Religions > Atheism > Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Citizen_Cain" |
| Date: |
27 Jan 2005 02:24:39 PM |
| Object: |
Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
"curious" <nope@nope.com> wrote in message
news:41F9409D.A134C0AB@nope.com...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/26/oscar.passion/index.html
""Hollywood has spoken. 'Don't mess with us,' is what they're saying,"
said Jennifer Giroux of seethepassion.com. " 'Don't mess with us because
we will not consider your talent if you do anything that is Christian,'
is the message that's coming out.""
Yes, I am sure that's exactly the reason why. It's an anti-Christian
bias.
Her statement makes me wonder if she herself has a little bias towards
Hollywood.
-curious
"Those people" control it, you know... *rolls eyes*
Yea, never mind the fact that the film sucked balls and Mel Gibson is a
fruit loop.
.
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
19 Feb 2005 03:33:18 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 17:25:08 -0500, "Rita Hansard"
<ritahansard@numail.org> said in alt.atheism:
Because you're silly enough to try and convince me that a lack of denial is
not evident.
So exactly what claims did Paul make in his letters that Rome didn't
deny, that you claim are proof of the miracles performed by some son
of god who claimed in the same book that he wasn't his "father"?
And that placed the events at a specific time under recent Roman control
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
18 Feb 2005 07:09:30 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 23:52:36 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 17:25:08 -0500, "Rita Hansard"
<ritahansard@numail.org> said in alt.atheism:
Because you're silly enough to try and convince me that a lack of denial is
not evident.
So exactly what claims did Paul make in his letters that Rome didn't
deny, that you claim are proof of the miracles performed by some son
of god who claimed in the same book that he wasn't his "father"?
She thinks he wrote these letters to the Roman authorities accusing
them of doing something. And when they didn't reply she takes that as
an admission.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rita Hansard" |
|
| Title: Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
18 Feb 2005 08:02:59 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:kc4d1119vfappp7sso2miiifck6qplebub@4ax.com...
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 23:52:36 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 17:25:08 -0500, "Rita Hansard"
<ritahansard@numail.org> said in alt.atheism:
Because you're silly enough to try and convince me that a lack of denial
is
not evident.
So exactly what claims did Paul make in his letters that Rome didn't
deny, that you claim are proof of the miracles performed by some son
of god who claimed in the same book that he wasn't his "father"?
She thinks he wrote these letters to the Roman authorities accusing
them of doing something. And when they didn't reply she takes that as
an admission.
You really are taking a disagreement concerning an historical event, which
Rome doesn't deny, much too personally. You wanted evidence of the
crucifixion...I gave it to you. I'm sorry if that has upset you and Al
Whoevertheheckitis.
Hoot! I thought you atheists had thicker skins.
Rita
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
19 Feb 2005 07:08:03 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 21:02:59 -0500, "Rita Hansard"
<ritahansard@numail.org> said in alt.atheism:
You really are taking a disagreement concerning an historical event
It's your assertion that it's an historical event. Would you like to
post anything that's both contemporaneous and extra-biblical that
backs you up - about ANY of the claims in the bible?
You wanted evidence of the crucifixion...I gave it to you.
You gave us an assertion that if Rome didn't deny the claims in the
bible they're true of necessity. That's incorrect, so you gave us
nothing.
Now - do you have any actual *evidence* for any of this, or are you
just another Christian making baseless assertions?
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
19 Feb 2005 07:11:10 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 01:08:03 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 21:02:59 -0500, "Rita Hansard"
<ritahansard@numail.org> said in alt.atheism:
You really are taking a disagreement concerning an historical event
It's your assertion that it's an historical event. Would you like to
post anything that's both contemporaneous and extra-biblical that
backs you up - about ANY of the claims in the bible?
You wanted evidence of the crucifixion...I gave it to you.
You gave us an assertion that if Rome didn't deny the claims in the
bible they're true of necessity. That's incorrect, so you gave us
nothing.
She hasn't answered the analogy: Shakespeare didn't deny buggering
Francis Bacon so he must have done.
"But that's different"
Now - do you have any actual *evidence* for any of this, or are you
just another Christian making baseless assertions?
Silly question.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
19 Feb 2005 03:35:12 AM |
|
|
Rita Hansard wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:kc4d1119vfappp7sso2miiifck6qplebub@4ax.com...
