over at slate david plotz is reading the bible and blogging about it along the way. so far four entries dealing with book of genesis have been posted.
plotz who describes himself as 'a proud jew, but never a terribly observant one' explains in the introductory article how reading one of the many unknown and rather unsettling stories in the bible made him realize that 'like other lazy but faithful people' how little he knew about the book on which his religion is based.
most christians i know, brought up on selective sanitized extracts from the bible and rationalized theology, and like plotz having never actually read the thing before, will find some things in the bible quite shocking.
it is not just that some stories in it make marquis de sade's stories in 'the 120 days of sodom' appear rather tame. what would really shock them is the depiction of god (the father, not jesus of course) as a peevish, vindictive, and rather contradictory, person, not the all knowing, all powerful, rather nebulous but benevolent force that most people imagine him to be. he is still the almighty and certainly does not fall to the level of olympian gods in homer, but as he himself say in the bible he is a personal god with a name(several in fact). btw this is also the theologically correct position.
such a depiction also allows for a lot of freedom to us humans than most people are willing accept but which i personally find appealing.
i was lucky to have read a full version of bible at an early age and ever since it has been one of my favorites even though i do not believe in god. may be you should read it too, not just commentary/blogs about it. you probably won’t regret it.
ps:
people who think there was a conspiracy or a cover up about what went in to the christian bible (à la 'the da vinci code') should read it. they will soon realize that bible is in fact so contradictory that no rational human being assembling a coherent theology would have created it in the present form. however its ability to accommodate so many, almost infinite, interpretations is also its genius. so much so that one can argue quite seriously that only god could have written it.
plotz who describes himself as 'a proud jew, but never a terribly observant one' explains in the introductory article how reading one of the many unknown and rather unsettling stories in the bible made him realize that 'like other lazy but faithful people' how little he knew about the book on which his religion is based.
most christians i know, brought up on selective sanitized extracts from the bible and rationalized theology, and like plotz having never actually read the thing before, will find some things in the bible quite shocking.
it is not just that some stories in it make marquis de sade's stories in 'the 120 days of sodom' appear rather tame. what would really shock them is the depiction of god (the father, not jesus of course) as a peevish, vindictive, and rather contradictory, person, not the all knowing, all powerful, rather nebulous but benevolent force that most people imagine him to be. he is still the almighty and certainly does not fall to the level of olympian gods in homer, but as he himself say in the bible he is a personal god with a name(several in fact). btw this is also the theologically correct position.
such a depiction also allows for a lot of freedom to us humans than most people are willing accept but which i personally find appealing.
i was lucky to have read a full version of bible at an early age and ever since it has been one of my favorites even though i do not believe in god. may be you should read it too, not just commentary/blogs about it. you probably won’t regret it.
ps:
people who think there was a conspiracy or a cover up about what went in to the christian bible (à la 'the da vinci code') should read it. they will soon realize that bible is in fact so contradictory that no rational human being assembling a coherent theology would have created it in the present form. however its ability to accommodate so many, almost infinite, interpretations is also its genius. so much so that one can argue quite seriously that only god could have written it.
26 comments:
I never read the bible fully...just small excerpts from it only...
**however its ability to accommodate so many, almost infinite, interpretations is also its genius. so much so that one can argue quite seriously that only god could have written it.
God is the only intelligence that man cant conquer...the only art than man cant learn.
Keshi.
Actually, only human dishonesty can explain why the bible can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways, not any inherent "genius" contained within it.
Everyone just focuses on whatever they want to and discard what they find inconvenient.
God has nothing to do with it!
And there is no god!
Anonymous, maybe there's NO GOD for U...but there's a God for those who believe in God...so live and let live.
btw why r u anonymous? lol! Maybe cos ur not so sure abt what ur saying? :)
Keshi.
Keshi,
Haha !
very funny!
No God for me but there is a god for those who believe that there is a god !!!!
What next?
Are you going to say that the earth is a sphere for me and flat for those who believe it is flat?
I am not going to bother explaining to you why I was "anonymous" in my previous post, most of us including sittingnut are "anonymous" in the sense that nobody gives out their real name while posting comments and your conclusion that it must be because I am "not sure" is ...well...what can I say ?
