Part 1.

<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BNf-P_5u_Hw&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BNf-P_5u_Hw&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>

Part 2.

<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qc-mrJf45Hg&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qc-mrJf45Hg&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>

Part 3.

<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IjAegPhQOUg&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IjAegPhQOUg&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>

HVAC, you are stirring an already boiling pot. On one hand, it can be entertaining to rile people up just to watch them overreact.

On the other hand, with a topic like this among Oklahomans, it's hardly sporting to do so.

How about sticking to a less sensitive topic like gun control or reproductive self-determination?

I've got one: Jesus was neither Ayn Rand's BFF or a John Birch Republican.

In case you are curious, Zeitgeist is a series of movies produced by "Peter Joseph." As far as is known the man has no formal training of any kind in matters of science or archaeology.

His biggest claim to fame is that he is the original 9/11 Truther. Perhaps you caught it at the end of video three above, the little conspiratorial video clip that ends the segment. The absolutely insane video that was flying around the Internet 8 years ago or so that claimed the US government was behind 9/11, and showed "evidence" of it, which by the way all turned out to be utterly false after just a cursory investigation, was produced by Peter Joseph.

Now let's follow the money. Who's paying for the production? Sure if you read the literature this is all being done out of the kindness of Peter Joseph's heart and he's footing the bill. But what is the real story? Well, it turns out he is a part of a group called The Venus Project. They have been going around the country and charging for speaking events where they talk about the Utopian future that we can all be a part of. Their core beliefs is to "apply the scientific method to social change," which starts out sounding okay enough. But then there's this:


9/11 was an 'inside job' by the government of the US to effect certain constraints on our society. The government periodically does this to us to keep us in line. Sometimes it is in the form of religious doctrine, other times world events. There is a grand conspiracy afloat to keep us from reaching our full potential.
Monetary currency is obsolete and designed to oppress. Society should exist without money.
Modern society is a fraud and must be completely reimagined from the ground up.
Modern economics is a fraud. Global debt will eventually crush us. Society is dieing due to the pursuit of money.
Governments and all of society should be driven by an emotionless AI computer system that will make decisions for the common good when it comes to things such as planetary resources, even in matters of life and death. The Venus folks call this the "Earthwide autonomic sensor system."



All hail our computerized overlords. Now ask yourself this question, do you really want to be known as the guy on this board who is constantly pushing the videos of an admittedly Marxist, conspiratorial, 9/11 Truther who envisions perfection as a Matrix-like future? I mean don't you think the guy just might have an axe to grind and may not have researched his piece as well as you would have us all believe?

I mean watching all three videos, and I did watch them, I noticed a few things jump out at me that are factually incorrect. One of them cannot be debated, and that is the fact that the Southern Cross is not visible from the Middle East. You have to get pretty far down into Africa before you can see it. Maybe far southern Egypt. Maybe.

Now sure maybe the argument can be made that much of the myth started in ancient central African religions and eventually migrated into Egyptian culture, but that isn't what the Truther said. In fact I am convinced the thought has not even occurred to the guy who by all accounts doesn't even have a degree.

There are some interesting points brought up by the video, and probably some things in there worthy of real historical or scientific discussion, but I don't think this video is the unbiased starting point for that discussion that you may believe it to be.

I rather enjoy debating things like this, but I hope in the future your sources won't be on their face laughable. For example I don't enjoy debating the Birthers for that very reason (e.g. insane sources). I haven't lumped you in with that crowd yet. But I am starting to see a trend....

HVAC starts some thought-provoking threads but he also starts some that are truly tabliod-type or outright insulting. Sometimes its the way its done. Its like Heraldo Rivera, he does do some educational, informative and interesting reporting but he does enough really bad, low-class stuff to ruin his draw.

I mean watching all three videos, and I did watch them, I noticed a few things jump out at me that are factually incorrect. One of them cannot be debated, and that is the fact that the Southern Cross is not visible from the Middle East. You have to get pretty far down into Africa before you can see it. Maybe far southern Egypt. Maybe.



