need to mention it.
When you try to get Airmax here as mod, I will make it my mission to make sure that doesn't happen. This site will barely survive you, much less you and Airmax.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Then yes there is an apparent contradiction.
Only to someone with the reading comprehension of a boll weavil. Contradictions must exist outside your mind to make others consider them.
Lol. Your statement has never stood one day of your life. If it could, you wouldn't need to declare it by fait.My statement about the bible being self contradictory stands
Created:
Posted in:
The original kidnapped scene does not show her under the bed. You and happy would be harping about that "difference" like trained seals.Does the movie claim or show that she both does and dies not get dragged from under the bed?
I just wonder how you guys deal with flashback scenes in books. Perhaps you don't read. Nobody's reading comprehension can be that low.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes. Just like how WWII is chronicled in more then one book, each one slightly different so in other words "it" contradicts "itself" by citing more than one WWII.
Yeesh.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The bible starts being contradictory right away with two accounts of in genesis that pit creation in different orders.
Aaaand we know you're behind door number 3.
in the movie "Taken", when the father gets to the house where his daughter was kidnapped, the kidnapped scene is replayed, this time with additional shots of his daughter being dragged from under the bed. These genuises would insist that 2 daughters were kidnapped and it was a contradiction as the hero has only one daughter.
I can see the boneheaded questions now.
Who is wrong? The story or you? How many daughters were kidnapped?
And of course kieths "educated" take, "It is clear that the story teller intended to rehabilitate Paris as a den of thieves, taking time out to praise the city's electric grid in the middle of a gruesome torture scene!"
What does one do with such.......scholarship?
Created:
Posted in:
Here's how. Imagination.I'm not sure how you are defining 'fact' here!
Not to worry. He will just reprint the verses, and then claim they support his his loony ideas. Wala! (Thanks bully!)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I see no reason pure races have to have anything to do with nationalism. Trump has both black and white nationalists among his band of deplorables.
Created:
Posted in:
....not expecting to be replaced for the foreseeable future.
Yeah. The whole story about what grounds your smug confidence rests on will come out one day. I just hope Mike isn't the worse for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I never did try for mod. Airmax consulted with all Presidents about moderation issues, myself included.
Yeah. Did Mike consult you too?
Untrue sir. You brought it up in reply to a question by someone else about your qualifications for mod. You actually have none.There was no insinuation to speak of. And, I hardly brag; it was you who brought it up here, let's not forget. You talk about it far more than I do.
Created:
Posted in:
The bible contains contradictions. Doesn't that make it self contradictory?
Only in that it contradicts you.
I am essentially a pantheist... how is that self-contradictory?
God cannot be both the created and creator.
And, what do i find contradictory with the Bible... heaven. I think heaven as described in the Bible would be hell. Maybe you might have a different take on it that i might not find deathly horrifying... i'll see.
Lol. You seem to believe you're sitting in judgement of my beliefs, or that I'm interested in converting you. You are mistaken.
Mopac, or I, are logical as long as we remain aligned with the ultimate truth. Stray and we go into error like anyone else.
I'll start with the above questions,....
I don't care about what you find contradictory. I see no reason why your confusion should be my responsibility. Believe what you will, go and be happy.
That's about the size, where you put your eyes, that's bout the size of it.
I just hope you are more "logical" than Mopac is...
I hope that whatever has made you believe that your religious belief was important to me, or that you could sit to validate my beliefs, clears up quickly.
Created:
Posted in:
I never sought to be a mod on DDO. I ran for site President, which is certainly not the same.
You tried for mod. You had to settle for president. I was there. President carried no power, which is why you insinuated yourself into "mod consultation" there and brag about it here.
There's no dishonor in expressing interest in a job I'd be happy to relinquish to him.
As there are no stupid people here, I do not need to point out the disingenuousness of that comment.
I choose not to resign ...... because there are few people who I think could and would do it.
Anyone who knew you knew you would do it, and there is a good reason few think you can do it.
I choose not to resign not because I am wedded to the role, ....
Uh huh.