It's a bit lacking in imagination.
But don't worry, sittingnut will probably make you fell better by calling you a genius or something.
It will not be too hard for him given that he thinks that the only possible explanation for the bible being interpreted in a zillion ways is som inherent "genius" within it.
On the other hand, if it makes you fell better I posted as "Atheist" this time.
There...I am sure now !
I will "live and let live" in the sense that anyone who believes that there is a god is free to believe whatever the heck he wants to and I will not go and hack to death someone who believes in god because of their belief (The way some god fearing nut murdered Theo Van Goh and is out to murder Ayan Hirsi Ali) but that doesn't mean that I should be quiet when someone (in this case) sittingnut brings up some silly "proof" for the existance of god. If I think that the so called "proof" is silly, I am free to give reasons and counter the silly idea.
(But I don't expect you to understand the line of reasoning outlined above! It's just presented for the benefit of any other reader who might understand the fallacy of brining up the "live and let live" argument when somebody asserts that there is no God.)
keshi:
God is the only intelligence that man cant conquer...the only art than man cant learn.
:-)
question is: is that bc we define him as such or bc he is really such ?
we of course cannot really know even that. we can only interpret it in whatever way we prefer.
atheist :
Actually, only human dishonesty can explain why the bible can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways, not any inherent "genius" contained within it.
have you read the bible? or any good book for that matter. if so you will see that great writings can be interpreted in a variety of ways. that is one reason why they are great . only the mediocre can be interpreted in one way.
that different people can find infinite number of different meanings in bible is why it is a great book and why i call it a work of genius, arguably superhuman .
your contention that 'only human dishonesty can explain' the variety of interpretation is beside the point. any interpretation about anything require that we discard inconvenient facts. people who interpret the world by saying there is no god does this in the same way that people who interpret it using a particular idea of god, taken from bible or not.
keshi's maybe there's NO GOD for U...but there's a God for those who believe in God...so live and let live. is a statement of tolerance by which people accommodate others with different beliefs that cannot be either proved or disproved. your analogy with earth being flat or round is not correct in that one can prove the earth's shape, not so with god's existence. ppl can just assert his existence or non existence and if they are tolerant live and let live. intolerant fools of course will kill others. if you had any intelligence you will get that. btw since nobody here was going to kill others what's your point about theo van goh?
btw where did i say i proved the god's existence as you seem to believe with your claims about 'silly proof' . are you imagining things? next time you may imagine you saw god for all we know :-)
as for your being anonymous, check the three options available below the comments posting box here. then realize the difference before making 'silly' arguments.
sittingnut,
Occay you may not have strictly speaking actually said that you can "prove" gods existance, but you did say this -
***interpretations is also its genius. so much so that one can argue quite seriously that only god could have written it.***
Saying that the bible could only have been written by god because it can be interpreted in many different ways is a very lousy argument. And saying that automatically implies that God exists.
Your idea that any great literature can be interpreted in a zillion ways is ...well...arbitrary to say the least.It's also totally brainless, but since you do have brains I'll assume that you are just "ignoring inconvenient facts". (Which you claim as being necessary for any form of interpritation.)
To the extent that a writer is "great" he should surely strive to put his point across clearly and if a writer is unable to do even that then his work is rubbish. If you haven't realised even that much after reading all those great books, then please name all the books you consider to be great so that those of us who have even a tiny amount of common sense can avoid them like the plague!
Sittingnut,
*** "that different people can find infinite number of different meanings in bible is why it is a great book and why i call it a work of genius, arguably superhuman ." ***
The bible was written by many different people over a time period spanning many centuries. It contains many contradictions and many incompatible ideas. The reason people can interpret it in countless number of ways is that among the conflicting and contradictory ideas within it, there is always something that a given person will like and he can focus on what he likes and discard what he finds to be inconvenient.
That will be the case for any large book authored by multiple authors and containing heaps of contradictions.
Literary "greatness" or "genius" or being written by a "superhuman" has nothing to do with it.
