(August 15, 2013 at 11:04 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(August 15, 2013 at 10:53 pm)Drich Wrote: You get back what you put in.

You gave me your personal thoughts on my religion, I gave you my personal thoughts on your personal thoughts. Stator and Waldorf, sat on the sidelines and pooped on everything the muppets did, all the while rarely leaving the comfort of their box seats and actually put themselves in the middle of the show. That is what you just did.

So again you get from me what you put into your posts to me. Fair enough?

Only if you missed the questions I posed, or want to avoid them. Even then it would be more honest to say you don't know or maybe haven't thought about it, rather than trying (and failing) a cheap brinksmanship tactic in order to save the face that nobody has even suggested threatening.

One of the advantages of a text-based forum such as this is that every submitted post becomes part of the written record; so all anyone needs to do is flick back a few entries and every evasion is laid out for all to see.

Of course, the real irony in your diversionary tactic is that Statler and Waldorf are themselves Muppets and actually part of the show that you want us to think they are disrupting - sorry to drop this on you but they're not real people, you know.

1)Making a statement and putting it in question form is not an actual question. Your 'questions' at best were rhetorical.

2)What were the questions I did not know the answers to?

3)S&D were used as a topical break. They were used as the intro and outro, to skits and commercials breaks. While technically apart of the show their contribution was limited to pooping on the works of the rest of the cast who's personalities dominated the skits and various performances. Which again was my assessment of the series of rhetorical questions you asserted.

Your still getting back what you put it.

---

(August 15, 2013 at 11:10 pm)Maelstrom Wrote:

(August 15, 2013 at 11:04 pm)Drich Wrote: ...So you ignore the teachings of Paul because you do not like him.

No, I ignore Paul's teachings because he is no better than a modern televangelist. His teachings are false, and quite contradictory to the teachings of Christ. It is no surprise to biblical scholars that Paul disagreed with Christ regarding most teachings.

Not that the teachings of Christ should in any way be relevant toward his existence, but as a prophet created from the imagination of man his teachings were spot on in how to treat one another.

Paul is a douche, plain a simple. The precise opposite of Christ.

What would be an example of Paul's and Christ's teaching conflicting with one another?

(August 15, 2013 at 11:16 pm)Drich Wrote: What would be an example of Paul's and Christ's teaching conflicting with one another?

Take a look:

http://www.voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html

Too many contradictions to list here.

(August 15, 2013 at 11:04 pm)Drich Wrote: Take away Paul and his teachings and you will bind yourself to a legalist lay crippling version of Christianity.

Take away Paul, and Christianity would've vanished a long time ago.

(August 15, 2013 at 11:10 pm)Maelstrom Wrote:

(August 15, 2013 at 11:04 pm)Drich Wrote: ...So you ignore the teachings of Paul because you do not like him.

No, I ignore Paul's teachings because he is no better than a modern televangelist. His teachings are false, and quite contradictory to the teachings of Christ. It is no surprise to biblical scholars that Paul disagreed with Christ regarding most teachings.

Not that the teachings of Christ should in any way be relevant toward his existence, but as a prophet created from the imagination of man his teachings were spot on in how to treat one another.

Paul is a douche, plain a simple. The precise opposite of Christ.

I think Jesus was not the opposite of Paul, rather he was a douche just like Paul, just somewhat less ambitious in the demography he victimized, but makes up that bery slight redeeming quality by being more mad in more ways than one.

Quote:Take away Paul

That Paul shit is an interesting tale. Probably as phony as the rest of it but it seems like Marcion invented him or at least his writings and then had the proto-orthodox hijack his creation and create a load of bullshit stories about him.

(August 15, 2013 at 11:16 pm)Drich Wrote: 1)Making a statement and putting it in question form is not an actual question. Your 'questions' at best were rhetorical.

I asked:

"what's the problem with allowing same-sex couples to marry, get their relationship recognised officially and then express whatever damn feelings they want without offending the followers of a misbegotten mythology?"

Clothed in rhetorical devices perhaps, but the question itself is sound.

(August 15, 2013 at 11:16 pm)Drich Wrote: 2)What were the questions I did not know the answers to?

I never said you don't know the answers. I merely pointed out you were avoiding them. You still are.

(August 15, 2013 at 11:16 pm)Drich Wrote: 3)S&D were used as a topical break. They were used as the intro and outro, to skits and commercials breaks.

And you are using them as red herrings.

(August 15, 2013 at 11:16 pm)Drich Wrote: While technically apart of the show their contribution was limited to pooping on the works of the rest of the cast who's personalities dominated the skits and various performances. Which again was my assessment of the series of rhetorical questions you asserted.

Technically part of the show?! You write as though the characters' routines were unscripted, like they were an actual double act that just wandered in and heckled everybody. Okay, I'll bite. I'm Statler (or Waldorf, whichever you prefer). You can be Gonzo, always trying to do something he can't and continually fucking up. Or maybe you're Fozzy, the perenially unfunny comic.

See? I can play too.

Oh and please learn the difference between "apart" and "a part". The two couldn't be more opposite if they were matter and antimatter.

(August 15, 2013 at 11:16 pm)Drich Wrote: Your still getting back what you put it.

And what precisely did I put "it"? I asked a couple of questions, developed a progression of enquiry, and tried being nice. Wasted effort, apparently, if all you're going to do is throw it back in my face. What is it with you theists lately?

(August 15, 2013 at 11:21 pm)Maelstrom Wrote:

(August 15, 2013 at 11:16 pm)Drich Wrote: What would be an example of Paul's and Christ's teaching conflicting with one another?

Take a look:

http://www.voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html

Too many contradictions to list here.

They're only contradictions if you think of them as contradictions, apparently.

(August 15, 2013 at 11:21 pm)Maelstrom Wrote:

(August 15, 2013 at 11:16 pm)Drich Wrote: What would be an example of Paul's and Christ's teaching conflicting with one another?

Take a look:

http://www.voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html

Too many contradictions to list here.

Those are... (What is a fancy word for "intintionally stupid?") Obtuse??

Pick 5 that you want reconsiled. Eveyone that i read was either a context error or an intentional misinterpertation of the translation.

(August 16, 2013 at 3:56 pm)Drich Wrote: Those are... (What is a fancy word for "intintionally stupid?")

"Drich"?

(August 16, 2013 at 3:56 pm)Drich Wrote: Eveyone that i read was either a context error or an intentional misinterpertation of the translation.

I am fairly certain you are the one who is misinterpreting with those rose colored glasses.