oromagi

• that the Apostles (including or as well as Levi/Matthew) gave up their jobs to follow Jesus
  
• If you think otherwise, just cite the specific passage where they went back to  work
• that Joseph of Arimathea and Jesus ever met
  
• If you think otherwise,  just cite the specific passage where they meet
  
• that Gamaliel Zacchaeus and Jesus ever met
  
• If you think otherwise,  just cite the specific passage where they meet
  

Nicodemus was a ruler and member of the Sanhedrin and a secret disciple of Jesus  that Jesus taught the mysteries of the meaning of being reborn and all in secret under the cover of darkness. John 7:48 And a rich man. 

Joseph of Arimathea is not a buddy of Jesus. 

Jesus was said to have been put into the private tomb in the private grounds of Joseph of Arimathea whom had asked Pilate for the body of Jesus.

And both were friends and supporters of Jesus in high powerful positions

as was Gamaliel Zacchaeus,

Levi, and "certain" unnamed Pharisees along with Chuza, Herod’s business manager.  

Luke’s Gospel especially highlights Jesus’ enjoyment of food, his acceptance of costly gifts and his keeping company with the wealthy.  Are you saying they weren't well paid for their services.  Then there was the wealthy women that Jesus sponged off "of their substance". FFS wake up you clown. Jesus had surrounded himself with the rich and powerful while commanding others  to give away everything they owned.

They left their jobs, their purses and all their money, all their food at Jesus's specific request, Jesus specifically demanded that they stop being businessmen to follow him, for fuck's sake, how could you possibly have missed this?

So you will be showing us this "specific" evidence then?

From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.
And they straightway left their nets, and followed him.
And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them.
And they immediately left the ship and their father, and followed him.
And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.
And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.
And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.
Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses,
Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.
And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence.

But then, maybe I'm missing some scripture that says the people who wrote the Bible were perfectly guided by God, and it's all literal, and perfect,

• For the first 4 centuries on Christianity, every church kept its own secret gospels and none of these gospels were in agreement on the facts.  A Christian's information about the life of Jesus depended on which church you went to and varied dramatically from church to church.  Constantine was the first to try to to canonize and synchronize all the gospels into one consistent narrative.  No contemporaries imagined that Roman politicians had perfect, divine insight into Jesus' history or God's will.  Mostly, the Christian Bible was edited and authored by pragmatic Imperial Roman patriarchs trying to prevent civil, religious strife.
  
• From the fall of Rome to Gutenberg, the Christian mass was typically recited in a language most churchgoers did not understand- first Koine Greek and then Latin standard after 600 AD.  Only upper class, literate, latin speaking members were in a position to even wonder about the internal consistency of the BIble, and those educated few were  often highly motivated to interpret the Bible according to present need.
  
• After Gutenberg, the Bible suddenly became available for private ownership and study and was quickly translated into local languages.  The Reformation is all about the rejection of Latin infallibility and the importance of personal interpretations.  As literacy rapidly expanded, ordinary Europeans quickly discovered that every Medieval source contained significant errors and differences from others and that local translations only heightened the differences.  Consider how the King James Version rewrites the Bible in Shakespearean verse- they've clearly surrendered any attempt to preserve the original meaning and intent and moved on to broad strokes in a more aesthetic (sacred) media.  Meanwhile, the Catholic Church went hardcore Latin and tried to preserve the Bible as a mysterious magical language that could only be interpreted by the priesthood.
  
• Only in America, where the self-interpretation of Protestantism was mixed with unprecedented levels of literacy and an unprecedented availability of one version of the Bible (the highly non-standard King James Version) and the lack of centralized  religious authorities and the lack of Bibles in other languages and traditions could an assertion of infallibility arise without any kind of powerful contradiction readily at hand.
  

for instance Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea. I didn't mention his enemies.

Fishermen that never owned a boat.  Well that is novel.  They were fishermen. Tell me what were they doing with all the fish they caught? Selling it or giving it away free to the poor? They were businessmen in the fishing industry. FFS!

I don't think I missed anything , but you certainly missed this>>>

Matthew 4:21-22New King James Version

21 Going on from there, He saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets. He called them, 22 and immediately they left the boat and their father, and followed Him.

 Jesus was a Jew. Jesus never once mentions the word Christian or Christianity in the whole of his life time. The four gospels never mention the words either.

[Jesus] surrounded himself with rich and influential people in high places

.... And I don't remember reading anywhere he told these particular buddies to give away all of there worldly possessions.

And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.

And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:
But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.

Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
or where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

 If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?
And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?
No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully:
And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits?
And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods.
And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.
But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?

And he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on.
The life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment.
Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls?

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
    because he has anointed me
        to bring good news to the poor.

 He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.
He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.

Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee.
But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind:
And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.

-->@SirAnonymous

Seems that he gets the honor of the last debate challenge issued on the site,

What a pity I find it for myself, that I cannot accept it.

-->@oromagi

I'm quite certain there's more people in the Ukraine military who do not want islamic refugees than those in the US

by leftist standards of white nationalists, I guarantee the Ukrainian army has a fuck ton of white nationalists

It turns out that you have no power whatsoever to limit the scope of other's constitutional rights.  

The most recent school shooting involved a passed background check, before the transaction in which the shooter purchased the gun was complete.   you next should argue that clearly the current background checks are inadequate because they allowed this person to purchase one. 

Ok then, what about all the guns in circulation?  Even if you prevented all future commercial sales of guns in this country, there are more than a billion of them floating around in civilian/private ownership alone. 

No it isn't. The practice of chattel slavery in the U.S. was NEVER private. It was sanctioned and subsidized by law (e.g. Fugitive Slave Act.) The Lincoln administration even promised the Border States continued practice of chattel slavery (including the enforcement of Fugitive Slave Act) for their loyalty after the de facto practice was diminishing. Arguing that chattel slavery was "private" is like arguing that the Federal Reserve is private.

If the government decided to end slavery on policy grounds—that is to take slaves ‘for public use’—then the masters would have to be justly compensated. From the perspective of 1789, the only plausible interpretation of the Fifth Amendment was to assume that slaves were property, not persons. It is simply impossible to imagine that most members of Congress thought otherwise, or that any of the slave state legislators who voted to ratify the amendments believed they were threatening slavery.

No, it took eight years.

the eighteenth amendment, which was a complete aberration given that it was the only amendment that prohibited private activity,

It's not that the 18th amendment "failed to achieve the desired effect"- but it had the opposite effect.

-->@oromagi

Ukrainians maintain a well-regulated militia

During one recent news bulletin on BBC Radio 4, the correspondent referred to “Putin’s baseless claim that the Ukrainian state supports Nazis”. This is, itself, disinformation: it is an observable fact, which the BBC itself has previously reported on accurately and well, that the Ukrainian state has, since 2014, provided funding, weapons and other forms of support to extreme Right-wing militias, including neo-Nazi ones. This is not a new or controversial observation. 

-->@oromagi

I expect that's hyperbole.

Not at all. On what basis can you argue purging the second amendment while also sustaining the integrity of the others?

• form a more perfect Union
  
• establish Justice
  
• insure domestic Tranquility
  
• provide for the common defence
  
• promote the general Welfare
  
• secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
  

-->@oromagi

do you believe Ukrainian citizens own too many guns ?

Is there any rebuttal to the actual claim that of suspicious movement? 

-->@oromagi

Everything you said is basically pointless, since we don't have a large enough playerbase.

-->@oromagi

I'm okay with removing the 2nd amendment from the US Constitution

Why not remove them all? There's no point in the pretense that they're sustained by the government--the amendments that is.

There's no point in having background checks if when somebody fails it's never followed up on.

I think just like you have to do a driver's test to get a driver's license you should have to do a gun safety course and have a gun license.

But gun ownership is a right not a privilege and driving is a privilege and not a right. 

I have seen thousands of cases of people saying that pineapple do not belong on pizzas, in fact, more than a hundred have reported that it would be a sin for pineapple to be unironically put on pizzas.

As well, from the Chinese side of media that I have access to, there has been reported japanese twists to a staple Sichuan spicy tofu dish, in which the domestic Chinese have too considered (such that) adding strawberries to it is a disgrace. In fact, then they expressed that they understood what the traditional Italians have felt when they see pineapple pizzas.

So, when does a burrito stop being a burrito?

When does food stop being food?

-->@oromagi

I think that the stipulation that there existed people travelling to numerous drop boxes is different to the veracity of the diagram depicted -

 was thinking more along the lines of the assertion that geolocation as a tool found many "mules" travelling in irregular patterns. 

Do you think there is credibility to the claim that geolocation has shown that "mules" have been paying visits to 30 drop boxes in a single day? 

What did Jesus mean when He said it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven?

-->@oromagi

Science and religion have nothing to do with one another.

  Because they are afraid to reveal what they believe.  For instance, what do Atheists believe?   Nothing. One common doctrine. God doesn't exist.

An argument based on a negative. That is it. 

Nothing else. We are not allowed to know what else they believe - because there is no common factor. 

Hence why Atheists are COWARDS.   They criticize - but without fear of being criticized. That is not criticism. That is safe ground.  Bogus. really. 

Are there more doctrines for the atheist than there is no God? No.   nary  a one.

Cowardly really. there is no other words that can account for this state of being. A worldview - that is not really a worldview - a position - that is not really a position - a statement that allows no criticism. Imagine if we tried to apply to that any religion?  It would be laughed out of the stadium.  that is why Atheism is cowardly. One rule for them. 

My view is that only people with worldviews should be allowed to contribute in a religious forum.   An atheist ought be rejected unless they can provide a worldview to be considered.  Unless this occurs - then there is no basis of comparing and contrasting. There is no basis for conversation.

Unless an atheist is able to come up with a worldview - then the atheist's opinions ought not be welcome. 

We should not be permitted to criticize others unless we have something alternative to offer. Atheists have nothing to offer - of their own admission - so why ought we subject to ANY of their criticisms.  By admitting they have no other doctrines, they admit they use religious doctrines to live their lives.  

Elon Musk recently claimed he would switch from previously voting democrat and vote republican this election claiming the democrats have become the party of divisiveness.

The GOP has no party platform, no policy ideas to actually help Americans and spends all of its energy attacking the left as opposed to providing any serious governing solutions. Their leading candidate for 2024 is still lying daily claiming the democrats stole the 2020 election. Their slogan which was even uttered on the house floor is a euphemism for fuck Joe Biden. The narrative among much of the party base is that democrats are the party of pedophiles, and all the party does is blame Biden for everything, even a baby formula shortage. But this is the party Musk will turn to…

Based on the presented scenario and my general knowledge of probability math. The point of the documentary was the claim of identifying 2000 mules under the constraints of visiting 10 drop boxes and non-profits, the graphics in the film imply this scenario occurred in a short period of time.

CLAIM: At least 2,000 “mules” were paid to illegally collect ballots and deliver them to drop boxes in key swing states ahead of the 2020 presidential election.

THE FACTS: True the Vote didn’t prove this. The finding is based on false assumptions about the precision of cellphone tracking data and the reasons that someone might drop off multiple ballots, according to experts.

“Ballot harvesting” is a pejorative term for dropping off completed ballots for people besides yourself. The practice is legal in several states but largely illegal in the states True the Vote focused on, with some exceptions for family, household members and people with disabilities.

True the Vote has said it found some 2,000 ballot harvesters by purchasing $2 million worth of anonymized cellphone geolocation data — the “pings” that track a person’s location based on app activity — in various swing counties across five states. Then, by drawing a virtual boundary around a county’s ballot drop boxes and various unnamed nonprofits, it identified cellphones that repeatedly went near both ahead of the 2020 election.

If a cellphone went near a drop box more than 10 times and a nonprofit more than five times from Oct. 1 to Election Day, True the Vote assumed its owner was a “mule” — its name for someone engaged in an illegal ballot collection scheme in cahoots with a nonprofit.

