tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post8107116249437813380..comments2023-11-24T03:48:54.813-05:00Comments on No More Hornets: Quazy Quistian Question # 6The Exterminatorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14452054124550486048noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-19268796410403223852008-06-03T17:39:00.000-04:002008-06-03T17:39:00.000-04:00Cartman strategy. Screw you guys, I'm goin' home.<A HREF="http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/152150/" REL="nofollow">Cartman strategy</A>. Screw you guys, I'm goin' home.PhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-53211492528958510182008-06-03T16:00:00.000-04:002008-06-03T16:00:00.000-04:00Haha, you have made my case for me. Let the reade...Haha, you have made my case for me. Let the reader judge. Nice talking to you.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-58263890022024999632008-06-03T15:55:00.000-04:002008-06-03T15:55:00.000-04:00Rhology:I'm not saying that someone else wrote you...Rhology:<BR/>I'm not saying that someone else wrote your response at your own blog. I'm not even implying that. Don't put words in my mouth; that's another common instance of Christian sleight-of-hand. I'm merely asking you to respond <I>here</I> <B>in your own words</B>. F'Chrissake, you've demonstrated in your rambles that you have enough of them. Could you use a few to answer the question directly?<BR/><BR/>Apparently not. <I>I'm done here unless someone says sthg substantive.</I><BR/>OK, so when faced with an opportunity to answer a question posed by a -- gasp! -- atheist, you fulminate in comment after comment -- ducking and weaving around the challenge. Then, when you've exhausted the possibilities to further contort a simple and direct query, you run away. Brilliant. <BR/><BR/>So, let me leave you with this parting question as I watch you scamper into the distance: How have you added <I>anything</I> of value to this conversation? <BR/><BR/>And a <I>related</I> question: Have you ever added anything of value to <I>any</I> conversation?The Exterminatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14452054124550486048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-46294934680022343542008-06-03T15:48:00.000-04:002008-06-03T15:48:00.000-04:00Aside from more laughter, how could anyone respond...Aside from more laughter, how could anyone respond to...<BR/>• The Trinity is simply mysterious<BR/>• Christianity never said the Trinity is three entities, therefore it's not<BR/>• If you use christianity's definitions, it all works out<BR/>• It's all just fine because the bible says so<BR/>• External critique of the bible is fallacious<BR/><BR/>So no, there's nthg new to add, except maybe <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GNJhfxPBdU" REL="nofollow">more Voltron</A><BR/><BR/><BR/>Pièce de résistance<BR/>PhillyChiefPhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-47232964177578992512008-06-03T15:16:00.000-04:002008-06-03T15:16:00.000-04:00in your own words.\:-|Are you saying that someone ...<I>in your own words.</I><BR/><BR/>\:-|<BR/>Are you saying that someone else wrote <A HREF="http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2008/06/bewitched.html" REL="nofollow">the blogpost response</A>? Those are somehow not my own words?<BR/><BR/>If you refer to the "hypostasis" and "homoousios" words, that's responded to there as well. It doesn't look like you've brought anythg new to the table to respond to me.<BR/>I'm done here unless someone says sthg substantive. You've had quite a few chances.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-88355311711307539062008-06-03T14:52:00.000-04:002008-06-03T14:52:00.000-04:00Rhology:How can I give you any more evidence that ...Rhology:<BR/>How can I give you any more evidence that there's a multiplicity of gods in Christianity other than listing some of them? I've done that. Would you like a personal introduction? Sorry, I can't provide that because, if you remember, <B>I don't believe they exist</B>. <BR/><BR/>You're caught up in the specific language used in the bible. (You do speak Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, I assume -- but I don't. So you've got me there.) What I'm asking you to do, however, is to forget the conventions by which things are named and to examine the things themselves. Think again of that shit on the plate. <BR/><BR/>You came to <I>No More Hornets</I> in response to a question I posed. So the onus is on you to answer that question -- which you haven't