Just wanted to point out that this is pretty misleading. The Southern Cross currently is not visible from the Middle East, but it certainly was in antiquity. It was visible from Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Middle East.

What is the southern cross?

nik4411, the Southern Cross is a constellation visible in the southern hemisphere. You know how the Big Dipper and the North Star always point North? Well in the southern hemisphere the constellation of Crux aka Southern Cross always points to the south.

Caboose, I fired up some astronomy software and ran a few experiments. Crux is not visible from most of Europe in 0 AD. As for visibility from Israel, yes, I concede it is barely visible low in the southern sky from just after midnight until just before 5:00 a.m. local time on Dec. 25, 0 AD. But it never rises above +10 degrees declination in the sky. The only way to get it actually somewhat visible is to go back thousands and thousands of years. In addition, the sun does not set on Crux in the year zero or any other year as best I can tell as is stated in the video. It in fact sets at approximately +240 degrees azimuth, while Crux proceeds from +170 to +190 degrees when it is visible, hours after the sun has set. They are a quarter of a sky apart.

HVAC starts some thought-provoking threads but he also starts some that are truly tabliod-type or outright insulting. Sometimes its the way its done. Its like Heraldo Rivera, he does do some educational, informative and interesting reporting but he does enough really bad, low-class stuff to ruin his draw.

Mugsy, Mugsy, Mugsy......

Everyone else is talking about the issue, but you want to talk about me, as if you alone occupy the moral high ground.

Don't like this subject? You can attempt to debate the issue like others are doing, or you can continue with the "nanny-nanny-poo-poo"! like your quoted post above, since this subject seems to have frazzeled your mind, or you can just ignore the subject and move on if you lack the ability to logically debate the issue.

Have a blessed day!

Thanks dismayed!

In case you are curious, Zeitgeist is a series of movies produced by "Peter Joseph." As far as is known the man has no formal training of any kind in matters of science or archaeology.

Fair enough, but do tell us your formal training of any kind in matters of science or archaeology or what qualifies you as any more credible source of information.


There are some interesting points brought up by the video, and probably some things in there worthy of real historical or scientific discussion, but I don't think this video is the unbiased starting point for that discussion that you may believe it to be.

That is the reason I chose these 3 segments. I couldn't care less about the rest of it for purposes of this discussion. The argument made in these 3 segments has been around probably as long as Christianity itself, and long preceeds the videos creator's existence. IOW's, Christianity has been refuted with this argument before Peter Josephs great, great, great, great...etc grand parents were born. Attempting to refute the argument simply because Peter Joseph produced it is like refuting Christianity because it has so many nuts like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell espousing Christianity. These nut jobs give Christianity zero credibility to be sure, but in themselves neither prove nor disprove Christisanity.


I rather enjoy debating things like this, but I hope in the future your sources won't be on their face laughable. For example I don't enjoy debating the Birthers for that very reason (e.g. insane sources). I haven't lumped you in with that crowd yet. But I am starting to see a trend....

Once again, what qualifies you to make a statement like this? What is your background in science, astronomy, and archaeology that qulaifies you as an expert on this subject any more than any other layman researching on the internet? The part of your post above with the bullet points looks like a cut and paste from an anti-Zeitgeist web site rather than your own words. Is this true? If so, then you should site your sources.

The only legitimate argument you actually made which can actually be scientifically discussed is the position of the Southern Cross. You weakly admit that the Crux was indeed visible at the alleged time of Christ. This gives tremendous credence and scientific relevance to the agrument made in the video. The rest you posted was simply fluff designed to confuse the issue like the Jerry Fallwell example. From the University of Wisconsin Astronomy Washburn Observatory web site:


The Southern Cross is only visible from sites farther south than 27 degrees north latitude. At the time of Christ, however, it was visible from the latitude of Jerusalem (almost 32 degrees N). Crux points almost due north-south. You you follow the line south through Gamma and Alpha Crucis, you will arrive near the South Celestial Pole in the constellation Octans.