Created:
Posted in:
Were this true, you wouldn't have sought out the job on 2, count them, 2 separate sites. You are fully aware that white flame would not take the job that way. He has integrity.IDK how likely it would be that they would agree to take on the job, but, hey, if they want it, I'll gladly hand it to them.
You could resign though, if it really means as little to you as you seem to want to imply. That way, Mike could offer the position to whiteflame.
But we already know you won't do that.
Created:
If he does, alert me, that would be interesting.
Unlike you, I have a different take. There are posters I call spray painters. Stephen is one. Why?
When a spray painter spray paints something like "God is a liar!" On a church wall, do you think he's looking for dialogue? No. His rush is the actual spray painting. Cover it up and he will just do it again.
Look how often he just ignores what is said and just reposts (resprays) his message? Anything countering what he says is a paint over and gives him the chance at the "high" of posting it again.
I just change his graffiti into "God is a living and loving God! Jn.3:16" and then watch him go into a tantrum.
He's not a convert parroting his guru, he's more like a junkie shooting up. He couldn't care less about doctrine or dialogue. Test it and you'll see.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
You will find with secmer that you are more of a tool to relieve his boredom than a debate partner. More of a threadmill than a scenic jog.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Everything is illogical if it isn't in the Bible?
Not at all. Anything that is self-contradictory is illogical.
Or what Mopac says?
Mopac, or I, are logical as long as we remain aligned with the ultimate truth. Stray and we go into error like anyone else.
That's about the size, where you put your eyes, that's bout the size of it.That seems anything but logical man.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I remember years ago, the first time I came across the loony idea that Genesis had two creation accounts. I was fascinated that anyone could be that clueless.
Then I found out that many of these people also believe silly things like each gospel being an additional and separate account of Jesus' life. For these geniuses, any flashback or more detailed account is comprehended as a separate new account.
Luckily, such beliefs are so obviously absurd, debunking isn't necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
He isn't defining God by whim any more than Einstein defined the universe as relative. Both are following what the logic demands.
Einstein realized that the universe had to be relative. That then meant that time passed differently to different people. That then meant the people born the same could be different ages. And so on down the line. There was no whim, each logical fact necessitated the truth of another logical fact. But to an illiterate, it's all unsubstantiated nonsense.
Mopac is, by logic, arriving at his definition of God. It isn't by whim, it's by logic. Any other definition of God falls to illogic. But defined correctly, all other bits of reality can be logically subsumed into the concept of God.
He isn't making things up, he is discovering truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
Then nationalism itself is intrinsically bad. A thing Mopac objected to initially. How is nationalism bad?
Created:
Posted in:
For instance, 'there are no married bachelors'. The terms married and bachelor conflict and cannot exist in a single entity at the same time, thus a married bachelor is a logical impossibility and does not exist.
This is a logical proof. Exactly as what Mopac and Fallanese are proposing. A logical proof can be valid proof, but secmer, being....not familiar with them, asks for demonstrations when the logic escapes him.
I think you should qualify your statement to avoid this irrelevancy.
It isn't an irrelevancy. The argument that there isn't a God is a logical imposibility. Mopac has demonstrated that if you define God correctly, then atheism becomes a logical imposibility. You dismiss his definition, but his definition is the only one that is logically consistent. It is logical proof.
There is no evidence of anything outside the observable universe.
Any competent physicist would laugh this to scorn. Einstein's theory of relativity proved this view untrue. The universe was indeed caused. It is all built on logical proofs that one must know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
As demonstrated by our inventor savant....there's no end to the scenarios that can be invented to fit.
It seems that you're proposing Jesus and Barabbas were co-conspirators - I'd say that was 'interesting, but flimsy'!
And also not in the text. Oops!
Created:
Posted in:
I don’t need “scraps” you clown.
I don't think Keith threw them at you because you needed them.
I have enough evidence to prove these gospels are so unreliable that they should be slung in the nearest bin.
Yet instead they are revered, studied, memorized, and quoted the world over. Frustrating huh?
Stop Putting words into his mouth.
I quoted him word for word.
He has answered and he, in truth cannot come off the fence or make up his mind.
