Goonerman Posted November 17, 2007 Report Share Posted November 17, 2007 If you think I am an extremist, then give me evidence of my subversive and militant activities. This post by you is an emotional reaction, not analytical. Calm down. I will say this- as long as I am caricatured in the same light as say those who perpetrated 9/11- and this is the attitude of the public, the public will end up becoming extremists due to a paranoid fear. I'm advising people in this difficult time to back down or become the very thing you are opposed to. Lots of historians have the skills you presume I think am the only one who has them. I don't know everything about the past, but the most important details can be known generally and surprisingly in many specifics in careful, accurate reconstructions. Are you saying then that you know nothing about armoury? Tell me this: Are you conversant with the disciplines of: Redaction Criticism, Form Criticism, and the JEDP Documentary Hypothesis? For example? But it seems there is currently a very pessimistic view of what we know. I think we know surprisingly rather a lot, but there is of course so much more to learn. I didn't get my perspectives from hot air. If this is how you feel about History, then maybe you've lost faith in your own abilities. Surely not! Please no! Most wars have not been caused by religion. It just isn't true. It's a myth. Persians v Greeks? Caesar v Pompey? William the Conqueror v Harold Godwinsson? Henry II v Louis VII? Henry V v Charles VI? WWII? Scots v Edward I? What have I got to do to prove that I am a moderate? Am I not allowed an opinion or is that everybody else's territory? You don't really know what an extremist is. This discussion is a complete waste of my time. I've got better things to do than waste my time with paranoid people who on the basis of no evidence whatsoever think Christians are plotting to blow everybody up. It isn't going to happen! Not now, not ever. I tell you Christianity's real problem in Britain: we are weak, woolly, ineffectual, effete, and lack any authority. Not extremism. I belong to a school of thought which is neither extremist nor woolly. Unfortunately, people in Britain are so out of touch on these issues now that they think we are all either like the Vicar of Dibley or Bin Laden- they don't even know there is a balanced in-between zone. I'll be blunt. All this garbage about Christians and so on is because you are all scared of the Muslims and are throwing us as a human shield in the hope it will appease the Muslims. We're a soft target for slandering because you know we won't retaliate in actuality, in spite of all the propaganda. Whereas you know Islamic extremists WILL kill. You would do well to remember that it was we Nonconformists who won the right to secularism and freedom of conscience in the first place, now it is being misused against us. Maybe it's about time we in the Christian churches started considering taking legal action especially with the slurs launched against us since 7/7. And it will make it legally harder for our opponents to stifle us as the likes of Sam Harris would like to see happen. But, I am wasting my time. Goodbye, and best wishes. [ 17.11.2007, 01:36: Message edited by: GUNNER ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Posted November 17, 2007 Report Share Posted November 17, 2007 With regards to the original core of this thread i.e paganism, which to a higher degree is formed around the belief in the earth and what it gives, isn't it ironic that in this modern day and age when the very planet that paganism held in high esteem is being 'uncontrollably destroyed' by the believers of 'other' things ???????????????? does this therefore mean that the new 'jump on the bandwagon' recycling brigade nowadays has some pagan blood and are actually 'attempting' (very feebly of course) to 'think' they care about the earth around them ????????????????????? In all honesty there has always been a small few people that have believed in living with the Earth and cherishing that which it gives. It is mans greed and avarice that is killing this Earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 17, 2007 Report Share Posted November 17, 2007 Overpopulation by an over consuming organism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonymaillman Posted November 17, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 17, 2007 Originally posted by observer: Overpopulation by an over consuming organism? :confused: Absolutely spot on Obs !! Gunner - one striking thing I notice from all your replies is that you seem to 'patronise' others because they have a very differing - and usually more accurate - opinion than yourself. NOT ONCE have I in any of my posts criticised or tried to belittle anyones faiths or beliefs. You on the other hand persistently 'knock' anything you don't believe in yourself. It stands out by a mile and if you can't see it yourself then pity on you. Read between the lines of your very own replies, you are 'one' opinionated, which is 'one' of the many arteries of extremism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goonerman Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 Gunner - one striking thing I notice from all your replies is that you seem to 'patronise' others because they have a very differing - and usually more accurate - opinion than yourself. GUNNER: The apparent patronising is due to me responding to thing like being told I worship 'the Great Whore', hmmm, is that acceptable? I also requested lines of evidence- not provided. I made point on methodology- not answered. "Usually more accurate"- it's OK making a statement like that but it needs to be backed up as with any historical claim. NOT ONCE have I in any of my posts criticised or tried to belittle anyones faiths or beliefs. GUNNER: But your criticisms of my beliefs as 'extremism' apply under different rules? An extremist is someone who advocates the suppression of other opinions, usually by violence. I don't qualify therefore, and neither do you, but you are guilty of emotional blackmail. And of wanting to suppress any discussion or disagreement. The last time I noticed the UK was still a democracy. Ignore me personally, but feel free to tackle the points I make without making it personal. That's the secret! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 Interesting that Bliar has now revealed his obsession with religion; he kept it quiet while PM (Alister Cambell - "we don't do God); for fear of being thought "a nutter" - I wonder why?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goonerman Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 He never kept it quiet, I knew about it before he went into office, and just before he took over as Labour leader. I remember you mentioning it (in derogatory fashion of course!) when he and Dubya made it out God told them to invade Iraq, when they came to the conclusion to invade it after prayer. You forgot that, Obbs! Having a senior moment! It irks me more that professing Christians blame God on their EXCEPTIONAL lapses of judgement! Grrrr. So there you are, TMM, he knocks my beliefs all the time, old Obbs, and is opinionated. Does that make him an extremist? Keep the biscuits and sticky buns for me. [ 25.11.2007, 14:35: Message edited by: GUNNER ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 Some of us with intuition, had Tony pegged from the begining as God bothering nutter; that's why I made the comment at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goonerman Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 Are all believers in God nutters? [ 25.11.2007, 18:16: Message edited by: GUNNER ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 God knows why he married Cherie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 It just proves how hypocritical he is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 Just watched "The Bliar Years" on TV (nothing else on!); and it's clear that Bliar (and Bush); simplistically saw global politics in terms of good and evil; black and white; and sadly they've left a mess that may not be repaired for a generation, if at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goonerman Posted November 27, 2007 Report Share Posted November 27, 2007 Oh, I believe in good and evil, too,and that there are messy grey areas, which need wisdom, something Blair lacks. Not least his disastrous social policies and threats to democracy and key parts of the population not being able to find somewhere to live! And corruption, need I continue???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 27, 2007 Report Share Posted November 27, 2007 There is so much of the grey stuff involved, that even Machiavelli would have difficulties! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goonerman Posted November 27, 2007 Report Share Posted November 27, 2007 Machiavelli was into the machinations of tyranny, as epitomised by the twisted reign of Henry VIII. At least those two blackguards knew what they were at in their dark political arts. Tony Blair is just all confusion and cobblers. It's like a genius being flummoxed by idiots so absurd they wouldn't know where to start! [ 27.11.2007, 19:31: Message edited by: GUNNER ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted November 27, 2007 Report Share Posted November 27, 2007 I would suggest that Tony Blair knew exactly what he was doing, and was a modern Svengali. He conned millions to keep him in office. His successor is too honest for his own good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 28, 2007 Report Share Posted November 28, 2007 But his subordinates don't appear to be as honest - they've been caught again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goonerman Posted December 10, 2007 Report Share Posted December 10, 2007 A scholarly raspberry to the bigoted syncretists and post-modernists! http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/12/zeitgeist-of-zeitgeist-movie.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted December 18, 2007 Report Share Posted December 18, 2007 did you read something diffrent to me, because to me I read the the old misconceptions about ancient gods and their followers beliefs about what contents of the heavens were (not stars and planets but gods looking down) and being an alternative to the modern ones such as christianity (which to me is just a more recent and as rediculous a concept) so the writer declares a victory for chritian beliefs. when infact the true post modern thinking is that its all a bunch of nonsence, especialy christianity. and proving the faults of old religeons far from reinforces the beleif that 2000+ years ago, god decided to impregnate a virgin, who went around healing sick, walking on water and turning water into wine... which by todays standards are not impressive at all as miracles (david blain can do them much better). he died and 3 days later, rose again to save our souls and made a new wishy washy all forgiving god...who previously had been a bit of a git by all accounts in the old testiment, you know vengeful eye for an eye, forcing fathers to kill their owns sons, turning entire citys into salt and flooding the planet (no mention of dinasaurs though..????) now if we are to beleive this version of god existed, well then may he strike me down and I will never be able to post on here again... but im quietly confident I will. sorry matey but jesus was not the son of god, as nice a guy as he may have been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goonerman Posted December 18, 2007 Report Share Posted December 18, 2007 LEGION: did you read something diffrent to me, because to me I read the the old