El Flaco wrote:I am not going to go too much into this because it is obvious that we are approaching things from two distinct points of view. You are attacking my stance with fervor and a poorly informed secular modernist viewpoint that assumes I am some faith driven believer whose mind is warped by an obsession with Jesus and being "born again." I am attacking you with a historical critical method that assumes you are a modernist secular materialist more concerned with doing Mr. Wizardesque installation pieces than reading about cultural histories. It's cool....! But, I saw him do that shit with the dixie cup and the LP. Just saying.
The differences are not minute.

You say I am confused about some lay religious people and their fence straddling viewpoints. Unfortunately for you I am speaking of a Roman Catholic clergyman. In fact he's one of the preeminent paleontologists of the 20th century. He happens to be a Jesuit Priest and a scientist! Can you wrap your head around that?

Science, philosophy, and religion used to be inseparable.

For the record I know you think that religion is responsible for all evils in this world. However, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin both executed their tyranny from the top of governments which professed atheism as the more "enlightened" position. Just think how much more bloody the middle ages would have been without religion.

You obviously are emotionally involved therefore, less likely to be objective. this is evidenced by your inept ad hominems.

re: my installation pieces, perhaps it is a good metaphor, because you miss the point. everybody knows the mechanics of records. that's not what the piece is about. if you look closely, you will see that it's a razor. it destroys the recording and creates a new recording of you. perhaps a little indebted to marclay, but mostly dealing with my own reservations about recording. this isn't some obtuse abstract thing. there are only very identifiable pieces in the work: a one off shellac record, a turntable, and a razor blade with a water cup attached to it. This only indicates that in your interest to attack me, you gloss over the facts to make your point. Yet, you don't make your point at all re: the original thesis.

I don't think religion is responsible for all the evil in the world. religion to me is the exploitation of fear by espousing largely humanistic ideals that any decent person can identify with. Are you being ironic with your Hitler example? Is that just the boogieman you bring out to try to win an argument? For your information, Hitler was a lay christian who used religion as way to foment hatred for the jewish population.

re: your paleontologist, in the religious world, he's a heretic. If it was the middle ages, he'd probably be stoned to death.

Madlee, I must apologize for evoking your installation piece in a two line reference. Based on the majority of your last response apparently I have struck a chord.

Still you have dodged my original point. I still assert that your equation in regards to Judaism, Islam, and Christianity is a misinformed generalization which adds nothing to the discussion at hand. In fact it actually sucks in anything intelligent around it like a black hole.


Try something like this..............

(Jesus+Judaism) - (the resurrection) + (Mohammad + above average beard growth) - reason= Islam after the middle ages.

Feel free to revise, it is just a theory.

I don't won't to argue. Especially when you are talking about apples and I am talking about raspberry jam spread generously over a Thomas' English Muffin.

Hit me back B!

El Flaco wrote:Madlee, I must apologize for evoking your installation piece in a two line reference. Based on the majority of your last response apparently I have struck a chord.

Not really, but felt like it was a good example of you missing the point. How's this for a comparison? I was defending something that I can prove exists. You are defending something that you can't: god.

El Flaco wrote:Still you have dodged my original point. I still assert that your equation in regards to Judaism, Islam, and Christianity is a misinformed generalization which adds nothing to the discussion at hand. In fact it actually sucks in anything intelligent around it like a black hole.


Try something like this..............

(Jesus+Judaism) - (the resurrection) + (Mohammad + above average beard growth) - reason= Islam after the middle ages.

Feel free to revise, it is just a theory.

I don't won't to argue. Especially when you are talking about apples and I am talking about raspberry jam spread generously over a Thomas' English Muffin.

Hit me back B!

if it wasn't for the muslims, your little christianity wouldn't have aristotle and plato.

it's funny how christians want to take credit for the renaissance/. if anything it happened in spite of you.

answer this question: do all the abrahamic religions worship the same god?

