Atheist Bible Study 1: Genesis

[Drich]

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

Your argument here does not follow.. Again I quoted the source materials claim of 'global warming being 43 years old.' (added 8 years to allow for the difference between publication and now) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...l-warming/

then you proceed to cherry pick the source to extrapolate a different date.. again not a valid approach as your interpretation of the data does not trump the source's findings. if you wish to invalidate the source you must find a primary or secondary source.. Here we simply have your "I said so" based on your spin the data the source provides. You must provide better data, stronger evidence not just put a different spin on the data provided..

why?
You neither hold the authority nor have any recognizable expertise to simply dismiss me nor my use of this material not the claim provided by the source material without first providing a stronger evidentiary chain. again you are arguing the method of research here. you are not arguing me or my thoughts which I believe is your greatest flaw. You need to understand once I hand off an idea to another source, then your argument ceases to be with me and must approach a source by a pre established set of rules IF you wish to have an intelligent conversation. otherwise you look the foolwhich I have no problem with..

If you can not put your head around the idea that evidence or material is rated and things like commentary holds less importance than first hand information then maybe you should read a little more and interject your thoughts a little less. because this is not about emotion or trying to hold me to the work of another if I simply quote him. If you think this man is wrong fine.. go through the process and show him tobe wrong.

You assigning me with what you think of his claim is petty foolishness. I get it. it is an attempt to discredit me, but that is not how endevor for truth through research works. You claim to want to know the truth, then do the research stop this emotional tirade of constant one upmanship. all it does is give you reason to hold on to what you already believe.

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

Moron... You are trying to argue norse Cannon. I quoted norse cannon. Meaning your beef is with Norse cannon which identified Jormungandr as a dragon serpent. A dragon serpent is a dragon without legs. there are dragons with legs are called wyverns dragons without legs are called wyrms or serpent dragons. The broken brain bit again further evidence in a hail mary attempt to discredit the messenger rather than the message. Even if you could discredit me the truth remains i quoted Norse cannon when I described your buddy jorge. you are quoting a dictionary and tryng to put to gether some bs about how the word in MORDERN usage does not aply to 1000 year old myth... and I am the one with the broken brain.. how does this even make sense to you?

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

well that is how I have been expecting you to confront and argue me, not just call me names. show me what you have!

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

here we go.. again we simply take a different approach. I am not here to argue but to teach to teach means I am not here to win an argument necessarily which seems to be your only goal. My purpose here is to force you to look at more than one side of the argument, and if you can take my principle and refute it it means my primary goal is complete, now that doesn't mean the argument is over. I often place a few sacrificial lambs to allow or suck you in deeper to commit to a great point.. But again please show me what you have.

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

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

sorry jorgie, but again your beef is with norse cannon. you are not agruing me. in order for this to be an 0-3 as you claim you must provide something like a norse bible that describes jorgie the serpent dragon as something else... we are not just goingg off your word or distaste for what I have to say. Nor does you taking on this persona as a dragon lady make you an expert. your word means dick here. provide proof or submit to the mythos as it is written out in the canonical source I provided. Again don't be retarded and simple assume you can bully me because you think differently. It is clearly spelled out in the post I copy and pasted from that norse God website.

This btw really shows your prvoclivity of not researching anything. you attribute fact to the one who repersents it or the one who provides it. you can not seperate fact from what you think of people. I however am the oppsite in that I rate fact by how close it's orgins are to the orginal source. A transcription of norse cannon can only be trumped by a reading of norse cannon that condradicts the transcription. Your little fit and stamping around bullshit make you look weak minded and petty.

time to grow up or shut up about jorg if you can not accept what the source material I quoted has to say. Grow up meaning look at this objectivly and find something stronger than your say so.

(Side bar.. time out.. the above is an example of me not caring if I am right or not but me teaching and provoking a subject in such away as to make you change the way you think or approach a subject. If you can find proof great if you can but look equally as great. the point for me is not about the dragon but of the way you argue/stop attacking people address content in a structured way)
*Time in!

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

I called it. you were being lead around by emotion and feelings 'trying to get hard' and not by fact evidence and truth.. what irony.

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

I've called your bluff bring it ADL

[The Grand Nudger]

The "norse bible" would be the eddas.  Jormungandr means great monster or earth necklace...something to the like (it was the thing that made the earth shake), but more importantly to how it was conceived of by the people who believed in it..it was the lord or personification of chaos - much like it's ane dragon counterparts and even..yes, the serpents and sea monsters of the OT.  So...interestingly enough, the guy who wrote all of that down was a man by the name Snorri who had it that odin was a king who lead his people out of asia minor in the early stages of aegean ascendance.  Troy, specifically.  OFC, others had it that odin was a son of noah, and that the rulers of the various continental kingdoms were his sons.  All of them, thusly conceived, rightful adamic rulers of mankind and related to christ himself.  Others yet date their little exodus to roman occupation.  None of those accounts can be factual in every specific, some are blatant propaganda.  Taken as a whole, though, and allowing for the mythmaking and error that creeps into oral history, it's a story of continental interrelationships and some ancient migration.  It's unlikely that Snorri (et al) was making it all up whole clothe.  

That these histories were tainted by christian thought is a given....but considering the environment in which they were written..even if a person was trying to relate an accurate (or accurate-ish) oral history to the written word there were things they just couldn't say.  Similarly, there were conventions of concept that they absolutely would have used...and this is what I find fascinating;

That jormungandr became a dragon or a serpent and is very much like the dragons and serpents in the OT is both an artifact of cultural syncretism in the 12th century...but also a latent indicator of cultural transmission much earlier in time.  Hell, needling even further in.....serpents and dragons and their ilk are in all of the mythologies of mankind.  One could see them as a literary expression of the state of man or the world he finds himself in, or more broadly, the state of man as he relates to the world.  The thing that shakes the earth is chaos, and chaos will destroy the order we seek to impose, and we have a little piece of this chaos in all of us, no less.  

Cool stuff, huh?  I know, I know..wasted on you because you're a babble believer, still.