Sittingnut,
*** as for your being anonymous, check the three options available below the comments posting box here. then realize the difference before making 'silly' arguments. ***
I did check all options as you suggested, there are 3 options - 1) Blogger 2) Other 3) Anonymous
okay, I guess I was indeed "anonymous" the first time I posted while you were not anonymous (being "blogger") and I was "other" on subsequent occasions I posted. I was going by the usual meaning and thought that anybody who doesn't give out his real name is anonymous! Now onwards I'll used bloggers nomenclature.
In any case, the whole thing is pointless. Fucusing in whether I posted as a "blogger" or a "other" or as "anonymous" and saying that I must have posted as "anonymous" because I am not sure of what I am saying is an argument that probably belongs in kindergarden. (And certainly not above grade 3)
You'll realise that if you think about it, but since keshi is your true friend, you'll have to ignore a few "inconvenient facts" and find some way of validating her contention. I completely understand that so go ahead...attack me mercilessly and spin some story that demonstrates why it was a great thing for keshi to have said that I must have been "anonymous" because of self doubt and why it is brainless of me to complain about what she said. That's what friends are for!
(But atleast tell her the truth in a private email or something, otherwise she'll repeat similar mistakes again and again and will never grow beyond the point of making simplistic arguments.)
Sittingnut,
**keshi's maybe there's NO GOD for U...but there's a God for those who believe in God...so live and let live. is a statement of tolerance by which people accommodate others with different beliefs that cannot be either proved or disproved. your analogy with earth being flat or round is not correct in that one can prove the earth's shape, not so with god's existence. ppl can just assert his existence or non existence and if they are tolerant live and let live. intolerant fools of course will kill others. if you had any intelligence you will get that. btw since nobody here was going to kill others what's your point about theo van goh?
Well my point about The Van Goh is that the statement "live and let live" should be directed at the kind of people who killed him, the kind of people who do not "tolerate" any ideas that they find offenssive. There is no need to direct it against me for saying that there is no God since I don't go around killing or harming those who (for whatever reason) believe in god or those who hold ideas that I find offenssive.
But directing the "live and let live" idea towards sombody for claiming that there is no God is just nonsense.
I live. I let live too ! and my own belief that there is no god and me saying that there is no god in no way violates my own regard for my own life (the "live" part) and in no way hampers anyone else who desired to believe in god.(The "let live part".)
So what is the point of saying "hey, don't say there is no god, learn to live and let live!"
As to the idea that it is impossible to prove that there is no god - you right. It is indeed impossible to prove that there is no god. But since the conception of god is arbitrary and absurd and since the concept of god is allegedly beyond man's capacity to prove or disprove, there is no need to take the concept of god seriously. The inherent sillyness in the concept is enough for the purpose of concluding that there is no god.
blah blah blah so anonymous is an Atheist..need I even read his comment? NO. So lets simply agree to disagree..cos we r never gonna agree :) Sorry, I didnt even bother to read ur comment simply becos of that. Hoep u u'stand.
Sittingnut...
**question is: is that bc we define him as such or bc he is really such ?
we of course cannot really know even that. we can only interpret it in whatever way we prefer.
ok one Q for u then..who/what designed man?
Im actually hoping to come up with a post abt this..then we can hopefully talk alot there :)
Keshi.
Sittingnut,
** "any interpretation about anything require that we discard inconvenient facts."
That's just amazing!
Do I hear the words "Self Incrimination" or what?
What you made is a general statement concerning the nature of interpritation. It is not accurate, but the fact that you made it means that this must be the way you go about forming interpritations.
So you think that any interpritation about anything requires that we discard inconvenient facts ?
Is that how you handle situations in which you are presented with facts that contradict your ideas and conclussions?
When I am faced with such a situation I make an effort to reexamine my ideas and modify them so that my beliefs no longer contradict reality.
But I guess you are much more advanced than me in this ragard! You have the power to form accurate interpritations while at the same time discarding facts that contradict your interpretations! Man, I wish I was as intelligent as you!
God only knows how many inconvenient facts you discarded in some of your blog posts including this one. I rest my case and I've prooven my point and sittingnut admitted during cross examination that he just discards inconvenient facts when forming interpretations.
Keshi,
There was no need for me to post as "Atheist" for you to realise that "Anonymous" is an atheist. When I posted as "anonymous", I said that there is no god. An atheist by definition is somebody who believes that there is no god.
One thing I have to say is...please please please continue reading my comments. Don't he narrow minded and aviod atheists. Maybe atheism is wrong for you but it is right for me. So please please don't think badly of me for being an atheist and apply your "live and let live" philosophy to my case also!
keshi:
who/what designed man?
nobody probably. but as you say we can talk about that when you have a post about it :-)
atheist:
Saying that the bible could only have been written by god because it can be interpreted in many different ways is a very lousy argument.
where did that 'only' come from? you do imagine things.
as for lousiness of argument, that is a subjective judgment(an interpretation) of yours
To the extent that a writer is "great" he should surely strive to put his point across clearly and if a writer is unable to do even that then his work is rubbish.
that just show your ..lets say, one track mind. reality is complex and any work that deal with it must also be necessarily be so. care to give any great work that cannot be interpreted in different ways? any great work pl.
The bible was written by many different people over a time period spanning many centuries.
did anybody say otherwise?
That will be the case for any large book authored by multiple authors and containing heaps of contradictions.
but there is only one bible. :-) do any other large book found so many religions? you answer what i said about greatness/genius/arguably superman nature, in bible yourself.
Well my point about The Van Goh is that the statement "live and let live" should be directed at the kind of people who killed him, the kind of people who do not "tolerate" any ideas that they find offenssive.
you interpret "live and let live" too literally. nobody warned you against killing those who believe in god, as you seem to believe. :-)
But directing the "live and let live" idea towards sombody for claiming that there is no God is just nonsense.
there are fanatics in all sides, but as i said nobody expects you to be one that is so far gone as to kill anyone. so don't worry about it . :-)
..conception of god is arbitrary and absurd and since the concept of god is allegedly beyond man's capacity to prove or disprove, there is no need to take the concept of god seriously.
just bc a concept cannot be proved or disproved, it does not lose any validity as a concept.
nor is concept of god any more arbitrary or absurd than concept of good and evil.
if you really want to go deep you will learn that absolutely nothing can really be proved or disproved so all things are nothing but concepts. but i don't think you will understand that.
The inherent sillyness in the concept is enough for the purpose of concluding that there is no god.
:-) i suppose you reject lot of modern scientific theories too on same grounds ?some implications of quantum mechanic for example can be quite 'silly' don't you think?
and to take your former example, before it could be conclusively proved that earth was round, i suppose you would have rejected that concept as 'inherently silly' in comparison to flat earth concept?
if you wouldn't have, why not?
problem is, your argument depend too much on undefined term 'silliness' . what is that exactly ?
So you think that any interpritation about anything requires that we discard inconvenient facts ?
yes i said that clearly. everybody including you do. all interpretations must.
that is bc reality cannot be interpreted in any single way
Is that how you handle situations in which you are presented with facts that contradict your ideas and conclussions?
if any interpretation is proved wrong it is wrong. but most interpretations cannot be proved wrong .
When I am faced with such a situation I make an effort to reexamine my ideas and modify them so that my beliefs no longer contradict reality.
:-) what reality ? you mean your interpretation of reality ? of course if your interpretation is proved wrong you may modify it or create a new interpretation.
or you may admit as i do that there cannot be any interpretation that will cover everything.
You have the power to form accurate interpritations while at the same time discarding facts that contradict your interpretations!
as i said you imagine things i have never said. what i said was all interpretations by every one discard inconvenient facts
I rest my case and I've prooven my point and sittingnut admitted during cross examination that he just discards inconvenient facts when forming interpretations.
:-) lol
who is acting like a toddler now?
did i form interpretations here? i said all interpretations by all ppl discard inconvenient facts bc reality cannot be interpreted as simply as you seem to believe .
your arguments here are good examples of ppl discarding inconvenient facts . you imagine and attribute things to me that i never wrote and you ignore statement i did make .
