Friday, October 23, 2009
|
|
So what does it mean if pollsters on opposite ends of the spectrum agree?
|
|
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough at
6:47 PM
|
 HUCKABEE Please show me how Public Policy Polling and Rasmussen can both come to the same conclusion unless there is a legit validity to what they are asking about. I've long lauded the Rasmussen polls as the most accurate. They have more sophistication, better methods, and deeper/more well balanced penetration into the masses. Last week they had Huck up 29% to Romney at 24% and Palin at 18%.Tonight PPP puts Huck within the margin of error against OBAMA. This is the seventh time PPP has taken this poll. It is the seventh straight time Huckabee has polled closest to Obama. In a brief stop-over into the Ed Morrissey chat room at HotAir today, Duane Patterson and other chatters denounced Huck as irrelevant. I was the first person to tell you that Huckabee will be the nominee for the GOP and I told it to you months ago. I might add that I was the first person to tell you Obama would be President, predicting that would happen in December of 2006. Huckabee has done several things right since 2008, and made very few mistakes. His commentary on Fox is the textbook definition of "statesman." His ratings hit on Fox News Channel has made him the most watched cable news show every weekend. His willingness to bring liberals on his show and debate them sometimes two to four liberals against himself shows tremendous stamina and strength. His sense of humor and his ability to finally brand his positions for himself, (and not through the lens of slime in Camp Romney that distorted his positions, fed them to NRO--who then repeated them without question,) are all playing to his strength. He also didn't implement a mandatory Health Care System in his state that allows for $50 abortions. I know Hugh Hewitt opposes the Fair Tax message, but it is a less discriminatory tax than the present system. And in opposition to Obama arrogance, Huck's greatest strength--humility will be a winsome combination. Duane and others all laughed at me when I told them Barack Obama would be President. They are laughing at me again now. But maybe I know "we the people" a little bit better than they do. And all the signals I see developing point to an anti-tax candidate doing best. Huck is that candidate at present, and he's even better on other dozens of positions he's staked out on his television show. Keep underestimating him people. Keep believing all the "smart people." I put my faith in the ability of the American people... Track KMC 24/7 
|
|
I don't watch TV anymore so I havn't seen him on fox. I do remember he left a bad taste in 2008.
I'm not really interested in the old guard but we will see how things go. |
|
|
continues to gain and is antidote to a country sick with obama . |
|
http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html
Where it says "Top Videos By Section" (middle of the page), click on "Shows", then scroll down and click "Huckabee".
|
|
Geezus, can you people find a candidate who isn't nuts?
YOu got Romney, who thinks that he's wearing magic underpants and that he's going to be a God in his own personal planet in the next life.
You got Huckabee, who apparenlty fully believes in the talking snake theory of creation... Hey, Mikey, what about them fossils?
You got Sarah Palin, who got a blessing from a witch hunter in her church. Insert your own joke.
You got Bobby "How may I provide you excellent Customer Service" Jindal who once performed an excorcism on a college girlfriend. That's right. An Exorcism. Apparently the the Devil likes to hang out inside college girls. He's there for the parties.
Guys, the Europeans are laughing at us. And they should be. |
|
|
axinine the baby killing gay nazi thinks Huckabee is crazy? now thats funny. |
|
Mike Huckabee is Craaaaaaazy -- like a FOX! Yes, the Eupoprans are laughing at us but it's because we were ignorant enough to vote for a 'black' man with an intense hatred for 'white' America. It is cyrstal clear (unlike the transparency he promised) that he has a chip on his shoulder because of being an oreo, (a phrase not created by me) and is nothing more than a fake, phony puppet created by an evil, shadow government, and wants to get even with whitey by destroying us. Now, I guess you would be too thick headed to see that Huckabee is totally real and what you see is what you get. No MUDDY transparency there!
The reason you hate Huck is because you are jealous that he might beat out your black, whitey-hating Messiah. |
|
Who cares what the Europeans think? We laugh at them all the time. And soon they will be Allah's.
I assume from your remarks that you'd prefer an atheist for president. You know, one of those kooks who believes such hoo-haw as that life accdidentally arose from non-life, that consciousness arose from non-consciousness, and that somehow human life has meaning though the universe does not.
I want someone more intelligent than that to be president.
As for the three candidates mentioned above, my gut feeling is that the GOP pick will be Romney, unless someone more attractive gets into the race, Huck's current number notwithstanding. |
|
|
Your comments get more retarded all the time. Stop eating the paint chips.... or at least don't waste my valuable time until you can make an intelligent argument. |
|
"CarefulwithAXE
(Redacted one of Ronna's crazy racist rants... do you ever get the feeling she secretly wants to be pleasured by a black man?)
The reason you hate Huck is because you are jealous that he might beat out your black, whitey-hating Messiah."
Me- You still don't get it do you? The REAL MASTERS of the GOP will never tolerate Huckabee as the nominee. The problem with you Funditards is you think you really run the show. You don't. Oh, they'll put up some character like George W. Stupid who can say "GEEEE-ZUS" with conviction. BUt the people really running the show would be someone like Darth Cheney making sure they hold you down so their corporate masters can screw you.
My last boss, the slimebag, was a Romney supporter. You know, the kind of guy who thinks the purpose of government is to make it easier to employers to screw their employees. He said if Huckabee were the nominee, he'd vote Democratic.
Bottom line, if Huckabee starts doing well, they will do what they did in 2008, gather behind the strongest alternative, even if it means certain defeat. How do you think McCain went from life-support to being the nominee? Can't blame the Democrats for that one. They were all voting in their own primaries. Huckabee threatened them with his support of social programs and fair tax schemes.
|
|
C -Who cares what the Europeans think? We laugh at them all the time. And soon they will be Allah's.
Me- Unlikely. That's like saying America will soon be Paco's. There are more hispanics living in the US (15%) than Muslims in France (6%) the UK (2%) Germany (5%) or even Spain (1%). In fact, the entire islamic population of Europe is only 5%, but that is because muslim populations in the Balkans throw off the figure.
C - I assume from your remarks that you'd prefer an atheist for president. You know, one of those kooks who believes such hoo-haw as that life accdidentally arose from non-life, that consciousness arose from non-consciousness, and that somehow human life has meaning though the universe does not.I want someone more intelligent than that to be president.
Me- No, you want someone who believes in talking snakes, unicorns, satyrs, dragons and sea monsters... (All of which are in the Bible) living on a flat earth with the sun revolving around it. In short, ignore all the science because it disputes your fairy tales.
C- As for the three candidates mentioned above, my gut feeling is that the GOP pick will be Romney, unless someone more attractive gets into the race, Huck's current number notwithstanding.
Me- actually, I mentioned FOUR candidates, not three. Obviously, not only do you have a problem with science, but MATH seems to elude you as well.
As a sidebar, though, the Republicans have got a REAL problem with 2012. Obama will be unchallenged for the Democratic nomination. That means you are going to have a LOT of Democrats who can vote in the Republican primary. Think of "Operation Chaos" in reverse. |
|
[[C - I assume from your remarks that you'd prefer an atheist for president. You know, one of those kooks who believes such hoo-haw as that life accdidentally arose from non-life, that consciousness arose from non-consciousness, and that somehow human life has meaning though the universe does not.I want someone more intelligent than that to be president.
Me- No, you want someone who believes in talking snakes, unicorns, satyrs, dragons and sea monsters... (All of which are in the Bible) living on a flat earth with the sun revolving around it. In short, ignore all the science because it disputes your fairy tales.]]
My portrait of you is far, far more accurate than your portrait of us.
And what's more, I think you know it. |
|
I believe in estabished science.
You believe in religious fairy tales.
My belief comes with PROOF. Museums full of it, and thousands of people studying it...
All you have are fairy tales.
The Bible has been totally discredited by a host of sciences... |
|
|
|
By the time 2012 rolls around, a national health care program is going to be in place and everyone is going to be either happy with it or resigned to it. If anything, Romney would be helped because he came up with one first.
But what no one is looking at, what will be the effect of some 10 million Democratic primary voters who might vote in Republican primaries. If Obama is unchallenged in Democratic primaries, and a lot of states don't have real contests on the undercard of the ballot, there's going to be a lot of Democrats who might try to influence the GOP nomination process.
Let's keep in mind, Super Tuesday Blue states put McCain over the top, where Moderate REpublican held sway. Few Dems voted in the 2008 GOP primaries because they had their own heated contest. (And while only some 18 million voted in GOP primaries, 40 million voted in the Hillary-Obama follies.)
That's why I think you shouldn't cound Pawlenty out. He's a moderate, sensible guy who doesn't believe in the Talking Snake version of the universe. |
|
[[I believe in estabished science.]]
Rather, you're relying on dubious epistemological methodolgy. For instance, some science is more "established" than other science. And what's more, science does not adjudicate all philosophical questions. You got your wires crossed in a big way, boy.
And when it comes to the origin of life, you rely more on speculation than anything else
[[You believe in religious fairy tales.]]
There are no fairies involved in my religion.
[[The Bible has been totally discredited by a host of sciences...]]
Which only means that you're an ignoramus on the matter.
I believe I've told you before: get thee to a library.
And stay away from O'Hair's books. |
|
"Obviously, not only do you have a problem with science, but MATH seems to elude you as well."
I was referring to Kevin's articles, not yours, which mentions three. Try to understand that you and your comments aren't the center of attention here.
Hope that clears it up for you. |
|
"By the time 2012 rolls around, a national health care program is going to be in place and everyone is going to be either happy with it or resigned to it. If anything, Romney would be helped because he came up with one first."
Except, he won't, because, as Mittcare in Mass has shown us, government run, mandated, controlled health care is expensive, maddening, and of poor quality. If a national health care system is set up, it will have the same disastrous qualities as Mittcare, only on a national scale.
The problem with government health care is the same as with government intervention in any sphere; it puts decision-making in the hands of a third party who is unaffected by the outcome of his decision. It's the philosophy that a disinterested third party can somehow see things more clearly than the parties of the first and second part, who have a direct interest in the outcome of a trade.
25 states have closed primaries, while 17 have open primaries. http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1801 The rest have varying rules for primary elections. So not all 10 million Democrats will be able to vote in the Republican Primaries. Whether a voting Democrat will declare his party as Republican in a closed primary in order to "mess up" the Republican primary will depend on if there are any important Democrat Congressional or Senate primaries in which he wants a say.
In SC in '08, if F. Thompson hadn't woken up long enough to take a couple of cheap shots at Huckabee, and steal some of the voters that might have gone for Huck, then McCain wouldn't have won SC, and dropped out (it was reported that he decided a SC loss would mean his withdrawal), and the primaries would have become a Huckabee-Romney fight, which is what it should have been all along. |
|
|
|
ever offered proof that Jesus is not our Lord and God?
our evidence is His sacrificial death, Resurrection and Ascension, not to mention His multiple miracles, including bringing the dead back to life, the sucess of His organization He founded nearly 2000 years ago, the survival of the people of Abraham (as promised by almighty God), and the sanctity of His followers through the centuries, i.e. Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Maximilian Kolbe, to mention only a very few.
what does the hack have to offer, everything was created from nothing. whoa, jump on the wagon to believe THAT. |
|
|
It's a difficult prospect to try to convince people to trade everlasting joy and fulfillment for a sense of smug superiority. |
|
"has gene the hack ever offered proof that Jesus is not our Lord and God?"
Me- Why should I have to? Shouldn't it be incumbant on you to prove he is, or for that matter, he even existed and wasn't just made up by 1st century gnostics?
E- our evidence is His sacrificial death, Resurrection and Ascension, not to mention His multiple miracles, including bringing the dead back to life,
Me- And I could list a whole bunch of other figures - Mithras, Tammuz, Dionysis, Appolodorus - who had similar miracles attributed to them.
E-the sucess of His organization He founded nearly 2000 years ago, the survival of the people of Abraham (as promised by almighty God),
Me- Actually, by that logic, since there are more Muslims than any sect of Christians, wouldn't it be fair to argue the MUSLIMS are the realization of God's promises to Abraham. (You know, the guy who was willing to kill his own son for his sky pixie.)
E- and the sanctity of His followers through the centuries, i.e. Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Maximilian Kolbe, to mention only a very few.
Me-Oh, yeah. Mother Teresa. The old hag who let poor people die on the floor of her filthy hospital while she flew off to hosptials in california when she got sick.
E- what does the hack have to offer, everything was created from nothing. whoa, jump on the wagon to believe THAT.
Me- Actually, the "everything was created from nothing" is your view. Science sees the relatinoship between matter and energy and life.
|
|
Cav-Except, he won't, because, as Mittcare in Mass has shown us, government run, mandated, controlled health care is expensive, maddening, and of poor quality. If a national health care system is set up, it will have the same disastrous qualities as Mittcare, only on a national scale.
Me- Actually, polls show that most residents of MA are happy with RomneyCare. In fact, the only guy disowning it is old Magic Underpants.
Cav- The problem with government health care is the same as with government intervention in any sphere; it puts decision-making in the hands of a third party who is unaffected by the outcome of his decision.
Me- But how is that different than an insurance company? Worse, an insurance company ONLY makes money by NOT paying out. So they have a high incentive to deny claims, even to the desperately sick.
Cav-It's the philosophy that a disinterested third party can somehow see things more clearly than the parties of the first and second part, who have a direct interest in the outcome of a trade.
Me- But you see, that's the problem! Insurance is based on the notion of selling you an umbrellas when it's sunny and taking it back when it's raining! A government program, on the other hand, is based on providing satisfaction. that's how these guys get re-elected.
|
|
Cav- 25 states have closed primaries, while 17 have open primaries. http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1801 The rest have varying rules for primary elections. So not all 10 million Democrats will be able to vote in the Republican Primaries.
Me- True enough. But enough will probably get into the mix to screw with it...
Cav- In SC in '08, if F. Thompson hadn't woken up long enough to take a couple of cheap shots at Huckabee, and steal some of the voters that might have gone for Huck, then McCain wouldn't have won SC, and dropped out (it was reported that he decided a SC loss would mean his withdrawal), and the primaries would have become a Huckabee-Romney fight, which is what it should have been all along.
Me- Balderdash. Here's what I keep telling you religious nutters that you never want to accept. (Okay, maybe if I didn't call you nutters, you might listen.) You aren't running the show. The people who REALLY run the GOP, the ones who tell Rush Limbaugh what to say, will NEVER tolerate Huckabee. He's not praying at the altar of greed like they do!
Let's look at 2008 from another perspective. Rudy G- Pro-abortion, pro-gay, anti-gun, divorced twice, married thrice. His kids hated him. Hardly a poster boy for Godly family values, right? Rush didn't say BOO about this guy. And for a while there, he was the frontrunner.
But along comes Huck, which I'll admit, Pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, married to the same woman for 26 years. BUt he supports taxes and government programs. Well, Rush hit the guy with everything he had, and even broke his own rule about staying neutral in primaries by supporting Magic Underpants.
You guys have been being led along for years. The people who REALLY run the GOP don't care about your issues. |
|
"Rather, you're relying on dubious epistemological methodolgy. For instance, some science is more "established" than other science. And what's more, science does not adjudicate all philosophical questions. You got your wires crossed in a big way, boy."
Me- Not really. The science is pretty solid, actually. We have fossils. We win!
"There are no fairies involved in my religion."
Me- Oh, so you're NOT Catholic?
Seriously, though, the bible contains unicorns, satyrs, dragons, sea monsters, giants, a guy living inside a fish for three days, talking snakes, talking donkeys, and all sorts of fanciful creatures that don't exist today and aren't supported by fossils.
Why don't you ever address that issue? Did these creatures exist? If so, why haven't we found any evidence of them archeologically? We do know that there were dinosaurs. We do know there were Neanderthals and cavemen...
|
|
[["Rather, you're relying on dubious epistemological methodolgy. For instance, some science is more "established" than other science. And what's more, science does not adjudicate all philosophical questions. You got your wires crossed in a big way, boy."
Me- Not really. The science is pretty solid, actually. We have fossils. We win!]]
Heh-heh. Yes. Explain to us all how the presence of fossils in the geological record speaks to th question of whether or not God exists. Or to the question of philosophical idealism vs. philosophical realism, for that matter. Or to the question of whether you should have a salad or sandwich for lunch, and if determinism or free will underlies your choice.
Like I said, science does not adjudicate anything other than empirical issues. Check you dictionary for the meaning of the big words above.
[["There are no fairies involved in my religion."
Me- Oh, so you're NOT Catholic?]]
Depends on what you mean by "Catholic" and "fairies", I suppose.
[[Seriously, though, the bible contains unicorns, satyrs, dragons, sea monsters, giants, a guy living inside a fish for three days, talking snakes, talking donkeys, and all sorts of fanciful creatures that don't exist today and aren't supported by fossils.]]
Well, you're only partly right there on what the Bible contains, but once again, the existence of fossils has no bearing on whether or not these biblical issues reveal truth (and if they do, according to which literary genre).
Forgive me for saying so, but you really are a doofus when it comes to this issue. |
|
Heh-heh. Yes. Explain to us all how the presence of fossils in the geological record speaks to th question of whether or not God exists. Or to the question of philosophical idealism vs. philosophical realism, for that matter. Or to the question of whether you should have a salad or sandwich for lunch, and if determinism or free will underlies your choice.
Like I said, science does not adjudicate anything other than empirical issues. Check you dictionary for the meaning of the big words above.
Me- Uh, no, guy. Your Bible says God made man in his own image. (apparenlty god has a male member even though he has nowhere to actually stick it!) FOSSILS tell us that no, man was the end result of a long evolutionary process... We have fossils. We win that argument!
C- Well, you're only partly right there on what the Bible contains, but once again, the existence of fossils has no bearing on whether or not these biblical issues reveal truth (and if they do, according to which literary genre).
Forgive me for saying so, but you really are a doofus when it comes to this issue.
Me- Uh, no, the Bible contains all the mythical creatures, not to mention zombies and other bizarre monsters. We now know those things don't exist. Even the more mundare parts of the bible aren't really supported by archeology. For instance, there is no evidence the Hebrews ever lived in Egypt. (And the Egyptians were quite meticulous in recording their history.)
|
|
[[Me- Uh, no, guy. Your Bible says God made man in his own image. (apparenlty god has a male member even though he has nowhere to actually stick it!) FOSSILS tell us that no, man was the end result of a long evolutionary process... We have fossils. We win that argument!]]
Re: the Imago Dei - That's got to be one of the funniest things I've heard from an O'Hairite. Like I said: doofus. Re: the fossil record - Perhaps you haven't heard: long evolutionary processes and creation aren't incompatible concepts. But there's still that sticky nonlife-to-life issue for you. See, such an event is, for all intents and purposes, mathematically impossible.
[[Me- Uh, no, the Bible contains all the mythical creatures, not to mention zombies and other bizarre monsters. We now know those things don't exist. Even the more mundare parts of the bible aren't really supported by archeology. For instance, there is no evidence the Hebrews ever lived in Egypt. (And the Egyptians were quite meticulous in recording their history.)]]
Just not all the ones you mentioned. And I note you totally gloss over my comment about biblical genres; because you really are a doofus on the matter, and need to get yourself to a library.
Re: the Jews in Egypt - unless the biblical accounts are themselves to be accepted as evidence. This doesn't mean we have to treat those accounts uncritically, but by the same token we shouldn't accept the "findings" of a handful of skeptical scholars uncritically either. Theories of doubting scholars have come and gone, and you betray your ignorance when you insinuate that archaeology doesn't generally support the historical narratives contained in the Bible, and you should probably take a look at the work of Sir William Ramsey in order to cure your educational deficiency.
Because you really don't want to continue to be a doofus, do you? |
|
It's instructive that you haven't addressed the epistemological issue at alll, even though you've had several chances to do so thus far.
Alas, the sorry intellectual state of a doofus. |
|
Including some info on Ramsay:
http://www.squidoo.com/biblicalarchaeology
|
|
Re: the Jews in Egypt - unless the biblical accounts are themselves to be accepted as evidence. This doesn't mean we have to treat those accounts uncritically, but by the same token we shouldn't accept the "findings" of a handful of skeptical scholars uncritically either. Theories of doubting scholars have come and gone, and you betray your ignorance when you insinuate that archaeology doesn't generally support the historical narratives contained in the Bible, and you should probably take a look at the work of Sir William Ramsey in order to cure your educational deficiency.
Me- I don't put much stock in 19th century scholars, who barely were past the stage of believing the Bible was the be all and end all of knowledge.
And honestly, no, I don't really accept the bible as evidence, largely because it contradicts a much better record from the Egyptians themselves where the Hebrews were entirely absent from any mention.
Keep in mind, according to the bible 600,000 men left Egypt in the Exodus. Now besides the improbability of a group of some 70 people growing into a population of millions in few hundred years, such a large ethnic group within egypt would have left some kind of record. There isn't one, which is telling. |
|
Re: the Imago Dei - That's got to be one of the funniest things I've heard from an O'Hairite. Like I said: doofus. Re: the fossil record - Perhaps you haven't heard: long evolutionary processes and creation aren't incompatible concepts. But there's still that sticky nonlife-to-life issue for you. See, such an event is, for all intents and purposes, mathematically impossible.
Me- Actually, they are COMPLETELY incompatable concepts. It would mean that if we are created in God's image, than God, like us, has a bunch of vestigal organs that serve no purpose, except in that in an evolutionary sense, they were important to our ancestors.
Seriously, why does God need an appendix? Or a tailbone? He didn't evolve from a monkey, did he?
"Intelligent Design" and other psuedo-Science is just an attempt to dodge the fact that science discredits the bible. |
|
Just not all the ones you mentioned. And I note you totally gloss over my comment about biblical genres; because you really are a doofus on the matter, and need to get yourself to a library.
Me- Uh, no, guy- Every monster I mention in the bible is in there.
Satyrs- Isaiah 13:21 "But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there."
Unicorns- Isaiah 34:7 "And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls, and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness."
Giants- Well, David and Goliath, for one. King Og. etc.
Talking Snake- Genesis 3:1
Talking Donkey- Numbers 22.
Guy living inside a fish- Jonah.
Sea Monsters- Isaiah 27:1
Dragon- Book of revelations, Book of Malachi, others.
Well, you get the ideas. These things are MYTHS! Just as much the Hydra and the Chimera. So why should I take the rest of the bible seriously?
|
|
Oh, and one more thing, YouJean
It's instructive that you haven't addressed the epistemological issue at alll, even though you've had several chances to do so thus far.
Alas, the sorry intellectual state of a doofus.
Me- Ah, yes, I looked it up. Epistoemological is greek for b u l l s h i t. Thanks for pointing that out. |
|
as I think I told you once before about you ignorant rants, I refuse to spend a lot of time arguing with someone unless he knows what he's talking about. For instance:
-- Ramsay's findings haven't been controverted.
-- Your sneering reference to an "18th-century" scholar is an instance of the "chronological fallacy" theory. Look it up.
-- The Imago Dei isn't referring to a physical "image and likness".
-- Most ancient historical sources require just as much critical scutiny as does the biblical record. These guys weren't working with modern notions of historiography, you know.
-- Ancient Hebrew being what it is and English translations being what they are, only an ignoramus like you would take "satyr", "unicorn" and "sea monster" for creatures from pagan mythology. ("Satyr", for instance, likely means "goat"). Now, it's true we do have talking snakes and talking a s s e s in the OT, but all the internal evidence points to the fact that these are instances of non-literal genres. Doesn't mean we don't believe in the miraculous, only that these aren't instances of it. One reason we can "take the rest of the Bible seriously" is that, unlike you, we've been educated as to the use of varying literary genres, which the Bible reflects in abundance. |
|
Lastly, the fact that you write off epistemological concerns (e.g., can science truly adjuducate metaphysical issues?) as "b u l l s h i t" means, once again, you're an ignoramus, and in this instance a patently willful ignoramus. And this is again yet another reason why it's pointless to try to reason with you. You are a *philosophical* doofus in addition to a *biblical* one. Plus, anger clearly dulls your intellect.
So, I personally gotta wrap this up. I live in the hills SW of Denver, and therefore need to go dig out before we leave on vacation on Fri. I fully expect you'll come back here flapping your gums in response to my latest, but that's OK: gum flapping is all you have, and everyone here besides your fellow benighted pop-atheists see it. You should stick to subjects you know something about, like the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. But I'm sure you won't.
Rant on, then, and ta, ta. |
|
I always love when Funditards think their nonsense sounds much smarter if they can work in big words.
Okay, guy, instead of saying what word they PROBABLY should have used instead of "satyr", why not go back to the original text and determine what word they ACTUALLY used.
It says in Isaiah "and the Satyrs shall dance in the desert." Goats go around dancing. The word "Goat" is used a lot of time in the Bible.
Another problem with the bible being the "unerring" word of God. The word in the orginal Hebrew was "sa'ir", meaning the “shaggy,” a hairy goat, a he-goat (2 Chr. 29:23); “a goat” (Lev. 4:24); “satyr” (Isa. 13:21); “devils” (Lev. 17:7). It is the goat of the sin-offering (Lev. 9:3, 15; 10:16).
And thus the problem. Every translation of the Bible was done by someone with an agenda. When it was translated into Greek, it was meant to prop up Constantine's empire. When it was translated into Latin, i twas meant establish the authority of the Catholic Church and keep them flowing in nubile altar boys. Oh, yeah, and when it was translated into English by King James, it was meant to justify his break with Rome. |
|
Well, look Eugene I. . .
as I think I told you once before about you ignorant rants, I refuse to spend a lot of time arguing with someone unless he knows what he's talking about.
Me- Right. Not that I thought you'd BE man enough to actually admit you got whupped...
C-For instance:
-- Ramsay's findings haven't been controverted.
-- Your sneering reference to an "18th-century" scholar is an instance of the "chronological fallacy" theory. Look it up.
Me- Boring.... And I referred to him as a 19th century scholar. Get that right, at least. He didn't have the tools we have today.
-- The Imago Dei isn't referring to a physical "image and likness".
Me- Well, I would hope not. But that isn't the point, is it? I would agree with you, though, Man has created God in his own image, and God often comes off as petty, cruel and stupid as the people who invented him.
-- Most ancient historical sources require just as much critical scutiny as does the biblical record. These guys weren't working with modern notions of historiography, you know.
Me- But you see, the Bible record should have NO scrutiny, right? I mean, it's the unerring word of God. That's the point of you funditards. You don't dare question the Bible, even when it's ladeling out BS.
But there is such a lack of evidence for Hebrews being in Egypt that they won't even claim WHEN they were there. Which Pharoah is the Pharoah who had his heart hardened by God? You don't know, Ramsey didn't know. Because it never happened. |
|
Actually, did you hear your satisfaction with MA care on MSNBC? do you live in MA? do you have young adult children struggling to pay for this while waiting months for appointments? do you have young adults with cancer histories waiting for months to find out if they can get the newest treatments only to find it's not covered?
Get real, live in MA before you pass on the fables. |
|
Lastly, the fact that you write off epistemological concerns (e.g., can science truly adjuducate metaphysical issues?) as "b u l l s h i t" means, once again, you're an ignoramus, and in this instance a patently willful ignoramus. And this is again yet another reason why it's pointless to try to reason with you. You are a *philosophical* doofus in addition to a *biblical* one. Plus, anger clearly dulls your intellect.
Me- Sorry, guy, making up BS big words like "metaphysical" or "Paranormal" doesn't make superstition and fantasy any more rational. Science and truth slowly chip away at the BS, so you just come up with more impressive sounding BS. We've been to the clouds, and we know there aren't any sky pixies up there.... We've been to space, and no God there, either.
C- So, I personally gotta wrap this up. I live in the hills SW of Denver, and therefore need to go dig out before we leave on vacation on Fri. I fully expect you'll come back here flapping your gums in response to my latest, but that's OK: gum flapping is all you have, and everyone here besides your fellow benighted pop-atheists see it. You should stick to subjects you know something about, like the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. But I'm sure you won't.
Me- GUy, it's ALL the same problem. Do you think that if the Israelis and Palestinians were all atheists, we'd be having the problems we have? Heck, no. But they believe in the God BS, and kill each other in the belief that God is sitting on his cloud smiling. It's a dangerous delusion, because we don't need to wait for him to end the world, we can do it ourselves, and probably will in "his" name.
|
|
|
|
|
|