[Angrboda]

You think you were quoting Norse canon? Lol. You're a complete joke Drich.

[The Grand Nudger]

On of my favorite renditions, btw..."the thing that chokes the world". Fuckin ouroboros man, much power.

(I'll see if i can find the source on that one, years ago)

[Angrboda]

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

Your argument here does not follow.. Again I quoted the source materials claim of 'global warming being 43 years old.'  (added 8 years to allow for the difference between publication and now) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...l-warming/

---

then you proceed to cherry pick the source to extrapolate a different date.. again not a valid approach as your interpretation of the data does not trump the source's findings. if you wish to invalidate the source you must find a primary or secondary source.. Here we simply have your "I said so" based on your spin the data the source provides. You must provide better data, stronger evidence not just put a different spin on the data provided..

why?
You neither hold the authority nor have any recognizable expertise to simply dismiss me nor my use of this material not the claim provided by the source material without first providing a stronger evidentiary chain. again you are arguing the method of research here. you are not arguing me or my thoughts which I believe is your greatest flaw. You need to understand once I hand off an idea to another source, then your argument ceases to be with me and must approach a source by a pre established set of rules IF you wish to have an intelligent conversation. otherwise you look the foolwhich I have no problem with..

If you can not put your head around the idea that evidence or material is rated and things like commentary holds less importance than first hand information then maybe you should read a little more and interject your thoughts a little less. because this is not about emotion or trying to hold me to the work of another if I simply quote him. If you think this man is wrong fine.. go through the process and show him tobe wrong.

You assigning me with what you think of his claim is petty foolishness. I get it. it is an attempt to discredit me, but that is not how endevor for truth through research works. You claim to want to know the truth, then do the research stop this emotional tirade of constant one upmanship. all it does is give you reason to hold on to what you already believe.

---

Your 'source' claimed something different than what you claim your source said.  It's only your complete lack of reading comprehension which leads you to think otherwise.  So, no, my beef is not with the source but with your misrepresentation of it.  If things were as you suggest, then please explain why, in the very article you claim as a source, the author noted that the thing you claimed was not true?  The only reason you think that I have some issue with the source is because you're an incompetent boob with a fourth grade reading ability.

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

Moron... You are trying to argue norse Cannon. I quoted norse cannon.

---

Meaning your beef is with Norse cannon which identified Jormungandr as a dragon serpent.  A dragon serpent is a dragon without legs.  there are dragons with legs are called wyverns dragons without legs are called wyrms or serpent dragons. The broken brain bit again further evidence in a hail mary attempt to discredit the messenger rather than the message. Even if you could discredit me the truth remains i quoted Norse cannon when I described your buddy jorge. you are quoting a dictionary and tryng to put to gether some bs about how the word in MORDERN usage does not aply to 1000 year old myth... and I am the one with the broken brain.. how does this even make sense to you?

---

No, you did not quote Norse canon.  You quoted some internet rando who thinks that the Jormungandr serpent resembles a dragon.  Unfortunately for you, the modern meaning of dragon doesn't mean serpent, and indeed means something completely at odds with the accounts of Jormungandr.  So the question is whether your description of me and Jormungandr was accurate according to usage.  According to modern usage, it is not.  You haven't brought any evidence from Norse canon, in spite of your moronic notion that a web page on Norse myths written in English is in some way Norse canon.  A more ridiculous gaff is hard to imagine.

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

well that is how I have been expecting you to confront and argue me, not just call me names. show me what you have!

Given your laughable difficulty with other arguments, as well as your complete inability to put two and two together and see how wrong you are, I'm not the least interested in pursuing a rehash of prior debates with you at this time.  But I don't have to do so in this case, as you changed your claim from asserting that Hitler had demanded to be worshiped as God to the more lukewarm claim that this is what he wanted, even if he hadn't outright stated it.  In order to get to the latter conclusion, you engage in some incompetent tea leaf reading, but all that is moot because you moved the goalposts, tacitly admitting you were wrong regarding your original claim.

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

here we go.. again we simply take a different approach. I am not here to argue but to teach to teach means I am not here to win an argument necessarily which seems to be your only goal. My purpose here is to force you to look at more than one side of the argument, and if you can take my principle and refute it it means my primary goal is complete, now that doesn't mean the argument is over. I often place a few sacrificial lambs to allow or suck you in deeper to commit to a great point.. But again please show me what you have.

Your purposes, whatever they are would be rather irrelevant.  No doubt, if you indeed pursue such things, a fact which I strongly doubt, you do so with the same incompetence you do everything else.  I could care less what you think you are accomplishing as the only thing you are in fact accomplishing is showing everybody that you're a fucking moron who likes to think his egotistically motivated rationalizations for his behavior provide him some cover for his patently bad arguments.

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

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

sorry jorgie, but again your beef is with norse cannon. you are not agruing me. in order for this to be an 0-3 as you claim you must provide something like a norse bible that describes jorgie the serpent dragon as something else... we are not just goingg off your word or distaste for what I have to say. Nor does you taking on this persona as a dragon lady make you an expert. your word means dick here. provide proof or submit to the mythos as it is written out in the canonical source I provided. Again don't be retarded and simple assume you can bully me because you think differently. It is clearly spelled out in the post I copy and pasted from that norse God website.

This btw really shows your prvoclivity of not researching anything. you attribute fact to the one who repersents it or the one who provides it. you can not seperate fact from what you think of people. I however am the oppsite in that I rate fact by how close it's orgins are to the orginal source. A transcription of norse cannon can only be trumped by a reading of norse cannon that condradicts the transcription. Your little fit and stamping around bullshit make you look weak minded and petty.

time to grow up or shut up about jorg if you can not accept what the source material I quoted has to say. Grow up meaning look at this objectivly and find something stronger than your say so.

