Spirituality
11 Dec 08
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by no1maraudermy dear no 1 muppethead, let us get one thing quite clear, i do not have to explain anything to you. what difference does it make to the actual content of the post? absolutely nothing, whether i am the source or not, its the content that is important, not the source. when you asked for a reference i provided it, did i not. had you asked for the source i would have provided it also. when are you people going to realize that what Christians teach is not of their own originality, and neither is practically any of the source material that we use. it is quite impractical for the bible contains archeological references, historical references, prophetic references, linguistic references. to attain to the needs of all, one would need to be a historian, an archeologist, a linguistic expert, which even by your dunderhead standards is practically impossible, therefore we take references from other experts in these respective disciplines which can be used to substantiate our claims, a fact that a am completely candid and unashamed about. so thank you for your small but significant admission that i never claimed nor intended that these were my own, for i must conclude that such is from your lack of finding anything to the contrary, so if you are done attacking my person, you can apologize now and we can consider the actual content of the assertions, rather than your petty attempts not to.
If you directly lift passages from someone else's writings, you are supposed to put them in quotes and/or identity the source of the passage. When you don't, you are misrepresenting them as your own work. Even an obvious simpleton like yourself must be aware of that.
16 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderi never once claimed that every Jew in connection with Josephus own claim was subject to registration, that was your interlude when i happened to provide you with a reference, you know like ok, you jumped through that hoop, but lets put it higher, and anyway you have still not produced one piece of evidence, not one measly assertion to the contrary oh no 1 muppethead
You are getting confused. Josephus does not claim to be descended from David but only from the high priests of Israel. See http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/autobiog.htm#EndNote_Auto.2b
paragraph 1.
RC's pilfered claim is that because Josephus' was able to trace his lineage back to his great grandfather using the priestly records, ...[text shortened]... as Matthew and Luke traced Jesus'. This assertion is beyond fallacious and borders on lunacy.
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by black beetlebeetle do you know where the discussion took place where Socrates was discussing the differences between skill and art, i had the four dialogues of Plato somewhere but have misplaced it and cannot remember which book it was in.
And why have we to pass from the Dialogue to Eristics? It would be enough for the interlocutors to start a debate in order to find out together what they ignore and what they know instead of trying to "win"
But I 'm ole-fashioned big time
😵
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf you mean the dialogue in which Socrates asks Gorgias about the art of rhetoric and the skills required, whereas the sophist replied that it is mainly the ability to persuade the people in order to have your ideas valued whilst the antilogue (right or wrong is just the same) is going anyway down the drain (for one has to "win"😉, then it is "Gorgias"
beetle do you know where the discussion took place where Socrates was discussing the differences between skill and art, i had the four dialogues of Plato somewhere but have misplaced it and cannot remember which book it was in.
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by BadwaterThe Jewish culture of the time was engaged in an apocalyptic expression for several centuries. There were many, many claiming to be 'messiah'.
[b]1. Christ messiahship and its subsequent claim was widely repeated in Jerusalem for decades before the city was destroyed in 70 C.E. (Compare Matthew 21:9 Acts 4:27 5:27, 28) If the claim was false, any of Jesus opponents and he had many could have proved Jesus a fraud simply by checking his lineage in the genealogies in the public archives.
The m ...[text shortened]... you seem to be doing from what I'm reading is validating John Shelby Spong's assertion.[/b]
This is undoubtedly correct.
I am not convinced, however, that such apocalyptic/messianic expression was either (1) univocal as to what messiah is/would be,* or (2) the majority stream of Judaism at the time (or, following Jacob Neusner, maybe I should say “among Judaisms” at the time). The Pharisees and others whose teachings formed what came to be called “rabbinical Judaism” were not an apocalyptic/messianic group(s). Among the populace at large, a sort of “casual” apocalyptic view might have been predominant—more so in Galilee than in Judea?
I am just not sure that the fact the Christianity emerged from one such apocalyptic/messianic voice does not lead Christian theologians and historians—those who emphasize the Judaic element more than the Hellenistic one, anyway (e.g., E.P. Sanders, Tom Wright?)—to, intentionally or not, sometimes over-emphasize that voice.
That is one of the reasons that I always think the question, “Why did ‘the Jews’ reject Jesus?”, is a somewhat wrong-headed one. The more appropriate question, it seems to me, is “Why did those particular Jews, and subsequently gentiles, accept the proposition?”. For the former group, I agree that it likely stems from their particular apocalyptic/messianic views; for the latter group (just thinking “out loud” here), I suspect that initially the evangelism engaged those gentiles who had already expressed some affinity for Judaism as a religious philosophy.
Another reason why I think the “reject Jesus” question is wrongheaded—especially as applied to the Jews of the time—simply has to do with population data. If I recall correctly, the Jewish population of Galilee/Judea is estimated to have been 1.5 – 1.7 million, and that of the “diaspora” to have been 5 – 7 million.
In any event, it seems to me that generalized statements about “the Jews” in that period are problematic. (I realize that you were not making any such generalization; this is just an overlong “footnote” to my agreement with your statement.)
Note: I also realize that no one has raised the “reject Jesus” question on this thread. It has been raised in the past, and your post just triggered some of my thinking on it…
* Let us not forget that among those called “messiah” in the Hebrew Scriptures, one was King Cyrus—just as an example to indicate the multivocal use of that designation in Judaism prior to the first century. If anything, what “messiah” means is even less well-defined among modern expressions of rabbinical Judaism. There neither was, nor is, any central “creedal/doctrinal” understanding.
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI do not consider what you did to be research. I consider it to be plagiarism, or at least unacceptable practice. I know a lot of educated friends and coworkers (many of them researchers like myself in many different fields) and they would all consider it unacceptable practice as well. Look, you can easily get around this in the future for the rules here are simple to first-order: use whatever references and quotes you want, but clearly identify and cite them.
that i took quite a considerable time to source and post these statements you cannot deny. as i have already stated to you and others these are not my own ideas and were posted to merely illustrate the points that i have made, that's called research, and they were drawn from many different sources. if you can deny this then do so, if not then i dem ...[text shortened]... ou could provide some evidence contrary to the actual content of the post, you would do better.
I'll cut you some slack in these instances only for the following reason. I do not find in this case that there was clear overwhelming motivation to represent all the ideas in your post as your own. Perhaps you were not lying but just misinformed on what qualifies as research and ignorant of acceptable reporting practices. Still, there is expectation in the community that you not engage in this practice of lifting material from other sources without citing them. This is taken quite seriously in many circles; so better to learn your lesson now.
16 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJellodo and think what you like, i have never ever claimed that any of these ideas are my own, infact i have went to great lengths to state that the contrary is true. like i stated to number 1 muppethead, it is the content that is important, this accusation of plagiarism is just a side issue that diverted attention away from the issues that were cited, and as far as i can discern not one piece of evidence has been produced to the contrary, not one. and while i thank you for your charity i will continue in the same manner using references and quotation from whatever source i deem necessary to illustrate or substantiate the points that i have made, it is the content that i am interested in not the source. but i thank you regardless
I do not consider what you did to be research. I consider it to be plagiarism, or at least unacceptable practice. I know a lot of educated friends and coworkers (many of them researchers like myself in many different fields) and they would all consider it unacceptable practice as well. Look, you can easily get around this in the future for the rules he iting them. This is taken quite seriously in many circles; so better to learn your lesson now.
and rather interestingly the Greeks accused Paul of the same thing, the text reads, ' consequently he began to reason in the synagogue with the Jews and the other people who worshiped God and every day in the marketplace with those who happened to be on hand. But certain ones of both the Epicurean and the Stoic philosophers took to conversing with him controversially, and some would say: 'what is it this chatterer would like to tell?' acts 17:18
this word chatterer comes from Greek word (spermologos) and was applied to a bird that picks up seeds, while figuratively it was used of a person who picks up scraps by begging or stealing, or, as in the case cited, one who repeats scraps of knowledge. good to know somethings never change.
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by black beetlehttp://classics.mit.edu/Plato/gorgias.html
If you mean the dialogue in which Socrates asks Gorgias about the art of rhetoric and the skills required, whereas the sophist replied that it is mainly the ability to persuade the people in order to have your ideas valued whilst the antilogue (right or wrong is just the same) is going anyway down the drain (for one has to "win"😉, then it is "Gorgias"
16 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLet me see if I understand the situation. Let's recap
do and think what you like, i have never ever claimed that any of these ideas are my own, infact i have went to great lengths to state that the contrary is true. like i stated to number 1 muppethead, it is the content that is important, this accusation of plagiarism is just a side issue that diverted attention away from the issues that were cited, a ...[text shortened]... have made, it is the content that i am interested in not the source. but i thank you regardless
No1: "I suspect most of this post is an unattributed cut and paste."
Robbie: "no it was taken from my own personal research..."
No1 states his suspicion that you have cut and pasted most of your post which you categorically deny.
LJ: "Well, I sure as hell don't believe you here, particularly since much of your post is word for word from The Bible: God's Word or Man's? from the Watchtower Society (1989)."
LJ cites the source of your cut and paste. You have not only plagiarized the Watchtower site, but have compounded it by lying about this fact.
Then comes a series of posts where you make various claims that are either irrelevant to the above or are additional lies.