Crux (http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~dolan/constellations/constellations/Crux.html)

It sounds to me like you have some vested religious belief that compels you to attempt to refute the theory of these 3 videos - Is that true? Should I make an arrogant statement like you did and say I have not yet "lumped" you in with that crowd before I actually inquire of your beliefs?

We can argue the issue, or we can get personal. You choose.

Mugsy, Mugsy, Mugsy......

Everyone else is talking about the issue, but you want to talk about me, as if you alone occupy the moral high ground.

Don't like this subject? You can attempt to debate the issue like others are doing, or you can continue with the "nanny-nanny-poo-poo"! like your quoted post above, since this subject seems to have frazzeled your mind, or you can just ignore the subject and move on if you lack the ability to logically debate the issue.

Have a blessed day!

Actually the problem I see with this is you're not really debating anything either. The only thing I've seen from you since I've been posting here is your repeated atheistic youtube obsession. You're not debating yourself, but just posting videos that strike your fancy. The video was interesting, but the only outcome you really want from this is to bother people.

There are numerous flaws in the video, but I watched it none the less. For instance, the bible never talks about Jesus being born on the 25th of December. Both Easter and Christmas have their roots in pagan holidays, but were never biblical.

As for you, I can't think of one time you've actually logically debated anyone. You post videos or articles and just accept that as truth because it fits your personal belief system. You very rarely go outside the original article and when someone else does go outside the article you proceed to attack their opinion as inferior because "They're not experts on the subject".

You try to spread your system of belief with a zealot like ambition. You act like religion is some sort of terrible thing. That if we got rid of religion, the world would reside in some kind of euphoric utopia. We'd all hold hands and dance around the fire of truth. People will do terrible things regardless of whether they believe in a divine creator or not. Christians are no worse people than atheists or agnostics.

I think the debate here should really be, after all you've posted, if you are in fact an agnostic and not a straight shot atheist. I have seen no proof of your agnosticism. Most atheists typically like to be labeled an agnostic because "it seems better respected". It's more of an open minded view that "I just dont know if there is a God or not". In fact the term was coined for people that didn't know if there was in fact a God or not. You seem to have your mind made up and I'd slip you into the atheist group, because you simply do not believe in a God. You like to tote around the agnostic label because it makes you sound more open minded and not nearly as dogmatic in your views to those that hold atheistic beliefs. Even religious sects have attributed modes of agnosticism, I'm sure you'd be happy to know that includes the catholic church. Oh snap.

In true fashion I'm sure you'll accuse me of being "angry" or "hateful" like the previous times we've talked about things of this nature. It's what you seem to do as some sort of defense mechanism on here.

I believe in God because I can't deny the undeniable in my life. Not sure what is so difficult for you to grasp in that.

Fair enough, but do tell us your formal training of any kind in matters of science or archaeology or what qualifies you as any more credible source of information.


Do tell us your formal training in science and archaeology as well. Just because you post 30 minute documentaries from nut jobs that think the government knocked down the world trade center in NYC, doesn't give you some kind of honorary doctorate in religious anthropology.





Once again, what qualifies you to make a statement like this? What is your background in science, astronomy, and archaeology that qulaifies you as an expert on this subject any more than any other layman researching on the internet? The part of your post above with the bullet points looks like a cut and paste from an anti-Zeitgeist web site rather than your own words. Is this true? If so, then you should site your sources.

Again, what is your formal training and background in science?

Also, what gives you the right to dismiss a reply simply because it's well put together? Or to even assume it's faulty because it's well put together. For some reason, when you dont have anything to say, (or are just too lazy to respond with another video you found on youtube) you question their personal motives. I see no logical debate retorts, at all in your entire response here, just generalizations and assumptions.