If a blunt "No" seems equivocal to you, OK.
I will ask you again. Is Mark's gospel wrong, yes or no.
You are wrong. Not Mark's gospel. Your loony imagination is wrong, not Mark's gospel. Now ask again, so I can tell you in yet another way the you are wrong.
Both Of these Jesus' were charged with sedition and both went to the cross for it. FACT
Untrue. There was only one Jesus, and Barabbas was released. Perhaps you should read a real bible and not the skeptic's annotated? You will seem less ignorant that way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Already over it.
Perhaps you should follow your own advise and stop chasing me around the board?
Created:
Posted in:
A chance? So does Senator Elizabeth Warren and the Native American vote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Keith likes to throw scraps to atheists like you.
The bottom line is that his answer to your question was No. And he gave 2 reasons why. Your anger won't change that.
You should be banned....
It is your right as a member to report me.
On my side, I don't want you to go anywhere. You are, with the exception of bully, the best argument against militant anti-theism this site has.
May you live forever.
Created:
Posted in:
Would that your pal with the overactive imagination learned this too.For that reason I try to avoid speculating about it....
....the one fact we have - the gospel writers sought to exonerate the Romans and exculpate the Jewish priests,
Illogical, and a perfect example of your doublespeak. How could the gospel writers have sought to exonerate the Romans unless we first accept your idea that the Romans wanted Him dead? Assume your conclusion much?
Same for the Jewish priests. You try to spin this bit of illogic often, make a claim, and then state a conclusion as true which requires your unsupported claim to already be truth. This is unethical.
...its already waning support within Palestine.
Untrue. The book of Acts records the explosive expansion of Christianity within Palestine right after the death of Jesus.
You and Stephen may have different methods, but we can see your motives are the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Not with a charge of insurrection and sedition against Rome.You do agree that this was the charge don’t you?
No.
Oops!
because i doubt blaspheming YHWH was a crime in Roman law.
It wasn't. No one knowing NT history would think so.
I don't see anything in the text that implies Jesus was charged with insurrection.
But, if you have a loony agenda, you might. Or you could just insist it's there, even though it's absent in the texts.
In the phrase "that had made insurrection with him," I read the pronoun 'him' as referring to Barabas, (not Jesus)
Ouch! This is how a reasonable person reads the text. Someone without a loony agenda or a reading comprehension problem.
I'm out Stephen. Somebody stick a fork in this guy. He's done.
Created:
Now either the bible and it's writers who are at fault and mistaken, which throws doubt on the whole story or there were as the bible CLEARLY shows that there are indeed two couples created. WHICH IS IT?
Either your poor reading comprehension, or your loony anti-theist agenda. Take your pick.
Created:
If you pretend to ignore me, drafter, and triangle.The objections against my moderation come down to three things:
1. You have an unhealthy tendency towards power. You are overly attracted to it and are too easily corrupted by it.
2. Our CoC means nothing with your moderation. You operate by whim, only after which you try to get the CoC to fit your whim. This site should not be bsh1art.com
3. The way the site has been structured allows you to abuse users at will and with no consequence.
4. The way the site has been structured makes an abusive mod less likely to stop abusing, and allows no solution to an abusive mod. As if such a thing could not exist.
5. It is OK that you are a leftist social justice warrior. But it is obvious you intend to impose your leftist views on the site. Who decided which words and behavior were "offensive"?
With all the power, absolutely no oversite, and not even the owner able to curb your power grab, why keep pretending? You hate Trump, and you hate anyone who likes him. You love homosexuality, and you hate anyone who doesn't love it.
You've been a poor oppressed gay guy all your life, but now you're gonna show them! You're going to make dartangeles the social justice utopia you dreamed of as a youth when mean old conservatives were oppressing you and all your leftist kin.
But never mind. The mod says it boils down to only 3 things. So it does. I feel safe.
Created:
Posted in:
Is anyone in management willing to admit that Airmax is here and that he is here under the name bladerunner?
Bladerunner himself seems to feel no need to deny it.
OK. I will make my prediction. When the time comes to "increase" our gang of mods, bladerunner will be among the newly hired muscle.
Wow Mike. You got me good.
Created:
We will have no rights when everything has become a right.
Created:
Yet you keep slurping up to the mod of whatever site you find yourself, until you are "in" with him.Oh, to be free once more...
Sure you long to be free.
Created:
Posted in:
to commit “insurrection “is to also commit sedition.
But not necessarily against Rome as you dishonestly assert. Barabbas was a Jewish prisoner, which is why Pilate could release him to the Jews. The Jews had no business with Roman prisoners.
The evidence is overwhelming that these were crimes against Rome.
You just don't know NT history. The Jews could not demand the release of a criminal charged by Rome. The Jewish authorities were aligned with Rome, they had laws forbidding insurrection. Barabbas had committed insurrection against the Jews, not Rome.
Jesus and BARABBAS were brought before Pilate Both on charges of sedition.
This does not mean they knew each other or worked together. That is just your overactive imagination again. The text says the charges against Jesus were false.
you will have to put up with this truth or produce some evidence that MARK’S gospelis fake and untrue.
Lol. You are the one saying the text is untrue. You are the one inserting your imagination into the texts. Nowhere does Mark say Jesus and Barabbas were partners, or that Barabbas was charged with insurrection against Rome.
Mark 15:7 King James Version (KJV)And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection.
And without logic or reason your poor reading comprehension and bias made you believe "them" meant Jesus and Barabbas, and not Barabbas and those he made insurrection with? OK.
You got all confused with Barnabas and Barabbas, youfool.
If you are going to be insulting, it helps not to write like a third grader. Why are you angry anyway?
See? Easy and fun.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Yes you did. You said Barabbas..."committed sedition against Rome..." That is untrue. It is not found in the text.
That is correct it was BARABBAS I clearly state BARABBAS andNOT Bar N abas.!.
I know I'm correct. Barabbas had not been charged with a crime against Rome. That is a lie.
Learn to take note of the detail in both of these namesBARABBASBAR - N – ABAS. And Learn to read too.
No one has mentioned Barnabas but you. Barabbas had not committed any crime against Rome. You lied.
It's in the text.
This “Roman “reprieve” may well be in the biblical text,...
Lol. You think? It IS in the the text, not may well be in the text.
I know it is in the BIBLICAL text, I posted it myself up above.
Then you illogically pretend that part of the text is untrue.
You claim it is true BUT !as usual, without any evidence.
I just say its in the text. You either accept the text or you don't. It is illogical to use the same text to prove and disprove a point.
I want you to find me evidence that this was a common practice at every passover.
Why? Its in the text. If you say it is untrue, prove it. You have the burden of proof. But, as long as you try to pretend it isn't in the text, I will point out your fakery.
You haven’t been able to do that, simply because there isn’t any, nowhere, in any history at all.
I will not take your burden of proof. The bible is a historical document, whether you agree or not.
Scholars have been looking for any single piece extra biblical evidence for this claim for over 200 years and have come up with nothing,...
Silly. Thousands of facts from history are recorded in only a single source. So what? As long as you try to pretend it isn't in the text, I will point out your fakery.
If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend:
O dear, and I Am sure that scared the hell clean out of of Pilate and this vicious Jew hater who had murdered hundreds if not thousands of JEWS just caved in with immediate effect at the thought that the JEWS would be his friend.
No one said Jews would be his friend. And the texts says the crowd was becoming unruly (a tumult), not immediate effect. Pilate tried several times, till the crowd accused Him of not being a friend (of Caesar, lol. Talk about reading slowly) if he released Jesus.
I bet he was shaking in his Toga. Get real,for Christ’s sake!
He released Jesus.
You failed to post the crowd threatening Pilate with a charge of disloyalty to Caesar, and then pretended that there was no reason for Pilate to acquiesce and allow the conviction of Jesus.
I haven’t failed at anything and I haven’t “pretended” anything.
Your posts disagree.
The verses that you again accuse me of lying about and making up are there for anyone who is interested and chooses to read them.
Because I posted them. Were it left to you, your fakery would not be exposed.
The story, beyond all doubt is yet again one of those half told stories that the bible insistently keeps throwing up.
According to your imagination that you confused for reality.
And you certainly don't understand the implications of what Mark is saying.
At least I post what Mark says, I don't hide it and then pretend he said nothing.
Look at it again, read it slowly, you just may get a clue as to the REAL REASON why your man - god Jesus Was executed in the vile and barbaric fashion he was.
Sorry, I don't accept your imagination as reality.
He will accept Barabbas as real in order to advance the loony theory that them bible is false.So one half of a verse that he will insist is true, he will use to "prove" the same bible false.
That is what I mean by biblical "half stories". AND it is "the bible" itself "proves" it to be full of contradictions and half stories.
Yeah. Its a half story because you think it is. Imagine much?
I haven't even started on this particular half story. There is more, to it with supporting evidence for my claims. YES evidence something that you are totally averse to.
I here you talking. But every post of yours to date has been a laughable illogical mess.
Your posts are easy and fun to debunk.
O, I am glad, and so happy that you find them fun, because I have lots more . ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺
I'm sure. There seems no end to your lack of logic. Too bad most of your posts are too illogical to warrant a reply. But I might debunk you now and then when I have nothing else to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Lol. He is funny.All texts recovered from ancient times is proof of history, but no, not the bible. That's the one exception.
He will accept Barabbas as real in order to advance the loony theory that the bible is false. So one half of a verse that he will insist is true, he will use to "prove" the same bible false.
Created:
Posted in:
...the scriptures only mention BARABBAS when it comes to the trial.
So? Your assumptions are not reality.
Nowhere does it refer to Barnabas' crimes were against Rome.
I haven’t said he has.
Yes you did. You said Barabbas..."committed sedition against Rome..." That is untrue. It is not found in the text.
There is no evidence for this reparation.
It's in the text.
It has never been recorded in Roman history or Jewish history.
The bible is Jewish history.
I would like to see your evidence.
It's IN the text.
So the crowd, growing dangerously into a mob, threatened Pilate.
You have no evidence for that.
It's in the text.
The crowded threatened Pilate!!! There would have been slaughter had thathappened. Let us see you evidence of the threat towards Pilate.
Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.
See how confusion evaporates when we actually read the texts?
Yes he was and the scriptures make it clear...
Then scripture did answer your question. Yet you pretended it didn't.
It would have hardly been a Jew. Unless the Jew was a traitor.
Why? Substituting your imagination for reality again?
Just a criminal"? Taking part in a insurrection against the state is a little bit more that being just a common criminal.
Ah, the story is true when it says Barabbas was a criminal, but not true when it says he was released. Cherry-pick much? If you have anything other than your imagination for Barabbas being more than just a Jewish criminal, please show it.
Those verses are from the scriptures.
Yes, but you didn't post them. I did. You failed to post that Pilate HAD TO release one criminal to the Jews, and then pretended that there was no reason he would.
You failed to post the crowd threatening Pilate with a charge of disloyalty to Caesar, and then pretended that there was no reason for Pilate to acquiesce and allow the conviction of Jesus.
The text answers every question you had about Barabbas. Yet you pretended it didn't.
Your posts are easy and fun to debunk. Would that all atheists were this illogical.
Created:
Posted in:
There may be some overlap, but it wasn't the same crowd. But that is typical human behavior in crowds. Ever notice that the people dance in the streets for "joy" after every coup or warlord win?
The high priest and his cohorts were whipping up the crowd and mob behavior took over. We see the same thing happen in English football all the time.
Created:
Posted in:
Oh snap! In the "Introduce Yourself" thread, I asked bladerunner if he was the Airmax from DDO, and he did not reply me.
It makes sense now. Bladerunner is Max. Bsh1 has already succeeded in locking down the site.
Aww, Mike, what did you do? Whiteflame, tell me you're not part of this cabal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
It concerns a character that the gospellers seem reluctant and forced to mention....
When a man's imagination is supposed to be reality for others.
The gospel story goes like this:
Read the bible. Stephen tends to leave pertinent parts out and then pretend the bible doesn't address those parts.
