[QUOTE=tomndebb]
There is no debate, (although the OP does contain the standard number of errors one comes to expect from this author that I suppose we could wrangle over to keep our nitpickers sharp), but it is a form of witnessing that I suppose we can let sit here as though it made a thimblefull of piss’s difference to the world or anyone posting here.
[/QUOTE]
This is uncalled for.
[QUOTE=Beaucarnea]
This is uncalled for.
[/QUOTE]
In what way?
There is no debate posited in the OP.
He does not so much as call for a poll or acknowledge that he is expressing an opinion while seeking the opinions of others, so there was no reason to send it to IMHO.
Valtreron typically posts things attacking religion in which he expresses the general thrust of his criticism in a recognizable way, but gets historical claims muddled or backwards. He has repeated that pattern in this OP.
This would have been a Pit rant had it had some bile in it.
It might have been a GQ if he had asked for the facts that he asserts.
I could have sent this to MPSIMS as I sent his last content free rant, but I magnanimously chose to let him play in GD.
I would say that his frequent injections of pointless threads into GD in which he attempts to make bold condemnations of religion while generally missing the mark are uncalled for, but I suspect that you meant something different, entirely.
Today is quiet, and I am sitting in my comfortable arm chair with my computer. Since I have time, kiddies, I’ll tell you a story about how history proves that the United States of Americas is a lie.
You see, Thanksgiving is celebrated at the end of every November, because that is shortly after the crops are reaped. Our Native American ancestors would feed the European settlers with their largess, because the Americans’ barley, wheat, and pea crops had failed miserably. The Americans would take these gifts of maize and game into their homes. They sang songs and ate good food. And every year, Squanto taught the goofily be-buckled idiots a little bit more.
And do you honestly believe that the Americans could domesticate the turkey without even knowing how to grow corn?
Bullshit, kiddies, bullshit.
For starters, even their own legends, written decades if not centuries after the first “colony” was founded are considerably flawed. President Washington, a rebellious warlord, is said to admit to chopping down a cherry tree. This deforestation myth is somehow meant to prove his “honesty”, yet there is not a single reputable historic account of this incident.
The whole tradition of the United States is full of holes and outright lies.
So, kiddies, those of you who have kids still ignorant and superstitious enough to believe that the history of the U.S. ever happened, here are a few facts you can give them next “Presidents Day”.
George Washingto never wore wooden teeth.
Abraham Lincoln was not born in a log cabin. His childhood was spent on his fathers 600 acre farm, complete with town lots, livestock, and expensive horses.
By the way, Davy Crockett never killed a bear when he was three. Why was a three year old carrying a rifle anyhow? He never wore a coonskin cap either.
My point in the above satire, Valteron, is that everybody knows about the inconsistencies between how things are celebrated and the historical facts. It simply doesn’t matter. If somehow an archaeologist found absolute proof that Jesus wasn’t born in Bethlehem in December, but rather in Nazareth in July, would it change His message? Of course it wouldn’t. All the inconsistencies you alluded to don’t mean a damn thing. Philosophy and faith aren’t based on historical accounts, they are based on ideas. No Christian with a brain, especially ont this board, takes the Bible as literally as you seem to want them too. Your whole OP is am exercise in intellectual masturbation to prove some misguided point to yourself by wrestling with a straw man
Everybody knows damn well that Mary and Joseph didn’t stick a Norfolk Pine in the manger and stick candles and tinsel on it. It was a cherry tree, and little George Washington chopped it down.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
In what way?
There is no debate posited in the OP.
He does not so much as call for a poll or acknowledge that he is expressing an opinion while seeking the opinions of others, so there was no reason to send it to IMHO.
Valtreron typically posts things attacking religion in which he expresses the general thrust of his criticism in a recognizable way, but gets historical claims muddled or backwards. He has repeated that pattern in this OP.
This would have been a Pit rant had it had some bile in it.
It might have been a GQ if he had asked for the facts that he asserts.
I could have sent this to MPSIMS as I sent his last content free rant, but I magnanimously chose to let him play in GD.
I would say that his frequent injections of pointless threads into GD in which he attempts to make bold condemnations of religion while generally missing the mark are uncalled for, but I suspect that you meant something different, entirely.
[/QUOTE]
I wasn’t aware that you were in the position to determine which threads are pointless for the rest of us, nor was I aware that you were exempt from the “no direct insults in GD” rule.
[QUOTE=Beaucarnea]
I wasn’t aware that you were in the position to determine which threads are pointless for the rest of us, nor was I aware that you were exempt from the “no direct insults in GD” rule.
[/QUOTE]
It appears to me that tomndebb is critiquing Valteron’s words, not Valteron himself.
