@ shinyblurry

This had already turned into an essay and I didn't want to take up even more room by quoting you verbatim so I've tried to break it down to save space.



1. "Except that?"

There are no absolute logical principles <---- including that one.
This is simply another way of describing the problem of induction and under determination. Like so many philosophical arguments you have attacked my position based upon the language it was described in and not due to its underlying thought process. This has resulted in a fallacy. Language merely conveys knowledge, it does not in an of itself contain it (and excellent example incidentally of what I was talking about).

2. "Is that absolutely true?"

All principles (save the observation "thinking exists") can only ever derived by induction. This is the case because one can never know for certain if any or all of ones experiences are fabrications, and furthermore that they never encompass all possible variables/possibilities. To put it another way, you can't ever be certain about any judgement one makes about the universe or anything in it because one cannot observe an exhaustive perspective (i.e. all of time and space for the thing in question). Thus there may always exist an example that could falsify your assumption. e.g. if I inducted that all swans are white because I had only ever seen white swans I would ultimately be incorrect as black swans can be observed to exist. Unless you can verify the entirety of existence across time there might always exist and experience/example to falsify any objective assertion. (you could be a brain in a jar, you can't prove 100% that your not)


3. "Including not permitting..which means you have no further argument against Christianity."

^ Pardon me? Did you even read what I wrote by way of explanation for that? What part of "everything is permitted" even remotely precludes me (or anyone) from anything, let alone arguing against Christianity?!?!?

What I felt I'd explained fairly clearly was the idea that the only demonstrable moral authority was yourself, or to put it another way that there are no moral authorities to be found anywhere else but within peoples minds.
Even if God himself speaks to you directly, that is an experience reducible only to the mind because ALL EXPERIENCES WITHIN HUMAN CONCEPTION OCCUR IN or at best VIA THE MIND!

Nothing has ever happened to any human being anywhere that was not experienced entirely in the mind (notice I didn't say "brain" ). When you see a chair you don't see the photons of light hitting your retina, you see something your mind made up to be representative (at best) of whatever phenomenon your eyes detected.

With that in mind (<- mind lol), "everything is permitted". The universe will continue on, unmoved by our moralities (or lack of). Only other humans will cry or rejoice at your actions and only within the sovereignty of your own mind will you find an irrefutable and absolute moral judge...

As for the other bits

A. "The earliest records of Mithraism bear no similarity to Christianity at all....."

Apart from all the same major dates for festivals and holy days (25th dec etc.), the entire symbology of dieing on a cross for three days then being resurrected, the "last supper" with 12 disciples, 3 wise men from the east bearing gifts. etc. etc.

I'd have more time for the Christian counter argument that the Mithraists stole this stuff from them if the same themes, dates and symoblogy didn't pop up in ancient cultures going back a few 1000 years over and over and over. The list of Messianic figures with the above characteristics in western folklore & myth is so long its almost a joke! & naturally is no co-incidence as they are describing the movement of the heavens (specifically the sun) by way of allegory. Speaking of which............

Pagan & Gnostic traditions are deeply intertwined to the point where one could consider many examples to be one and the same. Mithraism would be one such example. Pagan just means many Gods/worship of nature & archetypes in the human psyche. Mithraism fulfils this definition but it also fulfils the Gnostic one i.e. it teaches that one finds god of and within oneself, not as an external force, or indeed a force which is separate from oneself.

But then the Catholic Church did it level best to suppress and destroy any trace of Gnosticism through the ages so its no surprise to me that you're not entirely familiar with it. (most people haven't even heard of it and those that do tend to be under the misapprehension that its a Christian thing (again understandable under the circumstances))


B. "Actually, they came from a progressive revelation of Judiasm which preceeded all of that."

I'll come with you a little on that one. Before Rex Mundi (Jehova) showed up to fk everything up for them the Kabbalistic (and essentially Pagan) Jews possessed great wisdom and insight. Naturally not all of this was lost! (though after Solomon passed it would appear a regrettably large amount was)


C. "What Jesus did not teach that came from Judiasm was wholly His and entirely unique, and they came from the mouth of God Himself."