The group’s claims of a paid ballot harvesting scheme are supported in the film only by one unidentified whistleblower said to be from San Luis, Arizona, who said she saw people picking up what she “assumed” to be payments for ballot collection. The film contains no evidence of such payments in other states in 2020.

Plus, experts say cellphone location data, even at its most advanced, can only reliably track a smartphone within a few meters — not close enough to know whether someone actually dropped off a ballot or just walked or drove nearby.

“You could use cellular evidence to say this person was in that area, but to say they were at the ballot box, you’re stretching it a lot,” said Aaron Striegel, a professor of computer science and engineering at the University of Notre Dame. “There’s always a pretty healthy amount of uncertainty that comes with this.”

What’s more, ballot drop boxes are often intentionally placed in busy areas, such as college campuses, libraries, government buildings and apartment complexes — increasing the likelihood that innocent citizens got caught in the group’s dragnet, Striegel said.

Similarly, there are plenty of legitimate reasons why someone might be visiting both a nonprofit’s office and one of those busy areas. Delivery drivers, postal workers, cab drivers, poll workers and elected officials all have legitimate reasons to cross paths with numerous drop boxes or nonprofits in a given day.

The main problem is people saying "prove it was fraudulent" with a smug grin when that is not where the burden of proof should be in this scenario. This is a matter of delegated trust at the root of our civilization and the responsibility for transparency and auditability is on the people who are given trust not the people who are suspicious of them.

"Woopies there weren't any cameras" is a microcosm of the general offense. It's not good enough to hope there wasn't cheating, it needs to be ruled out. If it is not ruled out any claims of democracy and thus the social contract binding anyone are especially absurd.

Putting forward election officials hardly discredits the method, they are acting as ballot mules; simply authorized ones.

I see.  So the election officials were all in on it?

Once again you say something that I believe demonstrates your disingenuity on this subject.

Aren't we  talking about mostly Republican districts here?

No, and the more you keep confusing that the more your ignorance of how elections work grows apparent.

It should be a simple matter to check records to see which phones could match the logs of election officials. I say "should" because that is exactly the kind of data that no one is allowed to ask for without being charged with insurrection these days.

It's allowed.  You and election fraudster D'Souza's only problem is that you must first demonstrate probable cause for such a search and 18 months after the election nobody claiming fraud has managed to meet that low standard

Unacceptable standard, if a broker takes your money to invest you don't need probable cause of fraud to demand a ledger of what he did with your money, not keeping a ledger is itself probable cause. The transparency/security/auditability is owed, elections are not a person whose breach of privacy requires due process under the 4th amendment.

Well no, I'm just calling it what it is, not overgeneralizing. It is simply faulty logic.

Either being an expert is important or it isn't.

Either being personally affected is important or it isn't. I don't think that any coherent conception of a functioning democracy can allow for such exceptions that radically change the qualifications for having a voice on issues.

But now you reject majority will on an issue as important as defining personhood and the protection of life,

while absurdly pretending it is in any way comparable to a knee surgery.

it is beyond reasonable belief that....any significant proportion of the identified mules were accounted for by innocent functions.

Furthermore if the election laws were not broken quite so thoroughly there would be cameras on every drop-off box so that interactions with the box could be confirmed which as I have stated before is the main issue.

Putting forward election officials hardly discredits the method, they are acting as ballot mules; simply authorized ones.

It should be a simple matter to check records to see which phones could match the logs of election officials. I say "should" because that is exactly the kind of data that no one is allowed to ask for without being charged with insurrection these days.

and how many would then loiter within 10 feet of that drop box at 3am and then continue to do the same thing at nine other drop boxes in the same trip?

So that makes it no worse than self described fact checkers....  As I pointed out previously, dismissing sources/authorities is the inevitable outcome of a true disagreement because relating assertions is not an argument. Dismiss at will, but remember what you do and do not hold others to a different standard.

Did you independently fact check that or are you just going off free presser after dismissing it? If she said that then freepresser was reliable in this instance wasn't it?

-->@oromagi

I saw the film.  It all depends on if the data is real.