done. Instead, you've tried every way you can to voice your objections to the question, itself -- as if that were relevant. It isn't. <BR/><BR/>When challenged to provide an answer, you've squirmed out of doing so: by misdirection, by attemting to redefine terms I've clearly defined ("gods," for instance), by making groundless assertions, by throwing around schoolyard insults, and by linking to your own site. <BR/><BR/>These tactics are all Christian parlor tricks. My readers are wise to them. Philly and I have asked you more than once to <B>answer the question</B>. I urge you to do so now <B>in your own words</B>.The Exterminatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14452054124550486048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-65502896673397236772008-06-03T14:48:00.000-04:002008-06-03T14:48:00.000-04:00If you say so. Now why won't you and the Extermina...<I>If you say so. Now why won't you and the Exterminator extend to ME the same courtesy, to let me define my own position?</I><BR/><BR/>You're right, your position on christianity deserves just as much credibility as a position from Voltronity.<BR/><BR/><I>Have you seen me do an external critique on your made up religion? No.</I><BR/><BR/>Have you <B>seen</B> me say you have? No, but now you've passed judgement on Voltronity by saying it's fictitious. Of course I shouldn't get upset. If you'll allow me to extend the same courtesy to you as you did to atheists on your blog, concerning your opinion of Voltronity, 'as if anyone should care what a-Voltronians believe here.' <BR/><BR/>"P"s & "Q"s<BR/>PhillyChiefPhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-63823972648832675662008-06-03T14:12:00.000-04:002008-06-03T14:12:00.000-04:00Evidence that there's more than one god in Christi...<I>Evidence that there's more than one god in Christianity: Dad, Junior, Cosmic Goo, Satan, Mother Mary, St. This, St. That, St. The-Other.</I><BR/><BR/>That's pitiful. You're just a hack who doesn't care enough to even try.<BR/><BR/><I>In any other religious system besides Christianity they'd be referred to honestly as "gods" or "demigods."</I><BR/><BR/>Wow - that's an amazingly illuminating observation. Thanks.<BR/>There are some religions where you'd be decapitated as well. As if that matters to the discussion at hand.<BR/><BR/><I>"Hypostasis" is a word coined by lying ecclesiastics to avoid having to confront the very issue I'm raising here.</I><BR/><BR/>Any time you want to actually bring some evidence to the table, I'm sure it will edify everyone.<BR/><BR/><I>the passage says that Jesus was the spittin' image of his Paw</I><BR/><BR/>Yes. And?<BR/><BR/><I>I'd say that's nothing more than a primitive recognition of genetics.</I><BR/><BR/>For a supernatural, immaterial entity, huh?<BR/>OK...<BR/><BR/><I>that silly homoiousias vs. homoousias business. </I><BR/><BR/>As if <B>that's</B> relevant. My guess is you brought that up for no more reason than to look more knowledgeable about the issue than you really are.<BR/><BR/><BR/>PC,<BR/><BR/>You like being silly, apparently. It's cool, whatever.<BR/><I>the 5 hypostases of Voltron are fully Voltron</I><BR/><BR/>If you say so. Now why won't you and the Exterminator extend to ME the same courtesy, to let me define my own position?<BR/>This is a point against your friend. I hope he won't mind.<BR/>It's also a DIFFERENT point, so it would appear you're abandoning the original point. Again, it's cool with me. <BR/><BR/><I>and of course let's not forget that it would be fallacious to externally critique Voltronity.</I><BR/><BR/>Have you <B>seen</B> me do an external critique on your made up religion? No. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-63660277735544499502008-06-03T14:05:00.000-04:002008-06-03T14:05:00.000-04:00Which is a perfectly valid answer, since the quest...<I>Which is a perfectly valid answer, since the question is whether Christianity teaches polytheism. Try to follow your buddy's argument, OK?</I><BR/><BR/>It's you who are failing to follow. The only doubt is whether it's because you can't or won't. That was not the question. Reread the original post and try again. If you need someone to explain it to you, just ask.<BR/><BR/><I>Your citation of Voltron is off-base - all 3 of the hypostases of the Trinity are fully God, while no one of the members of Voltron are fully Voltron.