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 23:52:36 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 17:25:08 -0500, "Rita Hansard"
<ritahansard@numail.org> said in alt.atheism:
Because you're silly enough to try and convince me that a lack of denial
is
not evident.
So exactly what claims did Paul make in his letters that Rome didn't
deny, that you claim are proof of the miracles performed by some son
of god who claimed in the same book that he wasn't his "father"?
She thinks he wrote these letters to the Roman authorities accusing
them of doing something. And when they didn't reply she takes that as
an admission.
You really are taking a disagreement concerning an historical event, which
Rome doesn't deny, much too personally. You wanted evidence of the
crucifixion...I gave it to you. I'm sorry if that has upset you and Al
Whoevertheheckitis.
Hoot! I thought you atheists had thicker skins.
Stupidity can get irritating. If you could give evidence that Paul
actuallt was executed and that he had said something specific in his
letters that they would wish to deny, your argument might have some
value. As thigs are, it doesn't
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rita Hansard" |
|
| Title: Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
19 Feb 2005 09:05:17 AM |
|
|
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cv718d$sa8$5@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Rita Hansard wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:kc4d1119vfappp7sso2miiifck6qplebub@4ax.com...
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 23:52:36 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 17:25:08 -0500, "Rita Hansard"
<ritahansard@numail.org> said in alt.atheism:
Because you're silly enough to try and convince me that a lack of
denial is
not evident.
So exactly what claims did Paul make in his letters that Rome didn't
deny, that you claim are proof of the miracles performed by some son
of god who claimed in the same book that he wasn't his "father"?
She thinks he wrote these letters to the Roman authorities accusing
them of doing something. And when they didn't reply she takes that as
an admission.
You really are taking a disagreement concerning an historical event,
which Rome doesn't deny, much too personally. You wanted evidence of the
crucifixion...I gave it to you. I'm sorry if that has upset you and Al
Whoevertheheckitis.
Hoot! I thought you atheists had thicker skins.
Stupidity can get irritating. If you could give evidence that Paul
actuallt was executed and that he had said something specific in his
letters that they would wish to deny, your argument might have some value.
As thigs are, it doesn't
Strange, I don't even find your illiteracy irritating.
Rita
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
19 Feb 2005 07:30:16 PM |
|
|
"Rita Hansard" <ritahansard@numail.org> wrote in message
news:cv7kjc$tis$0@pita.alt.net...
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cv718d$sa8$5@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Rita Hansard wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:kc4d1119vfappp7sso2miiifck6qplebub@4ax.com...
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 23:52:36 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 17:25:08 -0500, "Rita Hansard"
<ritahansard@numail.org> said in alt.atheism:
Because you're silly enough to try and convince me that a lack of
denial is
not evident.
So exactly what claims did Paul make in his letters that Rome didn't
deny, that you claim are proof of the miracles performed by some son
of god who claimed in the same book that he wasn't his "father"?
She thinks he wrote these letters to the Roman authorities accusing
them of doing something. And when they didn't reply she takes that as
an admission.
You really are taking a disagreement concerning an historical event,
which Rome doesn't deny, much too personally.
Translation: you are upset that he is right & have no answer other than to
project your own personal feelings onto him.
Nothing he wrote above is anything but simple truth - no evidence
*whatsoever (a recurring theme with you)* that he is somehow upset by you.
You wanted evidence of the
crucifixion...I gave it to you.
No, you pretended you did, over & over.
I'm sorry if that has upset you and Al
Whoevertheheckitis.
The only one who is upset is you - your posts are full of anxiety, and
desperation, as shown by the increasingly personal nature of your remarks.
This childish rudeness about Al Klien's *name* is a prime example.
Hoot! I thought you atheists had thicker skins.
See previous about "personal nature of remarks revealing desperation"
Stupidity can get irritating. If you could give evidence that Paul
actuallt was executed and that he had said something specific in his
letters that they would wish to deny, your argument might have some
value. As thigs are, it doesn't
Strange, I don't even find your illiteracy irritating.
No, it's not strange that a woman too stupid to understand that you can't
use a book to prove itself, & that not bothering to deny something that is
unimportant to you somehow means you're guilty of it, would find someone
else's momentary confusion/bad
typing a good excuse to duck admitting just *how* stupid you are.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rita Hansard" |
|
| Title: Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
20 Feb 2005 10:49:08 AM |
|
|
"Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:IKRRd.13077$uc.5250@trnddc09...