I'm not sure I even want to grace that with a response. How could you possibly know what came from the mouth of God to a man 2000 years ago? If you say "because it says in the bible" please don't expect a sensible reply (I'm happy to fight non-sense with none-sense)


D. "The difference is Jesus Himself. You could take buddha out of buddhism, or zoroaster out of zoroastrianism and you would still have something. Without Jesus there is no Christianity."

^This one amused be greatly. I would say Buddhism & Zoroastranism were clearly superior for exactly that reason but that's not what I think you were alluding to? I assume you were suggesting that certain parts of the whole Jesus shebang could only have come from Jesus/God/Holy spirit because he made himself the centre of attention?
This is why I make a very distinct separation between the "Jesus" and the "Christ". Christ (or anointed one) goes back at least to Egypt. Horus is clearly "Christ" by basically any sensible measure I can think of, and by "Christ" I mean the "Sun of God" i.e. the freaking Sun.
This also forms the basis for an "as above so below" parable/allegory for the spiritual journey to enlightenment. You can find your way to heaven and God via the "Sun of God's" wisdom. No Miracle performing hippie Jew's were required before and I fail to see how sprouting the same fundamental idea just with a figurehead for a disenfranchised Jewish noble family anchored to everything helps?

Are there some pearl's of Jesus's wisdom I missed? Thus far I have yet to come across anything that didn't strike me as either a rewording of things wise men had preached for 1000's of years previously, or a power play by an unscrupulous or deluded individual.


E. "The Jesus myth theory isn't taken seriously by even skeptical bible scholars. There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than for Alexander the Great."

I happen to know its hotly contested even to this day but lets for the sake of this just take it as a given. When I said "at best a fabrication" it was because I consider the historical figure to be an impostor and a fraud. If anyone was a "true" messiah then John the Baptist and moreover Simon Magus are far better contenders but then that's a colossal can of worms I'm not sure I can be bothered to open at the moment. I'll just say in summary that I am of the opinion that Mr. Ben Yosef and his crew were plotting to return the house of David to power but largely failed in the end as the Roman establishment usurped most of the legacy they tried to create (though not entirely).
Either way they worshiped and championed a being (Psychological archetype) which I feel I have little choice but to call Satan i.e. the God of Abraham. This alone is a pretty major indictment for me and any historic figure that puts said "being" at the center of their belief system will garner my suspicion.

How can the God that appeared to Abraham be anything but malevolent if the accounts in the Torah and Quran are accurate?

(I hope that made sense towards the end, getting very late & tired here...)

OH I have to look for a specific reference of Chomsky refuting your specific French Faggot. Great more homework for me. OH Wait! I don't care what you think. Go on believing that Slaves didn't make us rich, that's fine with me, ya Racist!

I mean it's not a complicated formula. Slaves pick cotton, cotton makes textiles, textiles made by cheaper slave labor than in Egypt is more profitable. If you don't understand how raw materials can be taken out from under someone leaving them still poor and the people exploiting those materials fantastically rich than I don't know what to tell you. Maybe read the ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.

If I can speak past the foot in my mouth, when you're right, you're right.

I have to ask though, what does it demonstrate? I don't see it making a clear distinction between 'defensive' arab states trying to appease an aggressive Israel. It more show cases that Israel has and still is surrounded by aggressive Arab states, and has survived/existed by being similarly aggressive in turn. Israel's pre-emptive attack in the 67 was just the first strike while BOTH sides were escalating things, no different from Egypt's pre-emptive attack in the 70's was just the first strike while BOTH sides were escalating things.

If I side toward Israel in the balance of most things, it's for two reasons. First off, on the whole they treat their own citizens better than most of their neighbours(a low bar, I know). If I have to pick between regime change in Israel or Syria, it's Assad I'm happier to see gone. Secondly, I think it can pretty emphatically be stated that Israel has, since it's formation, had it's very existence under attack by forces that badly outnumber it. In that scenario, I have to give some extra credence to the considerations of self defense.

I think we need to get detailed. Israel captured and occupied the Golan Heights in the 1967 war in which they "pre-emptively" struck Egypt decimating their air force and in turn Syria and their Arab allies declared war on Israel for this aggression.

"As Israel's neighbors prepared to destroy the Jewish state, Israel invoked its inherent right of self-defense, launching a preemptive strike (5 June 1967) against Egypt in the South, followed by a counterattack against Jordan in the East and the routing of Syrian forces entrenched on the Golan Heights in the North.

At the end of six days of fighting, previous cease-fire lines were replaced by new ones, with Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Sinai peninsula, and the Golan Heights under Israel's control."

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/History/pages/HISTORY-%20The%20State%20of%20Israel.aspx

Facts matter.

It does symbolize things a bit doesn't it?

Seized by Israel when Syria and Egypt jointly launched an attack on Israel. Israel offering it in exchange for a peace treaty. It doesn't seem to purely exhibit one sided aggression from Israel, does it?

Yeah, common knowledge among so-called "experts" on anything amounts to variations of true, false, and meaningless. Slaves in a conventional sense of the designation in ancient Egypt the architects and laborers may not have been-The monuments remaining are still a testament to the influence of Pharonic power over the skilled-trades and the coordination of efforts. SOMEONE made SOMEBODY build the things, eh?? Giza doesn't look like a volunteer, community-beautification project somewhere in Seattle....

http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2010/01/12/egypt-new-find-shows-slaves-didnt-build-pyramids

"Dieter Wildung, a former director of Berlin's Egyptian Museum, said it is "common knowledge in serious Egyptology" that the pyramid builders were not slaves and that the construction of the pyramids and the story of the Israelites in Egypt were separated by hundreds of years."

Next up, how the United States government gives one billion dollars to Egypt to help finance the killing of gays and perpetuate the war on women.

Probably as a result of breeding those qualities into dogs. Cats were bred to be guardians in ancient Egypt. Just a matter of how we perceive value in an animal and then what we do to achieve those qualities. Train a wild dog and see the results.

???

This is appalling. So Gaddafi and Assad's brutal repression of their people had nothing to do with the uprisings. Naturally those uprisings were Israeli manipulation. Meanwhile, Egypt was recently liberated from Mubarak's dictatorship.

So, I guess the summary is that good dictators are those that support Russia or China, and bad dictators are connected with Israel and the west. Legitimate uprisings of the people are those against dictators supportive of the west, and staged 'uprisings' are those that unseat dictators connected to Russia and China.

This is sick minded thinking. I hope someday you look back in horror at the time when you supported Bashir al Assad and Gaddafi's brutal murderous campaigns against their own people.

When Assad goes, he'll be replaced with a cabal of muslim terrorists just like Egypt. It never ends.

massive upvote. We need to be watching Egypt closely. This is the point where the nations direction will be chosen. Morsi has effectively given himself absolute power to pass whatever constitution he wishes and if he's not stopped now, Egypt may become yet another dictatorship/theocracy.

The issues here are all wrong.

He's right about "Innocence of Muslims" looking like it was made by "Rank amateurs in a basement studio, no doubt it was. It's so bad that no one would ever have seen or heard of it, if it wasn't for the hoopla it caused. I never would have. Once I did, I sought it out and watched it. Well sort of.

First of all, the quality is garbage, something less than what we would expect from a YouTube video. Past that, The editing, the writing and the acting is terrible. It's confusing and hard to follow. In all honestly, I ended up skimming large parts of it because I didn't get the point. It's that bad.