[QUOTE=Phase42]
It appears to me that tomndebb is critiquing Valteron’s words, not Valteron himself.
[/QUOTE]
Great loophole.
[QUOTE=Beaucarnea]
I wasn’t aware that you were in the position to determine which threads are pointless for the rest of us, nor was I aware that you were exempt from the “no direct insults in GD” rule.
[/QUOTE]
Do you have an actual opposing statement to the OP that might launch a debate? Or are you simply trying to hijack this thread when you should be lodging a separate protest in the BBQ Pit. (I could use the points).
(And when did Dopers begin to require smileys to indicate humor in every post?)
[QUOTE=Valteron]
[/QUOTE]
Well, very strictly speaking, that’s true. On the other hand, the word manger means “a trough or open box in a stable designed to hold feed or fodder for livestock”, so even if he hadn’t been born in the stable, it makes sense that the manger was in all likelihood in the stable. That’s likely where the idea comes from.
I don’t know what the original Greek or Latin word is or what it translates to (weren’t all 3 of the synoptic gospels written in one or the other?). Anybody care to enlighten us?
[QUOTE=Beaucarnea]
I wasn’t aware that you were in the position to determine which threads are pointless for the rest of us, nor was I aware that you were exempt from the “no direct insults in GD” rule.
[/QUOTE]
I am so used to being dumped on by Tomndeb like that that it would ruin my Christmas if he did not. Yes, I said CHRISTmas. I also say “Thursday” and “jovial” without believing in Thor or Jove.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Do you have an actual opposing statement to the OP that might launch a debate? Or are you simply trying to hijack this thread when you should be lodging a separate protest in the BBQ Pit. (I could use the points).
(And when did Dopers begin to require smileys to indicate humor in every post?)
[/QUOTE]
Of course you are right. I should have just reported the post.
[QUOTE=A Monkey With a Gun]
All the inconsistencies you alluded to don’t mean a damn thing. Philosophy and faith aren’t based on historical accounts, they are based on ideas. No Christian with a brain, especially ont this board, takes the Bible as literally as you seem to want them too.
[/QUOTE]
Um, gee, I thought the Bible was the word of God? And is Christianity not based on what we know of Jesus in the Gospels? So if his place of birth was falsified to make it fit a prophecy, I wonder what else might have been false? The miracles? The resurection?
No Christian takes the Bible literally? So should we not take the existence of Jesus literally? Should we not take the “son of God” business literally? Who gets to decide where the inconsistencies stop and the unalterable truth begins? YOU?
[QUOTE=A Monkey With a Gun]
Your whole OP is am exercise in intellectual masturbation. . . . . . .
[/QUOTE]
You do it your way and I’ll do it mine, dude! 
[QUOTE=Valteron]
I am so used to being dumped on by Tomndeb like that that it would ruin my Christmas if he did not.
[/QUOTE]
I, too, am so used to Valteron dumping silly shit into GD when it belongs somewhere else that if he failed to post for a while I would wonder when he had left, (much as I wonder when a cut has healed some time after it stops itching).
Valteron, congratulations. I don’t say this much, but you’ve been pitted
[QUOTE=jjimm]
What was the octopus’s name?
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure anyone knows. But he is quoted with the saying “gurgle gurgle.”
[QUOTE=Beaucarnea]
I wasn’t aware that you were in the position to determine which threads are pointless for the rest of us, nor was I aware that you were exempt from the “no direct insults in GD” rule.
[/QUOTE]
Missed seeing the moderator title under his name, did you?
::chuckle::
Good one, Monty. I would have just posted a smilie, but I hate those damn things. And if I ever post “lol”, just track me down and shoot me.
[Quote=Valteron]
The whole tradition of Christmas is full of holes and outright lies.
[/Quote]
You’re telling me. That whole ‘guaranteed delivery by December 24’ thing? Complete crap.
[QUOTE=Monty]
Missed seeing the moderator title under his name, did you?
[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, I saw it. I just assumed that a moderator of his caliber and experience would behave in an unbiased manner.
or
Oh yeah, I saw it. Why else would I bother to complain about insults in a GD thread? If those comments had been made by anyone other than a moderator weren’t a moderator, the “report post” button would have been lit up so fast the board would have timed out.
Take yer pick.
[QUOTE=Love Actually]
There was more than one lobster present at the birth of Jesus Christ?
[/QUOTE]
:smack:
[QUOTE=Beaucarnea]
Oh yeah, I saw it. I just assumed that a moderator of his caliber and experience would behave in an unbiased manner.
[/QUOTE]
Believe me when I say that it takes a lot to get under the mods’ skins. Likewise, it’s true he wasn’t acting in an unbiased manner. He was acting in an awful nice manner, far nicer than I would have or which Valteron deserved.