</I><BR/><BR/>Sure they are, according to Voltronity. I find your failure to exhibit knowledge of Voltronity quite telling. According to Voltronity, the 5 hypostases of Voltron are fully Voltron; therefore, the comparison is sound. I know it might seem hard for you to comprehend this, afterall it is quite mysterious, yet that's neither irrational nor illogical nor contradictory according to Voltronity, and of course let's not forget that it would be fallacious to externally critique Voltronity. ;)<BR/><BR/>Peas and Carrots,<BR/>PhillyChiefPhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-77531428907505166312008-06-03T14:03:00.000-04:002008-06-03T14:03:00.000-04:00Ugh, Rhology, you're so tiresome.Evidence that the...Ugh, Rhology, you're so tiresome.<BR/><BR/>Evidence that there's more than one god in Christianity: Dad, Junior, Cosmic Goo, Satan, Mother Mary, St. This, St. That, St. The-Other. Call them whatever you want; they're supernatural entities with great powers to influence humans' lives. In any other religious system besides Christianity they'd be referred to honestly as "gods" or "demigods." Read my post again and answer the specific question without resorting to linguistic tricks. <BR/><BR/>By the way: "Hypostasis" is a word coined by lying ecclesiastics to avoid having to confront the very issue I'm raising here. I'll point out that in its <I>one and only</I> appearance in the bible -- in <I>Hebrews</I> -- it doesn't seem to have the same contorted meaning that the self-serving church "fathers" attached to it. Basically, the passage says that Jesus was the spittin' image of his Paw. If you ask me, I'd say that's nothing more than a primitive recognition of genetics.<BR/><BR/>And please, I'm begging you: Don't start with that silly <I>homoiousias</I> vs. <I>homoousias</I> business. <BR/><BR/>In fact, try to avoid Greek terminology entirely, OK?The Exterminatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14452054124550486048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-18851817988550366342008-06-03T13:23:00.000-04:002008-06-03T13:23:00.000-04:00If the evidence says soSo go ahead and present som...<I>If the evidence says so</I><BR/><BR/>So go ahead and present some.<BR/><BR/><I>You can take a bunch of pagan gods and call them whatever you wish, but doing so won't change what they really are</I><BR/><BR/>Evidence that they were pagan?<BR/><BR/><I>To understand a religion, one would have to look closely at the way all the parts fit together in a holistic sense.</I><BR/><BR/>Which I did in my post and you haven't even attempted. Good point. <BR/><BR/><I>So, dishonestly dismissing any contradictory parts as mysteries doesn't really conform to your own criterion. </I><BR/><BR/>Evidence that they're contradictory?<BR/>I <B>did</B> address that very thing in my post. Not that you'd apparently know that, since one wonders whether you've even read it...<BR/><BR/><I>you can use the word "hypostases" to weasel around having to use the honest word "gods.</I><BR/><BR/>So... the early Christians meant "hypostasis". The medieval ones meant "hypostasis". The Bible means "hypostasis" since it explicitly says over and over again that there's only one god. *I* mean "hypostasis", as do all Trinitarians (aka Christians). <BR/>But b/c YOU ASSERT THUS, it means "gods". Hmm. It's pretty compelling, I have to admit. Your mastery of this topic is really on display here. <BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-14183625412653589262008-06-03T13:15:00.000-04:002008-06-03T13:15:00.000-04:00Rhology:So if it doesn't teach polytheism (and a r...Rhology:<BR/><I>So if it doesn't teach polytheism (and a religion is the sum of its teachings), it's still polytheistic if you say so?</I><BR/>No, not if I say so. If the evidence says so. You can take a bunch of pagan gods and call them whatever you wish, but doing so won't change what they <I>really</I> are. Just as you can serve a hunk of manure on a plate and call it a chicken pot pie. But if you look at it, touch it, smell it, and taste it, you'd have to be in a coma not to understand what it really is. Maybe you <I>are</I> in a coma of sorts: an intellectual one.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I do agree that <I>a religion is the sum of its teachings.</I> The operative word there is "sum." To understand a religion, one would have to look closely at the way all the parts fit together in a holistic sense. So, dishonestly dismissing any <I>contradictory</I> parts as <I>mysteries</I> doesn't really conform to your own criterion. <BR/><BR/>Yeah, you can use the word "hypostases" to weasel around having to use the honest word "gods." But no matter what language you use, the manure content is still the same.The Exterminatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14452054124550486048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-81094619742279449092008-06-03T12:57:00.000-04:002008-06-03T12:57:00.000-04:00So if it doesn't teach polytheism (and a religion ...So if it doesn't teach polytheism (and a religion is the sum of its teachings), it's still polytheistic if you say so?<BR/><BR/>My point is proved.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-82189862546314580472008-06-03T12:51:00.000-04:002008-06-03T12:51:00.000-04:00Rhology said:Which is a perfectly valid answer, si...Rhology said:<BR/><I>Which is a perfectly valid answer, since the question is whether Christianity teaches polytheism.</I><BR/>Wrong. The question is whether Christianity is a polytheistic religion, <B>whether it admits that it is or not</B>.<BR/><BR/>And by the way, I loved your characterization of me on your blog as "impolite and fairly abusive." Why only "fairly"? What keeps me from being full-fledged "abusive"? I hate these half-assed compliments. <BR/><BR/>But thanks for the link.The Exterminatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14452054124550486048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-632456778117371622008-06-03T12:04:00.000-04:002008-06-03T12:04:00.000-04:00Your citation of Voltron is off-base - all 3 of th...Your citation of Voltron is off-base - all 3 of the hypostases of the Trinity are fully God, while no one of the members of Voltron are fully Voltron.<BR/><BR/><I>To answer Ex's "We've got three entities here, not one" his answer is "Christianity has never, ever claimed that.". </I><BR/><BR/>Which is a perfectly valid answer, since the question is whether Christianity teaches polytheism. Try to follow your buddy's argument, OK?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-23366316191027437182008-06-03T11:58:00.000-04:002008-06-03T11:58:00.000-04:00It must be something about the weather, because al...It must be something about the weather, because all the christian bloggers are out and about in the atheosphere.<BR/><BR/>Before anyone goes to see the blog of the two who are one (Rhology) explain the three who are one, I suggest some Pepcid first, and perhaps a Tylenol for your soon to have migraine. The opening paragraph should stop you dead in your tracts. Is this what passes for comedy?<BR/><BR/>After much posturing and links, Rho attempts to explain in his own words, which is at least a welcome change, until you read what those words are which might makes sense if we were talking about an inferior <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZZv5Z2Iz_s" REL="nofollow">Voltron</A> (who of course was comprised of 5, not 3 "hypostases" as Rho would say). <BR/><BR/>The answer to the trinity for Rho is <I>"the Trinity is mysterious, though neither irrational nor illogical nor contradictory"</I>. To support this he says........<BR/> I'm just kidding, he doesn't support this at all.<BR/><BR/>To answer Ex's "We've got three entities here, not one" his answer is <I>"Christianity has never, ever claimed that."</I>. <BR/><BR/>The rest is simply arguing that according to the bible, such and such just is or he argues for use of christianity's definitions and if you use THOSE definitions, everything makes sense. In fact, he even argues that an external critique of christianity is simply fallacious!<BR/><BR/>So to sum up:<BR/>• The Trinity is simply mysterious<BR/>• Christianity never said the Trinity is three entities, therefore it's not<BR/>• If you use christianity's definitions, it all works out<BR/>• It's all just fine because the bible says so<BR/>• External critique of the bible is fallacious<BR/><BR/>Well that settles that, right? Oh and in case you made it through the whole post ok, Rho finishes by showing off his vocabulary and trumpets his great victory.<BR/><BR/>I see no point in replying there. The nonsense of the post, along with the nonsense of the rest of the site should be enough to dissuade any sensible person, unless you're just itching for a nauseating exercise in futility.PhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-50076557520305084382008-06-03T10:47:00.000-04:002008-06-03T10:47:00.000-04:00Exterminator,I've answered you. Anyone is welcome...Exterminator,<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2008/06/bewitched.html" REL="nofollow">I've answered you</A>. Anyone is welcome to read.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-35502112820977669222008-06-03T09:34:00.000-04:002008-06-03T09:34:00.000-04:00Yunshui, you're exactly right.I was confusing the ...Yunshui, you're exactly right.