It's funny. Perhaps you are just Matthew born again. Perhaps I should go read that other thread and realize that you can't reason with someone who is unreasonable.

madlee wrote:

El Flaco wrote:Madlee, I must apologize for evoking your installation piece in a two line reference. Based on the majority of your last response apparently I have struck a chord.

Not really, but felt like it was a good example of you missing the point. How's this for a comparison? I was defending something that I can prove exists. You are defending something that you can't: god.

El Flaco wrote:Still you have dodged my original point. I still assert that your equation in regards to Judaism, Islam, and Christianity is a misinformed generalization which adds nothing to the discussion at hand. In fact it actually sucks in anything intelligent around it like a black hole.


Try something like this..............

(Jesus+Judaism) - (the resurrection) + (Mohammad + above average beard growth) - reason= Islam after the middle ages.

Feel free to revise, it is just a theory.

I don't won't to argue. Especially when you are talking about apples and I am talking about raspberry jam spread generously over a Thomas' English Muffin.

Hit me back B!

if it wasn't for the muslims, your little christianity wouldn't have aristotle and plato.

it's funny how christians want to take credit for the renaissance/. if anything it happened in spite of you.

answer this question: do all the abrahamic religions worship the same god?

It's funny. Perhaps you are just Matthew born again. Perhaps I should go read that other thread and realize that you can't reason with someone who is unreasonable.

based on your further dodging of my probe into your flawed equation, I will take that as a surrender. your baseless generalization cannot be defended. you have had every opportunity to validate it but, each time you go off subject and make more baseless statements which magnify your status as a mental midget on the subject.

you asked a question and here is your answer. technically speaking all three do worship the same God. is that your defense for this whole thing?

in responding to me you have said "your little Christianity," or "in spite of you." what the fuck are you talking about? seriously, what the fuck are you talking about? do I sound like a Christian at this point?

your arrogance on this subject is so clearly biased it makes me want to piss myself with joy. yet you are throwing judgment towards my stance based on a preconceived notion.

the whole time I have been discussing this with a historical critical viewpoint while your cooch has been aching like a fundamentalist that just
heard I was pro-choice.

if you have read enough to know that Muslim scholars handed the majority of Aristotle and Plato's work to Christian scholars on a silver platter you should know that Jews, Christians and Muslims are not the same. I was actually impressed you knew this.

please re-read our earlier exchanges and try a little harder.

Matthew???? come on bitch, if I was going to be anyone from the New Testament I'd go for Judas. Iscariot not Thomas.

hit me back killa!

El Flaco wrote:come on bitch, if I was going to be anyone from the New Testament I'd go for Judas. Iscariot not Thomas.

That is very funny!

madlee wrote:if it wasn't for the muslims, your little christianity wouldn't have aristotle and plato.

it's funny how christians want to take credit for the renaissance/. if anything it happened in spite of you.

"Cultural chauvinists may find it awkward to recall that Europe depended on Muslim and Jewish scholars for the recovery of its classical heritage. But for many modernists, an even more acute source of embarrassment is the leading role played in this drama of discovery by the Roman Catholic Church." - Aristotle's Children by Richard E. Rubenstein


Maybe since you are such an expert on the renaissance we should start a separate thread so there is a place where you can shine.

El Flaco wrote:based on your further dodging of my probe into your flawed equation, I will take that as a surrender. your baseless generalization cannot be defended. you have had every opportunity to validate it but, each time you go off subject and make more baseless statements which magnify your status as a mental midget on the subject.

wha? is this your strategy in debate? not actually debate and just claim victory?

based on your continued obfuscation, and complete refusal to discuss the subject in an intellectual way, compounded by your constant ad hominems, I will perhaps take a page out of your book and call your position untenable and declare victory. I win. Hmm... feels odd, but perhaps with practice I will get used to it? it that how it works?

El Flaco wrote:you asked a question and here is your answer. technically speaking all three do worship the same God. is that your defense for this whole thing?

So you are saying the whole purpose of each and every little denomination is not that they worship god, but that they worship god differently?

what is this? fucking dr. seuss sneetches?