What I don't understand is why the Muslim community felt this piece of crap video was worth killing people over? What they did was promote the film, and in doing so, brought fame to it. They are just as much to blame in the distribution of said offensive material.

So, some no name, never heard of before Egyptian born person (Nakoula Basseley Nakoula) creates a 14 minute anti-muslim video. Naakoula is a graduate of the Faculty of Arts at Cairo University. Born and educated over seas, he comes to the US and creates a video called "Innocence of Bin Laden" After the film is finished, in post production, he over-dubs all the audio and changes the title to Innocence of Muslims and changes the meaning of the film altogether.

Nakoula has been arrested for the "intent to manufacture methamphetamine" for which he did prison time. Then he pleaded no contest to federal charges of bank fraud as he opened fake bank accounts in order to defraud the banks out of as much as $800,000. He was a criminal with no scruples or morals.

He went out of his way to create this movie just to piss people off. He even claimed it was funded by $5 million collected from 100 Jewish donors, and that he was an Israeli-Jew.

So, what is my point? This piece of scum set out to create an incident and he succeeded.
The Muslim world over reacted and went "Bat-shit insane" (my words). In a fit of rage, they misplaced the blame on everyone associated with the West. They held protests in almost every major country in the world. They killed people and turned this into an international state of panic. "Oh poor us, don't criticize our Mohammad." (insert screams of "oh how could you" here) and ("The western world hates us - kill them now")

Now as a result, we, the people that didn't do anything, are being told we need to be more tolerant of the bat-shit crazy people and start educating ourselves more on their religion and watch more of their movies.

Now I have no issue educating myself on other cultures, in fact I find it interesting. But what I don't like being told is that us Westerners are part of the problem and that if we'd only have educated ourselves, this insensitivity wouldn't have happened. This is so absolutely false and absurd.

I know not all Muslims are "bat-shit crazy," but I didn't see any of them standing up and pointing their finger in the right direction (at some scumbag from Egypt).

As far as I am concerned this is what I see:
1). A scumbag needs to be deported for succeeding in inciting riots causing death.
2). People should be able to have their own opinions and be able to speak them in all areas concerning religion or their lack of faith in them.
3). the Muslim people who took part in the riots and killings should all be punished to the full extent of the law and be shamed by the rest of the people.
4). Muslim people need to get over themselves, learn to accept that their way isn't the only way and learn to "turn the other cheek". (And I use the term "their way" loosely because I don't think even they can even decide and agree on what the rules of their religion are.)

>> ^bobknight33:

Muslim are the most dangerous. They subject their women as property. Dogs get more respect. They are fighting and killing in more countries around the world. All to force their religion onto free people. Convert, Extort and murder is their way of life.
Obama likes this Muslim upheaval. It helps upset the world balance of American influence around the world. Only 3 1/2 years ago the American presence was well established in the region. In another 4 years this Muslim muck will solidify across the region.
Obama is against America as a super power and will destroy the country via destructive policies, foreign and domestic. He snubs Israel and backs the Palestine. He has done nothing about Iran or the "new " Egypt who both publicly stated that it is their desire to wipe Israel off the map. Argentina over England on the Falkland islands issue.

Amazing how something we so strongly agree on can lead us to conclusions we so strongly disagree on.

Muslim are the most dangerous. They subject their women as property. Dogs get more respect. They are fighting and killing in more countries around the world. All to force their religion onto free people. Convert, Extort and murder is their way of life.

Obama likes this Muslim upheaval. It helps upset the world balance of American influence around the world. Only 3 1/2 years ago the American presence was well established in the region. In another 4 years this Muslim muck will solidify across the region.

Obama is against America as a super power and will destroy the country via destructive policies, foreign and domestic. He snubs Israel and backs the Palestine. He has done nothing about Iran or the "new " Egypt who both publicly stated that it is their desire to wipe Israel off the map. Argentina over England on the Falkland islands issue.