"Rita Hansard" <ritahansard@numail.org> wrote in message
news:cv7kjc$tis$0@pita.alt.net...
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cv718d$sa8$5@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Rita Hansard wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:kc4d1119vfappp7sso2miiifck6qplebub@4ax.com...
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 23:52:36 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 17:25:08 -0500, "Rita Hansard"
<ritahansard@numail.org> said in alt.atheism:
Because you're silly enough to try and convince me that a lack of
denial is
not evident.
So exactly what claims did Paul make in his letters that Rome didn't
deny, that you claim are proof of the miracles performed by some son
of god who claimed in the same book that he wasn't his "father"?
She thinks he wrote these letters to the Roman authorities accusing
them of doing something. And when they didn't reply she takes that as
an admission.
You really are taking a disagreement concerning an historical event,
which Rome doesn't deny, much too personally.
Translation: you are upset that he is right & have no answer other than to
project your own personal feelings onto him.
Nothing he wrote above is anything but simple truth - no evidence
*whatsoever (a recurring theme with you)* that he is somehow upset by you.
You wanted evidence of the
crucifixion...I gave it to you.
No, you pretended you did, over & over.
I'm sorry if that has upset you and Al
Whoevertheheckitis.
The only one who is upset is you - your posts are full of anxiety, and
desperation, as shown by the increasingly personal nature of your remarks.
This childish rudeness about Al Klien's *name* is a prime example.
Hoot! I thought you atheists had thicker skins.
See previous about "personal nature of remarks revealing desperation"
Stupidity can get irritating. If you could give evidence that Paul
actuallt was executed and that he had said something specific in his
letters that they would wish to deny, your argument might have some
value. As thigs are, it doesn't
Strange, I don't even find your illiteracy irritating.
No, it's not strange that a woman too stupid to understand that you can't
use a book to prove itself,
"Letters," you slow one. Letters confirmed to have been written by the same
person and to the dates in question. Ash claims to speak for "we." I take it
that you are not included in the group who understands the letters signed by
one who called himself "Paul" have been deemed as real.
& that not bothering to deny something that is
unimportant to you somehow means you're guilty of it,
Evidence, you slow one. A lack of denial is "evidence," concerning an event
which has had major world influence, and in fact, conquered the religious
position of Rome...and you say it was "unimportant" to them. History doesn't
substantiate your position of "unimportance," to the charge.
would find someone
else's momentary confusion/bad
typing a good excuse to duck admitting just *how* stupid you are.
Well, I don't find your stupidity confusing the authenticity of letters with
that of a book complied at a later date, or your lack of acknowledgement
that Rome inplicates itself in a certain crucifixion as "surprising." Your
"argument" looks to be par for the Usenet course, which is to say, lacking
in substance.
Rita
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
20 Feb 2005 10:11:16 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 11:49:08 -0500, "Rita Hansard"
<ritahansard@numail.org> said in alt.atheism:
"Letters," you slow one. Letters confirmed to have been written by the same
person
But not necessarily a person named "Paul", or a person personally
acquainted with the events in the bible.
and to the dates in question.
Within 100 years.
Ash claims to speak for "we." I take it
that you are not included in the group who understands the letters signed by
one who called himself "Paul" have been deemed as real.
No one argues that they aren't "real" (they were written). You claim
that the fact that they're real proves that Paul was crucified, or
that Jesus existed. They don't.
& that not bothering to deny something that is
unimportant to you somehow means you're guilty of it,
Evidence, you slow one. A lack of denial is "evidence,"
Of nothing, in this case, since NONE OF THE EVENTS that supposedly
occurred in Palestine were important for Rome to have even recorded,
let alone denied. If lack of Rome's denial is "proof" that the events
occurred, lack of recording them is proof that they didn't.
concerning an event which has had major world influence
It had no influence outside Palestine (a jerkwater province at the
time) until 300 years later.
and in fact, conquered the religious position of Rome.
Not until 300 years later.
.and you say it was "unimportant" to them.
As unimportant as the American Revolution was to the Pilgrims.
History doesn't
substantiate your position of "unimportance," to the charge.
Sure it does. Christianity was a minor sect of Judaism in the first
century - nothing more until the century was almost over.
It wasn't the religion it is today until the middle of the 4th
century.
Your
"argument" looks to be par for the Usenet course, which is to say, lacking
in substance.
You misspelled "My".
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator."
- G W Bush (Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rita Hansard" |
|
| Title: Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
21 Feb 2005 01:01:53 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:jeni1111krr4bjnqh9odh6b6ueskhn2obg@4ax.com...
Of nothing, in this case, since NONE OF THE EVENTS that supposedly
occurred in Palestine were important for Rome to have even recorded,
let alone denied. If lack of Rome's denial is "proof"
Learn the difference between "proof" and "evidence." It is "evident" that
they do not deny participation in the crucifixion, which they "could" have
done 100 to 300 years or NOW after the alleged event. There is no evidence
of denial of Rome, which places them in tacit approval of someone claiming
to be Christ having been crucified at their hands, and which is surely
"evidence."
Rita
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
21 Feb 2005 01:26:43 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 02:01:53 -0500, "Rita Hansard"
<ritahansard@numail.org> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:jeni1111krr4bjnqh9odh6b6ueskhn2obg@4ax.com...
Of nothing, in this case, since NONE OF THE EVENTS that supposedly
occurred in Palestine were important for Rome to have even recorded,
let alone denied. If lack of Rome's denial is "proof"
Learn the difference between "proof" and "evidence." It is "evident" that
they do not deny participation in the crucifixion
LAck of denial of a claim isn't evidence that the claim is true.
Post denial of leprechauns.
Post denial of Superman.
Post denial of Enkidu.
Post denial of any fictional character.
which they "could" have
done 100 to 300 years or NOW after the alleged event. There is no evidence
of denial of Rome, which places them in tacit approval of someone claiming
to be Christ having been crucified at their hands, and which is surely
"evidence."
Evidence that they made no denial that we know of. Nothing more. We
don't know if "Rome" was even aware of the claim. Do you have
evidence that they were? *Evidence", not conjecture or "they must
have been" claims? If not, you have nothing.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye
shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it,
but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great
enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code."
- Mark Twain, a Biography
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rita Hansard" |
|
| Title: Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
21 Feb 2005 09:08:41 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:353j111enqeffs5db2s1evtgjc5p8q06oc@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 02:01:53 -0500, "Rita Hansard"
<ritahansard@numail.org> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:jeni1111krr4bjnqh9odh6b6ueskhn2obg@4ax.com...
Of nothing, in this case, since NONE OF THE EVENTS that supposedly
occurred in Palestine were important for Rome to have even recorded,
let alone denied. If lack of Rome's denial is "proof"
Learn the difference between "proof" and "evidence." It is "evident" that
they do not deny participation in the crucifixion
LAck of denial of a claim isn't evidence that the claim is true.
Rome claims the crucifixion as "true." You do understand tacit admission,
don't you?
Post denial of leprechauns.
Post denial of Superman.
Post denial of Enkidu.
Post denial of any fictional character.
Okay, denial of a conspiracy to kill JFK is hereby posted.
which they "could" have
done 100 to 300 years or NOW after the alleged event. There is no evidence
of denial of Rome, which places them in tacit approval of someone claiming
to be Christ having been crucified at their hands, and which is surely
"evidence."
Evidence that they made no denial that we know of.
Conjecture now?
Nothing more. We
don't know if "Rome" was even aware of the claim.
Ha Ha Ha.
Okay, they just happen to hear about a crucifixion and accept their part in
THREE HUNDRED YEARS AFTER THE EVENT. Nobody had ever heard of the
crucifixion before that time, and what they believe and affirm doesn't
matter, becuase only Al can decide for them that in which they participate.
They were "aware," Al.
Rita
.
|
|
|
| User: "Regina Mouser" |
|
| Title: Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
22 Feb 2005 10:50:59 AM |
|
|
Okay, they just happen to hear about a crucifixion and accept their part
in
THREE HUNDRED YEARS AFTER THE EVENT. Nobody had ever heard of the
crucifixion before that time, and what they believe and affirm doesn't
matter, becuase only Al can decide for them that in which they participate>>
Actually, the crucifixion had been documented way before that time.
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Silas/crucified.htm
~reggi~
"Rita Hansard" <ritahansard@numail.org> wrote in message
news:cvcthn$78u$0@pita.alt.net...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:353j111enqeffs5db2s1evtgjc5p8q06oc@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 02:01:53 -0500, "Rita Hansard"
<ritahansard@numail.org> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:jeni1111krr4bjnqh9odh6b6ueskhn2obg@4ax.com...