El Flaco wrote:in responding to me you have said "your little Christianity," or "in spite of you." what the fuck are you talking about? seriously, what the fuck are you talking about? do I sound like a Christian at this point?

why because you use naughty words? do christians not use naughty words?

I assumed you were christian, because of the way you reacted, taking everything personally, and being hysterical. Your transition from hostile to jokey betrays your personal investment.

El Flaco wrote:your arrogance on this subject is so clearly biased it makes me want to piss myself with joy. yet you are throwing judgment towards my stance based on a preconceived notion.

arrogance is biased? I know a person can be arrogant and a person can be biased, but can their arrogance be biased? I guess by calling my position biased, implies that yours is not.

El Flaco wrote:the whole time I have been discussing this with a historical critical viewpoint while your cooch has been aching like a fundamentalist that just heard I was pro-choice.

again, you claim to do what you have not done, and then make a personal attack. then you make some completely unrelated comparison that I can not comprehend.

El Flaco wrote:if you have read enough to know that Muslim scholars handed the majority of Aristotle and Plato's work to Christian scholars on a silver platter you should know that Jews, Christians and Muslims are not the same. I was actually impressed you knew this.

again, you try to make points that don't make sense. why would anyone who knew about avicenna and averroes therefore not believe this other thing? what? I'm not impressed.

El Flaco wrote:please re-read our earlier exchanges and try a little harder.

The problem isn't the cogency of your position. it's the person you are debating. this is the lamest, most pathetic last gasp attempt in a failing position. You've already resorted to ad hominems, your obvious hostility cloaked with jokey humor and now this: strike three.

El Flaco wrote:Matthew???? come on bitch, if I was going to be anyone from the New Testament I'd go for Judas. Iscariot not Thomas. hit me back killa!

see above reference to "hostility cloaked with jokey humor."

El Flaco wrote:"Cultural chauvinists may find it awkward to recall that Europe depended on Muslim and Jewish scholars for the recovery of its classical heritage. But for many modernists, an even more acute source of embarrassment is the leading role played in this drama of discovery by the Roman Catholic Church." - Aristotle's Children by Richard E. Rubenstein


Maybe since you are such an expert on the renaissance we should start a separate thread so there is a place where you can shine.

I don't know anything about Rubenstein, and perhaps he can back up that quote, but I don't know how the Roman Catholic church had much to do with it. If you've got some proof, by all means share it.

Please stop with the sarcasm and other cheap stuff. If your position isn't strong enough without it, perhaps you should reconsider it.

Don't waste my time.

Madlee, I have hardly relied on sarcasm and "cheap stuff" through the course of our exchanges. I have almost to the point of redundancy maintained the same position and defended it. Which is that (Jews=Christians=Muslims) does not work in a discussion based on worldwide current affairs. No adherents of these faiths would agree with your equation and neither would scholars.


Twice you have thrown " ad hominem " my way. My personal attacks have been limited, in jest, and not relied upon to move my arguments forward.


I have hardly reacted to your rebuttals in a manner which would expose me as an offended Christian. If anyone has reacted in a personal manner it has been you.

If what I have said in regards to your equation gets you all hot in the collar than the secular modernists are lucky to have such a brash cavalier on their side. I just wish you could have focused more on the issue and less on me. You have continually "attacked the man."


Among all your personal rants you asked one question. "do they all worship the same God?" I said yes. Is that where the argument begins and ends for you? Is your belief that Jews=Christians=Muslims rooted in that answer?

As for the Roman Catholic contribution to the Renaissance one needs to do little more than a simple survey of art, music, and scholastic achievement during this period. The fact that there was much in house turmoil and conflict does not undermine the work of not a few heavyweights. If you have hostilities towards the Church I can understand that. But it needs to be stated that iniquities perpetrated by the Church are not a result of it's members being Christian. It is a result of them being human beings. Humans are fucked up. I think everyone can agree with that. Add absolute power to the mix and you get abuse of all flavors.


Technically speaking all time spent on the internet is a waste of time.

correction...........wasted time well spent.