Your views in this are as delusional as your views on everything else, but most especially your views about yourself.  Whether and when I research things is not a particularly relevant issue because like it or not, I've been right.  You can't argue with a broken clock when it displays the correct time, so your complaint here, even if it were true, is moot. And yes, I can and do separate my feelings about a person from what I think of their claims and arguments, a fact which is ably on display in the thread I posted about Rupert Sheldrake's ten dogmas of science as well as your own thread about the brain as receiver hypothesis in which I made specific arguments against those represented and didn't simply dissmiss the ideas on account of their source. This whole episode, your attributing various things to me which aren't true seems to indicate that it is possible that you can't separate your beliefs about a person from their arguments and in this you are simply projecting. Unfortunately for you, everything you imagine about me turns out to be wrong and so this simply ends up being another example of your incompetence. You wish certain things about me were true, likely so you can feel better about yourself. Unfortunately, your wishes don't bear any resemblance to reality.

(Side bar.. time out.. the above is an example of me not caring if I am right or not but me teaching and provoking a subject in such away as to make you change the way you think or approach a subject. If you can find proof great if you can but look equally as great. the point for me is not about the dragon but of the way you argue/stop attacking people address content in a structured way)
*Time in!

Whatever feeds your delusions, Bud.  Have fun being a deluded moron who thinks he's accomplishing shit just so he can ignore the fact that he's not actually accomplishing shit.

The only things you accomplish on this forum are: a) Giving Christianity a black eye, b) showing what an egotistical and deluded moron you are, c) giving otherwise neutral parties reason to distrust you, and d) giving everybody else a good reason for putting you on ignore.  On that score, you're 4 for 4.

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

I called it. you were being lead around by emotion and feelings 'trying to get hard' and not by fact evidence and truth.. what irony.

Having a motive to do something is not "being lead around by emotion," it's simply being motivated and having a rational reason to do that thing.  It doesn't in any way indicate that said emotions in any way compromised the quality of my arguments or the validity of my points.  That would be drawing a conclusion that is not in evidence.  But anyway, your contention was that I was attacking you because I was angry.  Even if I were being lead around by emotion, because that emotion is not anger, you would still be wrong.  You called something completely different than what turned out to be the case, so your belief that you called it is just another example of your ridiculously bad logic.

And you've yet to show that Jormungandr was angry or that Thor opposed Jormungandr because Jormungandr was an angry serpent.  Have you decided to simply drop those points and pretend it didn't happen?  Probably for the best.

And you still haven't responded to the obvious fact that you were making an ethnic slur against me because of my Asian heritage.  Are you just going to quietly ignore that, too?

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

I've called your bluff bring it ADL

You are a hero in your own mind.  Tell me Drich, whose opinion other than your own do you rely upon in coming to these conclusions?  You are aware that according to science, depending solely upon one's opinion of oneself is one of the least reliable methods known to assess such things.  I have the accolades of peers, teachers, schools, and standardized testing to fall back on in assessing my general competence.  What are you basing your assessment of your general competence upon?

Regardless, you've not called any bluff.  All you've done is post more ridiculous and wrong-headed drivel.  

And now, despite having been shown to be wrong six ways from Kevin Bacon, you have adopted a clever name for me in lieu of actual arguments.  Sadly, nobody but you and me will get the joke, as they'll read 'ADL' and wonder what it means.  And I, for my part, will acknowledge it as yet another example of you using personal insult and abuse instead of valid argument.  Feel free to call me whatever names you like, but making light of my Asian heritage is low, even for you, Drich.  Oh wait.   No it's not.  It's actually just about your speed.

(Oh, and you've been remarkably silent on the actual subject of this thread since I criticized you, a fact I can only regard as an unmistakable win. lol.)

[Drich]

Your argument here does not follow.. Again I quoted the source materials claim of 'global warming being 43 years old.'  (added 8 years to allow for the difference between publication and now) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...l-warming/

---

then you proceed to cherry pick the source to extrapolate a different date.. again not a valid approach as your interpretation of the data does not trump the source's findings. if you wish to invalidate the source you must find a primary or secondary source.. Here we simply have your "I said so" based on your spin the data the source provides. You must provide better data, stronger evidence not just put a different spin on the data provided..

why?
You neither hold the authority nor have any recognizable expertise to simply dismiss me nor my use of this material not the claim provided by the source material without first providing a stronger evidentiary chain. again you are arguing the method of research here. you are not arguing me or my thoughts which I believe is your greatest flaw. You need to understand once I hand off an idea to another source, then your argument ceases to be with me and must approach a source by a pre established set of rules IF you wish to have an intelligent conversation. otherwise you look the foolwhich I have no problem with..

If you can not put your head around the idea that evidence or material is rated and things like commentary holds less importance than first hand information then maybe you should read a little more and interject your thoughts a little less. because this is not about emotion or trying to hold me to the work of another if I simply quote him. If you think this man is wrong fine.. go through the process and show him tobe wrong.

You assigning me with what you think of his claim is petty foolishness. I get it. it is an attempt to discredit me, but that is not how endevor for truth through research works. You claim to want to know the truth, then do the research stop this emotional tirade of constant one upmanship. all it does is give you reason to hold on to what you already believe.

---

Your 'source' claimed something different than what you claim your source said.  It's only your complete lack of reading comprehension which leads you to think otherwise.  So, no, my beef is not with the source but with your misrepresentation of it.  If things were as you suggest, then please explain why, in the very article you claim as a source, the author noted that the thing you claimed was not true?  The only reason you think that I have some issue with the source is because you're an incompetent boob with a fourth grade reading ability.

Moron... You are trying to argue norse Cannon. I quoted norse cannon.

---

Meaning your beef is with Norse cannon which identified Jormungandr as a dragon serpent.  A dragon serpent is a dragon without legs.  there are dragons with legs are called wyverns dragons without legs are called wyrms or serpent dragons. The broken brain bit again further evidence in a hail mary attempt to discredit the messenger rather than the message. Even if you could discredit me the truth remains i quoted Norse cannon when I described your buddy jorge. you are quoting a dictionary and tryng to put to gether some bs about how the word in MORDERN usage does not aply to 1000 year old myth... and I am the one with the broken brain.. how does this even make sense to you?