Of nothing, in this case, since NONE OF THE EVENTS that supposedly
occurred in Palestine were important for Rome to have even recorded,
let alone denied. If lack of Rome's denial is "proof"
Learn the difference between "proof" and "evidence." It is "evident"
that
they do not deny participation in the crucifixion
LAck of denial of a claim isn't evidence that the claim is true.
Rome claims the crucifixion as "true." You do understand tacit admission,
don't you?
Post denial of leprechauns.
Post denial of Superman.
Post denial of Enkidu.
Post denial of any fictional character.
Okay, denial of a conspiracy to kill JFK is hereby posted.
which they "could" have
done 100 to 300 years or NOW after the alleged event. There is no
evidence
of denial of Rome, which places them in tacit approval of someone
claiming
to be Christ having been crucified at their hands, and which is surely
"evidence."
Evidence that they made no denial that we know of.
Conjecture now?
Nothing more. We
don't know if "Rome" was even aware of the claim.
Ha Ha Ha.
Okay, they just happen to hear about a crucifixion and accept their part
in
THREE HUNDRED YEARS AFTER THE EVENT. Nobody had ever heard of the
crucifixion before that time, and what they believe and affirm doesn't
matter, becuase only Al can decide for them that in which they
participate.
They were "aware," Al.
Rita
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
22 Feb 2005 05:06:35 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:50:59 GMT, "Regina Mouser" <reggi7@swbell.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Actually, the crucifixion had been documented way before that time.
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Silas/crucified.htm
That sentence of Tacitus' was factually incorrect. Since he was alive
pretty soon after the supposed crucifixion (he was born in 55 AD), he
would have known better, so this sentence is probably a forgery. That
he didn't refer to Jesus at all, and only to "an anointed one", leaves
doubt as to whether he was referring to Jesus at all, or just to the
claims of Christians.
Lucian wasn't even born until the second century, so anything he wrote
was at least 3rd hand hearsay - not evidentiary.
And that's all the site claims - Tacitus and Lucian. So, no, the
crucifiction isn't "documented" - it's asserted.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains
premature today."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
22 Feb 2005 11:16:35 AM |
|
|
Regina Mouser wrote:
Okay, they just happen to hear about a crucifixion and accept their part
in
THREE HUNDRED YEARS AFTER THE EVENT. Nobody had ever heard of the
crucifixion before that time, and what they believe and affirm doesn't
matter, becuase only Al can decide for them that in which they participate>>
Actually, the crucifixion had been documented way before that time.
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Silas/crucified.htm
First line of that page
"Christ's crucifixion occurred about 2000 years ago. This is documented
by Roman, Jewish, and Greek historians. However, the Quran denies the
crucifixion occurred. The Quran goes against known, recorded history.
This article discusses Christ's historical crucifixion."
So, it starts off with a lie
later
"Evidence from the JEWISH SOURCES:
Talmud, b. Sanhedrin 43a: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu [Jesus] was
hanged [or crucified]. ... Since nothing was brought forward in his
favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."
Then shamelessly interprets anything else it finds to agree with the
original premise
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
21 Feb 2005 10:10:17 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:08:41 -0500, "Rita Hansard"
<ritahansard@numail.org> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:353j111enqeffs5db2s1evtgjc5p8q06oc@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 02:01:53 -0500, "Rita Hansard"
<ritahansard@numail.org> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:jeni1111krr4bjnqh9odh6b6ueskhn2obg@4ax.com...
Of nothing, in this case, since NONE OF THE EVENTS that supposedly
occurred in Palestine were important for Rome to have even recorded,
let alone denied. If lack of Rome's denial is "proof"
Learn the difference between "proof" and "evidence." It is "evident" that
they do not deny participation in the crucifixion
LAck of denial of a claim isn't evidence that the claim is true.
Rome claims the crucifixion as "true." You do understand tacit admission,
don't you?
Rome doesn't deny the claim - that's not claiming that it's true,
tacitly or otherwise. You do understand the difference, don't you?
Post denial of leprechauns.
Post denial of Superman.
Post denial of Enkidu.
Post denial of any fictional character.
Okay, denial of a conspiracy to kill JFK is hereby posted.
No, post denial of leprechauns, Superman and Enkidu. JFK isn't a
fictional character.
which they "could" have
done 100 to 300 years or NOW after the alleged event. There is no evidence
of denial of Rome, which places them in tacit approval of someone claiming
to be Christ having been crucified at their hands, and which is surely
"evidence."
Evidence that they made no denial that we know of.
Conjecture now?
No - lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack. If it were, we have
loads of evidence that your god doesn't exist.
Nothing more. We
don't know if "Rome" was even aware of the claim.
Ha Ha Ha.
Okay, they just happen to hear about a crucifixion and accept their part in
THREE HUNDRED YEARS AFTER THE EVENT. Nobody had ever heard of the
crucifixion before that time, and what they believe and affirm doesn't
matter, becuase only Al can decide for them that in which they participate.
So post actual contemporaneous Roman writings (from the time of the
crucifixion) showing that they knew of it. Otherwise your claim that
they did is merely your opinion.
They were "aware," Al.
Evidence? Your opinion has already been shown to be unacceptable.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he
unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
-- Bertrand Russell.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
21 Feb 2005 09:52:32 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:bn1k115khp2cme3ujekiqcuecuim2p14tt@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:08:41 -0500, "Rita Hansard"
<ritahansard@numail.org> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:353j111enqeffs5db2s1evtgjc5p8q06oc@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 02:01:53 -0500, "Rita Hansard"
<ritahansard@numail.org> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:jeni1111krr4bjnqh9odh6b6ueskhn2obg@4ax.com...
Of nothing, in this case, since NONE OF THE EVENTS that supposedly
occurred in Palestine were important for Rome to have even recorded,
let alone denied. If lack of Rome's denial is "proof"
Learn the difference between "proof" and "evidence." It is "evident"
that
they do not deny participation in the crucifixion
LAck of denial of a claim isn't evidence that the claim is true.
Rome claims the crucifixion as "true." You do understand tacit admission,
don't you?
Rome doesn't deny the claim - that's not claiming that it's true,
tacitly or otherwise. You do understand the difference, don't you?
"Rome" says that the crucifixion happened, and (now) their line is that
"mankind killed Jesus with being so sinful that he was necessary." None of
this means that they are correct.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
21 Feb 2005 11:25:59 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 03:52:32 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Rome" says that the crucifixion happened
Oh? I must have missed that. Unless you're referring to the Rome of
the 4th century.
and (now) their line is that
"mankind killed Jesus with being so sinful that he was necessary." None of
this means that they are correct.
There's currently more solid evidence of life on Mars than there is
that any of the NT ever happened.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
22 Feb 2005 10:47:38 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:2egl115ca1c78ecg190lac6fnba9k8tu6q@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 03:52:32 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Rome" says that the crucifixion happened
Oh? I must have missed that. Unless you're referring to the Rome of
the 4th century.
Of today - I thought the thread had drifted.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
22 Feb 2005 04:52:58 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:47:38 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:2egl115ca1c78ecg190lac6fnba9k8tu6q@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 03:52:32 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Rome" says that the crucifixion happened
Oh? I must have missed that. Unless you're referring to the Rome of
the 4th century.
Of today
Modern Rome wasn't the accused, though. First century Rome was. So
we come back to whether - not even when, but whether - first century
Rome was even aware of the bible.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"If we really know Truth, we do not fear hearing falsehoods or half-truths; if we are not sure of the truth - we shudder and try to shout down every utterance." - A. J. Mims
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
22 Feb 2005 07:45:22 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:prdn119ilr2nk4n2fpce43r64r4tdmehkq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:47:38 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:2egl115ca1c78ecg190lac6fnba9k8tu6q@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 03:52:32 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Rome" says that the crucifixion happened
Oh? I must have missed that. Unless you're referring to the Rome of
the 4th century.
Of today
Modern Rome wasn't the accused, though. First century Rome was.
I see that *I* was the one who drifted off the sub-topic.
Apologies all around!
Susan
So
we come back to whether - not even when, but whether - first century
Rome was even aware of the bible.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"If we really know Truth, we do not fear hearing falsehoods or
half-truths; if we are not sure of the truth - we shudder and try to shout
down every utterance." - A. J. Mims
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
22 Feb 2005 10:11:53 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 01:45:22 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:prdn119ilr2nk4n2fpce43r64r4tdmehkq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:47:38 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:2egl115ca1c78ecg190lac6fnba9k8tu6q@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 03:52:32 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Rome" says that the crucifixion happened
Oh? I must have missed that. Unless you're referring to the Rome of
the 4th century.
Of today
Modern Rome wasn't the accused, though. First century Rome was.
