Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (
More info?)
"Mort <TZW>" <nospam@sweatyhelmet.org> wrote in message
news:csr3m4$7jb$1@titan.btinternet.com...
>
> "Just Me" <not1096@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:vr-dnSmSxZVWcW3cRVn-iQ@accessus.net...
>>
>> "Mort <TZW>" <nospam@sweatyhelmet.org> wrote in message
>> news:csqd58$q89$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
>>>
>>> "Just Me" <not1096@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:7NWdnbPLAYUOt23cRVn-2g@accessus.net...
>>>> Actually it *is* up to you to prove, because it is *your* assertion.
>>>> Remember, I was not making the hypothesis. As a person who woudl like
>>>> proof, you must be aware the burden of proof is upon the person
>>>> advancing the theory. Your conclusion is also wrong. The Bible
>>>> instructs me to give people the truth,
>>>
>>> But it's not the 'truth' is it. It's a load of cobbled together stories
>>> from different writers that has been heavily edited to suit the
>>> political purposes of various dubious rulers throughout history who were
>>> looking for ways to keep their subjects in line (initially and most
>>> importantly the Roman Emperor Constantine).
>>
>> Cicilized men may differ in opinion. You seem to be fond of the term
>> 'cobbled' since it has a derogatory connotation, but it would be just as
>> accurate to point out that it is a compendium of texts by several authors
>> which all contain the same central theme. As far as it being 'heavily
>> edited,' there are texts that are available which will aid in the literal
>> translation from Greek/Hebrew if one is prone to do Bible study in that
>> fashion. If you choose to believe in a 'vast Emperor Constantine
>> conspiracy' to fabricate the stories to control the masses, I'm certain
>> that there is nothing I will ever say to convince you otherwise.
> Unlike the events depicted in the bible, the manipulation of the text at
> the instigation of the Emperor Constantine is a matter of historical
> record not a conspiracy theory. If it was a theory there would be no
> Catholic Church today so I suggest you pay more attention to your
> homework.
Actually I'm well aware of what you speak, but consider the following:
If there are manuscripts that can be dated to PRE-CONSTANTINE years (i.e. in
the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd centuries), then, BY DEFINITION, there are manuscripts
that are 'unaltered' by CONSTANTINE--and hence your supposition becomes
trivial. (Not altogether 'untrue', for there are alterations in later
texts--but these changes can be 'weeded out' on the basis of the earlier,
'unaltered ones'.)
Interestingly enough this is EXACTLY the case. Most of our NT texts are
based on existing manuscripts that were in existence LONG BEFORE the
Constantine issue.
>
>>To actually study the Bible in the original greek, takes some effort to
>>begin with. Have I found differences in my study? Sure. Not in any
>>"meaningful" way that suggests manipulation of the texts, but more along
>>the line of any language translation. (I'm assuming you have some foreign
>>language skills so you know what I am talking about.)
>>
> I am fluent in both English and 'Anglo-Saxon' ;-)
I speak German (badly - but weel enough to 'get by' in a pinch) and have
some knowledge of Japanese. (but would find it hard to say I 'speak' the
language.)
>
>>>
>>>>but it is God that will change the heart. In short, I *cannot* convince
>>>>you of the existence of God. I can only give you the truth to draw your
>>>>own conclusions. If you are convinced there is no God, why even argue
>>>>with me?
>>>
>>> Because I like arguing but I have to say you religious simpletons are
>>> not much of a challenge
🙂
>>
>> Which brings us full circle to my argument. Because I have faith in God
>> (which I cannot prove using empirical evidence) I am labeled a
>> 'simpelton.' You have faith in the non-existence of God (which cannot be
>> proved using empirical evidence) and you somehow see yourself as
>> intellectually superior. (Again - hypocritical)
> But how can you possibly make a claim to possess intellectual equivalence
> when your ability to think freely is constrained by the rigid limitations
> of your primitive superstition?
You labor under several incorrect assumptions here. First, that my beliefs
are either 'primitive' or 'superstitions.' Secondly, you seem to think that
by freely giving my will to another, that somehow 'constrains' me. If you
are married, you are expected to adhere to certain standards, but does that
constrain you? (Of course not, people operate outside of their wedding vows
all the time.) It is a sign of strength that there are those who believe in
an ideal and can commit their will into achieving it. If you labor under
the assumption that God actually physically (or mentally) restricts my
freedom, I'm concerned about your perception of reality ;-).
Lastly, intellectual equivalence with what/whom?