misconceptions about ancient gods and their followers beliefs about what contents of the heavens were (not stars and planets but gods looking down) GUNNER: Ben Witherington III is a top level professor and a major expert in the Third Quest for the historical Jesus. The story of Horus is so totally different from Jesus- that is clear. All Professor Witherington did was tell the myth that the Egyptians themselves did. Go to his blog and write to him- he's a nice guy and will engage with you. LEGION: he died and 3 days later, rose again to save our souls and made a new wishy washy all forgiving god... GUNNER: dying on the Cross and taking our punishment both physically and spiritually to make forgiveness possible is hardly wishy-washy. And forgiveness based on that death is still conditional upon us being really sorry for our sins, confessing them to God, asking for forgiveness and then living for Him. That's not wishy-washy. "He who does not take up his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple." LEGION: who previously had been a bit of a git by all accounts in the old testiment, you know vengeful eye for an eye, forcing fathers to kill their owns sons, turning entire citys into salt and flooding the planet (no mention of dinasaurs though..????) GUNNER: Now that you can see clearly that Biblical Judaism/Christianity does NOT derive from paganism at last, you change your tune and slag God off. Interesting! And the old silly OT v NT nonexistent contradiction, bad old angry God of OT, nicey wicey wimpy God of NT appears. Quite mistaken. God was no git. Nor a wuss. LEGION: you know vengeful eye for an eye GUNNER: That's to do with crime and punishment and compensation for damages in ancient Israel. The punishment fitted the crime literally. LEGION: forcing fathers to kill their owns sons GUNNER: Wrong again. Abraham never killed Isaac. All God did was test Abraham by asking him please to kill him. (Says so in the Hebrew.) Asked. Not commanded. Which is interesting. When Abraham said to Isaac that God would provide a lamb, he meant it. The author of Hebrews states that if the worst came to the worst, God would raise Isaac from the dead. Besides, if Isaac died how could God make him the ancestor of the Israelites and the Messiah? Abraham was well aware of all this. The only father God forced to kill His Own Son was Himself. LEGION: turning entire citys into salt GUNNER: Sodom and Gomorrah, and only them including the towns Admah and Zeboiim for their evil religious sexual practices and immorality, and child abuse and gang rapes. Also. God told Ezekiel He also did it because they would not help the poor and the orphans. LEGION: flooding the planet GUNNER: Look at Genesis and you will see that humanity were committing atrocities on a world scale, which was genocidal. God did it to stop the genocide and to start again. Maybe God should have let Adolf Hitler win the Second World War, eh? I think not. LEGION: (no mention of dinasaurs though..????) GUNNER: The word 'dinosaur' is a modern Latin word coined only in the 19th century. It means 'terrible lizard'. Hebrew has its own words for dinosaurs: Rahab, Leviathan and Behemoth. So the tolerant mask slips off. You said once you were doing DIY theology. Now all the religions are daft, and you get emotional about the Bible, where God is damned if He does, and damned if He doesn't. Your views are all over the place. LEGION: now if we are to beleive this version of god existed, well then may he strike me down and I will never be able to post on here again... but im quietly confident I will. GUNNER: Now you are being silly. Of course God will not strike you down. The Old Testament God declared Himself to be long-suffering, patient and merciful, and shows His love to thousands of generations that love Him and obey His laws. In the New Testament, it declares, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His one and only Son, for whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." LEGION: sorry matey but jesus was not the son of god, as nice a guy as he may have been. GUNNER: So what happened to all that Son/Sun of God stuff, eh? And if He was not the Son of God He was not nice. He was either a liar or a lunatic. He was neither of these. Check out my work on the evidence for the Resurrection in the Early Christians thread and you will see He is indeed the Son of God. We'll let the discussion rest now. PS Did somebody mischievously add a thumbs down? I never did any such thing. PPS From now on, my views on these matters are confined to my blog. So it's adios to me handling my views on ultimate questions on this website. [ 19.12.2007, 00:17: Message edited by: GUNNER ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goonerman Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 I was going to ask the mods to remove the thumbs down symbol which is there by accident, and does not reflect my attitude. But writing this post should be sufficient! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goonerman Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 Silly question. Joseph was Jesus' adoptive father and the legal heir of the Davidic kings (Mary also was descended from King David) thus making Jesus the heir to the throne of Israel had it been independent.) The second question, a poor joke, is so daft it doesn't deserve answering! (Ever heard of the Trinity? That's why CSA can't catch up with Him. How do you punish the Father when He and His Son are actually the one and the same Being! DUH! ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 errrm; bet that one ain't been used with the CSA yet?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goonerman Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 Nope, humans don't exactly qualify for the status of Hypostatic Entity! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.