---

No, you did not quote Norse canon.  You quoted some internet rando who thinks that the Jormungandr serpent resembles a dragon.  Unfortunately for you, the modern meaning of dragon doesn't mean serpent, and indeed means something completely at odds with the accounts of Jormungandr.  So the question is whether your description of me and Jormungandr was accurate according to usage.  According to modern usage, it is not.  You haven't brought any evidence from Norse canon, in spite of your moronic notion that a web page on Norse myths written in English is in some way Norse canon.  A more ridiculous gaff is hard to imagine.

well that is how I have been expecting you to confront and argue me, not just call me names. show me what you have!

Given your laughable difficulty with other arguments, as well as your complete inability to put two and two together and see how wrong you are, I'm not the least interested in pursuing a rehash of prior debates with you at this time.  But I don't have to do so in this case, as you changed your claim from asserting that Hitler had demanded to be worshiped as God to the more lukewarm claim that this is what he wanted, even if he hadn't outright stated it.  In order to get to the latter conclusion, you engage in some incompetent tea leaf reading, but all that is moot because you moved the goalposts, tacitly admitting you were wrong regarding your original claim.

here we go.. again we simply take a different approach. I am not here to argue but to teach to teach means I am not here to win an argument necessarily which seems to be your only goal. My purpose here is to force you to look at more than one side of the argument, and if you can take my principle and refute it it means my primary goal is complete, now that doesn't mean the argument is over. I often place a few sacrificial lambs to allow or suck you in deeper to commit to a great point.. But again please show me what you have.

Your purposes, whatever they are would be rather irrelevant.  No doubt, if you indeed pursue such things, a fact which I strongly doubt, you do so with the same incompetence you do everything else.  I could care less what you think you are accomplishing as the only thing you are in fact accomplishing is showing everybody that you're a fucking moron who likes to think his egotistically motivated rationalizations for his behavior provide him some cover for his patently bad arguments.

sorry jorgie, but again your beef is with norse cannon. you are not agruing me. in order for this to be an 0-3 as you claim you must provide something like a norse bible that describes jorgie the serpent dragon as something else... we are not just goingg off your word or distaste for what I have to say. Nor does you taking on this persona as a dragon lady make you an expert. your word means dick here. provide proof or submit to the mythos as it is written out in the canonical source I provided. Again don't be retarded and simple assume you can bully me because you think differently. It is clearly spelled out in the post I copy and pasted from that norse God website.

This btw really shows your prvoclivity of not researching anything. you attribute fact to the one who repersents it or the one who provides it. you can not seperate fact from what you think of people. I however am the oppsite in that I rate fact by how close it's orgins are to the orginal source. A transcription of norse cannon can only be trumped by a reading of norse cannon that condradicts the transcription. Your little fit and stamping around bullshit make you look weak minded and petty.

time to grow up or shut up about jorg if you can not accept what the source material I quoted has to say. Grow up meaning look at this objectivly and find something stronger than your say so.

Your views in this are as delusional as your views on everything else, but most especially your views about yourself.  Whether and when I research things is not a particularly relevant issue because like it or not, I've been right.  You can't argue with a broken clock when it displays the correct time, so your complaint here, even if it were true, is moot.  And yes, I can and do separate my feelings about a person from what I think of their claims and arguments, a fact which is ably on display in the thread I posted about Rupert Sheldrake's ten dogmas of science as well as your own thread about the brain as receiver hypothesis in which I made specific arguments against those represented and didn't simply dissmiss the ideas on account of their source.  This whole episode, your attributing various things to me which aren't true seems to indicate that it is possible that you can't separate your beliefs about a person from their arguments and in this you are simply projecting.  Unfortunately for you, everything you imagine about me turns out to be wrong and so this simply ends up being another example of your incompetence.  You wish certain things about me were true, likely so you can feel better about yourself.  Unfortunately, your wishes don't bear any resemblance to reality.

(Side bar.. time out.. the above is an example of me not caring if I am right or not but me teaching and provoking a subject in such away as to make you change the way you think or approach a subject. If you can find proof great if you can but look equally as great. the point for me is not about the dragon but of the way you argue/stop attacking people address content in a structured way)
*Time in!

Whatever feeds your delusions, Bud.  Have fun being a deluded moron who thinks he's accomplishing shit just so he can ignore the fact that he's not actually accomplishing shit.

The only things you accomplish on this forum are: a) Giving Christianity a black eye, b) showing what an egotistical and deluded moron you are, c) giving otherwise neutral parties reason to distrust you, and d) giving everybody else a good reason for putting you on ignore.  On that score, you're 4 for 4.

I called it. you were being lead around by emotion and feelings 'trying to get hard' and not by fact evidence and truth.. what irony.

Having a motive to do something is not "being lead around by emotion," it's simply being motivated and having a rational reason to do that thing.  It doesn't in any way indicate that said emotions in any way compromised the quality of my arguments or the validity of my points.  That would be drawing a conclusion that is not in evidence.  But anyway, your contention was that I was attacking you because I was angry.  Even if I were being lead around by emotion, because that emotion is not anger, you would still be wrong.  You called something completely different than what turned out to be the case, so your belief that you called it is just another example of your ridiculously bad logic.

And you've yet to show that Jormungandr was angry or that Thor opposed Jormungandr because Jormungandr was an angry serpent.  Have you decided to simply drop those points and pretend it didn't happen?  Probably for the best.

And you still haven't responded to the obvious fact that you were making an ethnic slur against me because of my Asian heritage.  Are you just going to quietly ignore that, too?

I've called your bluff bring it ADL

You are a hero in your own mind.  Tell me Drich, whose opinion other than your own do you rely upon in coming to these conclusions?  You are aware that according to science, depending solely upon one's opinion of oneself is one of the least reliable methods known to assess such things.  I have the accolades of peers, teachers, schools, and standardized testing to fall back on in assessing my general competence.  What are you basing your assessment of your general competence upon?

Regardless, you've not called any bluff.  All you've done is post more ridiculous and wrong-headed drivel.  

And now, despite having been shown to be wrong six ways from Kevin Bacon, you have adopted a clever name for me in lieu of actual arguments.  Sadly, nobody but you and me will get the joke, as they'll read 'ADL' and wonder what it means.  And I, for my part, will acknowledge it as yet another example of you using personal insult and abuse instead of valid argument.  Feel free to call me whatever names you like, but making light of my Asian heritage is low, even for you, Drich.  Oh wait.   No it's not.  It's actually just about your speed.

(Oh, and you've been remarkably silent on the actual subject of this thread since I criticized you, a fact I can only regard as an unmistakable win. lol.)

Then I suppose you will count this as a win as well. because I made my points I said my piece and all my major points have been made and are not factually contested. what I see here is basically a letter of disagreement and disdain.. so be it. I don't have to make you like me or how I do things. 

Know this or not I am not here to provoke you to wrath or push you into a corner where there is no way out each and every time.

I am however always open to questions:

Tell me Drich, whose opinion other than your own do you rely upon in coming to these conclusions? 

Why is it you think I post so many links to so many other pages of people works? I promise you 9 times out of 10 the things I speak about... are things I hear about in the news, then I research to find corroborating stories or evidence and condense it in such a way as to provoke thought and post it. like I heard the term 'global warming was only 40+ years old which corroborated a statement I was making about ever changing science and how before this period of global warming the chicken littles of the world (climate 'scientists') were clucking about how the sky was falling due to global freezing and a coming ice age. This is in contrast to science claiming the records of global warming have gone back 100+ years. Which I know to be untrue because I lived through the 'panic' of the next ice age by 2000.

 What are you basing your assessment of your general competence upon?

my ability to identify and the general use of primary secondary and tertairy source material when building and deconstructing statements or arguments. I isolate 'facts and evidence and counter them with established points of reference so that when a conclusion is question I can point to the chain of evidence and the strength of the source material..

Which is miles above your efforts to destroy you opponents credibility in an effort to discredit his message.

Regardless, you've not called any bluff.  All you've done is post more ridiculous and wrong-headed drivel.  

When you threaten to expose my supposedly shotty argument through all of your research and back study, me simply saying "i'm calling your bluff. means I've called your bluff. show me what you have. show me your research show me what you think you have on me. If you think you won something show me.. and we can conclude this to it's end if you wish. If you don't think I was calling your bluff before know I am calling it now!

you have adopted a clever name for me in lieu of actual arguments.  Sadly, nobody but you and me will get the joke, as they'll read 'ADL' and wonder what it means.  And I, for my part, will acknowledge it as yet another example of you using personal insult and abuse instead of valid argument.  Feel free to call me whatever names you like, but making light of my Asian heritage is low, even for you, Drich.  Oh wait.   No it's not.  It's actually just about your speed.

Look snow flake.. if you are but hurt because I abbreviated your screen names THEN PICK A SHORTER NAME! Why did I call you Alpo, because it was short for alphopheninia or whatever the hell your first name was... why do I call you jorie because it is short for 'Jörmungandr' Why did I call you Angery Dragon lady? 1 you said you don't like jorgie or alpo. because of all of your personal attacks on me. despite what you claim one can not say more than once a person has a defective brain, cite or create reading comprehension errors repeatedly slam a person personly for their thoughts and ideas and not be angry. Not only that you do these thing unsolicited.. meaning most of the time you interject yourself into a conversation that has nothing to do with you. the point is you are seeking opportunity to destroy again another act indicating anger. Anger however is not a unique identifier as 99% of the people here are angry with me. However you choose to represent yourself with a norse dragon serpent a "wyrm" (again a dragon with no legs) So now you are an angry dragon which puts you in a position of strength which when speaking to you That is ground I do not want to give. So I sought to cut your self image down a little and added lady as a dragon lady was to us growing up was a mean squawking old lady who is never happy who never compromises who always wants things done her way right now. which to me describes you. Now that fact that your asian too bonus! double meaning for those smart enough to get it (meaning probably only you) at least by your own estimation.. But the fact that you would pull a yellow card on me and make this about race?!?!

One that is a cowards panic stop button. I know that in you world pulling your yellow card/race card is always a instant win. Never mind the fact the heritage I supposedly insulted is SHARED between us! Which only means to me that you do not count anything but a full blooded asian as being asian... Or Do You not understand I grew up first generation born here in the US, that I'm not some 3 or 4 or 1000 times removed nancy pelosi asian.. Your attitude if you know I am 50%/(my mother and her whole family is 100% korean and chinese) and still feel I don't count, despite being raise growing eating and preparing the food and speaking the language.. If that is what you believe, your belief is a bigoted one. In that only pure bred people should count or to speak about someone else in the same race..

which is why when with my mother's family and friends I had to be 200% asian and with my dads people 200% white. or i was not counted and cast aside. Which is what you just did here. Do you have any idea how hard it is not to be able to identify with any race completely? Not belonging anywhere but knowing and completely understand both cultures?

Which is why I identify as an american first. and if you are one then I see you as the same. which is what I was going off of (because mastery of the language and insight to pop culture references) which is why I had the same name for you as anyone one else in a similar circumstance.

any other questions?

[Minimalist]

Forgetting an unlettered moron like Dripshit for a while, let's see what Robert Price has to say:

For a long time, Christians bragged how archaeological discoveries confirmed the biblical history in instance after instance. Only recently have we realized that this was an illusion created by people like William Foxwell Albright, a devout Presbyterian who set out to vindicate the accuracy of the Bible, not exactly an objective approach. He would find some site and match it up with something in the Bible on the assumption that the Bible must be right (“ Ruins of a city in the Dead Sea? Must be Sodom!”).

Since then, the situation has reversed itself in a dramatic way. Any would-be defender of the historical accuracy of the Old Testament is out on a creaking limb, sitting next to the defender of the Book of Mormon with its tales of Israelites in ancient America. It’s a lost cause. It’s time to get real. There was no historical exodus, no liberation of a group of Hebrew slaves from Egypt led by Moses, Charlton Heston, or anyone else. You can’t even strip away the Technicolor of miracles and call what remains “history.” It is a simple matter of archaeological evidence. The trouble is, there isn’t any. Pick any of the possible routes from Egypt, through the Sinai desert, and into Canaan proposed by scholars. Pick either of the suggested dates, 1200 B.C.E. or 1450 B.C.E. It’s just not going to work because a mass migration of people and animals such as the Bible depicts must and will leave behind a great amount of detritus, and there is none. We have infrared aerial photography capable of detecting ancient caravan routes though featureless deserts, and yet technology reveals no sign of the passage of the Bible characters. What could have happened, you ask? Uh, maybe God sent down an angelic clean-up crew like they do after tickertape parades through Manhattan, and they vacuumed up all the evidence? Just like Satan fabricated and planted all those dinosaur bones to dupe us into believing in evolution? Most of the Old Testament “history” of Israel now appears to be nationalistic fiction, what G. Ernest Wright called “a theology of recital,”

Price, Robert M.. Holy Fable: The Old Testament Undistorted by Faith (p. 59). Tellectual Press. Kindle Edition.

No gods, no miracles, no heroes, dripshit.  Just poor old silly you out there clinging to your bible and your dick.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and to what end, it has to be asked.  Is there anything at all worthy in christianity or judaism that requires their foundational myths and fairy tales to be true?

[Angrboda]

Your 'source' claimed something different than what you claim your source said.  It's only your complete lack of reading comprehension which leads you to think otherwise.  So, no, my beef is not with the source but with your misrepresentation of it.  If things were as you suggest, then please explain why, in the very article you claim as a source, the author noted that the thing you claimed was not true?  The only reason you think that I have some issue with the source is because you're an incompetent boob with a fourth grade reading ability.


No, you did not quote Norse canon.  You quoted some internet rando who thinks that the Jormungandr serpent resembles a dragon.  Unfortunately for you, the modern meaning of dragon doesn't mean serpent, and indeed means something completely at odds with the accounts of Jormungandr.  So the question is whether your description of me and Jormungandr was accurate according to usage.  According to modern usage, it is not.  You haven't brought any evidence from Norse canon, in spite of your moronic notion that a web page on Norse myths written in English is in some way Norse canon.  A more ridiculous gaff is hard to imagine.



Given your laughable difficulty with other arguments, as well as your complete inability to put two and two together and see how wrong you are, I'm not the least interested in pursuing a rehash of prior debates with you at this time.  But I don't have to do so in this case, as you changed your claim from asserting that Hitler had demanded to be worshiped as God to the more lukewarm claim that this is what he wanted, even if he hadn't outright stated it.  In order to get to the latter conclusion, you engage in some incompetent tea leaf reading, but all that is moot because you moved the goalposts, tacitly admitting you were wrong regarding your original claim.



Your purposes, whatever they are would be rather irrelevant.  No doubt, if you indeed pursue such things, a fact which I strongly doubt, you do so with the same incompetence you do everything else.  I could care less what you think you are accomplishing as the only thing you are in fact accomplishing is showing everybody that you're a fucking moron who likes to think his egotistically motivated rationalizations for his behavior provide him some cover for his patently bad arguments.



Your views in this are as delusional as your views on everything else, but most especially your views about yourself.  Whether and when I research things is not a particularly relevant issue because like it or not, I've been right.  You can't argue with a broken clock when it displays the correct time, so your complaint here, even if it were true, is moot.  And yes, I can and do separate my feelings about a person from what I think of their claims and arguments, a fact which is ably on display in the thread I posted about Rupert Sheldrake's ten dogmas of science as well as your own thread about the brain as receiver hypothesis in which I made specific arguments against those represented and didn't simply dissmiss the ideas on account of their source.  This whole episode, your attributing various things to me which aren't true seems to indicate that it is possible that you can't separate your beliefs about a person from their arguments and in this you are simply projecting.  Unfortunately for you, everything you imagine about me turns out to be wrong and so this simply ends up being another example of your incompetence.  You wish certain things about me were true, likely so you can feel better about yourself.  Unfortunately, your wishes don't bear any resemblance to reality.



Whatever feeds your delusions, Bud.  Have fun being a deluded moron who thinks he's accomplishing shit just so he can ignore the fact that he's not actually accomplishing shit.

The only things you accomplish on this forum are: a) Giving Christianity a black eye, b) showing what an egotistical and deluded moron you are, c) giving otherwise neutral parties reason to distrust you, and d) giving everybody else a good reason for putting you on ignore.  On that score, you're 4 for 4.



Having a motive to do something is not "being lead around by emotion," it's simply being motivated and having a rational reason to do that thing.  It doesn't in any way indicate that said emotions in any way compromised the quality of my arguments or the validity of my points.  That would be drawing a conclusion that is not in evidence.  But anyway, your contention was that I was attacking you because I was angry.  Even if I were being lead around by emotion, because that emotion is not anger, you would still be wrong.  You called something completely different than what turned out to be the case, so your belief that you called it is just another example of your ridiculously bad logic.

And you've yet to show that Jormungandr was angry or that Thor opposed Jormungandr because Jormungandr was an angry serpent.  Have you decided to simply drop those points and pretend it didn't happen?  Probably for the best.

And you still haven't responded to the obvious fact that you were making an ethnic slur against me because of my Asian heritage.  Are you just going to quietly ignore that, too?



You are a hero in your own mind.  Tell me Drich, whose opinion other than your own do you rely upon in coming to these conclusions?  You are aware that according to science, depending solely upon one's opinion of oneself is one of the least reliable methods known to assess such things.  I have the accolades of peers, teachers, schools, and standardized testing to fall back on in assessing my general competence.  What are you basing your assessment of your general competence upon?

Regardless, you've not called any bluff.  All you've done is post more ridiculous and wrong-headed drivel.  

And now, despite having been shown to be wrong six ways from Kevin Bacon, you have adopted a clever name for me in lieu of actual arguments.  Sadly, nobody but you and me will get the joke, as they'll read 'ADL' and wonder what it means.  And I, for my part, will acknowledge it as yet another example of you using personal insult and abuse instead of valid argument.  Feel free to call me whatever names you like, but making light of my Asian heritage is low, even for you, Drich.  Oh wait.   No it's not.  It's actually just about your speed.

(Oh, and you've been remarkably silent on the actual subject of this thread since I criticized you, a fact I can only regard as an unmistakable win. lol.)

Then I suppose you will count this as a win as well. because I made my points I said my piece and all my major points have been made and are not factually contested. what I see here is basically a letter of disagreement and disdain.. so be it. I don't have to make you like me or how I do things. 

Not factually contested? What the fuck is wrong with you? This is nothing more than a bald faced lie. I contested that the article you cited claimed what you claimed it did. That's a factual contestation. I disputed whether or not you had quoted Norse canon. Yet another contested fact! I contested your claim that you had provided evidence for your claim about Hitler by pointing out that you didn't provide evidence for what you claimed but rather for something else. You can't provide evidence for that original claim. You claimed that I dismissed people without evaluating their arguments. Yet another supposed fact under dispute. You claimed that I was motivated by anger. Disputed! You claimed that I was following my emotions rather than the evidence and facts. Again, disputed!

To claim that your facts are uncontested is a transparently obvious lie to anyone who can read. Do you think that these lies are likely to escape the attention of those present? Apparently you don't care. Backed against a wall, you choose to attempt to lie your way out of difficulty. You're nothing but a liar for Jesus. Answer my points or don't, but this notion that your 'facts' are uncontested and that your major points have been made is sheer bollocks.

What on earth makes you think you can get away with such shit? Do you have no personal integrity at all?

Know this or not I am not here to provoke you to wrath or push you into a corner where there is no way out each and every time.

I wouldn't know about that given that you've never succeeded in pushing me into such a corner. This appears to be more of your useless and delusional wishful thinking.

And again you conclude that 'wrath' or anger is even in the picture. A sentiment you've already been refuted on. Never let the falseness of something prevent you from repeating it ad nauseum in hopes that sheer repitition will lead to its acceptance. Christian 'scholars' like David Barton employ similarly bankrupt strategies, so you're in good company with your fellow Christians.

I am however always open to questions:

Glad to hear it.

Tell me Drich, whose opinion other than your own do you rely upon in coming to these conclusions? 

Why is it you think I post so many links to so many other pages of people works? I promise you 9 times out of 10 the things I speak about... are things I hear about in the news, then I research to find corroborating stories or evidence and condense it in such a way as to provoke thought  and post it. like I heard the term 'global warming was only 40+ years old which corroborated a statement I was making about ever changing science and how before this period of global warming the chicken littles of the world (climate 'scientists') were clucking about how the sky was falling due to global freezing and a coming ice age. This is in contrast to science claiming the records of global warming have gone back 100+ years.  Which I know to be untrue because I lived through the 'panic' of the next ice age by 2000.

Not my question, Drich. I specifically asked what you base your opinion of your general competence upon. That you cite sources does not help if your reading of them is faulty due to generally poor reading comprehension (as documented several times), if your inferences or the arguments you construct are faulty because of general incompetence, or you believe that certain inferences are valid when they are not due to a lack of skill at reasoning. It's said that a workman is only as good as his tools, and the primary tool you depend upon is your mind and your ability to reason with it. If that is not sound, appealing to the fact that you cite sources does no good, as your citations, as I've documented, don't support your arguments, and your arguments themselves are filled with errors of reasoning. So the question is, on what basis do you form your belief that you possess adequate mental competence to back your claims and arguments, and on what do you base your beliefs about your competence, intelligence and reasoning abilities? You've said in the past that you had educational difficulties in acquiring competence as a reader and a writer. Given such a history, on what basis do you conclude that you have competent reading comprehension. Flaws in that skill have already been pointed out to you. You say that you are successful in your business and that you have some engineering achievements related to such. That might provide some evidence in favor of competence except for two things. First, specialized competence is not a reliable indicator of general competence. Many people with great skill in their specialization lack similar competence in their general ability to reason and think. The second problem is that you have attributed these successes to intervention from God. If God is indeed behind your competence in these or other areas, that offers no evidence of competence that you personally possess. It would be highly inappropriate of you to argue that they are effects of God when you want to witness in favor of belief in God, only to turn around and claim the reverse when you need to establish your own competence. That would undermine both your arguments about God, as well as about your general competence given the obvious illogical shenanigans going on in doing so.

So, to put the question back under the microscope, what evidence are you appealing to in order to conclude that you are generally competent, intelligent, and capable of reasoning well? It's important because if you don't have evidence of these things, then it makes no sense to attribute them to you, and if you can't claim them as your own, what other capacity could you possibly appeal to in order to provide a justified conclusion that your arguments are sound, well made, and well supported? Do you have any independent evidence of such that you have not already sacrificed upon the altar of your faith?

 What are you basing your assessment of your general competence upon?

my ability to identify and the general use of primary secondary and tertairy source material when building and deconstructing statements or arguments. I isolate 'facts and evidence and counter them with established points of reference so that when a conclusion is question I can point to the chain of evidence and the strength of the source material..

These are simply your own opinions of your ability. I specifically asked if you have evidence supporting your opinion of your own abilities that was separate from your opinion, because as I noted, self generated opinions about one's own competence don't have a strong correlation with reliability. Intelligent people think they are able and competent. But so do idiots and morons. What evidence do you have that you are not among the latter group?

Which is miles above your efforts to destroy you opponents credibility in an effort to discredit his message.

Regardless, you've not called any bluff.  All you've done is post more ridiculous and wrong-headed drivel.  

When you threaten to expose my supposedly shotty argument through all of your research and back study, me simply saying "i'm calling your bluff. means I've called your bluff. show me what you have. show me your research show me what you think you have on me. If you think you won something show me.. and we can conclude this to it's end if you wish. If you don't think I was calling your bluff before know I am calling it now!