Would Pilate release a notorious robbing, murdering insurrectionist who had committed sedition against Rome...
Nowhere does it say Barnabas' crimes were against Rome. This is just another little "addition" our bible expert has inserted into the text. Barabas was charged by Jews under Jewish law for violating Jewish law.
Would Pilate release a notorious robbing, murdering insurrectionist...
Yes. He had to. And tradition held that it was ALWAYS a criminal released. And who it was, was the choice of the Jews, not Pilate. Our bible scholar "forgot" to mention these verses.
Mat 27:15 - Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would
Luk 23:17 - (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)
...would he have released a peaceful sandal wearing Jew who tells all his followers to render unto Caesar?
It wasn't Pilate's choice, plus, you "forgot" these verses again.
Luk 23:1 - And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate.
Luk 23:2 - And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.
Luk 23:18 - And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas:
Mat 27:20 - But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus
Mat 27:24 - When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
See how confusion evaporates when we stick to the text and stay from bizarre imagination?
Jhn 19:12 - And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar
Jhn 19:15 - But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
Jhn 19:16 - Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.
So the crowd, growing dangerously into a mob, threatened Pilate. Questioning his loyalty to Rome should he not crucify Jesus.
But quoting the text would make your lame questions seem absurd.
Who was Barabbas?
A criminal in custody at the time of Jesus' trial.
What was is role?
Role for what? Was he in a play?
who was he to Jesus?
No one. He was just a criminal they had arrested before Jesus' trial.
And that verse from Mark above should really get anyone who is interested, thinking.
Lol. These are some of the most famous passages in all history. That is how thinking people know you are once again trying to fake what the bible says, and substitute in your own loony interpretation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
You've made some good and interesting points. But how do you explain the American experiment doing so much better than the British one since the revolution?
Monarchy is dying on it's own in the U.K.
Created:
-->
@blamonkey
And absolutely nothing was done about certain DDO users who used the most violent hate speech. Were you also only on the debate forums on DDO?I think DDO was laissez-faire in the moderation of user's content resulting in certain rules were not heavily as enforced. Although there were legitimate action taken on certain DDO users who used hate speech.
Created:
-->
@triangle.128k
If non-binary people can't be called idiots, this should essentially mean no group can be called "idiots."
That is what a reasonable person would think.
If I say "rich white christian men are idiots," this should technically warrant a delete as should my previous statement.
Nooo. Christians and rich white men cannot be slighted according to the actions of our social justice warrior mod. Notice that the comment "right-wing but jobs" passes the CoC test.
If it does not, then this is sheer hypocrisy and blatant bias among bsh1's moderation.
It's even deeper than that. It's built into the system. He can call anything a CoC violation, you cannot expose it, and you have no recourse. You either take his abuse in silence, or get banned for showing his abuse. Either way, you lose, and his right to abuse is total and final.
...you are essentially enforcing your own political correctness on this site and restricting certain political positions.
He knows, and that is his aim. That is why it is ok when he and others rain down invective on the actual person Trump, but is not ok if anyone says anything non-complimentary about the nebulous group of non-binary gender "persons" somewhere in the world.
Welcome to the sanctuary of dartangeles. Your safe space.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
A re-write does absolutely nothing if the mods are still free to call anything, and I mean anything, a CoC violation.
Thinking about this, the deal between Mike and bsh1 must have long preceded the announcement of his modship. Maybe it happened during the DDO days. For Mike to turn over everything, lock stock and barrel, and bsh1 to pretty much assert openly that he trumps the owner, smacks of deeper things going on.
The bottom line is, no matter how much bsh1 demeans Mikes moderation, Mike was right. Bsh1's moderation would have wrecked the board. There is no argument against success.
Bsh1 has always sought out power. He did so at DDO, and has done so here. Anyway, it's a done deal, so I'm through with it.
Created:
Posted in:
No. My intention was never to gift dollars to anyone thinking it would eliminate poverty. I was not trying to eliminate poverty. And I couldn't care less for equality, financial or otherwise.
If you ever have the interest and or time, read through the thread.
Created: