In UK atheists considred more moral than theists.

[Drich]

you can literally be this stupid has rage blinded you can you only see red? Look at how far off you were. you were going by the common usage of the word I was using the orginal defination and said so!
In Latin, fetus sometimes was transferred figuratively This means sometimes the word was used figurtivly to the newborn itself... yes you correctly added but this was not the orginal defination... so fucking what! it was sometimes used this way some times.. not only that if you would open your eyes to the defination we BOTH PROVIDED 

 from Latin fetus (often, incorrectly, foetus) "the bearing or hatching of young, a bringing forth, pregnancy, childbearing, offspring," from suffixed form of PIE root  "to suck."



Those word right there jorgie right thur!righ thur! end you little tyrade and demand for anything why? because that you failed, your attempt at a legitmate correction ends with your singular understanding between the latian word and the latin defination and the same latian word and it's repurposed english defination!

You thought fetus:
Dictionary







fe·tus
ˈfēdəs/
noun
noun: fetus; plural noun: fetuses; noun: foetus; plural noun: foetuses

1. an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.
   synonyms:
   embryo, unborn baby/child
   "an ultrasonic photo of the fetus"
   

You foolishly thought all fetus were unborn... here even in the not sometimes used version:

[/url]the bearing or hatching of young, a bringing forth, pregnancy, childbearing, offspring,The bearing the hatching the bring foruth the off spring what do all of these describe? a baby being born, a female giving birth or newly born, it is not a pre birth situation!

I don't care that you think you had an a ha moment (kinda got suckered there didn't ya, makes you look stupid and embittered cause you know your wrong and can't admit it) that if you just stick to your gun we should forget you where try to correct my useage of the word fetus in the latin means baby, rather than the english defination..

But here's the thing jorgie You were because you thought a fetus was a pre birth organism. I showed you in the latin in fact it is not. it represents a baby/new born.

You were wrong...

And, I....

Was right Again.

When will stupid people stop judging intelligence on trivial things?

if I am stupid because my spelling or grammar, then how much more stupid are you when you fail to understand a simple definition? when you fail to grasp a simple pretext, when we have to go back and fourth for pages because you despite the evidence must assume I am the one in error no matter what is said? when you can't leverage enough independent thought to push your 'thinking' outside the box they put it in at whatever school, or book you favor?

You failed hard here. My efforts don't usually include a spoon feeding of the crow, but since you were so ready to make me eat it I really need to see an effort here jorgie.
an effort that STARTS with an apology

You're a fucking dishonest piece of shit.  The very entry you quoted said that it was not the basic meaning of the Latin word.  Do you not fucking speak English?  What do you think it means to say that something is not the basic meaning of the word?  You said it was the Latin for baby.  That it sometimes was used figuratively to mean a baby does not change the basic definition of the word.  Fetus is Latin for "the bearing, bringing forth, or hatching of young."  That's the common usage of the word in Latin.  And if you can't see that that is different from baby, then you're fucked in the head.  That you actually think you were right just shows what a fucking moron you are.  Please, explain to me what it means to say that something is not the basic meaning of a word.  Go on, explain it.

You even repeated your error:

But here's the thing jorgie You were because you thought a fetus was a pre birth organism. I showed you in the latin in fact it is not. it represents a baby/new born.

But this is about what I expect from you.  Lies and dishonesty.  You misrepresented your source here, and you misrepresented your source in your thread citing scientists predicting a mini-ice-age.  You're a fundamentally dishonest person, in addition to being an ignorant twat.

---

then define atonement or define seeking atonement, as it seems we are working with two different definitions..

For me atonement is forgiveness for sin in this application. if you do not want this sin the first thing we are offered is atonement for our sin... so then we must seek atonement if we are to separate ourselves from sin... how do we do that.. go back to the post before this one.

Seeking atonement is in addition to not wanting this sin, so it is not "just" not wanting this sin.  The two are separate things and you can have one without the other.  If I do not want this sin, but I do not believe that Christ dies for my sins, I'm still going to not want this sin, yet I am not going to believe.  Believing requires an additional step so just wanting isn't enough.  If I want to live to be 100, I'll need to exercise and eat right.  Just wanting not to die young is not enough to actually accomplish that feat.  So, no, you're wrong here as well.

https://www.lexilogos.com/english/latin_dictionary.htm


[url=https://www.ultralingua.com/onlinedictionary/dictionary#]fētus ūs

1. heteroclit. abl. plural (fetis)
   
   
   
2. a bringing forth, bearing, dropping, hatching of young (rare butclassical) Abstract
   
   
   
3. of plants, a bearing, producing Poetic
   
   
   
4. young, offspring, progeny, brood Concrete
   
   
   
5. of plants, fruit, produce Poetic
   

http://archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wordz.pl?keyword=fetus
fetus

fet.us               N      4 1 NOM S M                
fet.us               N      4 1 VOC S M                
fet.us               N      4 1 GEN S M                
fet.us               N      4 1 NOM P M                
fet.us               N      4 1 VOC P M                
fet.us               N      4 1 ACC P M                
fetus, fetus  N  M   [GXXDK]    NeoLatin  lesser
foetus;
offspring, young;
fet.us               ADJ    1 1 NOM S M POS            
fetus, feta, fetum  ADJ   [XXXCX]  
fertile; pregnant with; full of; having newly brought forth;


English to Latin



fetus, fetus

#1

[size=undefined]Definitions:[/size]

1. brood/litter
   
2. children (of a parent)
   
3. offspring/young (animals)
   

• Age: In use throughout the ages/unknown
  
• Area: All or none
  
• Geography: All or none
  
• Frequency: Very frequent, in all Elementary Latin books, top 1000+ words
  
• Source: “Oxford Latin Dictionary”, 1982 (OLD)
  

3 sources that say YOU are WRONG! (provided a link to 20 more that say you are wrong as well) You've been wrong from the beginning! you have attacked me from one single position that is you only understood the english usage of a latin word to mean an unborn child, then you try and twist the definition I provided from an ontological source, but here's the "Trump card" I've got 3 dictionaries latin to english that all say the same thing.

1) your singular definition from the english usage of this word, the definition that fuel your self righteous hypocritical need to call me out, was wrong... you were wrong all day long jorgie!

2) while fetus is a catch all it can mean various parts of child birthing process, it can also be used to define a child or baby newly created is the idea. which is how I described the word being used.

3)that's it jorgie, you truly have nothing else to say but your sorry for being a pain in the ass when you don't need be, that you broarder if not constantly cross the flaming line and at best have recently demoted yourself to website troll, nit picking bull shit detail. when you yourself as in this very instance have in fact made huge errors in an effort to try and pick the nt out of my eye.

Frankly jorgie if you keep this up no one will want to play with you. its not the challenge you off don't fool yourself it is the hyprocrisy people/I can not stand being around. You point out a single perceived fault in me but make 10 faults in trying to establish yourself. it's like watching the evening news when they bash the president one week, then the info turn out to be fake news and they move on to the next fake news story hoping something will stick.. it's disgusting to watch someone betray their own intellectual standing just to strike blindly...

You've got to be smart enough to know I don't lead with my strongest material by now. I start off with weak sauce to draw people out, have some back and fourth, and then hammer them home once they blow their load on the weak stuff. however you have found a new dishonest approach to even that. I will make a unsupported statement like the fetus comment, and then when I move to support, you start in with calling me a liar. there is no room for discussion with you. you only want to destroy my character, your mission seems to have shifted in that you only want to destroy the me by twisting what I say. you have little to no concern with the truth.. Example the fetus definition.. you know I start with a claim, then moved to the etymology of the word and then you tried to twist the etymogical use of the word. You had to know I was going to the dictionary next... so why then throw out your own integrity on a etymological description when you know I was going to a primary source next? That the dictionary description would trump anything you could twist around

It makes you look like a stupid whore who does anything for a win, when you play with word or ideas that can be vetted. I don't like kicking in your teeth like this over and over. I don't like doing this to anyone. that is why I stopped with minnie, it's not that I can't t's just not right/fair for him.. you are fast approaching the same limit for me. meaning for your sake I might have to limit my responses to you so that you do not over extend yourself as you did here. (and the last few times we went at it.) I don't like being this... mean I don't like reflecting this much rage and anger back on to you even if you are the source of it all.

I miss debating Alpo someone who was researched and had a direction.. Jorgie is mean and only looks to assassinate the messenger any which way she can, which makes her look like cnn with the president... nothing is true little to none of it has merit, you just mud slinging for the purpose of hoping something sticks. I don't know what happened to you or what I said that lite a fire under your dark 1/2, but i do think about it alot. 

With minnie I know why. if i'm right his whole life =shit. with a shit storm to come. so it is better to try and kill the messenger rather than address the message.

you... who knows.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I always find it hilarious when a religionist posts a huge wall of text arguing about the etymology of a single word rather than try to back up the unsubstantiated assertions they make because they believe in magic.

[Angrboda]

You're a fucking dishonest piece of shit.  The very entry you quoted said that it was not the basic meaning of the Latin word.  Do you not fucking speak English?  What do you think it means to say that something is not the basic meaning of the word?  You said it was the Latin for baby.  That it sometimes was used figuratively to mean a baby does not change the basic definition of the word.  Fetus is Latin for "the bearing, bringing forth, or hatching of young."  That's the common usage of the word in Latin.  And if you can't see that that is different from baby, then you're fucked in the head.  That you actually think you were right just shows what a fucking moron you are.  Please, explain to me what it means to say that something is not the basic meaning of a word.  Go on, explain it.

You even repeated your error:

But this is about what I expect from you.  Lies and dishonesty.  You misrepresented your source here, and you misrepresented your source in your thread citing scientists predicting a mini-ice-age.  You're a fundamentally dishonest person, in addition to being an ignorant twat.

---

Seeking atonement is in addition to not wanting this sin, so it is not "just" not wanting this sin.  The two are separate things and you can have one without the other.  If I do not want this sin, but I do not believe that Christ dies for my sins, I'm still going to not want this sin, yet I am not going to believe.  Believing requires an additional step so just wanting isn't enough.  If I want to live to be 100, I'll need to exercise and eat right.  Just wanting not to die young is not enough to actually accomplish that feat.  So, no, you're wrong here as well.

.....

---

https://www.lexilogos.com/english/latin_dictionary.htm


fētus ūs

1. heteroclit. abl. plural (fetis)
   
   
   
2. a bringing forth, bearing, dropping, hatching of young (rare butclassical) Abstract
   
   
   
3. of plants, a bearing, producing Poetic
   
   
   
4. young, offspring, progeny, brood Concrete
   
   
   
5. of plants, fruit, produce Poetic
   

http://archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wordz.pl?keyword=fetus
fetus

fet.us               N      4 1 NOM S M                
fet.us               N      4 1 VOC S M                
fet.us               N      4 1 GEN S M                
fet.us               N      4 1 NOM P M                
fet.us               N      4 1 VOC P M                
fet.us               N      4 1 ACC P M                
fetus, fetus  N  M   [GXXDK]    NeoLatin  lesser
foetus;
offspring, young;
fet.us               ADJ    1 1 NOM S M POS            
fetus, feta, fetum  ADJ   [XXXCX]  
fertile; pregnant with; full of; having newly brought forth;


English to Latin



fetus, fetus

#1

[size=undefined]Definitions:[/size]

1. brood/litter
   
2. children (of a parent)
   
3. offspring/young (animals)
   

• Age: In use throughout the ages/unknown
  
• Area: All or none
  
• Geography: All or none
  
• Frequency: Very frequent, in all Elementary Latin books, top 1000+ words
  
• Source: “Oxford Latin Dictionary”, 1982 (OLD)
  

3 sources that say YOU are WRONG! (provided a link to 20 more that say you are wrong as well) You've been wrong from the beginning! you have attacked me from one single position that is you only understood the english usage of a latin word to mean an unborn child, then you try and twist the definition I provided from an ontological source, but here's the "Trump card" I've got 3 dictionaries latin to english that all say the same thing.

1) your singular definition from the english usage of this word, the definition that fuel your self righteous hypocritical need to call me out, was wrong... you were wrong all day long jorgie!

2) while fetus is a catch all it can mean various parts of child birthing process, it can also be used to define a child or baby newly created is the idea. which is how I described the word being used.

3)that's it jorgie, you truly have nothing else to say but your sorry for being a pain in the ass when you don't need be, that you broarder if not constantly cross the flaming line and at best have recently demoted yourself to website troll, nit picking bull shit detail. when you yourself as in this very instance have in fact made huge errors in an effort to try and pick the nt out of my eye.

Frankly jorgie if you keep this up no one will want to play with you. its not the challenge you off don't fool yourself it is the hyprocrisy people/I can not stand being around. You point out a single perceived fault in me but make 10 faults in trying to establish yourself. it's like watching the evening news when they bash the president one week, then the info turn out to be fake news and they move on to the next fake news story hoping something will stick.. it's disgusting to watch someone betray their own intellectual standing just to strike blindly...

You've got to be smart enough to know I don't lead with my strongest material by now. I start off with weak sauce to draw people out, have some back and fourth, and then hammer them home once they blow their load on the weak stuff. however you have found a new dishonest approach to even that. I will make a unsupported statement like the fetus comment, and then when I move to support, you start in with calling me a liar. there is no room for discussion with you. you only want to destroy my character, your mission seems to have shifted in that you only want to destroy the me by twisting what I say. you have little to no concern with the truth.. Example the fetus definition.. you know I start with a claim, then moved to the etymology of the word and then you tried to twist the etymogical use of the word. You had to know I was going to the dictionary next... so why then throw out your own integrity on a etymological description when you know I was going to a primary source next? That the dictionary description would trump anything you could twist around

It makes you look like a stupid whore who does anything for a win, when you play with word or ideas that can be vetted. I don't like kicking in your teeth like this over and over. I don't like doing this to anyone. that is why I stopped with minnie, it's not that I can't t's just not right/fair for him.. you are fast approaching the same limit for me. meaning for your sake I might have to limit my responses to you so that you do not over extend yourself as you did here. (and the last few times we went at it.) I don't like being this... mean I don't like reflecting this much rage and anger back on to you even if you are the source of it all.

I miss debating Alpo someone who was researched and had a direction.. Jorgie is mean and only looks to assassinate the messenger any which way she can, which makes her look like cnn with the president... nothing is true little to none of it has merit, you just mud slinging for the purpose of hoping something sticks. I don't know what happened to you or what I said that lite a fire under your dark 1/2, but i do think about it alot. 

With minnie I know why. if i'm right his whole life =shit. with a shit storm to come. so it is better to try and kill the messenger rather than address the message.

you... who knows.

---

Fair enough. I was wrong and you were right. And I apologize for calling you an ignorant twat regarding this issue. But since you ask, I'll take some time to explain myself on the questions you raised. Speaking in general, I don't spend as much time constructively engaging with you anymore, and frequently resort to insults largely because of your own behavior. I've engaged constructively with you on multiple topics this year, and not only did you not acknowledge your errors, you even bragged about how you'd been right so many times in the recent past, and insulted me, claiming that the quality of my arguments had deteriorated. Even in this thread, although we haven't really finished discussing it, you haven't responded to my point about atonement. In other cases, it's pretty obvious that you were wrong. At the very least, you didn't bother to provide any sensible counter-arguments, all the while bragging about "kicking people's teeth in" and calling people "sport" and "alpo" and bragging about shit. You were wrong about the evidence for a brain as receiver hypothesis. You were wrong and hypocritical about the ad hominem arguments in that thread. You were wrong about the liar's paradox. You were wrong about Hitler claiming to be God (though you dispute it, you never actually produced anything beyond mere suspicions based on Rosenberg). You were wrong about the mini-ice-age, and even your own source (Wikipedia) showed that you were wrong. You were wrong about David Barton's lies. In all these cases, not only did you not acknowledge your errors, you continued to brag about your superiority, insult people with pet names and other demeaning behaviors, and even brag about how you had been right so often in your engagements with me. And while it's probably not the best thing for me to treat you unkindly for being wrong and stupid and delusional and egotistical, it's very human. People who act like shit and walk around with their head in the clouds because they're deluded, lack insight into their behavior, and have outsized egos which their behavior and accomplishments don't merit are going to get shit on for those behaviors. It's an evolutionary thing. People treat good and successful behavior well, and they shit on people who behave like you do. Occasionally you do get things right, so it's not all negative. However, for as often as you get things wrong, your attitude is way out of line. I'm a bit biased because I don't tend to engage you much anymore unless you've said something really questionable. Maybe you get things right more than people are willing to admit, but the fact is, you believe yourself right more often than you actually are. That's nothing but ego talking, combined with the fact that you're not the sharpest tool in the shed. So if you're wondering why things have changed between us, it's basically because I've written you off as a deluded, ignorant, and egotistical twat -- a reputation that you've earned through your own behavior. So if you want to know why I treat you like I do, go look in the mirror. You're treated like shit because you act like shit. There's nothing particularly wrong with being ignorant or not too bright, but combine that with an unjustified ego and delusions about your effectiveness, and you're gonna get shit from people. Now of course, I'm probably wasting my breath in explaining this to you because you're not going to believe a word of it BECAUSE you're egotistical, deluded, and not too bright. So ask yourself this question. If everybody on the forum treated Tizheruk like he was ignorant and stupid and egotistical, which would be the safer bet -- that a bunch of people were wrong about him, and his brains and his accomplishments were simply unrecognized through no fault of his own, or is it more likely that his reputation is deserved? Of course you don't think these things apply to you, but that's your ego and other weaknesses talking. So I've spent a good bit of time answering your question and the answer is threefold. a) You've earned such treatment by your own behavior, b) I've given up on you and so am less inclined to engage you substantially (although in spite of your lies, the past six months will show that I did engage with you most of the time), and c) talking to you about these things and engaging constructively with you has been shown to be pointless (you're a lot like Little Rik in that regard. I engage him a lot, but it's really futile because he's not smart enough to understand that his arguments are flawed and he's too egotistical to even consider himself wrong; you and Little Rik are a lot alike in that regard, even if he's somewhat worse than you are, you're both cut from the same cloth; so if you want to see why other people treat you the way they do, maybe spending some time reading and arguing with Little Rik might offer you some needed perspective).

Now, I've acknowledged my error, apologized for the insult in this case, and explained what you've got wrong about the situation between you and me. I might choose to omit some of the insults in future, then again, I might not. There's some of that which is strictly up to me and what I expect of my own behavior, but there's also a large part that's up to you. If you continue to be dismissive, egotistical, bragging about your accomplishments when you shouldn't, calling people "sport" and "alpo" and "jorgie" and so forth, then you reap what you do sow. The choice is up to you. It would probably be too much to ask you to acknowledge your errors in the discussions above, but that's alright. If you wish to discuss those issues further, I'll more than likely respond to your renewal of those discussions. Whether I'm going to stop insulting you or not, well, that's my own cross to bear. That you don't like it is understandable, unfortunately, in large part, you've earned the reputation you have, and you'll only underscore that point if you dismiss my concerns and criticisms here out of hand. The rest is up to you.

---

You've got to be smart enough to know I don't lead with my strongest material by now. I start off with weak sauce to draw people out, have some back and fourth, and then hammer them home once they blow their load on the weak stuff. however you have found a new dishonest approach to even that. I will make a unsupported statement like the fetus comment, and then when I move to support, you start in with calling me a liar. there is no room for discussion with you. you only want to destroy my character, your mission seems to have shifted in that you only want to destroy the me by twisting what I say. you have little to no concern with the truth.. Example the fetus definition.. you know I start with a claim, then moved to the etymology of the word and then you tried to twist the etymogical use of the word. You had to know I was going to the dictionary next... so why then throw out your own integrity on a etymological description when you know I was going to a primary source next? That the dictionary description would trump anything you could twist around

This is just your ego talking again. Maybe you do such things, but when you post a source which contradicts you, as you did here, and as you did in the thread about science, then you're going to get an extra helping of shit for it. You don't want to be called a liar? Then don't misrepresent your sources. You do that and you have only yourself to blame when you catch shit for it. And for the most part, your "strategy" hasn't been particularly successful as often you end up wrong anyway. But beyond that, if you're not leading with your strongest material, then you're being underhanded just in order to set someone up for a "gotcha!" moment. If you don't think there's anything ethically wrong with that, then I've got news for you. If you are purposely trying to set people up that way, then you deserve shit for that alone. I generally dismiss your claims about it because A) you tend to end up losing the argument anyway, and B) I've seen you brag about your cleverness in arguing, and knowing you and your ego, I make the smart call and dismiss it as bullshit. Maybe if you were a little less concerned about shaming other people and more concerned about having productive conversations, I'd give a shit about your "technique" here. But since being mean and unpleasant to other people seems to be your goal in that, I really am not all that interested. You end up being wrong despite whatever research you do. I didn't research the Latin question before I posted and was going from memory. You, in spite of any research you did, still posted a source which contradicted you.

It makes you look like a stupid whore who does anything for a win, when you play with word or ideas that can be vetted. I don't like kicking in your teeth like this over and over. I don't like doing this to anyone. that is why I stopped with minnie, it's not that I can't t's just not right/fair for him.. you are fast approaching the same limit for me. meaning for your sake I might have to limit my responses to you so that you do not over extend yourself as you did here. (and the last few times we went at it.) I don't like being this... mean I don't like reflecting this much rage and anger back on to you even if you are the source of it all.

I'll survive you thinking I'm a stupid whore. If you want to think that, well, knock yourself out. I have a reputation which I've earned, just as you have. Regardless of how you think my insulting you looks, your delusions about me and yourself make it appear to be something it likely isn't. I HAVE engaged you constructively more often than not over the past six months. You just remember the insults and forget the rest because your selective memory kicks in to protect your ego. Ultimately, I don't blame you for not being very bright or for being wrong a lot, we hold you accountable because you're that and additionally you've got ego and attitude problems.

I miss debating Alpo someone who was researched and had a direction.. Jorgie is mean and only looks to assassinate the messenger any which way she can, which makes her look like cnn with the president... nothing is true little to none of it has merit, you just mud slinging for the purpose of hoping something sticks. I don't know what happened to you or what I said that lite a fire under your dark 1/2, but i do think about it alot. 

See, even when you are on a positive note, being right about the Latin word fetus, you drag it down by calling me "Alpo" and "Jorgie" and bragging about yourself -- brags which EVERYBODY AND THEIR GRANDMOTHER can see aren't merited. You've lived a good life. You have some very commendable accomplishments, between your business, your family, and your ministry. But you erase all those positives by behaving like a self-satisfied twat who believes himself to be better than he is. Even if you were as good as you think you are, humility is a virtue, and you don't have it. I know in the past that you've compared yourself to Paul and Jesus in that regard, but neither of them behaved like you do, and you're not Paul or Jesus. Comparing yourself to them is an insult to both men, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. But nevermind, your ego will save you, and you'll find some way to ignore or rationalize away what I've said.

With minnie I know why. if i'm right his whole life =shit. with a shit storm to come. so it is better to try and kill the messenger rather than address the message.

More lies and lack of insight on your part. I've mentioned 5-6 discussions in which I engaged you constructively in the past year. During that time I've dismissed you 3 or so times. So, your perspective on the matter is distorted. But then, that's what we've come to expect from you.

[Angrboda]

And I forgot to mention your problems vetting your sources in the discussion about Josephus. But who's counting? Well, in this case, I am. Feel free to correct my numbers if I'm wrong.

[Drich]

Fair enough.  I was wrong and you were right.  And I apologize for calling you an ignorant twat regarding this issue.

 

 But since you ask, I'll take some time to explain myself on the questions you raised.  Speaking in general, I don't spend as much time constructively engaging with you anymore, and frequently resort to insults largely because of your own behavior.  

look not to crap on your moment, but when you ask for a citation and I provide one. again I start 3rd tier tertiary source material commentaries blogs wiki ect... then you proceed to loose your mind, you pick nits/literally cherry pick the material and change it's meaning when clearly if it is read through it supports me.. ok fair so let move on to secondary material if I quote a wiki, then at the bottom there is always a list of reference material to support he page believe it or not I look at the stuff then I will quote it, then here comes the name calling because I switched source material.. now I'm a liar, or I'm cunt because I drop one source and moved to a tighter one. and like here if the secondary material is not enough I provide primary material then you want to argue that... Here's the thing. you can't primary material generally sets the standard for truth on a given topic. if you argue against primary material, it can only be from a position of feeling and not logic or reason.

That is why I always say I have three points of reference I can't help if you or anyone else will not yield or can not recognise the authority of the material I am quoting. a lot of times you just blow through as if you are speaking to me. the majority of the time you are not.

I've engaged constructively with you on multiple topics this year, and not only did you not acknowledge your errors, you even bragged about how you'd been right so many times in the recent past, and insulted me, claiming that the quality of my arguments had deteriorated.  

I don't mean to lash out at feelings I am diagnosing what I see. I would provide a comment and we would discuss. Now I provide a statement and I'm a lying cunt out of the gate. no points being made no discussion to be had, just your a dishonest lying cunt because you say fetus is latin for ...

How is this not a deterioration of past conversations? you have boiled your efforts down to fact checking and name calling and have done so for a while now.

Even in this thread, although we haven't really finished discussing it, you haven't responded to my point about atonement.

actually I did in my last post.) at the end below the black line

 In other cases, it's pretty obvious that you were wrong.  At the very least, you didn't bother to provide any sensible counter-arguments, all the while bragging about "kicking people's teeth in" and calling people "sport" and "alpo" and bragging about shit.

do you know what stands between me and being obliterated by 60 people everyday in everything I say/ every post I make? Fear. The fear the one guy can indeed take on 60 and make all of them feel as you do for being belittled or diminished in any way. Some don't care and I can do a half dozen or so aday (name calling sessions) and still get out a accurate message. but if all of you take a turn then it would be like that one thread were I was to be nuked and the whole board save one or two people was trying to get me booted. While I answered every post, the message was set aside, which is the only reason I put up with a daily dose of name calling.

Getting you teeth kicked in means you are left speechless/you can't bite back with nasty words, you have been silenced now that you understand or been made a fool of

Sport is a term of endearment. alot of times with all the constant name changes and avatar changes I don't know who everyone is anymore. everyone knows me because I am the same. you are all different. so when I speak to you I am addressing the message not the individual. the individual becomes your avatar. you all become 'sport' which is a neutral first person form of address.

Alpo short for apophenia, another term of endearment/nick name. where I come from we did not pick our nick names. That is just how I pronounced
apophenia.. Alpo-phenia not a big deal given the names I have been given

 You were wrong about the evidence for a brain as receiver hypothesis.  

again not my research not my words. initially I cut and pasted a summary, and you still were not satisfied.. I think you had a 'narrow ban' (radio joke) definition of what a receiver was and did not accept that the receiver being described, took radio wave input as the only defination.. but rather than allow me to explain such a thing I'm deemed a liar and you become inconsolable unless I admit I lied about everything. 

which again wasn't the case as I didn't even write the article. Again it start out as a tertiary piece/column on how the brain sends and receives input like a transmitter and receiver. the proof in that was a video of a guy sending signals from his brain into a headpiece/sensor that remotely controlled a car. the idea being electrical signals without contact to the brain sent signals through the skull and into a sensor net which translated the brain signals to remote control car commands.
So there we went from 3rd source material to primary source as that experiment conclusively shows proof of concept. now if you argue this primary source, to me and another evidence believing person, nothing else you can say will have any merit. you will have lot all of your bite removed because you will be arguing emotion against cold scientific proof from a primary duplicable source. Everything you say from this point on is BS to anyone who holds to scientific data over emotion.

That is why I in essence become one of you. I do my dance shake me ass and show you how your faith in a subject lead you down the wrong path...

Or we can continue a proper conversation if the name calling has not taken over.

You were wrong and hypocritical about the ad hominem arguments in that thread.

You ignored evidence and attacked my understanding/comprehension of the topic.

 You were wrong about the liar's paradox.

I don't remember this.

 You were wrong about Hitler claiming to be God (though you dispute it, you never actually produced anything beyond mere suspicions based on Rosenberg).

Alfred rosenberg was the man who adopted 'positive Christianity' (The Nazi version of Christianity which removed belief in Jesus (a jew) and any pro jewish remarks from stated belief. set meinkamphf in place of the bible and HITLER AS HEAD OF THE CHURCH!

Who is head of the church in Christianity Jesus is Who is Jesus ? Jesus is God in Christianity. In Positive Christianity Hitler has taken the position of Christ, therefore in His religion Hitler is God.

Granted I have no quotes or tube video of hitler claiming to be God. But I have more than enough proof of who and what positive christianity was and who was incharge of it

Again we can start with the wiki page and progress from there.

Here too I felt like you shut down to anything other than a direct quote from hitler.

When the chain of Christ deity established my claim. perhaps you did not understand the meaning or symbolism of hitler being placed at the head of positive christianity and Christ being removed from the religion completely. this is real antichrist stuff here and it do not seem to even register to you as important.

 You were wrong about the mini-ice-age,

I lived the warnings in 6th and 7th grade I went to museums and watched the predictions on 16mm film that captain kirk or someone famous narrated, And I remember quoting wait a sec...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/...g-ice-age/

This shows what happened.

and it quotes a primary source:

[I]t is projected that man’s potential to pollute will increase six- to eightfold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection of particulate matter in the atmosphere should raise the present global background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5°C. Such a large decrease in the average surface temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of [a] few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age. However, by that time, nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production.

an actual clip from a climate change paper at the time which triggered a media meltdown pun intended. At the same time other scientists was all about global warming. the article is trying to show how the media blew a trivial theory out of proportion and gave it creedence when it should not have... Somehow we are to also think the media is protected from make this same sky is falling mistakes again.

was I lying???

Again, primary source embedded in the article says no...  tertiary commentary says partially because ...

and even your own source (Wikipedia) showed that you were wrong.

 Again so what tertiary source! parts of the source did indeed concluded with my portion of a given argument. but as we progress and build a stronger and stronger case you get hung up on the one mistake you think you found. The whole wiki page is not my source my clip is my evidence, something you don't seem to get, that I am allowed to do There is a reason something like a wiki page is considered to be a tertiary source and not 2ndary source material or primary material. it includes personal opinion speculation and or even just off the cuff summation or commentary. If I choose 2 paragraphs out of a tertiary source and use them as a topic starter I am allowed to do that. you can't hold me to the whole article and call me a liar when I drop the parts i dont like and upgrade the source material... That is what I mean by being lazy intellectually. you don't seem to want to address the stronger material but double down on trying to destroy me personally in instances like this

You were wrong about David Barton's lies.

I'll have to take your word for it i don't remember.

 In all these cases, not only did you not acknowledge your errors, you continued to brag about your superiority, insult people with pet names and other demeaning behaviors, and even brag about how you had been right so often in your engagements with me.

because from my pov you people/you can not keep up with a topical discussion. you all ultimately drop the subject and begin to attack me or my spelling or my grammar or anything and everything else but the evidence.. Those who address evidence typically won't get into personal stuff. they will try and push another interpretation which I generally allow or make an off comment about and leave it. I take a victory lap when the topical argument stops and the bullying begins because the other person literally can not keep up topically.

 And while it's probably not the best thing for me to treat you unkindly for being wrong and stupid and delusional and egotistical, it's very human.

actually I hate doing it.. We you start out at level 10 I have no where to go I will not meet you at 11 or 12 I feel like I max out at 7 or 8. meaning I may use a bad word or two to try and break your... rythm but I can't just let go. even if it do I always go back and reimagine words to use. which is why I was telling you i'm done. I'm pushing mid 40s now and am done with super drama I don't want to have to channel that much passion all the time. I can't and not have it effect things outside this chat room. 

Use to be I could crank it to 12 and next post be back at 1. now if i hit a 7 in anger it shames me to let another have so much control and two it take a while to let it go. I don't want to be at dinner in some nice restaurant and have a sushi roll remind me of what you said about xyz, then sit in silence with my poor wife who has to put me back together... One way or another im done as this level of anger, couple with non existent communication. This marks an end  to starting in anger.

 People who act like shit and walk around with their head in the clouds because they're deluded, lack insight into their behavior, and have outsized egos which their behavior and accomplishments don't merit are going to get shit on for those behaviors.

I do this sort of thing to mirror you all. how many times have I let other who can be shown they are wrong have the last word, how many times have I even apologized to you for being wrong. Granted it does not happen often as my post are generally constructed from source material. when I get things wrong is when I speak on something I remember wrongly, but for just about every thread here not speaking from a personal experience... there is at least a day if not 2 worth of reading involved. so no I'm not wrong because I rarely go off half cocked I don't ask a question I don't know the answer to and like it or not do indeed have 25 years of this type of study under my belt. Now am I wrong yes all the time. can I be made to admit it yes when there is black and white. will I admit if it is a matter of perspective (IE Hitler head of church=Hitler taking role of God) no why? because in this context imagery of the church takes precedence over your need for a quote.) men deeds tell you more of their intent than their words.
Hitler would not seek to replace the church remove jesus as the central figure if he did not have a replacement. who in the 3rd reich could have come close to the role of Christ? who but hitler could be God? Do you see like it or not there is a viable response here. Grant I already know it does not satisfy your need for a quote. does it make me wrong to you I'm sure.. but to those who study this part of history or the church??? I'm sure they could see a valid point in what I said.
When you seek right and wrong you are fact checking not thinking or seeking truth.

 It's an evolutionary thing.  People treat good and successful behavior well, and they shit on people who behave like you do.

Honestly I am a successful person in life. I want for very little. and I can tell you this thought of yours is BS. Success has NOTHING to do with acceptance. often time people hate other for succeeding when they do not. especially if you see yourself as being better. People want to be respected and entertained by those whom they admire. they want to share in the wealth and success. The problem is this is not life, what we do here is way more important often time the points to our discussions echo throughout eternity... Is it not better to be blunt and forward rather than misunderstand and be nice? here in lies the problem.. how can someone I look down on be right? this guy can't spell his grammar if off and he is arrogant. when I am so much better! Or I can't stand this guy to be right to the point I would rather burn in hell than acknowledge such a arrogant person.

 Occasionally you do get things right, so it's not all negative.  However, for as often as you get things wrong, your attitude is way out of line.

 Glob... Let say you listed out 10 times I was wrong... 10 now if you divide that by the number of posts I made here on this website that is one mistake out of 1000 posts. Still no bragging right from you to be issued huh??  let say I made 1000 mistakes that is still one mistake out of 10 do you know how many times I have exceeded the word limit in a single post? even at 1000 mistakes I am doing far better than any one of you in your attempts to dissect the bible. not to mention what some of you think is evolution or how government works. I often times know your side of the argument better than you all do. but it is my mistakes that are being counted because I mirror your own arrogance...

No, fair is fair.. I tighten up my facts... you don't want to argue fact but pretend to be the only reason you can't worship god... no you deserved to be smashed! Why? because it is by your own measure that you will be judge.. Your rules shall send you to oblivion. You hate me because you see yourself. I am "jack's"intellectual pride and system of self reward.

Take a look at how I do things on the christian version of this web site... for them very brash and different, but to you all I am the opposite. I simply play a role I am 'the romans' while I am here. why? you would not respect anything less.

I'm a bit biased because I don't tend to engage you much anymore unless you've said something really questionable.  Maybe you get things right more than people are willing to admit, but the fact is, you believe yourself right more often than you actually are.  That's nothing but ego talking, combined with the fact that you're not the sharpest tool in the shed.

here's the thing sweetheart not all tools are meant to be sharp. in fact most are blunted, rather the tool used for intricate/educated work anyway. (I can provide a list if needed) The thing is knowing when and where the right tool is needed and apply.. The problem I found is all of you seem to think all christians are supposed to do is dig a ditch, as all you see most do, is dig... however a mature christian is past this ditch digging part and is lining and re enforcing the hole with material to take the application and seal the gunite.. now because I m not digging you automatically think i don't know what I'm doing because all who belong to this church or this main religion has forever dug holes, here I am running pipe putting in drains running electrical wire for lights and shooting in gunite/concrete... why do I do this? because I see the big picture is a pool and not just a hole in the ground. I am trying to show you the benefits of a pool and you are looking at how sharp my shovel is... I can tell you after all the digging i did with it it is pretty dull. So you are right I am not the sharpest tool, but my foreman/the one who give me purpose and direction... That guy is never wrong. so when I quote him or his instruction I like when I use my source material am never wrong.

the problem I see is you cant tell when it is me speaking or the Holy Spirit using me. 

  So if you're wondering why things have changed between us, it's basically because I've written you off as a deluded, ignorant, and egotistical twat -- a reputation that you've earned through your own behavior.  So if you want to know why I treat you like I do, go look in the mirror.  You're treated like shit because you act like shit.

I wish I had it in me to just write people off that way. I'm treated like shit... you get an automatic reset/you go from mean jorgie to sport each and everytime you make a new post... I read two lines in and your back to mean jeorgie... but next day new chance. nothing carries over. I deal with you all one paragraph at a time.

 There's nothing particularly wrong with being ignorant or not too bright, but combine that with an unjustified ego and delusions about your effectiveness, and you're gonna get shit from people.  

no i get it. my mom hates everything you said, she calls it being a 'big american.' she is old school korean, like japanese slave old school, not that she remembers imperial occupation, but that is how she grew up in the 40s and 50s as if some 'fish' higher on the food chain would notice her and beat her back into place. Then her parents who instilled this in her, moved in for 10 years worked me over as well. I get it. I don't know my place. I am not educated and should not speak to educated people out of turn. when I do and am corrected I should take said correction as a gift. Otherwise I should not be surprised with the elect treat me as garbage. even then I should be thankful because the truly elect have chosen to shunn me all together and I am fortunate that I have this level of opportunity and communication.

I say all of that to show you I understand what you are saying. I understand...

Now of course, I'm probably wasting my breath in explaining this to you because you're not going to believe a word of it BECAUSE you're egotistical, deluded, and not too bright.

I'll show you and let your reverse psychology work on me and follow suit.

 So ask yourself this question.  If everybody on the forum treated Tizheruk like he was ignorant and stupid and egotistical, which would be the safer bet -- that a bunch of people were wrong about him, and his brains and his accomplishments were simply unrecognized through no fault of his own, or is it more likely that his reputation is deserved?  Of course you don't think these things apply to you, but that's your ego and other weaknesses talking.  So I've spent a good bit of time answering your question and the answer is threefold.

don't understand the question. Because when someone truly is smashed because of their undeveloped beliefs... his beliefs are at the forefront of the smashing.. example: Did you hear what the idiot Tizheruk believes? he said the earth was flat, the constitution wasn't valid and then show a picture of the ruins of the ancient city of tyre and in the back ground showed a new city miles away named the same thing! (this was a jab to minnie)

That is not what happens here with me. it is ALWAYS kill the messenger.. Discredit me personally which in your minds discredits the message. I remember the first time I bring a lexicon/concordance into this web site and nearly every single one of you lost his or her shit becaue you had no idea what this material was or how it was used.. So rather than attack the source material I was an idiot because I did not use the right there thier or where in the right spot... And again mirrored with your most recent efforts of fact checking... you found 2 facts you decided to question and out come no discussion, but "lying twat."

Not once have one of you best me in scripture, you may start out thinking you have some paradox or some thing your going to burn me with, and do you know how it always ends? Where's your evidence for God? Not I was willing to accept there is a God for the point of this discussion if you faced this paradox because I thought it unbeatable... but now you showed me something that make total sense, I gotta go back to where scientific proof of God...

And it is not just the crap you people come up with... how many times have I been asked to sit down and watch a 2 hour debate or lecture from hawkins or dawkins and go line by line tearing down one of their suppositions after another?

What do I get? "you no spell good.. me think everything you say must be crap even if made some sense. will continue with dawkins because he spell good!" Or you too cockie you think you smart you no smart you no spell good...
here's the thing...
It's not me that your going against. Your right I am an idiot, but I do have full access to God the Spirit and the wisdom of God the Spirit anything I or any of you have been able to ask so far concerning the bible or God...

 a) You've earned such treatment by your own behavior, b) I've given up on you and so am less inclined to engage you substantially (although in spite of your lies, the past six months will show that I did engage with you most of the time), and c) talking to you about these things and engaging constructively with you has been shown to be pointless (you're a lot like Little Rik in that regard.  I engage him a lot, but it's really futile because he's not smart enough to understand that his arguments are flawed and he's too egotistical to even consider himself wrong; you and Little Rik are a lot alike in that regard, even if he's somewhat worse than you are, you're both cut from the same cloth; so if you want to see why other people treat you the way they do, maybe spending some time reading and arguing with Little Rik might offer you some needed perspective).

You are right I am and have been an ass. even now today I am so use to being on the winning side I find it difficult to believe I got something truly 100% wrong. Not that I don't make mistakes or sin even.. I just not 100% wrong all the time

Now, I've acknowledged my error, apologized for the insult in this case, and explained what you've got wrong about the situation between you and me.  I might choose to omit some of the insults in future, then again, I might not.

you do you... I will do me if we can stand to be ourselves and speak with each other at a level 7 or so or lower i will happily do what I can. if however you want to have the last word start out lying cunt.. or some other level 10 phrase. it's not the cussing I just don't want to be around that much anger or feel like i need to meet it to get through.. I'm getting too old for this crap

 There's some of that which is strictly up to me and what I expect of my own behavior, but there's also a large part that's up to you.  

you know my limits it is what it will be if you want to run the board just stay at 10 if you want me to start over fresh come in around a 7 on the anger/hostility scale.

If you continue to be dismissive, egotistical, bragging about your accomplishments when you shouldn't, calling people "sport" and "alpo" and "jorgie" and so forth, then you reap what you do sow.
[quote]
Alpo is old you jorgie is new you, sport is you when I am not think of a person only writing to correct theology or fact and I need to address you first person. Sport is also what they called a new flyer someone just learning to fly a plane. they think they can take on the world but often crash shortly after take off. often tals like he knows what he is doing/saying but in real life is full of it. which is what makes most of your a sport. plus you got a crazy long name... I have trouble with there.... there is no way for me to remember all that.. screen names should be 4 maybe 5 letter 6 if your a douche

[quote]
 The choice is up to you.

I'll dialit back let see what happens.

 It would probably be too much to ask you to acknowledge your errors in the discussions above, but that's alright.

I think you got 2 out of 5

 If you wish to discuss those issues further, I'll more than likely respond to your renewal of those discussions.  Whether I'm going to stop insulting you or not, well, that's my own cross to bear.  That you don't like it is understandable, unfortunately, in large part, you've earned the reputation you have, and you'll only underscore that point if you dismiss my concerns and criticisms here out of hand.  The rest is up to you.

we shall see... I got a feeling though when next we break out the primary source material, I will be demoted back to lying twat

---

This is just your ego talking again.  Maybe you do such things, but when you post a source which contradicts you, as you did here, and as you did in the thread about science, then you're going to get an extra helping of shit for it.

I quoted lines from a source... again, I'm free to do that. I don't have to represent the whole post as source material.

 You don't want to be called a liar?

was I lying?

 Then don't misrepresent your sources.

again we started with an etymological source to prove origins of the word definition was different that common use. I thought you could extrapolate what I did from the quoted section from the source material. You wanted to split hairs... I on the other hand had the absolute definition in my back pocket and tried to use the 2ndary material and some logic to close the gap. You were a dog with a bone and demanded only narrow view parmeter you set... everything else was a lie.

That I think is how you misidentify me lying. or saying something false. On one hand I have absolute definitive proof in the way of primary source material, and rather than me slap you in the face with in irrefutable fact I try and discuss it with you.. what you see me as pulling more facts to try and support something is me trying to use the available material or another secondary source to try and draw out a discussion... But here's the thing not all secondary material will agree as it is ultimately still an interpretation of the subject. what you see as a lie is just often times a different pov.

 You do that and you have only yourself to blame when you catch shit for it.  And for the most part, your "strategy" hasn't been particularly successful as often you end up wrong anyway.

I do alright as most of my threads last 30 or more pages..

 But beyond that, if you're not leading with your strongest material, then you're being underhanded just in order to set someone up for a "gotcha!" moment.

this is a method of teaching that demands personal growth and thought. it make people think and discuss. leading with strongest material leads to fact checkers who can't think for themselves.

 If you don't think there's anything ethically wrong with that, then I've got news for you.  If you are purposely trying to set people up that way, then you deserve shit for that alone.

there is no set up. it is a discussion from the bottom up. it starts with common thoughts or popular belief, then it moves to a more formal view something officially looked at or commented on then moves to the raw data. that is why/how I have everything back up by no less than 3 sources.

 I generally dismiss your claims about it because A) you tend to end up losing the argument anyway, and B) I've seen you brag about your cleverness in arguing, and knowing you and your ego, I make the smart call and dismiss it as bullshit.  Maybe if you were a little less concerned about shaming other people and more concerned about having productive conversations, I'd give a shit about your "technique" here.

Shame is only ever used when people forgo fact for personal attack... like when idk a dictionary say a but I am being called a liar for saying the defination in this dictionary says a... that sort of thing... now I can point to the abandonment of logic and reason and focus on the ad hoc as a means to dismiss me rather than the addressing of the factual data. The 'ah ha is not a gotcha.. it is the cornerstone or end of speculation and feeling. it is the last word...

 But since being mean and unpleasant to other people seems to be your goal in that, I really am not all that interested.  You end up being wrong despite whatever research you do.  I didn't research the Latin question before I posted and was going from memory.  You, in spite of any research you did, still posted a source which contradicted you.

being mean was never the goal it was alway to show atheist Christians can be just like them, and still follow Christ.

I'll survive you thinking I'm a stupid whore.

see I can't i hate that I said that even if the point was valid. I hate that I was that mad and let it post anyway

 If you want to think that, well, knock yourself out.  I have a reputation which I've earned, just as you have.  Regardless of how you think my insulting you looks, your delusions about me and yourself make it appear to be something it likely isn't.  I HAVE engaged you constructively more often than not over the past six months.  You just remember the insults and forget the rest because your selective memory kicks in to protect your ego.  Ultimately, I don't blame you for not being very bright or for being wrong a lot, we hold you accountable because you're that and additionally you've got ego and attitude problems.

and calling you a whore for any reason was a mistake for that above all else I am sorry..

See, even when you are on a positive note, being right about the Latin word fetus, you drag it down by calling me "Alpo" and "Jorgie" and bragging about yourself -- brags which EVERYBODY AND THEIR GRANDMOTHER can see aren't merited.  You've lived a good life.   You have some very commendable accomplishments, between your business, your family, and your ministry.  But you erase all those positives by behaving like a self-satisfied twat who believes himself to be better than he is.  Even if you were as good as you think you are, humility is a virtue, and you don't have it.  I know in the past that you've compared yourself to Paul and Jesus in that regard, but neither of them behaved like you do, and you're not Paul or Jesus.  Comparing yourself to them is an insult to both men, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.  But nevermind, your ego will save you, and you'll find some way to ignore or rationalize away what I've said.  

your right I do not think I could take things to the level Jesus did, You people fail to acknoweledge Jesus pissed off the jewish high consolue so much in calling them name making them look the fool fashioning a cord of whips and put them out of the money exchange business, he antagonised this group of offical leaders the holy of the holiest men it would be like pissing the pope and the cardinals off so much they literally broke every single rule concerning court proceedings concerning capitol punishment they had on the book to convic and excute him...

Jesus die for our sins..

The mechanics on how Jesus died are quite different. He antagonized the religious leadership to the point that they would rather suffer the stain of murder, than let this man live. they lied, broke God's law and even threaten an uprising to have his beaten within an inch of his life and crucified.

READ the gospels without the cherry lenses of church telling you how jesus was... read how he spoke to people in authorty read to how he corrected his dumb but somewhat well meaning deciples read of the venom hiss and distain he had for the religious elete (a whole chapier in matthew of nothing but jesus old school cussing out the top religious men of his day) read how foolish he made nicodemus feel and appear when he asked a simple question about being born again..

Jesus was mean, harsh, quick to lash out with the tongue and demanded everything... what's more?? He was f-ing right about everything And... on top of that It was very apparent he had the full backing of God because of his full access and ability for miracles. Seriously read the bible openly and honestly.. yes there are tender moments, but Jesus more often than not bring the stick when the people were too dumb for the carrot. Jesus Broke the old foundations of belief and fractured how people thought and worshiped God and here we are 2000 years later still talking about it why? because what he did worked. he upset people showed them they were broken and offered a permanent fix.

I can't do any of that so no I am not jesus not even close. but I can be proud that the holy Spirit uses me daily and blesses my life with fill in the blank. Having this power at my side is intoxicating. You cant understand how much easier life is to navigate when you are working as designed to work. when i brag it is not me I'm bragging about it is the Holy Spirit in me.. I'm the idiot who can spell or read right.. the holy Spirit is what I am most proud of, not because I earned it but because God entrusted me with such a gift.. The Same gift (just a backed off enough to fit me) as Jesus got.

If that is what you hate I am sorry. I am more than the retard I was slated to be. I will not appologise fr the gift God gave me nor will I hide them under a bush. I was given a second chance to one end only. to provide you guys with the truth, so God gave me access to it..seeming all I know to ask for. I am here to share it.. like the creation evolution thing answers everything changes nothing but traditional understanding. even makes up for all the paradoxes a tradition reading creates. God gave that to me in flashes out of order it took me a few to put it all together, and it has not change much since.




plus our favorite chicken is named chicken jorge.. it not a mean name.

[Cod]

And I forgot to mention your problems vetting your sources in the discussion about Josephus.  But who's counting?  Well, in this case, I am.  Feel free to correct my numbers if I'm wrong.

I don't know why you bother..

[Angrboda]

Not once have one of you best me in scripture, you may start out thinking you have some paradox or some thing your going to burn me with, and do you know how it always ends?

I'm not going to respond to this tonight, but let's start here with just a tidbit. I'll simply point out that, by all indications, you were refuted on the meaning of tohu/bohu (Genesis I believe) several Christmases ago. You left early so we never actually finished that discussion, but at the time you left, you had simply repeated an argument that I had shown to be flawed. I'm fully willing to revisit the discussion if you like. But if you remember the discussion, you lead with a source that didn't exist, then you made a claim that was wrong according to Hebrew grammar, and then you posted a word study, which, as I pointed out to you, was actually self-refuting. If posting non-existent sources and such is your way of leading with your weak material, well all I can say is, mission accomplished! At best, it's unclear that you have always been right about scripture. I get that you probably don't remember the argument, but this is a typical case of counting the hits and ignoring the misses. That's confirmation bias, and you are guilty of it a lot. But that hasn't stopped you from making a boast here. That type of confirmation bias is very common. Fortunately, most people don't go around making brags like you do. When you do, it's going to get you into trouble. Especially if you are frequently wrong. I'll try to respond to your specific complaints and counter-arguments at another time.

You can find the tohu/bohu thread here.

---

Maybe one more, just because I think it's instructive.

 You were wrong about the mini-ice-age,

I lived the warnings in 6th and 7th grade I went to museums and watched the predictions on 16mm film that captain kirk or someone famous narrated, And I remember quoting wait a sec...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/...g-ice-age/

This shows what happened.

and it quotes a primary source:

[I]t is projected that man’s potential to pollute will increase six- to eightfold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection of particulate matter in the atmosphere should raise the present global background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5°C. Such a large decrease in the average surface temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of [a] few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age. However, by that time, nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production.

an actual clip from a climate change paper at the time which triggered a media meltdown pun intended. At the same time other scientists was all about global warming. the article is trying to show how the media blew a trivial theory out of proportion and gave it creedence when it should not have... Somehow we are to also think the media is protected from make this same sky is falling mistakes again.

Your claim in that thread was that science and scientists are unreliable, frequently changing their predictions. As such, what matters is what scientists had to say on the matter, not what the media did. As pointed out to you in that thread, even Wikipedia pointed out that the notion of a mini-ice-age was not supported by the majority of scientific papers. See the graph below for an example of what Wikipedia said on the subject. Jumping from a claim about what scientists say to personal anecdotes and quotes about what the media said is simply flawed and very shitty argument, and it's an example of poor thinking. And yet you count this as a hit or a case where you were right. Now, it's possible that other sources do support the point that scientists predicted that in the majority back then. But when you post a source which clearly contradicts you, as you did here and in that "atheistic satire" thread, then you've got no room to argue. Misrepresenting sources is a form of lying. I don't believe you likely intentionally misrepresented Wikipedia, but this is simply an example of your inability to think well, and springboarding from that into absurdist territory (as here). In that post you again claimed that I had not responded substantively to your arguments. I had (here and here).



(ETA: It's possible to suggest that your point was that blindly following media representations of science is not reliable, but that really is a non-point. Nobody was arguing in that thread that the media was infallible. If that was your point, then it was flawed as well, in addition to your introducing it with a misleading post which mentioned science, not popular understanding of it or the media. I'll quote the thread again:

commentary asside here is a wiki page dedicated to what they did know in the 1970 and literally hundreds of different papers all giving a different theory (which now is being lable conjecture because the theory and time line were wrong but back then that conjecture was scientific fact just like GCC is now!)
But again Dozens of PEERED REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC papers and references/evidences to the comming ice age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

The fact that there were some scientific papers arguing the theory does not advance the thesis that science as a whole was. Here you are clearly not talking about media representations, but what scientists had to say ("but back then that conjecture was scientific fact"). And as noted, on that point the science was clearly against the mini-ice-age hypothesis. The fact that there are minority opinions in science is unremarkable. Arguing that we should distrust science as a whole because of the existence of minority opinions would just be stupid. But feel free to clarify your argument here. At a minimum, you claimed that the theory in question was considered scientific fact, a point which your own source refutes. How can it be any clearer, Drich?)

(ETA2: And I just checked the source you just quoted and that contradicted you as well (here). From your own source, "But people who obsess about these few instances of cooling-focused press are being a bit selective." Of note, the article mentions two articles in popular magazines about the global cooling hypothesis and an "In Search Of..." episode, compared to two stories in national newspapers, including a headline. So the numbers from your own source don't support you. This is really basic stuff, Drich, and it doesn't look good.)

[Fireball]

Not once have one of you best me in scripture, you may start out thinking you have some paradox or some thing your going to burn me with, and do you know how it always ends?

I'm not going to respond to this tonight, but let's start here with just a tidbit.  I'll simply point out that, by all indications, you were refuted on the meaning of tohu/bohu (Genesis I believe) several Christmases ago.  You left early so we never actually finished that discussion, but at the time you left, you had simply repeated an argument that I had shown to be flawed.  I'm fully willing to revisit the discussion if you like.  But if you remember the discussion, you lead with a source that didn't exist, then you made a claim that was wrong according to Hebrew grammar, and then you posted a word study, which, as I pointed out to you, was actually self-refuting.  If posting non-existent sources and such is your way of leading with your weak material, well all I can say is, mission accomplished!   At best, it's unclear that you have always been right about scripture. I get that you probably don't remember the argument, but this is a typical case of counting the hits and ignoring the misses.  That's confirmation bias, and you are guilty of it a lot.   But that hasn't stopped you from making a boast here.   That type of confirmation bias is very common.  Fortunately, most people don't go around making brags like you do.  When you do, it's going to get you into trouble.  Especially if you are frequently wrong.  I'll try to respond to your specific complaints and counter-arguments at another time.

You can find the tohu/bohu thread here.

---

Maybe one more, just because I think it's instructive.  

I lived the warnings in 6th and 7th grade I went to museums and watched the predictions on 16mm film that captain kirk or someone famous narrated, And I remember quoting wait a sec...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/...g-ice-age/

This shows what happened.

and it quotes a primary source:

an actual clip from a climate change paper at the time which triggered a media meltdown pun intended. At the same time other scientists was all about global warming. the article is trying to show how the media blew a trivial theory out of proportion and gave it creedence when it should not have... Somehow we are to also think the media is protected from make this same sky is falling mistakes again.

Your claim in that thread was that science and scientists are unreliable, frequently changing their predictions.  As such, what matters is what scientists had to say on the matter, not what the media did.  As pointed out to you in that thread, even Wikipedia pointed out that the notion of a mini-ice-age was not supported by the majority of scientific papers.  See the graph below for an example of what Wikipedia said on the subject.  Jumping from a claim about what scientists say to personal anecdotes and quotes about what the media said is simply flawed and very shitty argument, and it's an example of poor thinking.  And yet you count this as a hit or a case where you were right.   Now, it's possible that other sources do support the point that scientists predicted that in the majority back then.  But when you post a source which clearly contradicts you, as you did here and in that "atheistic satire" thread, then you've got no room to argue.  Misrepresenting sources is a form of lying.  I don't believe you likely intentionally misrepresented Wikipedia, but this is simply an example of your inability to think well, and springboarding from that into absurdist territory (as here).  In that post you again claimed that I had not responded substantively to your arguments.  I had (here and here).  



(ETA:  It's possible to suggest that your point was that blindly following media representations of science is not reliable, but that really is a non-point.  Nobody was arguing in that thread that the media was infallible.  If that was your point, then it was flawed as well, in addition to your introducing it with a misleading post which mentioned science, not popular understanding of it or the media.  I'll quote the thread again:

commentary asside here is a wiki page dedicated to what they did know in the 1970 and literally hundreds of different papers all giving a different theory (which now is being lable conjecture because the theory and time line were wrong but back then that conjecture was scientific fact just like GCC is now!)
But again Dozens of PEERED REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC papers and references/evidences to the comming ice age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

The fact that there were some scientific papers arguing the theory does not advance the thesis that science as a whole was.  Here you are clearly not talking about media representations, but what scientists had to say ("but back then that conjecture was scientific fact").  And as noted, on that point the science was clearly against the mini-ice-age hypothesis.  The fact that there are minority opinions in science is unremarkable.  Arguing that we should distrust science as a whole because of the existence of minority opinions would just be stupid.  But feel free to clarify your argument here.  At a minimum, you claimed that the theory in question was considered scientific fact, a point which your own source refutes.  How can it be any clearer, Drich?)

(ETA2:  And I just checked the source you just quoted and that contradicted you as well (here). From your own source, "But people who obsess about these few instances of cooling-focused press are being a bit selective."  Of note, the article mentions two articles in popular magazines about the global cooling hypothesis and an "In Search Of..." episode, compared to two stories in national newspapers, including a headline.  So the numbers from your own source don't support you.  This is really basic stuff, Drich, and it doesn't look good.)

I applaud your efforts, Jörg. I got burned out dealing with these dickheads a decade ago. Mostly. When I see something completely egregiously stupid, I just can't help myself, though.

[Angrboda]

Fair enough.  I was wrong and you were right.  And I apologize for calling you an ignorant twat regarding this issue.

---

 

 But since you ask, I'll take some time to explain myself on the questions you raised.  Speaking in general, I don't spend as much time constructively engaging with you anymore, and frequently resort to insults largely because of your own behavior.  

look not to crap on your moment, but when you ask for a citation and I provide one. again I start 3rd tier tertiary source material commentaries blogs wiki ect... then you proceed to loose your mind, you pick nits/literally cherry pick the material and change it's meaning when clearly if it is read through it supports me.. ok fair so let move on to secondary material if I quote a wiki, then at the bottom there is always a list of reference material to support he page believe it or not I look at the stuff then I will quote it, then here comes the name calling because I switched source material.. now I'm a liar, or I'm cunt because I drop one source and moved to a tighter one. and like here if the secondary material is not enough I provide primary material then you want to argue that... Here's the thing. you can't primary material generally sets the standard for truth on a given topic. if you argue against primary material, it can only be from a position of feeling and not logic or reason.

That is why I always say I have three points of reference I can't help if you or anyone else will not yield or can not recognise the authority of the material I am quoting. a lot of times you just blow through as if you are speaking to me. the majority of the time you are not.

I've engaged constructively with you on multiple topics this year, and not only did you not acknowledge your errors, you even bragged about how you'd been right so many times in the recent past, and insulted me, claiming that the quality of my arguments had deteriorated.  

I don't mean to lash out at feelings I am diagnosing what I see. I would provide a comment and we would discuss. Now I provide a statement and I'm a lying cunt out of the gate. no points being made no discussion to be had, just your a dishonest lying cunt because you say fetus is latin for ...

How is this not a deterioration of past conversations? you have boiled your efforts down to fact checking and name calling and have done so for a while now.

Even in this thread, although we haven't really finished discussing it, you haven't responded to my point about atonement.

actually I did in my last post.) at the end below the black line

 In other cases, it's pretty obvious that you were wrong.  At the very least, you didn't bother to provide any sensible counter-arguments, all the while bragging about "kicking people's teeth in" and calling people "sport" and "alpo" and bragging about shit.

do you know what stands between me and being obliterated by 60 people everyday in everything I say/ every post I make? Fear. The fear the one guy can indeed take on 60 and make all of them feel as you do for being belittled or diminished in any way. Some don't care and I can do a half dozen or so aday (name calling sessions) and still get out a accurate message. but if all of you take a turn then it would be like that one thread were I was to be nuked and the whole board save one or two people was trying to get me booted. While I answered every post, the message was set aside, which is the only reason I put up with a daily dose of name calling.

Getting you teeth kicked in means you are left speechless/you can't bite back with nasty words, you have been silenced now that you understand or been made a fool of

Sport is a term of endearment. alot of times with all the constant name changes and avatar changes I don't know who everyone is anymore. everyone knows me because I am the same. you are all different. so when I speak to you I am addressing the message not the individual. the individual becomes your avatar. you all become 'sport' which is a neutral first person form of address.

Alpo short for apophenia, another term of endearment/nick name. where I come from we did not pick our nick names. That is just how I pronounced
apophenia.. Alpo-phenia not a big deal given the names I have been given

 You were wrong about the evidence for a brain as receiver hypothesis.  

again not my research not my words. initially I cut and pasted a summary, and you still were not satisfied.. I think you had a 'narrow ban' (radio joke) definition of what a receiver was and did not accept that the receiver being described, took radio wave input as the only defination.. but rather than allow me to explain such a thing I'm deemed a liar and you become inconsolable unless I admit I lied about everything. 

which again wasn't the case as I didn't even write the article. Again it start out as a tertiary piece/column on how the brain sends and receives input like a transmitter and receiver. the proof in that was a video of a guy sending signals from his brain into a headpiece/sensor that remotely controlled a car. the idea being electrical signals without contact to the brain sent signals through the skull and into a sensor net which translated the brain signals to remote control car commands.
So there we went from 3rd source material to primary source as that experiment conclusively shows proof of concept. now if you argue this primary source, to me and another evidence believing person, nothing else you can say will have any merit. you will have lot all of your bite removed because you will be arguing emotion against cold scientific proof from a primary duplicable source. Everything you say from this point on is BS to anyone who holds to scientific data over emotion.

That is why I in essence become one of you. I do my dance shake me ass and show you how your faith in a subject lead you down the wrong path...

Or we can continue a proper conversation if the name calling has not taken over.

You were wrong and hypocritical about the ad hominem arguments in that thread.

You ignored evidence and attacked my understanding/comprehension of the topic.

 You were wrong about the liar's paradox.

I don't remember this.

 You were wrong about Hitler claiming to be God (though you dispute it, you never actually produced anything beyond mere suspicions based on Rosenberg).

Alfred rosenberg was the man who adopted 'positive Christianity' (The Nazi version of Christianity which removed belief in Jesus (a jew) and any pro jewish remarks from stated belief. set meinkamphf in place of the bible and HITLER AS HEAD OF THE CHURCH!

Who is head of the church in Christianity Jesus is Who is Jesus ? Jesus is God in Christianity. In Positive Christianity Hitler has taken the position of Christ, therefore in His religion Hitler is God.

Granted I have no quotes or tube video of hitler claiming to be God. But I have more than enough proof of who and what positive christianity was and who was incharge of it

Again we can start with the wiki page and progress from there.

Here too I felt like you shut down to anything other than a direct quote from hitler.

When the chain of Christ deity established my claim. perhaps you did not understand the meaning or symbolism of hitler being placed at the head of positive christianity and Christ being removed from the religion completely. this is real antichrist stuff here and it do not seem to even register to you as important.

 You were wrong about the mini-ice-age,

I lived the warnings in 6th and 7th grade I went to museums and watched the predictions on 16mm film that captain kirk or someone famous narrated, And I remember quoting wait a sec...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/...g-ice-age/

This shows what happened.

and it quotes a primary source:

[I]t is projected that man’s potential to pollute will increase six- to eightfold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection of particulate matter in the atmosphere should raise the present global background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5°C. Such a large decrease in the average surface temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of [a] few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age. However, by that time, nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production.

an actual clip from a climate change paper at the time which triggered a media meltdown pun intended. At the same time other scientists was all about global warming. the article is trying to show how the media blew a trivial theory out of proportion and gave it creedence when it should not have... Somehow we are to also think the media is protected from make this same sky is falling mistakes again.

was I lying???

Again, primary source embedded in the article says no...  tertiary commentary says partially because ...

and even your own source (Wikipedia) showed that you were wrong.

 Again so what tertiary source! parts of the source did indeed concluded with my portion of a given argument. but as we progress and build a stronger and stronger case you get hung up on the one mistake you think you found. The whole wiki page is not my source my clip is my evidence, something you don't seem to get, that I am allowed to do There is a reason something like a wiki page is considered to be a tertiary source and not 2ndary source material or primary material. it includes personal opinion speculation and or even just off the cuff summation or commentary. If I choose 2 paragraphs out of a tertiary source and use them as a topic starter I am allowed to do that. you can't hold me to the whole article and call me a liar when I drop the parts i dont like and upgrade the source material... That is what I mean by being lazy intellectually. you don't seem to want to address the stronger material but double down on trying to destroy me personally in instances like this

You were wrong about David Barton's lies.

I'll have to take your word for it i don't remember.

 In all these cases, not only did you not acknowledge your errors, you continued to brag about your superiority, insult people with pet names and other demeaning behaviors, and even brag about how you had been right so often in your engagements with me.

because from my pov you people/you can not keep up with a topical discussion. you all ultimately drop the subject and begin to attack me or my spelling or my grammar or anything and everything else but the evidence.. Those who address evidence typically won't get into personal stuff. they will try and push another interpretation which I generally allow or make an off comment about and leave it. I take a victory lap when the topical argument stops and the bullying begins because the other person literally can not keep up topically.

 And while it's probably not the best thing for me to treat you unkindly for being wrong and stupid and delusional and egotistical, it's very human.

actually I hate doing it.. We you start out at level 10 I have no where to go I will not meet you at 11 or 12 I feel like I max out at 7 or 8. meaning I may use a bad word or two to try and break your... rythm but I can't just let go. even if it do I always go back and reimagine words to use. which is why I was telling you i'm done. I'm pushing mid 40s now and am done with super drama I don't want to have to channel that much passion all the time. I can't and not have it effect things outside this chat room. 

Use to be I could crank it to 12 and next post be back at 1. now if i hit a 7 in anger it shames me to let another have so much control and two it take a while to let it go. I don't want to be at dinner in some nice restaurant and have a sushi roll remind me of what you said about xyz, then sit in silence with my poor wife who has to put me back together... One way or another im done as this level of anger, couple with non existent communication. This marks an end  to starting in anger.

 People who act like shit and walk around with their head in the clouds because they're deluded, lack insight into their behavior, and have outsized egos which their behavior and accomplishments don't merit are going to get shit on for those behaviors.

I do this sort of thing to mirror you all. how many times have I let other who can be shown they are wrong have the last word, how many times have I even apologized to you for being wrong. Granted it does not happen often as my post are generally constructed from source material. when I get things wrong is when I speak on something I remember wrongly, but for just about every thread here not speaking from a personal experience... there is at least a day if not 2 worth of reading involved. so no I'm not wrong because I rarely go off half cocked I don't ask a question I don't know the answer to and like it or not do indeed have 25 years of this type of study under my belt. Now am I wrong yes all the time. can I be made to admit it yes when there is black and white. will I admit if it is a matter of perspective (IE Hitler head of church=Hitler taking role of God) no why? because in this context imagery of the church takes precedence over your need for a quote.) men deeds tell you more of their intent than their words.
Hitler would not seek to replace the church remove jesus as the central figure if he did not have a replacement. who in the 3rd reich could have come close to the role of Christ? who but hitler could be God? Do you see like it or not there is a viable response here. Grant I already know it does not satisfy your need for a quote. does it make me wrong to you I'm sure.. but to those who study this part of history or the church??? I'm sure they could see a valid point in what I said.
When you seek right and wrong you are fact checking not thinking or seeking truth.

 It's an evolutionary thing.  People treat good and successful behavior well, and they shit on people who behave like you do.

Honestly I am a successful person in life. I want for very little. and I can tell you this thought of yours is BS. Success has NOTHING to do with acceptance. often time people hate other for succeeding when they do not. especially if you see yourself as being better. People want to be respected and entertained by those whom they admire. they want to share in the wealth and success. The problem is this is not life, what we do here is way more important often time the points to our discussions echo throughout eternity... Is it not better to be blunt and forward rather than misunderstand and be nice? here in lies the problem.. how can someone I look down on be right? this guy can't spell his grammar if off and he is arrogant. when I am so much better! Or I can't stand this guy to be right to the point I would rather burn in hell than acknowledge such a arrogant person.

 Occasionally you do get things right, so it's not all negative.  However, for as often as you get things wrong, your attitude is way out of line.

 Glob... Let say you listed out 10 times I was wrong... 10 now if you divide that by the number of posts I made here on this website that is one mistake out of 1000 posts. Still no bragging right from you to be issued huh??  let say I made 1000 mistakes that is still one mistake out of 10 do you know how many times I have exceeded the word limit in a single post? even at 1000 mistakes I am doing far better than any one of you in your attempts to dissect the bible. not to mention what some of you think is evolution or how government works. I often times know your side of the argument better than you all do. but it is my mistakes that are being counted because I mirror your own arrogance...

No, fair is fair.. I tighten up my facts... you don't want to argue fact but pretend to be the only reason you can't worship god... no you deserved to be smashed! Why? because it is by your own measure that you will be judge.. Your rules shall send you to oblivion. You hate me because you see yourself. I am "jack's"intellectual pride and system of self reward.

Take a look at how I do things on the christian version of this web site... for them very brash and different, but to you all I am the opposite. I simply play a role I am 'the romans' while I am here. why? you would not respect anything less.

I'm a bit biased because I don't tend to engage you much anymore unless you've said something really questionable.  Maybe you get things right more than people are willing to admit, but the fact is, you believe yourself right more often than you actually are.  That's nothing but ego talking, combined with the fact that you're not the sharpest tool in the shed.

here's the thing sweetheart not all tools are meant to be sharp. in fact most are blunted, rather the tool used for intricate/educated work anyway. (I can provide a list if needed) The thing is knowing when and where the right tool is needed and apply.. The problem I found is all of you seem to think all christians are supposed to do is dig a ditch, as all you see most do, is dig... however a mature christian is past this ditch digging part and is lining and re enforcing the hole with material to take the application and seal the gunite.. now because I m not digging you automatically think i don't know what I'm doing because all who belong to this church or this main religion has forever dug holes, here I am running pipe putting in drains running electrical wire for lights and shooting in gunite/concrete... why do I do this? because I see the big picture is a pool and not just a hole in the ground. I am trying to show you the benefits of a pool and you are looking at how sharp my shovel is... I can tell you after all the digging i did with it it is pretty dull. So you are right I am not the sharpest tool, but my foreman/the one who give me purpose and direction... That guy is never wrong. so when I quote him or his instruction I like when I use my source material am never wrong.

the problem I see is you cant tell when it is me speaking or the Holy Spirit using me. 

  So if you're wondering why things have changed between us, it's basically because I've written you off as a deluded, ignorant, and egotistical twat -- a reputation that you've earned through your own behavior.  So if you want to know why I treat you like I do, go look in the mirror.  You're treated like shit because you act like shit.

I wish I had it in me to just write people off that way. I'm treated like shit... you get an automatic reset/you go from mean jorgie to sport each and everytime you make a new post... I read two lines in and your back to mean jeorgie... but next day new chance. nothing carries over. I deal with you all one paragraph at a time.

 There's nothing particularly wrong with being ignorant or not too bright, but combine that with an unjustified ego and delusions about your effectiveness, and you're gonna get shit from people.  

no i get it. my mom hates everything you said, she calls it being a 'big american.' she is old school korean, like japanese slave old school, not that she remembers imperial occupation, but that is how she grew up in the 40s and 50s as if some 'fish' higher on the food chain would notice her and beat her back into place. Then her parents who instilled this in her, moved in for 10 years worked me over as well. I get it. I don't know my place. I am not educated and should not speak to educated people out of turn. when I do and am corrected I should take said correction as a gift. Otherwise I should not be surprised with the elect treat me as garbage. even then I should be thankful because the truly elect have chosen to shunn me all together and I am fortunate that I have this level of opportunity and communication.

I say all of that to show you I understand what you are saying. I understand...

Now of course, I'm probably wasting my breath in explaining this to you because you're not going to believe a word of it BECAUSE you're egotistical, deluded, and not too bright.

I'll show you and let your reverse psychology work on me and follow suit.

 So ask yourself this question.  If everybody on the forum treated Tizheruk like he was ignorant and stupid and egotistical, which would be the safer bet -- that a bunch of people were wrong about him, and his brains and his accomplishments were simply unrecognized through no fault of his own, or is it more likely that his reputation is deserved?  Of course you don't think these things apply to you, but that's your ego and other weaknesses talking.  So I've spent a good bit of time answering your question and the answer is threefold.

don't understand the question. Because when someone truly is smashed because of their undeveloped beliefs... his beliefs are at the forefront of the smashing.. example: Did you hear what the idiot Tizheruk believes? he said the earth was flat, the constitution wasn't valid and then show a picture of the ruins of the ancient city of tyre and in the back ground showed a new city miles away named the same thing! (this was a jab to minnie)

That is not what happens here with me. it is ALWAYS kill the messenger.. Discredit me personally which in your minds discredits the message. I remember the first time I bring a lexicon/concordance into this web site and nearly every single one of you lost his or her shit becaue you had no idea what this material was or how it was used.. So rather than attack the source material I was an idiot because I did not use the right there thier or where in the right spot... And again mirrored with your most recent efforts of fact checking... you found 2 facts you decided to question and out come no discussion, but "lying twat."

Not once have one of you best me in scripture, you may start out thinking you have some paradox or some thing your going to burn me with, and do you know how it always ends? Where's your evidence for God? Not I was willing to accept there is a God for the point of this discussion if you faced this paradox because I thought it unbeatable... but now you showed me something that make total sense, I gotta go back to where scientific proof of God...

And it is not just the crap you people come up with... how many times have I been asked to sit down and watch a 2 hour debate or lecture from hawkins or dawkins and go line by line tearing down one of their suppositions after another?

What do I get? "you no spell good.. me think everything you say must be crap even if made some sense. will continue with dawkins because he spell good!" Or you too cockie you think you smart you no smart you no spell good...
here's the thing...
It's not me that your going against. Your right I am an idiot, but I do have full access to God the Spirit and the wisdom of God the Spirit anything I or any of you have been able to ask so far concerning the bible or God...

 a) You've earned such treatment by your own behavior, b) I've given up on you and so am less inclined to engage you substantially (although in spite of your lies, the past six months will show that I did engage with you most of the time), and c) talking to you about these things and engaging constructively with you has been shown to be pointless (you're a lot like Little Rik in that regard.  I engage him a lot, but it's really futile because he's not smart enough to understand that his arguments are flawed and he's too egotistical to even consider himself wrong; you and Little Rik are a lot alike in that regard, even if he's somewhat worse than you are, you're both cut from the same cloth; so if you want to see why other people treat you the way they do, maybe spending some time reading and arguing with Little Rik might offer you some needed perspective).

You are right I am and have been an ass. even now today I am so use to being on the winning side I find it difficult to believe I got something truly 100% wrong. Not that I don't make mistakes or sin even.. I just not 100% wrong all the time

Now, I've acknowledged my error, apologized for the insult in this case, and explained what you've got wrong about the situation between you and me.  I might choose to omit some of the insults in future, then again, I might not.

you do you... I will do me if we can stand to be ourselves and speak with each other at a level 7 or so or lower i will happily do what I can. if however you want to have the last word start out lying cunt.. or some other level 10 phrase. it's not the cussing I just don't want to be around that much anger or feel like i need to meet it to get through.. I'm getting too old for this crap

 There's some of that which is strictly up to me and what I expect of my own behavior, but there's also a large part that's up to you.  

you know my limits it is what it will be if you want to run the board just stay at 10 if you want me to start over fresh come in around a 7 on the anger/hostility scale.

If you continue to be dismissive, egotistical, bragging about your accomplishments when you shouldn't, calling people "sport" and "alpo" and "jorgie" and so forth, then you reap what you do sow.

Alpo is old you jorgie is new you, sport is you when I am not think of a person only writing to correct theology or fact and I need to address you first person. Sport is also what they called a new flyer someone just learning to fly a plane. they think they can take on the world but often crash shortly after take off. often tals like he knows what he is doing/saying but in real life is full of it. which is what makes most of your a sport. plus you got a crazy long name... I have trouble with there.... there is no way for me to remember all that.. screen names should be 4 maybe 5 letter 6 if your a douche

 The choice is up to you.

I'll dialit back let see what happens.

 It would probably be too much to ask you to acknowledge your errors in the discussions above, but that's alright.

I think you got 2 out of 5

 If you wish to discuss those issues further, I'll more than likely respond to your renewal of those discussions.  Whether I'm going to stop insulting you or not, well, that's my own cross to bear.  That you don't like it is understandable, unfortunately, in large part, you've earned the reputation you have, and you'll only underscore that point if you dismiss my concerns and criticisms here out of hand.  The rest is up to you.

we shall see... I got a feeling though when next we break out the primary source material, I will be demoted back to lying twat

---

This is just your ego talking again.  Maybe you do such things, but when you post a source which contradicts you, as you did here, and as you did in the thread about science, then you're going to get an extra helping of shit for it.

I quoted lines from a source... again, I'm free to do that. I don't have to represent the whole post as source material.

 You don't want to be called a liar?

was I lying?

 Then don't misrepresent your sources.

again we started with an etymological source to prove origins of the word definition was different that common use. I thought you could extrapolate what I did from the quoted section from the source material. You wanted to split hairs... I on the other hand had the absolute definition in my back pocket and tried to use the 2ndary material and some logic to close the gap. You were a dog with a bone and demanded only narrow view parmeter you set... everything else was a lie.

That I think is how you misidentify me lying. or saying something false. On one hand I have absolute definitive proof in the way of primary source material, and rather than me slap you in the face with in irrefutable fact I try and discuss it with you.. what you see me as pulling more facts to try and support something is me trying to use the available material or another secondary source to try and draw out a discussion... But here's the thing not all secondary material will agree as it is ultimately still an interpretation of the subject. what you see as a lie is just often times a different pov.

 You do that and you have only yourself to blame when you catch shit for it.  And for the most part, your "strategy" hasn't been particularly successful as often you end up wrong anyway.

I do alright as most of my threads last 30 or more pages..

 But beyond that, if you're not leading with your strongest material, then you're being underhanded just in order to set someone up for a "gotcha!" moment.

this is a method of teaching that demands personal growth and thought. it make people think and discuss. leading with strongest material leads to fact checkers who can't think for themselves.

 If you don't think there's anything ethically wrong with that, then I've got news for you.  If you are purposely trying to set people up that way, then you deserve shit for that alone.

there is no set up. it is a discussion from the bottom up. it starts with common thoughts or popular belief, then it moves to a more formal view something officially looked at or commented on then moves to the raw data. that is why/how I have everything back up by no less than 3 sources.

 I generally dismiss your claims about it because A) you tend to end up losing the argument anyway, and B) I've seen you brag about your cleverness in arguing, and knowing you and your ego, I make the smart call and dismiss it as bullshit.  Maybe if you were a little less concerned about shaming other people and more concerned about having productive conversations, I'd give a shit about your "technique" here.

Shame is only ever used when people forgo fact for personal attack... like when idk a dictionary say a but I am being called a liar for saying the defination in this dictionary says a... that sort of thing... now I can point to the abandonment of logic and reason and focus on the ad hoc as a means to dismiss me rather than the addressing of the factual data. The 'ah ha is not a gotcha.. it is the cornerstone or end of speculation and feeling. it is the last word...

 But since being mean and unpleasant to other people seems to be your goal in that, I really am not all that interested.  You end up being wrong despite whatever research you do.  I didn't research the Latin question before I posted and was going from memory.  You, in spite of any research you did, still posted a source which contradicted you.

being mean was never the goal it was alway to show atheist Christians can be just like them, and still follow Christ.

I'll survive you thinking I'm a stupid whore.

see I can't i hate that I said that even if the point was valid. I hate that I was that mad and let it post anyway

 If you want to think that, well, knock yourself out.  I have a reputation which I've earned, just as you have.  Regardless of how you think my insulting you looks, your delusions about me and yourself make it appear to be something it likely isn't.  I HAVE engaged you constructively more often than not over the past six months.  You just remember the insults and forget the rest because your selective memory kicks in to protect your ego.  Ultimately, I don't blame you for not being very bright or for being wrong a lot, we hold you accountable because you're that and additionally you've got ego and attitude problems.

and calling you a whore for any reason was a mistake for that above all else I am sorry..

See, even when you are on a positive note, being right about the Latin word fetus, you drag it down by calling me "Alpo" and "Jorgie" and bragging about yourself -- brags which EVERYBODY AND THEIR GRANDMOTHER can see aren't merited.  You've lived a good life.   You have some very commendable accomplishments, between your business, your family, and your ministry.  But you erase all those positives by behaving like a self-satisfied twat who believes himself to be better than he is.  Even if you were as good as you think you are, humility is a virtue, and you don't have it.  I know in the past that you've compared yourself to Paul and Jesus in that regard, but neither of them behaved like you do, and you're not Paul or Jesus.  Comparing yourself to them is an insult to both men, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.  But nevermind, your ego will save you, and you'll find some way to ignore or rationalize away what I've said.  

your right I do not think I could take things to the level Jesus did, You people fail to acknoweledge Jesus pissed off the jewish high consolue so much in calling them name making them look the fool fashioning a cord of whips and put them out of the money exchange business, he antagonised this group of offical leaders the holy of the holiest men it would be like pissing the pope and the cardinals off so much they literally broke every single rule concerning court proceedings concerning capitol punishment they had on the book to convic and excute him...

Jesus die for our sins..

The mechanics on how Jesus died are quite different. He antagonized the religious leadership to the point that they would rather suffer the stain of murder, than let this man live. they lied, broke God's law and even threaten an uprising to have his beaten within an inch of his life and crucified.

READ the gospels without the cherry lenses of church telling you how jesus was... read how he spoke to people in authorty read to how he corrected his dumb but somewhat well meaning deciples read of the venom hiss and distain he had for the religious elete (a whole chapier in matthew of nothing but jesus old school cussing out the top religious men of his day) read how foolish he made nicodemus feel and appear when he asked a simple question about being born again..

Jesus was mean, harsh, quick to lash out with the tongue and demanded everything... what's more?? He was f-ing right about everything And... on top of that It was very apparent he had the full backing of God because of his full access and ability for miracles. Seriously read the bible openly and honestly.. yes there are tender moments, but Jesus more often than not bring the stick when the people were too dumb for the carrot. Jesus Broke the old foundations of belief and fractured how people thought and worshiped God and here we are 2000 years later still talking about it why? because what he did worked. he upset people showed them they were broken and offered a permanent fix.

I can't do any of that so no I am not jesus not even close. but I can be proud that the holy Spirit uses me daily and blesses my life with fill in the blank. Having this power at my side is intoxicating. You cant understand how much easier life is to navigate when you are working as designed to work. when i brag it is not me I'm bragging about it is the Holy Spirit in me.. I'm the idiot who can spell or read right.. the holy Spirit is what I am most proud of, not because I earned it but because God entrusted me with such a gift.. The Same gift (just a backed off enough to fit me) as Jesus got.

If that is what you hate I am sorry. I am more than the retard I was slated to be. I will not appologise fr the gift God gave me nor will I hide them under a bush. I was given a second chance to one end only. to provide you guys with the truth, so God gave me access to it..seeming all I know to ask for. I am here to share it.. like the creation evolution thing answers everything changes nothing but traditional understanding. even makes up for all the paradoxes a tradition reading creates. God gave that to me in flashes out of order it took me a few to put it all together, and it has not change much since.




plus our favorite chicken is named chicken jorge.. it not a mean name.

---

And the following post, here, shows that you were making the same bullshit accusations back then as you are doing now.

[downbeatplumb]

---

I'm not going to respond to this tonight, but let's start here with just a tidbit.  I'll simply point out that, by all indications, you were refuted on the meaning of tohu/bohu (Genesis I believe) several Christmases ago.  You left early so we never actually finished that discussion, but at the time you left, you had simply repeated an argument that I had shown to be flawed.  I'm fully willing to revisit the discussion if you like.  But if you remember the discussion, you lead with a source that didn't exist, then you made a claim that was wrong according to Hebrew grammar, and then you posted a word study, which, as I pointed out to you, was actually self-refuting.  If posting non-existent sources and such is your way of leading with your weak material, well all I can say is, mission accomplished!   At best, it's unclear that you have always been right about scripture. I get that you probably don't remember the argument, but this is a typical case of counting the hits and ignoring the misses.  That's confirmation bias, and you are guilty of it a lot.   But that hasn't stopped you from making a boast here.   That type of confirmation bias is very common.  Fortunately, most people don't go around making brags like you do.  When you do, it's going to get you into trouble.  Especially if you are frequently wrong.  I'll try to respond to your specific complaints and counter-arguments at another time.

You can find the tohu/bohu thread here.

---

Maybe one more, just because I think it's instructive.  


Your claim in that thread was that science and scientists are unreliable, frequently changing their predictions.  As such, what matters is what scientists had to say on the matter, not what the media did.  As pointed out to you in that thread, even Wikipedia pointed out that the notion of a mini-ice-age was not supported by the majority of scientific papers.  See the graph below for an example of what Wikipedia said on the subject.  Jumping from a claim about what scientists say to personal anecdotes and quotes about what the media said is simply flawed and very shitty argument, and it's an example of poor thinking.  And yet you count this as a hit or a case where you were right.   Now, it's possible that other sources do support the point that scientists predicted that in the majority back then.  But when you post a source which clearly contradicts you, as you did here and in that "atheistic satire" thread, then you've got no room to argue.  Misrepresenting sources is a form of lying.  I don't believe you likely intentionally misrepresented Wikipedia, but this is simply an example of your inability to think well, and springboarding from that into absurdist territory (as here).  In that post you again claimed that I had not responded substantively to your arguments.  I had (here and here).  



(ETA:  It's possible to suggest that your point was that blindly following media representations of science is not reliable, but that really is a non-point.  Nobody was arguing in that thread that the media was infallible.  If that was your point, then it was flawed as well, in addition to your introducing it with a misleading post which mentioned science, not popular understanding of it or the media.  I'll quote the thread again:


The fact that there were some scientific papers arguing the theory does not advance the thesis that science as a whole was.  Here you are clearly not talking about media representations, but what scientists had to say ("but back then that conjecture was scientific fact").  And as noted, on that point the science was clearly against the mini-ice-age hypothesis.  The fact that there are minority opinions in science is unremarkable.  Arguing that we should distrust science as a whole because of the existence of minority opinions would just be stupid.  But feel free to clarify your argument here.  At a minimum, you claimed that the theory in question was considered scientific fact, a point which your own source refutes.  How can it be any clearer, Drich?)

(ETA2:  And I just checked the source you just quoted and that contradicted you as well (here). From your own source, "But people who obsess about these few instances of cooling-focused press are being a bit selective."  Of note, the article mentions two articles in popular magazines about the global cooling hypothesis and an "In Search Of..." episode, compared to two stories in national newspapers, including a headline.  So the numbers from your own source don't support you.  This is really basic stuff, Drich, and it doesn't look good.)

---

I applaud your efforts, Jörg. I got burned out dealing with these dickheads a decade ago. Mostly. When I see something completely egregiously stupid, I just can't help myself, though.

Can I add that science reacting to better data over time is a strength and not a weakness.