(November 27, 2018 at 8:51 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(November 26, 2018 at 1:08 pm)Drich Wrote: Glob...
this is another kill the messenger attempt...

Jorgie..

Are you even familiar with what a Your- mun-gand is? do you know it's role? it is a happy dragon/snake? Then you take on it's persona when you adopt it as your avatar (another word that seems to have slipped by you with it's meaning if you do not wish to be viewed as big mean angry dragon lady.) This demon/loki spawn takes out thor. Thor did not have beef with this dragon serpent because it was a nice friendly go happy being... And, This is how you present yourself or how you wish to be seen. So forgive me when I call you out on the shadow you cast, even if you 'feel' chipper.

Oh, really?  You were taking the persona literally, that's why you referred to an unsexed serpent as a lady?  You trip over your own balls every time.

Jormungandr is a serpent.  Jormungandr is neither a dragon nor a lady.  The only possible thing you could have gotten right there was the angry part, but you didn't, so you strike out yet again.

 Why can't you accept that I do indeed research EVERYTHING I have any question on, and if I say dragon and you are thinking serpent at least look before you miss correct me again.




JORMUNGAND

[img=212x0]http://norse-mythology.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Johann_Heinrich_F%C3%BCssli-Thors-Battle-with-the-Midgard-Serpent1-212x300.jpg[/img]“Thor’s Battle with the Midgard Serpent” by Johann Heinrich Füssli (1788)
Jormungand (pronounced “YOUR-mun-gand;” Old NorseJörmungandr, “Great Beast”), also called the “MidgardSerpent,” is a snake or dragon who lives in the ocean that surrounds Midgard, the visible world. So enormous is he that his body forms a circle around the entirety of Midgard. He’s one of the three children of Loki and the giantess Angrboda, along with Hel and .
https://norse-mythology.org/gods-and-creatures/giants/jormungand/

You sweetheart are the "lady" in the equation who has taken on the persona of the angry dragon Jormungand. Remember I am addressing you the lady who associates her self with an angry dragon.. I'm not calling or assigning gender to the 'great beast.' I am speaking to the amalgamation you've created by representing yourself as or identifying with the angry dragon.

clear yet? or do I need to say the same thing 10 more times?

(November 27, 2018 at 11:20 am)Drich Wrote:

(November 27, 2018 at 8:51 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Oh, really?  You were taking the persona literally, that's why you referred to an unsexed serpent as a lady?  You trip over your own balls every time.

Jormungandr is a serpent.  Jormungandr is neither a dragon nor a lady.  The only possible thing you could have gotten right there was the angry part, but you didn't, so you strike out yet again.

 Why can't you accept that I do indeed research EVERYTHING I have any question on, and if I say dragon and you are thinking serpent at least look before you miss correct me again.




JORMUNGAND

[img=212x0]http://norse-mythology.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Johann_Heinrich_F%C3%BCssli-Thors-Battle-with-the-Midgard-Serpent1-212x300.jpg[/img]“Thor’s Battle with the Midgard Serpent” by Johann Heinrich Füssli (1788)
Jormungand (pronounced “YOUR-mun-gand;” Old NorseJörmungandr, “Great Beast”), also called the “MidgardSerpent,” is a snake or dragon who lives in the ocean that surrounds Midgard, the visible world. So enormous is he that his body forms a circle around the entirety of Midgard. He’s one of the three children of Loki and the giantess Angrboda, along with Hel and .
https://norse-mythology.org/gods-and-creatures/giants/jormungand/

You sweetheart are the "lady" in the equation who has taken on the persona of the angry dragon Jormungand. Remember I am addressing you the lady who associates her self with an angry dragon.. I'm not calling or assigning gender to the 'great beast.' I am speaking to the amalgamation you've created by representing yourself as or identifying with the angry dragon.

clear yet? or do I need to say the same thing 10 more times?

Fine. I was wrong about the dragon part. So you're saying you meant to be literal on one part and figurative on another. Gotcha. Clear as mud. You're simply employing amphiboly to claim that the angry part applied to the serpent rather than the lady part, a claim which no one over the age of 12 is likely to believe. Regardless, aside from this rather amusing digression, you're still wrong in assigning me anger I did not possess, which is the only issue of significance here. Like Huggy, you win the battle but lose the war. I'll take to calling you Pyrrhic Victory Drich.

And as to your once again referencing the claim that you are some master of research and preparation, I'll point out that you cited a source which contradicted your claims three times in the global cooling debate, and your 'research' on Hitler and Rosenberg was ultimately crap. You use this excuse that you research everything when you are right, and pretend that it is a mysterious unevidenced strategy when you are wrong. I often don't research shit and I still manage to toast your ass more often than not. Anyone who cites evidence which refutes their claim three times in a row isn't practicing strategy or involved in any deep research. He's just a dumbass who is occasionally right, and has a buttload of excuses which he uses to justify ignoring the many more times that he is wrong.

All of which misses the point that this OT horseshit is nothing more than a conglomeration of ancient near eastern folklore that Dripshit thinks really happened.

(November 26, 2018 at 1:08 pm)Drich Wrote: This demon/loki spawn takes out thor. Thor did not have beef with this dragon serpent because it was a nice friendly go happy being...

Oh, and if we're going to boast about our research, let's point out that the reason Thor opposed Jormungandr was because of the prophecy that the children of Angrboda and Loki would bring great harm upon them, not because it was an 'angry' serpent.  But feel free to quote the sources and show that the serpent was angry and that Thor opposed the serpent for this reason.  It's entirely possible the serpent is described as angry.  You might get lucky.  Put your claim of great research to the test here and make your case for the serpent actually being angry and that being Thor's reason for opposing it.  I'll be interested to hear what you find, not having explored the matter in any great depth.

While we're waiting on that, let's point out that a dragon lady is a common ethnic slur used to demean women of Asian descent.  As long as we're being loose with our interpretations here, I have to wonder if you didn't simply use the opportunity to make a bigoted and offensive remark about me.  You say that you research everything and that you have such research in mind before you make your remarks. Given that, I must assume that you were also aware that dragon lady is a racial slur and intended that meaning to come across as well.  Are you then claiming you are a bigot in addition to being a master of research and preparation?

---

Actually, thinking this over, I'm going to borrow a play from your playbook and dispute what an otherwise reasonable person might concede, and see how you like your own tricks. Given that you recently denied basic human psychology in order to refuse to concede when you were wrong about the conditions that Christ placed on salvation, I'm withdrawing my concession on the dragon issue as well as the meaning of the Latin word fetus.

In the first case, what you have is some internet rando reinterpreting Norse legend. In the same vein, if some internet weirdo referred to Mickey Mouse as a rat, that wouldn't bear any weight in establishing that Mickey Mouse was indeed a rat. What is relevant is what the Norse who created the legends meant, and for that you need to bring evidence that the Norse had the concept of a dragon, a word for it in their language, and that they referred to Jormungandr in those terms in the original sagas. Until you do, it's simply unknown whether Jormungandr was a dragon or not. But given that you research everything in depth, the answers to these questions should already be in your notes on the matter. I will await your enlightening me on this matter, as I simply do not know.

As to the meaning of the Latin word fetus, you claimed that fetus was Latin for baby. You've quoted various dictionaries as indicating that baby or offspring was one of the meanings of fetus, but those dictionaries do not indicate whether that was the core meaning of the word, or rather an uncommon and exceptional use of the word. In order for your claim that "(Fetus=latin for baby)" to be true, the meaning of baby or offspring would have to be common usage, not simply an exception to otherwise common usage. Since the only evidence we have on the matter is an etymological dictionary which indicates that baby or offspring was not the main meaning of the term, and notes that exceptional uses of it among uncommon lines occurs in the literature to underscore that point, it seems the only evidence we have in the matter is that fetus=baby was not common usage, and so your implied claim that it was "the" meaning of fetus is wrong. I'll note in this context that the exception proves the rule, which means that the citing of an exception indicates that a more general rule to which it is an exception is in place. What that means is that the etymological dictionary quoting the exception proves the more general rule that fetus does not equal baby or offspring. So the only evidence one way or the other in the matter suggests that fetus meaning baby is not the meaning of the Latin, and until I see evidence that it is, I refuse to concede the point.

Have fun, Drich. I look forward to your research. lol.

Oh, and just to be thorough, Drich, I'm no lady. So the score is currently 0 for 3. Get cracking.

(November 27, 2018 at 12:25 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: In the first case, what you have is some internet rando reinterpreting Norse legend.  In the same vein, if some internet weirdo referred to Mickey Mouse as a rat, that wouldn't bear any weight in establishing that Mickey Mouse was indeed a rat.  What is relevant is what the Norse who created the legends meant, and for that you need to bring evidence that the Norse had the concept of a dragon, a word for it in their language, and that they referred to Jormungandr in those terms in the original sagas.  Until you do, it's simply unknown whether Jormungandr was a dragon or not.  But given that you research everything in depth, the answers to these questions should already be in your notes on the matter.  I will await your enlightening me on this matter, as I simply do not know.

Nevermind. Dragon is correct. So all told you're 1 for 3 so far. Still need to see evidence that Thor opposed the serpent because the serpent was angry, and that I am in fact a lady.

(November 28, 2018 at 12:53 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(November 27, 2018 at 12:25 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: In the first case, what you have is some internet rando reinterpreting Norse legend.  In the same vein, if some internet weirdo referred to Mickey Mouse as a rat, that wouldn't bear any weight in establishing that Mickey Mouse was indeed a rat.  What is relevant is what the Norse who created the legends meant, and for that you need to bring evidence that the Norse had the concept of a dragon, a word for it in their language, and that they referred to Jormungandr in those terms in the original sagas.  Until you do, it's simply unknown whether Jormungandr was a dragon or not.  But given that you research everything in depth, the answers to these questions should already be in your notes on the matter.  I will await your enlightening me on this matter, as I simply do not know.

Nevermind.  Dragon is correct.  So all told you're 1 for 3 so far.  Still need to see evidence that Thor opposed the serpent because the serpent was angry, and that I am in fact a lady.

Oops. Belay that order.

Oxford English Dictionary Wrote:dragon, n.

1. A huge serpent or snake; a python. Obsolete (except in etymological use).

Apparently, according to the OED, referring to Jormungandr as a dragon would be obsolete usage. I was under the impression that because the word dragon had the etymology of 'serpent' that this would make the modern word also mean serpent, but that's an example of the genetic fallacy and so the conclusion doesn't hold.

So you're back to 0 for 3.

(November 27, 2018 at 11:52 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Fine.  I was wrong about the dragon part. So you're saying you meant to be literal on one part and figurative on another.  Gotcha.  Clear as mud.  You're simply employing amphiboly to claim that the angry part applied to the serpent rather than the lady part, a claim which no one over the age of 12 is likely to believe.  

way must you make everything complicated? I simply said your a lady who wants to be known or seen as an angry dragon how is this complicated? you assigned yourself the avatar of an angry dragon serpent beast. To then call you an angry dragon lady is a simple play on words, one because of your own personal avatar assignment and because your asian which at least for koreans means you a angry b-word. I just though it was funny that you are playing to that specific stereotype whether you know it or not..

Quote:Regardless, aside from this rather amusing digression, you're still wrong in assigning me anger I did not possess, which is the only issue of significance here.  Like Huggy, you win the battle but lose the war.  I'll take to calling you Pyrrhic Victory Drich.

seriously at this point you gotta be a little miffed if not angry...
And what was the cost? your respect? the respect of your peers? you informed me on like post number 2 I lost that. Am I now on yet another ignore list?? It's funny how many ignore lists I've been placed on and yet not one of you is on mine. is loosing to someone who you considered so inferrior the loss must always be considered a Pyrrhic victory?

Why could you just laugh or shrugg the comment off? why decide to die on this hill? why not one of consequence? or was pride in your assigned avatar too great of a call to arms to allow me a pass?

By now you of all people should know we simply think and see things differently. and just because I make a point counter to what you see doesn't make you wrong or me right we often time both have legit points. that doesn't make you an more stupid than it makes me for looking at it from a different perspective. You often time simply are not looking at the same angles I am. like here with the angry dragon lady comment. You saw one incorrect assessment I saw two or three cheeky ways to spin the term and left it for the reader to interpret.

Quote:And as to your once again referencing the claim that you are some master of research and preparation, I'll point out that you cited a source which contradicted your claims three times in the global cooling debate, and your 'research' on Hitler and Rosenberg was ultimately crap.

but here's the thing... I did not quote the whole source. I quoted the head lines and the supporting information that vetted the head lines. when one quotes source material especially tertiary material it does not mean I am tied to the whole source. Have you not ever researched anything outside of highschool? Tertiary material by default contain personal opinion, personal conclusions and personal spin. You can't take my tetary source to refute itself using the very same source and have it mean anything. all it means is you've cherry picked out your own conclusion based on the same tertiary evidence the author of the tertiary source used to conclude his own findings. Finding I can partially agree with or not agree with.. You need a secondary source or primary source material to refute tertiary findings and conclusions. All you've done for anyone in the know is show you know how to cherry pick. Because Again the article was titled what I had previously stated with the global warming bit. and rosenberg did place hitler at the head of the church which in the church is symbolism that represents Christ. I showed you rosenbergs letter placing Hitler in this position and I left a passage that showed Christ being the "head of the church.' YOUR Failure to comprehend or refuse to acknowledge my evidence because you discredit me as a viable source does not change the facts. That is how you argue btw.. you in your mind find fault with an individual and then just throw away any conclusions the individual makes because of the previous fault you may or may not have correctly identified.

Quote: You use this excuse that you research everything when you are right, and pretend that it is a mysterious unevidenced strategy when you are wrong.  I often don't research shit and I still manage to toast your ass more often than not.

Wow.. you just admitted to being the person you accuse me of being.. I thought there was a lot of 'insight and assumptions' but it turns out your have just been describing yourself when supposedly assessing me.

Quote: Anyone who cites evidence which refutes their claim three times in a row isn't practicing strategy or involved in any deep research.  He's just a dumbass who is occasionally right, and has a buttload of excuses which he uses to justify ignoring the many more times that he is wrong.

I have no doubt you walk away patting yourself on the back more often than not. I have a parameter that ends my involvement in a thread lest we get into flaming or unconstructive blasting each other.. If you need to count those as wins fine. as my only thing is to put the truth out there. My job is not to till the ground or force the seed to grow. I am just to cast the seed/truth out there.

Honestly I harbor no ill will towards you nor anyone else. most of the time I am having lots of fun. wording things certain ways to push certain topics a certain way just to make you all think of things a little differently. If it means I gotta take a few to the chin I can and will be willing to make that sacrifice. how ever when someone who blasts me more often than not sets her angry self up to be blasted, then I will more often than not take the shot. Not because I hate you or wish you ill will but as a measure of distributing the humility most of us need to hear each other over the noise of our pride. If a chip on your pride counts as too high of a cost, and we are done... then so be it. step aside like the other 'heavy atheist hitters'/long term members who have put me on ignore because I've shown them like you I will not roll over and allow "unresearch BS" go unchallenged. Even if it means a person strike against your ego.

---

(November 28, 2018 at 8:26 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 12:53 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Nevermind.  Dragon is correct.  So all told you're 1 for 3 so far.  Still need to see evidence that Thor opposed the serpent because the serpent was angry, and that I am in fact a lady.

Oops.  Belay that order.

Oxford English Dictionary Wrote:dragon, n.

1. A huge serpent or snake; a python. Obsolete (except in etymological use).

Apparently, according to the OED, referring to Jormungandr as a dragon would be obsolete usage.  I was under the impression that because the word dragon had the etymology of 'serpent' that this would make the modern word also mean serpent, but that's an example of the genetic fallacy and so the conclusion doesn't hold.

So you're back to 0 for 3.

here's the problem with that...

I quoted secondary material from norse god library who's description is from Norse god cannon..

You have taken a single word consulted a tertiary source as the word is not specific to the topic at hand, (akin to the word god verses Jehovah) and have created your own commentary which is not anything but speculation.. Eg. Jehovah is God, but not all gods are Jehovah. In turn Jörmungandr is a dragon but not all dragons are Jörmungandr. yet you look up the generic term and applied it to a specific being.

Do you see how research works ADL? 

Secondary source or a canonical source ALWAYS trumps personal speculatory bull shit.

So go ahead call me stupid because you donot agree with my analogy pat yourself on the back and call this another win! meanwhile ignoring the larger point the greater truth that underscores your whole effort despite finding fault with something trivial.. which again is how you 'win'/what you do. you look for specs and when you find one you give your self permission to throw out everything you don't like.

Drich, the part of your source that is relevant was the part that contradicted the claim you were making. This idea that the part that contradicted you is not relevant to the claim you were making is sheer bollocks. That you want to pretend that it wasn't is just more evidence that you are too incompetent to continue breathing, or simply too dishonest and lacking in integrity to care. Neither absolves you of responsibility.

And no, your rationalization as to Jormungandr being a dragon doesn't wash. The meaning of dragon as serpent would flow to Jormungandr if indeed dragon as serpent were current usage, but it is not. So, no, it has nothing to do with applying a general term to something specific or the reverse. That idea is just more proof that your brain is broken.

As to Rosenberg, I am not depending on your representation for my conclusion. When it looked like we were going to be rehashing the discussion in the context of your argument that I was not substantively addressing your posts, I went back and did my own research and found that the sources do not bear out your theory. So, no, your notion that I'm simply not giving you credit for the aces up your sleeve doesn't pan out as it appears you have no aces up your sleeve. I, on the other hand, do.

And no, as my confronting you in that thread in which you accused me of not substantively engaging with you shows, I do not simply throw away your opinions on the basis that you are a fucking idiot. I do, however, attack those opinions where you clearly demonstrate that you are a fucking idiot. That's somewhat unfair, as it may give someone the impression that I think you are always wrong, but it's hardly a selectivity that I can be faulted for.

So, no, once again, all you show is that you're an idiot who is full of himself and makes bullshit excuses so he can rationalize his behavior, even though said excuses tend to be filled with the same type of errors the opinions they are meant to defend are.

And you're still 0 for 3 on the Jormungandr front, in case anybody is keeping count.

And no, I'm not even a little miffed. To quote Jeffrey Dahmer, "I eat guys like you for breakfast." I enjoy crucifying you and your stupidly boneheaded arguments. It gives me a lady boner.

I have to seriously wonder who your audience is these days. The only person convinced by your lame ass rebuttals is you, while I continue to crush you in the eyes of anybody with half a brain. The only thing I can see that you are accomplishing is undermining the credibility which your stated mission here depends upon. These rebuttals of yours do nothing but cut off your nose to spite your face. You would be wise to ignore me, but we know wisdom is something you lack.

Circumcision Begins
Genesis 17

As if God hadn't already established his covenant with Abram from earlier, God reiterates his promise to Abram that his descendants will inherit the land of Canaan, so long as Abram continues to walk faithfully with God. But this time around, God also instructs Abram to make sure every male in his household was circumcised, and every future male among them be circumcised once they're eight days old. This was the Israelite way to keep the covenant, and any Israelite male who refused to be circumcised was to be "cut off from his people".

And thus, Abram and all the men in his household, young and old, were circumcised. Abram was 99 years old when he was circumcised, while Ishmael was 13 years old at the time.

This passage also signifies the starting moment when Abram's name officially becomes "Abraham", for he would become the "father of many nations", yielding several kings. Additionally, Sarai's name officially becomes "Sarah". So from now on, we will refer to them as Abraham and Sarah, respectively.

There is also a promise from God that Sarah herself would finally bear a son for Abraham a year later, with the son to be named Isaac. That said, God also reassures Abram that his current son, Ishmael, will also be blessed and become the father of rulers. However, the covenant will be re-established through Isaac rather than through Ishmael.

This is the gist of the passage. Note, by the way, that the covenant was meant to be "everlasting", and yet this doesn't seem to be the case at all, given the later history of Israel and the current global situation. Of course, Christians (following later Apostolic views) have their own interpretations of this passage. Muslims as well. But if we wish to be intellectually honest, it's important that we try to determine what the originally intended interpretation of the passage was meant to be. I'm personally not going to pretend to know what is meant by the promise that Abraham would become the "father of many nations", but perhaps our resident scholars will provide us with some answers.

One other thing before I end this post, while Abraham was subservient to God (as indicated by his kneeling facedown before God), he was allowed to laugh at what God had to say and even respond to him with boldness. This to me suggests that Abraham had a privileged sort of relationship with God that was not enjoyed by most of his later descendants (according to the stories, I mean). God here is depicted as rather forgiving of Abraham's apparent rudeness, as opposed to the vindictive deity later depicted in the Bible. And we get to see more of this sort of privileged relationship later on in Genesis.