I see that *I* was the one who drifted off the sub-topic.
Apologies all around!
None needed. You're not the one who came up with the idiotic claim
that Queen Liz is guilty of Diana's murder. Or was that Rome being
guilty of Jesus' murder? Something like that.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."
- Theodosuis Dobzhansky
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
23 Feb 2005 12:07:15 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:4i0o11dam4ikt9l83dqkbs1h68shqhggis@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 01:45:22 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net>
said in alt.atheism:
I see that *I* was the one who drifted off the sub-topic.
Apologies all around!
None needed. You're not the one who came up with the idiotic claim
that Queen Liz is guilty of Diana's murder.
Actually, I was the one who said that, by Rita's "logic", she *was*.
Or was that Rome being
guilty of Jesus' murder? Something like that.
Ah - you figured that :-)
Susan
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."
- Theodosuis Dobzhansky
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
22 Feb 2005 06:17:10 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 22:52:58 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:47:38 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:2egl115ca1c78ecg190lac6fnba9k8tu6q@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 03:52:32 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Rome" says that the crucifixion happened
Oh? I must have missed that. Unless you're referring to the Rome of
the 4th century.
Of today
Modern Rome wasn't the accused, though. First century Rome was. So
we come back to whether - not even when, but whether - first century
Rome was even aware of the bible.
But it seems it was accused in the third or even fourth century.
It's like accusing America of something it wasn't even aware of 200
years ago, today.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
22 Feb 2005 07:49:41 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 19:17:10 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> said in alt.atheism:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 22:52:58 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
Modern Rome wasn't the accused, though. First century Rome was. So
we come back to whether - not even when, but whether - first century
Rome was even aware of the bible.
But it seems it was accused in the third or even fourth century.
When it no longer existed. Fourth century Rome (the bible didn't
exist until then) and first century Rome were pretty much two
different nations.
It's like accusing America of something it wasn't even aware of 200
years ago, today.
More like accusing America today of not denying something it was
accused of having done in 1620.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise
as false, and by the rulers as useful."
- Seneca the Younger
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
22 Feb 2005 04:31:10 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 03:52:32 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Rome" says that the crucifixion happened
Oh? I must have missed that. Unless you're referring to the Rome of
the 4th century.
From the use of the present tense, she might be reffering to the Rome
of the current century, or even the Vaticav, which is sometimes reffered
to as "Rome"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
22 Feb 2005 10:48:19 AM |
|
|
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cvf1l5$gb3$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
From the use of the present tense, she might be reffering to the Rome of
the current century, or even the Vaticav, which is sometimes reffered to
as "Rome"
Yes, that's why I used "quotes"
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rita Hansard" |
|
| Title: Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
21 Feb 2005 11:47:31 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:bn1k115khp2cme3ujekiqcuecuim2p14tt@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:08:41 -0500, "Rita Hansard"
<ritahansard@numail.org> said in alt.atheism:
Conjecture now?
No - lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack. If it were, we have
loads of evidence that your god doesn't exist.
Now he who demands evidence says a lack thereof is not evidence of lack.
You have Rome "crucifying" Paul. You don't understand a reference to tacit
approval. You seem to be hung up on a post denying Superman, and at the end
of the line, you contradict your own standard of judgement.
Okay, I'll give it to you, Al, you are far more comical than the troll who
calls herself "Susan."
Gotta killfile you anyway. It's "evident" that life is short, you
understand.
Rita
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
21 Feb 2005 01:17:58 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:47:31 -0500, "Rita Hansard"
<ritahansard@numail.org> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:bn1k115khp2cme3ujekiqcuecuim2p14tt@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:08:41 -0500, "Rita Hansard"
<ritahansard@numail.org> said in alt.atheism:
Conjecture now?
No - lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack. If it were, we have
loads of evidence that your god doesn't exist.
Now he who demands evidence says a lack thereof is not evidence of lack.
You have Rome "crucifying" Paul.
Assertion, no evidence.
You don't understand a reference to tacit approval.
Not without actual evidence that Rome had taken notice of the "claim".
You seem to be hung up on a post denying Superman, and at the end
of the line, you contradict your own standard of judgement.
It only appears that way to those who don't understand logic.
Gotta killfile you anyway.
Oops. That's another one in the "win" column.
Anyone left? You can just leave my comments to Rita intact when you
respond to me.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds
are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her
tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the
existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