>>>
>>>>I am directed by the Bible to be "a defender of the faith.'
>
> Well I feel sorry for you. I am a free man and directed by nobody.
I too am a free man. It is my will to either freely submit to God's
direction or not. I choose to do so.
>
>>> Hearing voices in your head? I suggest you consult a psychiatrist.
>>> For 'faith' you really mean 'superstition' don't you
🙂
>>
>> This is a typical arguement of those who persecute persons practicing
>> their religion. Completely change what they stated. I clearly stated
>> the Bible (a text) gives instruction on defending 'the faith' yet you
>> would try to demean the honorable practice of adhering to Christian
>> tenents by insinuating I 'hear voices inside of my head.'
>
> Well I call it as I see it. It's a typical argument because it reflects
> the collective experience that freethinking people have when interacting
> with religious people. It's not our fault if you lot are so socially inept
> that you can't make a good impression
🙂
Bigots 'call them, like they see them' too, but that doesn't make them
right. On a more serious note, I freely admit (being a free-thinker and all
;-)) that there are people who alegedly are Christians that certainly do
not make the best representative sample of our beliefs, but since one of the
basic tenents is loving others, we *should* accept our less than perfect
bretheren.
>>Seculars are fond of pointing out the scientific errors of Christians, but
>>what of the scientific errors made by the 'science' community.
>
> Science is progressive search for the truth, but it is a human activity
> and to err is human.
>
>
>>What ever happened to the Brontosaurus?
>>
>
> I haven't a clue what happened to the brontosaurus - is it relevant to OFP
> or religion?
It was a follow-up on the scientific errors. Brontosaurus doesn't exist.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/brontosaurus.html
Or maybe it does?
http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/faq/s-class/bronto/
The point wasn't to 'discredit science' (I am a strong believer in science,
but it is a fact, that science is always collecting more data. As a result,
certain things which used to be considered 'fact' by science have been
revised due to the collection of data. My question is: How can you be sure
the "facts" of today won't be falsehoods tomorrow?
>
>>>
>>> Absent this
>>>> direction, I would feel no need at all to argue this point with you.
>>>> Conversly, as an aleged athiest, you have no such direction you (would
>>>> feel) are obligated to perform. As a result, I tend to doubt *your*
>>>> confidence in your faith of a non-existence of God.
>>>
>>> Now you're simply getting incoherent.
>>
>> Usually the accusations of someone being incoherent start after the other
>> party can't find an adequate response. On the chance you really didn't
>> understand what I wrote, I'll rephrase more simply:
>>
>> "I argue this point because my faith requires it. You don't believe in
>> God, so you have no instruction which requires you to argue for the
>> non-existence of God. Because you *are* arguing, I tend to think you
>> have doubts as to the non-existence of God. (You may have a nagging
>> feeling that there just *might* be a God)
>>
> LOL by typing that I suspect you are trying to paper over your own doubts
> about the existence of God by saying that anyone who has the temerity to
> argue against you secretly wants to be in your club.
No - No doubts. Just an observation of your conduct (which may or may not
be a correct impression on my part). Besides, if you view it as a club,
you'd be disappointed anyway. We are not at all exclusive. We'll let
anyone in...
>> Your bias against God is clearly evident, so any observations for the
>> 'truth' about said topic would be highly suspect. Instead of dealing
>> with the issue in an objective detached way, every opportunity has been
>> exercised to use adjectives with a negative connotation (i.e. cobbled,
>> sanctamonius, mumbo jumbo, primative, imaginary friend, superstition,
>> etc.) to try and convince yourself of the non-existence of God. You say
>> you don't believe in conspiracy theories, yet that is what would have had
>> to occur to "modify several different texts" in order "to keep the masses
>> in line"
>
> See above unlike the events described in the Bible the actions of
> Constantine to modify its contents and theological direction have been
> well documented historically.
See also my response above...
>
>>
>> You still never answered my question about who was in a better position
>> to observe the truth, but it was mostly rhetorical in nature.
>>
>>
>>> And to get us back on topic your misplaced faith in your imaginary
>>> friend will not protect you from my snipers bullets in OFP
🙂
>>>
>>
>> God is real, but I don't need his help to counter-snipe ;-)
> If you believe that then you will be doomed to receive a third eye in the
> middle of your forehead my son
🙂
Not before I shoot you in the glass of your scope, ala SPR or Sniper (Both
plagarized the 'real-world' exploits of Carlos Hathcock)
🙂
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram