|
Post by lonelocust on Oct 25, 2009 7:17:08 GMT -5
You know, it somehow JUST occurred to me that in the same post where Nautical got his wife's age wrong (allegedly), he claimed she knew nothing at all about his ministry, had never had any interest in it, and couldn't possibly know what he thought she should expect.
And yet she was the entire source of information for the famous leviathan incident.
He listed the "water of life" incident as happening "a week ago" form when he posted the message, but the original Leviathan post was made in January, with the time listed as "four months or more ago".
I can't believe I missed that glaring hole before. (That's what my prom date said!)
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Oct 25, 2009 6:47:30 GMT -5
"I think this is stupid" has never in my experience been a de facto definition of spam. But I'm sure we're all entitled to our opinions.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Oct 25, 2009 6:42:28 GMT -5
Ehr, now that I've read your response, I'm not going to reply there to feed the troll but... Hinduism in ALL it's forms is NOT about dharma in relation to reincarnation (though that's more prevalent than strict theism), nor does it in all its forms believe in Brahma nor the additional gods/goddesses and aspects of Brahma. The more prevalent forms do, but not ALL forms. I am not familiar with any strict materialism in Hindu thought (though the wikipedia article references such, I am not personally read on their reference), strict materialism and atheism are not actually the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Oct 25, 2009 6:36:56 GMT -5
Well, there is this whole concept in Hinduism of nastika, where... Well, it's complicated. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_HinduismHinduism isn't really one cohesive unit, and there are atheistic branches of Hinduism. Not that I'm suggesting your fundie there knew anything about that, but it's an interesting point.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Oct 25, 2009 1:13:33 GMT -5
I generally use "spam" to assume it's advertising in some way, even if not commercially. Trying to get you to follow a link, take a survey, click on your dragon baby egg or whatever. I'd call "faggots burn in hell" trolling but not spamming. But both terms have sort of meandered around.
Hitchens is another famous atheist debater, and sort of a douche, and way more aggro than Dawkins.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Oct 24, 2009 19:57:56 GMT -5
What's white and falls from the sky? The Coming of the Lord. Imaginary exalts for the both of you. Also, Jesus should see a specialist if he's having that much trouble. Oh, I don't know if it's "trouble" to be a one-man holy bukake.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Oct 24, 2009 19:56:14 GMT -5
Looks like a clear case of dermatographism to me. Now I wouldn't be surprised if the parents actually thought it was a miracle, like if one of them casually "wrote" a verse with their finger and then it popped up. But yeah.
I luckily did not know anyone who bought the whole human heart miracle thing. Or at least, I didn't hear anyone I know express that they thought it was legit.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Oct 24, 2009 19:53:43 GMT -5
Uhm, how exactly is that in any way SPAM? It is not advertising anything, making it not, you know, Special Purpose Advertising Mail. I am completely baffled. Maybe move it to General board of FSTDT Lounge (I've never been able to figure out the difference in the two topic-wise) if it's off topic?
...
I think I'd go with Cameron/Comfort because they're younger. However, I think Hitchens is sort of a big dude, but I'm not sure. I'd need some stats before I placed my bets. And Cameron and Comfort are sort of inept, so their dirty fighting might do no good.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Oct 23, 2009 21:27:51 GMT -5
The swine flu demons (or maybe the demons I caught communicably after the swine flu demons were mostly done) have caused me to get sick again and crash out as soon as I got home and not wake up much since. But I have awoken just long enough from the sweet demons of NyQuil to tell you I'm sick to avoid the rudeness of standing you up.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Oct 21, 2009 6:52:26 GMT -5
Blue - I have a strange twist on being a critical thinker even when being asleep. As I mentioned somewhere earlier, usually when I realize that I'm dreaming it causes me to wake up, which makes me sad as it would be cool to be able to lucid dream more thoroughly. However, sometimes in dreams things are presented to me, and they seem really cool. Then when I delve in to understand them, I realize they actually don't make logical sense or don't have details filled in, which alerts me that I am dreaming, and then again, I wake up.
I occasionally get partially-lucid dreams where I don't actually wake up. I realize I'm dreaming, and can control the me character in the dream, but not the surroundings, other people, etc. That may actually be more fun since it's like a game, but I've never been able to have my own sandbox, which I think would be really neat.
I'm also always interested in the different ways people fly in dreams. Flying dreams are essentially universal, but I've heard so many people have different ways they do it. For me, I always just suddenly "figure out" how to fly, and it's actually more of gliding. I always spread my arms, sort of jump and catch a current, and I can move my body position to get a current and go higher or whatever. And each time I'm always "Oh, THAT'S how it works. I got it this time." Sometimes I even am aware that this happens in dreams, but I always think this is waking life, and I've finally REALLY figured out that thing from dreams.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Oct 20, 2009 10:51:03 GMT -5
I'm not saying it's more admirable or less pathetic, only that I wouldn't assume there's actually a string to follow back to a more straightforward huckster.
Though it could be his dad.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Oct 20, 2009 10:26:43 GMT -5
I am mostly in agreement with you jodie. However, I do think there is an ego-feeding aspect with Nautical. I think he mostly believes what he says, unlike the similar exorcist that Bezron encountered as a child, but he has made some purposefully-misleading statements. (Amongst other reasons, he's not directly tied to a church.) I suspect that when he knowingly prevaricates, he is being a pious fraud (that is, he thinks the OVERALL message he's carrying is true, so if a little lie here and there convinces people of the larger truth, then it's justified). I suspect some people who do more directly end up richer from such activities have a pious fraudster outlook on it, as part of how they justify it to themselves (though certainly there are some straight-up cons who are completely aware that they're doing nothing but fleecing people). Just to be totally clear, it was less of an encounter and more of a "Here, let me show you how to do this. Oh, you're smart enough to question, then let us show you how it REALLY works." Also, I was in my late teens, and it lasted for a couple of years before I got really sickened by them. Nautical may not be directly tied to a specific church, but he does freely admit to being a pentecostal. Most likely, he is Assemblies of God, or at least started out as Assemblies. He did, however, have to learn the tricks of the trade somewhere. Regardless of all else, he isn't the main con-man (the one gaining physical or monetary benefit), he's the rube at best. I argue that, since rubes exist, rubes can create rubes can create rubes. I don't doubt there are straight-up cons going on, but people like Nautical can convince other people like Nautical, and people like the kid in the video I posted, etc., and you can end up with people doing it for the belief + ego gratification of it all. I can't say for certain there's no direct line back to a man with a white suit and a caddy, but I don't feel confident that there *is* such a line as well. The thing can perpetuate itself, especially since tangible gratification isn't the only game in town. All the things that draw people to ALL SORTS of fundamentalism can apply here. And that's leaving out the effects of mental illness.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Oct 20, 2009 4:28:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Oct 20, 2009 3:53:00 GMT -5
Ok while against the rules that objectivity is not allowed, examine the Himalayan Nation of Bhutan. A purely bhuddist country, not a Christian in sight, therefore according to the Captain, they must all be grave sinners with a one way ticket to hell. Yet there's is considered to be the happiest nation on earth. Indeed they even measure Gross National Happiness. Compare this nation of happy go lucky bhuddist scamps to our Captain who sails with Jesus as his first mate and tiller, who has abandonment issues, no plumbing license and has had a holiday at one of her majesties finest hotels (ok probably one of Illinois') whose wife has left, and not before scampering around with someone else, I would say it's no contest the Bhutanese are better off. And he has already in this thread said that this is because Satan doesn't bother to attack non-Christians because he has no need to try to get them to abandon god (or whatever). It's another example of the non-disproveability. If you're not going through a bunch of bullshit and you don't have god, it's because Satan has no reason to try to torment you. If you're not oing through a bunch of bullshit and you do have god, it's because you have god there to protect you. Reverse the situations, then reverse the rational. Don't have god and are going through shit, it's because Jesus isn't protecting you. Do have god and are going through shit, satan is targeting you because you have god.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Oct 20, 2009 0:13:43 GMT -5
Also if sin causes disabilities or ill-health then presumably the corollary is true that a person who sins regularly and often should have poor health. However this is demonstrably not true. Anecdotally I am evidence against that. Apart from not killing, I break most of the 10 commandments regularly, I wear clothes with two types of fabric, I eat mixed types of meat(mmm fillett Mignon or things wrapped in bacon) don't get me started on shellfish, I commit venial sins and onanism (lots of that). I rarely turn the other cheek, I earn interest, speculate and gamble (usury) etc and many more ... and yet I enjoy very good health and have a life that I am personally quite happy with. But according to Nautical I should be infested with demons who should make my life suck balls, which it doesn't. I am sure there are many other people who you could name who were deeply vested in Sin and enjoyed good health and good times. Objective evidence, or listening to what people have to say about themselves, is not allowed. If you think you're happy, it's just false happiness. If you say you think you're happy, you're just lying (to yourself and others) because you want to keep sinning (even though it doesn't make you happy). If you say you experienced some crap in you're life but you're over it, you're really just bottling it up. If you're ACTUALLY not having anything bad happen to you, it's because Satan has no reason to attack you since you're already going to hell. If you're already going to hell AND experiencing bad things happen to you, it's because you haven't given your life to Christ. Fundamentalism creates nondisprovabilities for itself. True Christians(tm) that experience bad things are being attacked by Satan to try to break them down because they DO have Jeebus. Non-Christians that experience bad things are vulnerable because they do NOT have Jeebus. Any possible effect can be explained by alternating causes that allow the belief to continue. Combine this with Nautical's need to fee his ego being the ONLY one that can do this right - including other evangelicals, other evangelical exorcists, other Pentacostals, etc. - and there's no such thing as possible evidence against a worldview. This is related to the way in which fundamentalism creates no-win situations for its followers. God never fails, so if your life is failing, you just haven't given it over to God ENOUGH. Yet you can also take no credit for your accomplishments, because only God is good.
|
|