<BR/><BR/>I was confusing the command to worship only Yaweh with monotheism. The command to worship only one god was what I was referring to, and then later the doctrine of monotheism or false (not real) gods.<BR/><BR/>But how to reconcile three goes with the command to worship only one god?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09429263099197981481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-64991862286093608632008-06-03T07:52:00.000-04:002008-06-03T07:52:00.000-04:00Interestingly the concept of monotheism didn't ari...Interestingly the concept of monotheism didn't arise in Judaism until quite late in its development - the earliest references to Yahweh being the "only" god (as opposed to the first among many, or the specific god of the Israelites) only appear around 530 BC (in the works of Second Isaiah). It appears this development was a response to the Babylonian exile and Jewish exposure to the cults of Marduk and his mates. Prior to this, the existence of other gods was pretty much taken as read by the Israelites.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-28635773500462802992008-06-02T16:12:00.000-04:002008-06-02T16:12:00.000-04:00I think Christians try to represent their religion...I think Christians try to represent their religion as monotheistic because of the Old Testament. Over and over and over again Yaweh says that he is the only god and none other may be worshipped.<BR/><BR/>But then how to explain the shift in the New Testament? Jesus talks to God and then there's that pesky Holy Spirit. So what is it, monotheistic or polytheistic? Well, of course, it depends on which Testament you look at. Since Christians claim they're under the New or both (when it suits them) they're again trying to play both sides without really making a commitment to one or the other.<BR/><BR/>It's another contradiction that can't be explained if it's written by an infallible god. Of course, since it's all fiction, it's pretty easy to explain with changing influences (Nationalism vs. the influence of the Greeks and Romans).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09429263099197981481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-49005000275162427592008-06-02T12:43:00.000-04:002008-06-02T12:43:00.000-04:00yunshui:Christians do dismiss some other religions...yunshui:<BR/>Christians <I>do</I> dismiss some other religions on the basis of those religions being polytheistic. Now, I never said that polytheism is the <I>only</I> reason that Christians might dismiss another religion. (Remember: a -> b does not lead logically to b -> a.)<BR/><BR/>In any case, for Christians, the concept that they, themselves, are polytheistic is horrifying. But it should be blatanly obvious to anyone who thinks about the Christians' multiplicity of gods (disguised in various other guises though they be) that Christianity is, indeed, a polytheistic religion. That's all I'm saying here.The Exterminatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14452054124550486048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-69376012399063322502008-06-02T08:51:00.000-04:002008-06-02T08:51:00.000-04:00It's not about betterIt's not about betterPhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-69291366941729098072008-06-02T06:10:00.000-04:002008-06-02T06:10:00.000-04:00I'm not convinced by the argument that Christians ...I'm not convinced by the argument that Christians dismiss other religions on the basis of their polytheism - they also dismiss that hardcore monotheist Islam, and Judaism as well. The argument I've heard most often is the "We've got a dead Jesus, no-one else has one of those" one, and believe me, I've heard it a <I>lot</I>.<BR/><BR/>Fair play to Phillychief and SI, though, nibbling at the already frayed edges is indeed a better system than repeated (intellectual) blows to the head. I stand corrected.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-84916453051864969802008-06-01T18:44:00.000-04:002008-06-01T18:44:00.000-04:00Are Jelly Beans an official aphrodisiac? Who knew?...Are Jelly Beans an official aphrodisiac? Who knew?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-40023118839308528452008-06-01T14:34:00.000-04:002008-06-01T14:34:00.000-04:00Really SI, you have to stop stimulating Ex with yo...Really SI, you have to stop stimulating Ex with your sexy talk. The sexy avatar is more than enough, and with him all amped up already on jelly beans, look out!PhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.com