--
from oed
anonymous adj. 1 of unknown name or authorship. 2 without character; featureless
attack me mercilessly and spin some story
lol! as i said you imagine things
btw i don't think keshi care very much about what you say, she has moved on bc she follows what she said first, 'live and let live'.
for your information ppl in general do not really care about or read what anons say in blogs. they appear and disappear. like you will . we have dealt with a lot of anons, and we know the kind.
Sittingnut,
I wasn't going to post any further since I made my case and I am content to let you have the last word and I was certainly going to "dissapear" as you said, but one thing in your previous post is just plain too unbelievable!
It appears that you don't even pay much attention to your own blog posts!
you had actuallu said -
**** "where did that 'only' come from? you do imagine things."
That came from the LAST LINE of your main blog post. Go take a look at your post "bible blogging" and read the last line!!!
Your post ends with the line-
**that one can argue quite seriously that only god could have written it.
:-)so you object to that? only that?
in fact that just show your failure to understand.
this is what i wrote:
so much so that one can argue quite seriously that only god could have written it.
this what you said i said:
Saying that the bible could only have been written by god because it can be interpreted in many different ways is a very lousy argument.
this was my response:
where did that 'only' come from? you do imagine things.
as for lousiness of argument, that is a subjective judgment(an interpretation) of yours
readers can decide for themselves whether my argument is about exclusive authorship of god as you implied or about something else. :-)
sittingnut,
*** " :-) so you object to that? only that? :-)so you object to that? only that? "
No, that's not the only thing I object to. and I made that very clear in my previous post. If you reread it, you'll realize that I said I will only respond to the one thing that I found most incredible. That means that other things I found objectionable were less incredible, not that there was nothing else I found objectionable.
It's somewhat pointless for me to enumerate and explain in detail my objections to your previous post because you didn't answer the pointes I raised earlier.
To begin with, me simply stating that there is no god doesn't violate any reasonable interpritation of the "live and let live principle" so what is the point of bringing up the "live and let live" issue when I simply state that there is no god.
The only thing you said in that regard is that it is a "statement of tolerance", but that answers nothing unless you demonstrate that me simply saying that there is no god is an "act of intolerance".
Secondly, on the issue of me being anonymous, you just gave a dictionary definition of the word and I have no idea what to make of that. I mean I do understand the definitions, but I have no idea how it is supposedly related to this situation or what you sought to achieve by cutting and pasting a dictionary definition.
My point is simply that saying "he is anonymous, therefore he is not sure" is a stupid argument, not that I am not anonymous. Asking me to look up the 3 options available when making a post (as you did the first time) and giving a dictionary definition (or even 10 dictionary definitions!) of the word "anonymous" doesn't answer that point.
Well, those are the issues in my previos posts that you ducked and you ducked another issue by saying "the readers can decide".
Ofcourse the readers can decide what they think you meant but regardless of what you "meant", I did answer your question of where the word "only" came from and I did answer your allegation that I had imagined things. Ofcourse, a true post modernist has a very good explanation and excuse even when he is caught red handed!
I'll be happy to take the time to enumerate and explain my objections to each and every point you raised, but I will not do that while you duck the points I had made from the very beginning.
ok Sittingnut :)
Keshi.
sittingnut,
I did a google search with the words "sittingnut" and "religion" and came up with something really interesting.
Here is part of a comment that you posted on a site called "Nittewa" on September 2'nd 2005, just 9 months ago:
*** "i really can't see why you have trouble with above statement this is old hat. to explain,
all religions are irrational, they provide people an escape from admitting the reality (that there is nothing after death, that there is no objective way to differentiate good from the bad. etc) by using supernatural beliefs that do not stand up to rational examination. in some religions its god, in buddhism its karmic principle."
This comment is available in -
http://nittewa.blogspot.com/2005/09/from-buddhaputra-to-bhoomiputra.html
If you are not sure whether or not there is a god then why did you make that comment in which you dismiss the concept of god as being an evasion of reality ?
First you say that the concept of god is an invention for the purpose of believing that there is life after death and now you are saying that there is no way to know for sure whether god exists.
*** "but there is only one bible. :-) do any other large book found so many religions?"
9 months ago you said that all religions are just evasions of reality while now you are using the fact that many religions are based on the bible for the purpose of arguing that the bible is "great" and that it contains some "genius".
You will do well to sort out your own confusion.
keshi:
:-)
atheist:
do get a life. :-)
it is surprising that in your jobless searching you did not find this
anyway you ask,
If you are not sure whether or not there is a god then why did you make that comment in which you dismiss the concept of god as being an evasion of reality ?
what is the problem? i don't see one. you are unable to state your argument clearly.
i said in that thread
all religions are irrational, they provide people an escape from admitting the reality (that there is nothing after death, that there is no objective way to differentiate good from the bad. etc) by using supernatural beliefs that do not stand up to rational examination. in some religions its god, in buddhism its karmic principle.
i also said here
just bc a concept cannot be proved or disproved, it does not lose any validity as a concept.
nor is concept of god any more arbitrary or absurd than concept of good and evil.
what exactly is the incompatibility there ? explain if you can
imo ppl in order explain difference between good and bad , what happen after death etc. (or in terms of this discussion interpret the reality) create supernatural beliefs which cannot be rationally proved or disproved . that is my opinion then and that my opinion now. there is no incompatibility between that and any of the things i said here, there or anywhere else.
9 months ago you said that all religions are just evasions of reality while now you are using the fact that many religions are based on the bible for the purpose of arguing that the bible is "great" and that it contains some "genius".
bible is great and a work of genius precisely bc it creates and make possible almost infinite number of interpretations of reality through belief in god. see the main post.
again what is inconsistent here ?
you seem to be so confused that you see inconsistencies where none exits, as i said you seem to imagine things. :-)
clarity of thinking is essential if you want to argue. you seem unable to achieve that.
-
It's somewhat pointless for me to enumerate and explain in detail my objections to your previous post because you didn't answer the pointes I raised earlier.
really ? are sure it is not bc your points were answered and you are unable to counter argue ? :-)
-
so what is the point of bringing up the "live and let live" issue when I simply state that there is no god.
The only thing you said in that regard is that it is a "statement of tolerance", but that answers nothing unless you demonstrate that me simply saying that there is no god is an "act of intolerance".
:-)
so are you saying nobody can state 'live and let live' unless they are faced with an intolerant fanatic? :-)
as i said above
you interpret "live and let live" too literally. nobody warned you against killing those who believe in god, as you seem to believe. ...
there are fanatics in all sides, but as i said nobody expects you to be one that is so far gone as to kill anyone. so don't worry about it . :-)
-
My point is simply that saying "he is anonymous, therefore he is not sure" is a stupid argument, not that I am not anonymous. Asking me to look up the 3 options available when making a post (as you did the first time) and giving a dictionary definition (or even 10 dictionary definitions!) of the word "anonymous" doesn't answer that point.
anons (as defined by blogger in the options box and in dictionary) don't feel any desire to defend themselves and can make silly invalid arguments repeatedly even after they have been answered as you do now without facing consequences. any blogger will know that. as i said above ppl in general do not really care about or read what anons say in blogs. they appear and disappear. like you will . we have dealt with a lot of anons, and we know the kind. keshi was right.
-
regardless of what you "meant", I did answer your question of where the word "only" came from and I did answer your allegation that I had imagined things.
'regardless of what i meant'! so even if i meant something quite different from what you imagined, you just have to say i used the word 'only' ? you call that logic :-)
luckily ppl do not suffer from same difficulty in understanding what is written that you seem to suffer from.
as i said
readers can decide for themselves whether my argument is about exclusive authorship of god as you implied or about something else.