Robbie: "that i took quite a considerable time to source and post these statements you cannot deny. as i have already stated to you and others these are not my own ideas and were posted to merely illustrate the points that i have made, that's called research, and they were drawn from many different sources."
Irrelevant.
Robbie: "... that's what i call research, so if you don't mind i also demand of you a full public apology for having slandered my reputation and calling me a liar. i have never claimed that i was the author nor that i originated these ideas..."
As shown above, you have denied that you plagiarized the content of your post. Then you not only contine this lie, but start making accusations of slander. Then it seems you continue to lie and make accusations of other "attacking" you. Well, it's pretty evident that all they're doing is calling you on your plagiarization and stream of lies. Why don't you just admit your transgressions and apologize?
As a side note, what's interesting is that I've known several people who have exhibited the same behaviors similar to those detailed above and in each case it has been a Christian who has done so. Coincidence? I suspect that such a low moral standard may have to do with the belief that "God loves [them] the way they are" and that humans are incapable of not sinning. They purport to follow the "God of Truth" yet they are not only dishonest, but are egregiously so. The world would be a much better place if they actually followed the teachings of Jesus instead of the teachings of others which allow their ego to grow unchecked.
16 Dec 08
10 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneyou can think and say what you like, i have already quite extensively shown that there was never any claim of authorship, perhaps you can site where i made the claim, if not then your whole assertion is just one baseless fallacy, i do not need to explain anything to you, believe what you want, it makes absolutely no difference to me, because quite clearly you cannot discern truth from lies nor your bum from your elbow. i sourced the text, i did the research, not you!
Let me see if I understand the situation. Let's recap
[b]No1: "I suspect most of this post is an unattributed cut and paste."
Robbie: "no it was taken from my own personal research..."
No1 states his suspicion that you have cut and pasted most of your post which you categorically deny.
LJ: "Well, I sure as hell don't believe you here, of the teachings of others which allow their ego to grow unchecked.
and rather interestingly the Greeks accused Paul of the same thing, the text reads, ' consequently he began to reason in the synagogue with the Jews and the other people who worshiped God and every day in the marketplace with those who happened to be on hand. But certain ones of both the Epicurean and the Stoic philosophers took to conversing with him controversially, and some would say: 'what is it this chatterer would like to tell?' acts 17:18
this word chatterer comes from Greek word (spermologos) and was applied to a bird that picks up seeds, while figuratively it was used of a person who picks up scraps by begging or stealing, or, as in the case cited, one who repeats scraps of knowledge. good to know somethings never change. and just to demonstrate your ignorance perhaps if you look at the content you may have some piece of evidence to the contrary, but i doubt it, for then you would have to read the text, and then go and look up some reference and read it, and then you would have to discern that it fitted your argument, and then you would have to type it and post it, all of which would take its toll on your fat lazy carcass. no instead you would simply like to fabricate lies for those who have taken the time to do so, hypocrite and muppethead.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou've got to be freakin' kidding me.
you can think and say what you like, i have already quite extensively shown that there was never any claim of authorship, perhaps you can site where i made the claim, if not then your whole assertion is just one baseless fallacy, i do not need to explain anything to you, believe what you want, it makes absolutely no difference to me, because quite cl ...[text shortened]... like to fabricate lies for those who have taken the time to do so, hypocrite and muppethead.
Is it Sponge Bob's 'Opposites Day' for you over there??
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think its time for your tranquilizer dart, robbie. That should tide you over until we can set up an appointment for some electro-shock therapy for you. Until then maybe you should just stick to the General forum.
you can think and say what you like, i have already quite extensively shown that there was never any claim of authorship, perhaps you can site where i made the claim, if not then your whole assertion is just one baseless fallacy, i do not need to explain anything to you, believe what you want, it makes absolutely no difference to me, because quite cl ...[text shortened]... like to fabricate lies for those who have taken the time to do so, hypocrite and muppethead.
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by rwingettno i now intend to include a disclaimer after every post, to the effect that robbie carrobie is not the author, nor does he claim this work as his own, it merely represents his point of view. then perhaps you will be forced to actually address the content of the posts rather than evading it. awaiting your evidence with abated breath....hear that...its an eerie silence.
I think its time for your tranquilizer dart, robbie. That should tide you over until we can set up an appointment for some electro-shock therapy for you. Until then maybe you should just stick to the General forum.
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by Badwateryour evidence if you please, to the actual content of the post, which you people seem to be going to great lengths to evade.
You've got to be freakin' kidding me.
Is it Sponge Bob's 'Opposites Day' for you over there??
disclaimer: robbie carrobie in no way claims this work as his own. all references are from an exterior source and simply represent his point of view.