What bluff, exactly, is it that you think you've called. It can't be the Hitler and Rosenberg affair because of the reasons stated, so what bluff do you think that you've called?

you have adopted a clever name for me in lieu of actual arguments.  Sadly, nobody but you and me will get the joke, as they'll read 'ADL' and wonder what it means.  And I, for my part, will acknowledge it as yet another example of you using personal insult and abuse instead of valid argument.  Feel free to call me whatever names you like, but making light of my Asian heritage is low, even for you, Drich.  Oh wait.   No it's not.  It's actually just about your speed.

Look snow flake.. if you are but hurt because I abbreviated your screen names THEN PICK A SHORTER NAME! Why did I call you Alpo, because it was short for alphopheninia or whatever the hell your first name was... why do I call you jorie because it is short for 'Jörmungandr' Why did I call you Angery Dragon lady? 1 you said you don't like jorgie or alpo. because of all of your personal attacks on me. despite what you claim one can not say more than once a person has a defective brain, cite or create reading comprehension errors repeatedly slam a person personly for their thoughts and ideas and not be angry. Not only that you do these thing unsolicited.. meaning most of the time you interject yourself into a conversation that has nothing to do with you. the point is you are seeking opportunity to destroy again another act indicating anger. Anger however is not a unique identifier as 99% of the people here are angry with me. However you choose to represent yourself with a norse dragon serpent a "wyrm" (again a dragon with no legs) So now you are an angry dragon which puts you in a position of strength which when speaking to you That is ground I do not want to give. So I sought to cut your self image down a little and added lady as a dragon lady was to us growing up was a mean squawking old lady who is never happy who never compromises who always wants things done her way right now. which to me describes you. Now that fact that your asian too bonus! double meaning for those smart enough to get it (meaning probably only you) at least by your own estimation.. But the fact that you would pull a yellow card on me and make this about race?!?!

You've already been corrected on the angry part. This is just willful stupidity on your part. That you infer from my actions that I am angry cuts no ice as you have repeatedly shown yourself incapable of drawing correct inferences reliably. Like A Theist recently, that you can't imagine an alternate explanation simply points to a lack of imagination on your part. But even if I were angry, it would be irrelevant, as your claim was that my anger was leading me to inappropriately and incorrectly draw conclusions based upon those feelings rather than upon the facts and the evidence. That someone is angry doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion that they are doing so, and so that's a non sequitur. I could be angry and still be reasoning appropriately about the facts and evidence. The two aren't necessarily in conflict, and your belief that they are just points to more incompetence on your part. Regardless, since I'm not angry, and I'm the only one here capable of making that determination, all your arguments to the contrary are worth nothing.

And I never said that I don't like Jorgie. Plenty of people call me that and I haven't once objected to it. I point out your use of the alpo moniker because using derogatory nicknames for people you are debating is childish and shows your general emotional immaturity, as well as your inability to correctly conclude that such tactics are going to be useless against a mature and intelligent debater, at best, and turned against you, at worst. You could have easily called me 'Apo' -- everybody else did. No, Drich, we know the reasons you use such disparaging nicknames and it has nothing to do with the length of my name, difficulty in spelling it, or my objection to using shortened versions of my name for convenience. These are tantamount to more lies on your part.

One that is a cowards panic stop button. I know that in you world pulling your yellow card/race card is always a instant win. Never mind the fact the heritage I supposedly insulted is SHARED between us! Which only means to me that you do not count anything but a full blooded asian as being asian... Or Do You not understand I grew up first generation born here in the US, that I'm not some 3 or 4 or 1000 times removed nancy pelosi asian.. Your attitude if you know I am 50%/(my mother and her whole family is 100% korean and chinese) and still feel I don't count, despite being raise growing eating and preparing the food and speaking the language.. If that is what you believe, your belief is a bigoted one. In that only pure bred people should count or to speak about someone else in the same race..

which is why when with my mother's family and friends I had to be 200% asian and with my dads people 200% white. or i was not counted and cast aside. Which is what you just did here. Do you have any idea how hard it is not to be able to identify with any race completely? Not belonging anywhere but knowing and completely understand both cultures?

Which is why I identify as an american first. and if you are one then I see you as the same. which is what I was going off of (because mastery of the language and insight to pop culture references) which is why I had the same name for you as anyone one else in a similar circumstance.

I have never claimed that only persons possessed of 100% Asian heritage are superior to those without, or that people of mixed heritage aren't truly Asian. Where you get that from, I have no idea. That seems to be something you pulled from your anxiety closet. I didn't in any way discount you on the basis of your ethnicity. What I did do was point out that, if you research and prepare as thoroughly as you claim, then your use of what is an ethnic slur was an intentional act, intended to play on Asian stereotypes in order to demean me.

And for the record, I find your use of insulting Asian stereotypes, derisive nicknames like 'alpo', and so forth, do more to undermine you then they are ever going to effect me. I have a healthy reputation on this forum. Your nicknames and ethnic slurs simply undermine your credibility and the opinions of your maturity and intelligence among those that you hope to reach with your missionary efforts.

As I noted when I started this conversation, I don't take you seriously, Drich. That would be a bar you'd have to meet before I became butthurt over the things you do and say.

any other questions?

I think that's enough for now. I reserve the right to ask further questions as they occur to me.

[GrandizerII]

Abraham Entertains God
Genesis 18:1-15

God and two of his angels paid Abraham a visit, and Abraham went out of his way to serve them food (tender veal, bread, milk, curds), making sure they were well refreshed by bringing them water and having them relax under a tree. The passage itself is a little amusing as it describes Abraham, his wife, and his servant in a hurry getting the food ready for their guests. In fact, Abraham was so eager to be a good host to God he ended up being their waiter.

At one point during their conversation, God mentioned to Abraham that a year from this divine visit, Sarah would have already given birth to a son. Sarah was listening from a distance, and when she heard that, she laughed at the prospect of still being able to have pleasure at such an old age. God, seemingly not pleased with Sarah's laughter, asked Abraham why she laughed. Sarah, feeling afraid, denied that she did. However, God made it clear to her that he knew she was lying. Moral of the story: If you're a woman, don't laugh at what God has to say.

Cute story. Sort of reminds me of other classical stories like Baucis and Philemon of Greek/Roman mythology.