-
as you see no issue was 'ducked' but answered so i just had to quote them back to you here for the most part.
if you want to argue learn to think clearly first.
anonymous
i am one of the few who have actually read both the bible and 120 days of sodom. i can confidently assure you that the bible doesn't even venture into the obscenity that the great marquis delved into.
obscenity ? was there a contest to see which book was more obscene?
what said was
it is not just that some stories in it make marquis de sade's stories in 'the 120 days of sodom' appear rather tame.
btw did i say marquis de sade was not a philosopher? (as you see i linked to his wikipedia page so ppl can read about him if they are not familiar.) what make you think i have not read his books including 120 days ?
btw your comment shows your familiarity about bible do not go beyond what you read in the slate series linked in the post even your examples are taken from it.
the bible speaks of "god" as a being but not a being who is the embodiment of perfection... so in regards to the fact that "god" is so perfect, with his unlimited knowledge and powers of omniescent omnipotence, purposely make contradictions within this damn book? why? is it to play tricks?
are you asking me to explain why there is incompatibility with your particular interpretation of god with what is in the bible ? that is not my job. i merely pointed out how god is depicted in bible. and that bible is capable of infinite number of interpretations. if you believe he is playing tricks with your mind that your problem. go see a shrink or a priest.
i think it would be more of an accurate idea to say that the bible was written by numerous people who were being influenced by god because if my memory serves me, that is what actually happened.
more accurate than what ? :-)
you should do with some editing before you post don't you think.even you seem not to know what you were saying few senteces back.
Anonymous,
***it would also be advisable to refrain from attack when the origins of my actions were for the purpose of constructive criticism, and not that of malicious intent. your condescension is not appreciated.
Hey, why are you surprised? Should have expected those attacks. Did you think your questioning of sittingnut's writing skills would go unpunished?
He may not believe that that the concept of god can be proved or disproven, but he certainly does believe himself to be godlike.
Afer all, he probably believes that he should make his writing vague enough to be capable of being interpreted in multiple ways so that he can convince himself of his greatness, unlike the rest of us who say what we mean and mean what we say. Shouldn't have shattered that illusion and expected friendliness from sittingnut!
anonymous:
you were the one who said the bible was written by "god"
did i ?
where ? :-)
what said was
however its ability to accommodate so many, almost infinite, interpretations is also its genius. so much so that one can argue quite seriously that only god could have written it.
same goes for the rest of your comment since you seem confused about what was said or not said.
btw you are free to make silly unsubstantiated statements :-) we will laugh if any of them are funny as you probably intend
but imo ppl are born with a sense of humor and they have to be clever to be witty.
atheist:
so am i to gather you have no further objections, since you do not make any and descend to unfounded personal attacks like any loser
unlike the rest of us who say what we mean and mean what we say.
:-) like above comments when you made a hash of your arguments due to your lack of clear thinking ?
oh well i am glad i am not like you. thanks
a spoofer (that is a person without his/her own identity to speak of) posing as 'sittingnut' left the following comment.
-
There is no god. Early humans fucked chimps and we were born.
(by the way this is Morquendi. Just trying to get on Sittingnut's nerves. Spoofing is so much more fun than anon posting.)
5/25/2006 5:39 PM
-
the spoofer's ip details were
Referring Link : http://moju.lk/2006/05/24/two-ngos-attacked-in-trinco/
IP Address : 222.165.183.230
Country : Sri Lanka
City : Colombo
ISP : Sri Lanka Telecom
Returning Visits 17
Browser : Firefox 1.0.7
Operating System : Windows XP
Resolution : 1024x768
i do not believe spoofer has any connection to morquendi for now.
anonymous
if you cannot find friends offline, don't hope to find them online.
Morq Morq he's my man!
If he can't do it no one can!
And god, you can take those bolts of whatnot and shove them up your nether orifice!
spoofer added 4 comments under sittingnut and keshi from 11.30am to 2.00pm as such they were deleted . i will not repost them as they are without even the content of the comment i reposted above.
logs show that same person added the comments above written under Morquendi , Pada Show/Morquendi , GOD
here are his details
referring link: http://moju.lk/2006/05/25/mia-banned-in-the-usa/
ip Address: 220.247.229.208
country: sri lanka
City: Colombo
isp: adsl section-dynamic pool
browser: firefox 1.0
operating system: windows xp
resolution: 1024x768
i no longer doubt that the comments were written by morquendi
in this regard see his comment in moju too.
this is typical of morquendi and all other intolerant ngo peaceniks who cannot take criticism without resorting to silly scurrilous insults.
ashanthi:
no i am not joking
thank anyway. :-)
Post a Comment