The only legitimate argument you actually made which can actually be scientifically discussed is the position of the Southern Cross. You weakly admit that the Crux was indeed visible at the alleged time of Christ. This gives tremendous credence and scientific relevance to the agrument made in the video. The rest you posted was simply fluff designed to confuse the issue like the Jerry Fallwell example. From the University of Wisconsin Astronomy Washburn Observatory web site:


Well since you're an expert on the subject I'm sure you knew that it's a fairly common assessment in the scientific community that the star the wisemen followed was either Jupiter, a supernova, or a comet/asteroid. This is the first time I've ever heard the argument that Crux had anything to do with the story of Jesus' birth.





We can argue the issue, or we can get personal. You choose.



I'm not following here...even attacking someones faith, which you have done repeatedly is personal. If anyone ducks the issue, you do. If anyone brings up the possibility of something wrong in the video, you immediately ask if they're a scientist or not, or if they're pasting from a biased website (which is no different than posting a clearly biased video, from a clearly biased individual).

Actually the problem I see with this is you're not really debating anything either. The only thing I've seen from you since I've been posting here is your repeated atheistic youtube obsession. You're not debating yourself, but just posting videos that strike your fancy. The video was interesting, but the only outcome you really want from this is to bother people.

Do you want to argue facts and theory, or just argue about me?


There are numerous flaws in the video, but I watched it none the less. For instance, the bible never talks about Jesus being born on the 25th of December. Both Easter and Christmas have their roots in pagan holidays, but were never biblical.

Almost a discussion here..........


As for you, I can't think of one time you've actually logically debated anyone. You post videos or articles and just accept that as truth because it fits your personal belief system. You very rarely go outside the original article and when someone else does go outside the article you proceed to attack their opinion as inferior because "They're not experts on the subject".

More about me! You are my biggest fan! Want my autograph? LOL!


You try to spread your system of belief with a zealot like ambition. You act like religion is some sort of terrible thing. That if we got rid of religion, the world would reside in some kind of euphoric utopia. We'd all hold hands and dance around the fire of truth. People will do terrible things regardless of whether they believe in a divine creator or not. Christians are no worse people than atheists or agnostics.

Surely a relevant point will be made eventually?


I think the debate here should really be, after all you've posted, if you are in fact an agnostic and not a straight shot atheist. I have seen no proof of your agnosticism. Most atheists typically like to be labeled an agnostic because "it seems better respected". It's more of an open minded view that "I just dont know if there is a God or not". In fact the term was coined for people that didn't know if there was in fact a God or not. You seem to have your mind made up and I'd slip you into the atheist group, because you simply do not believe in a God. You like to tote around the agnostic label because it makes you sound more open minded and not nearly as dogmatic in your views to those that hold atheistic beliefs. Even religious sects have attributed modes of agnosticism, I'm sure you'd be happy to know that includes the catholic church. Oh snap.

Oh well, I guess not.

When one has no argument, attack the messenger, right? Your are counting the bolded words so far aren't ya?


In true fashion I'm sure you'll accuse me of being "angry" or "hateful" like the previous times we've talked about things of this nature. It's what you seem to do as some sort of defense mechanism on here.

My, but you are obsessed with me aren't you?


I believe in God because I can't deny the undeniable in my life. Not sure what is so difficult for you to grasp in that.

Cool. Go forth and be a happy believer. Still makes me wonder who exactly you're trying to convince...other than yourself....

Fair enough, but do tell us your formal training of any kind in matters of science or archaeology or what qualifies you as any more credible source of information.

Hey look I can do it too!



Once again, what qualifies you to make a statement like this? What is your background in science, astronomy, and archaeology that qulaifies you as an expert on this subject any more than any other layman researching on the internet? The part of your post above with the bullet points looks like a cut and paste from an anti-Zeitgeist web site rather than your own words. Is this true? If so, then you should site your sources.

Your obsession with dismayed is a little disturbing.




The only legitimate argument you actually made which can actually be scientifically discussed is the position of the Southern Cross. You weakly admit that the Crux was indeed visible at the alleged time of Christ. This gives tremendous credence and scientific relevance to the agrument made in the video. The rest you posted was simply fluff designed to confuse the issue like the Jerry Fallwell example. From the University of Wisconsin Astronomy Washburn Observatory web site:

Man you sure are a fan of dismayed, you sure you dont want his autograph!

When one has no argument attack the messenger right?

Odd.




It sounds to me like you have some vested religious belief that compels you to attempt to refute the theory of these 3 videos - Is that true? Should I make an arrogant statement like you did and say I have not yet "lumped" you in with that crowd before I actually inquire of your beliefs?

Hey mom, look at how I dodge actually talking about an issue. I found a bold button, yippee!

You are counting right?



We can argue the issue, or we can get personal. You choose.

It's spelled "h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e"

What's really funny about this is, I was merely pointing out how you were not talking about an issue by calling someone else's credentials into the conversation. You're the original dodger, yet find these clever ways to avoid actually backing up your views that dont involve youtube. It's pathetic, really.

If anyone has dodged actually defending those shotty videos it's been you. In fact, I can't seem to find one defense of the actual southern cross thing, only that it was barely visible, which isn't even something you came to by yourself, you had to nab that from the actual poster.

Cool. Go forth and be a happy believer. Still makes me wonder who exactly you're trying to convince...other than yourself....

There is no attempt to convince anyone here. Faith/beliefs are personal and require no one other than self to be convinced. You would resent being proselytized by christianity. Does it occur to you that you are proselytizing for unbelief/ agnosticism or whatever? Is this some kind of "Turn about is fair play" for some perceived wrong inflicted to you some time in your life in the name of religion? You seem an intelligent soul. I'm not sure what you are displaying is agnosticism as much as it is antagonism.

Hey look I can do it too!




Your obsession with dismayed is a little disturbing.





Man you sure are a fan of dismayed, you sure you dont want his autograph!

When one has no argument attack the messenger right?

Odd.




Hey mom, look at how I dodge actually talking about an issue. I found a bold button, yippee!

You are counting right?




It's spelled "h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e"
:boxing2:
http://memimage.cardomain.com/ride_images/1/989/3001/2471500079_medium.jpg

:boxing2:
http://memimage.cardomain.com/ride_images/1/989/3001/2471500079_medium.jpg

i-d-i-o-t

What's really funny about this is, I was merely pointing out how you were not talking about an issue by calling someone else's credentials into the conversation. You're the original dodger, yet find these clever ways to avoid actually backing up your views that dont involve youtube. It's pathetic, really.

If anyone has dodged actually defending those shotty videos it's been you. In fact, I can't seem to find one defense of the actual southern cross thing, only that it was barely visible, which isn't even something you came to by yourself, you had to nab that from the actual poster.

No, you're still coming after me. I made no comment whatsoever about the video's in the OP. So....WTF are you talking about?

Still cannot refute the videos. Attack the poster.

You and Dave Skater are of the same simplistic ilk. It's spelled I-D-I-O-T

Stay on topic or go convince yourself of what you believe. Still waiting on your scientific rebuttal. (Ain't gonna happen, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt)

Fair enough, but do tell us your formal training of any kind in matters of science or archaeology or what qualifies you as any more credible source of information.

I have several degrees both undergraduate and graduate. One is in a science field, although not astronomy, but I have taken college level astronomy and astro-physics courses. I'm a professional, not an academic, probably more businessman than scientist these days and have never cared to elaborate more than that. I actually have been to an archaeological dig site just for the hell of it. Frankly I'm not the one trying to push my ideas off onto millions of people so I don't see how my qualifications matter, even though I would think I am more than qualified to have an opinion on the matter. If someone like Joseph is pushing ideas for no grander purpose than a complete reimagining of society, I think he owes us some information explaining why he is qualified to render such an opinion. I'm sure it sounds like this bugs me, and actually it does. If this is what we are stooping to on this board now I guess the next time I have a point to prove I'll just find any random blogger who agrees with my viewpoints and start quoting him as gospel in these forums.

Perhaps you took my degree comment as a jab at you. I have no idea if you personally have a degree or not, and I don't care, but I do think it is important to know the qualifications of the film producer who is pushing the ideas. See the next segment as to why.


Attempting to refute the argument simply because Peter Joseph produced it is like refuting Christianity because it has so many nuts like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell espousing Christianity. These nut jobs give Christianity zero credibility to be sure, but in themselves neither prove nor disprove Christisanity.

I don't agree with Robertson and his like, but he is on TV at night expressing a belief. You're trying to make a factual argument using a guy whose sources are unknown and whose past motives are clearly dubious. If you tried to float a bunch of anti-global warming nonsense at me from the "scientist" that Sen. Inhoff often likes to quote I'd call you for BS just as quickly.

Do you not think you would be laughed off the debate stage if we were discussing a science topic and I was throwing out quotes from someone who was a peer reviewed academic considered an expert on a subject and you were attempting to counter by referencing a conspiracy nut, even if some of his quotes had merit? Go give that a try and let us know how that works out for you.


The part of your post above with the bullet points looks like a cut and paste from an anti-Zeitgeist web site rather than your own words. Is this true? If so, then you should site your sources.

I wrote those words myself, word for word, except for the bolded, quoted section at the end which is a direct quote from a Venus Project founder. A quick search of the web yields this article that seems to corroborate most everything I wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/nyregion/17zeitgeist.html?_r=1


The only legitimate argument you actually made which can actually be scientifically discussed is the position of the Southern Cross. You weakly admit that the Crux was indeed visible at the alleged time of Christ. This gives tremendous credence and scientific relevance to the agrument made in the video.

In Israel the sun does not set on Crux, or at least hasn't for thousands of years... as far back as I was willing to model. The image depicted in the film is not plausible as best I can tell. The numbers I posted have scientific meaning to those educated in astronomy and document the ridiculousness of one of the claims in the movie. The other number I posted shows that although visible, Crux was very, very low in the sky in the year 0. You have to go back thousands more years before it has a prominent place in the night sky. I posted that information because I'm honest, but I really don't see it as being a big deal. The astronomical quote you posted is in no way contrary to my last post. I'm sorry if the specifics confused you or made it seem as though I was smoke-screening, I was in fact posting factual data to support my position. I do find it ironic that I made the attempt to actually run simulations of the night sky, which took over an hour, and you are attempting to refute that by simply Googling and finding a quote to throw at me, especially after falsely accusing me of doing just that with respect to the bullet-points in my first post. Hypocrisy indeed.

This was only one item I cared to opine about from the video, it wasn't the only one I found odd by any means. For example, either by design or perhaps implication, the author seems to lump the traditions and beliefs of Judaism and Christianity together into one big blob. It may surprise you to know that Jews have no standardized set of beliefs regarding the afterlife. If you'll take a look at the Torrah/Talmud, their core beliefs are about being a good person while you are here in this world, about helping each other out, and trying to stay united as one common people... the Jews... and not really worry about the afterlife... it kind of takes care of itself I believe would be their view. Jews do not have a standard belief set when it comes to hell and satan either as far as I know. Remember there were no Christians in 0 AD, they were all Jews, so a lot of what was said, if it was being said about religious belief at that point in time doesn't make sense. You don't have to have a degree in theology to know this... just a Jewish friend! To me it seems like this is a complete contradiction to his claim that, if I may paraphrase, religion is and has always been all about getting people to think about the next life and stop caring about what is going on today, that it is all about instilling a good vs. evil fear as a method of control, and so forth. I think the author has a viewpoint and is kind of playing loose with some of the information, shifting back and forth through time as he sees fit, as the argument supports his position. I also think he suffers from 21st Century 20/20 hindsight, or in other words looking backwards through the lens of time and attempting to package everything together neatly according to modern standards and biases. This is a known phenomenon that trained professionals are quite aware of and try to dispassion themselves from.

Enjoy reading your 9/11 Truther websites, I have no time nor desire to argue further against those who would wear tinfoil hats. Welcome to my ignore list.

You do agree that the crux was indeed visible at the alleged time of Christ, and thousands of years prior, correct? The video's challenge the actual existence of Christ, and the story of the mirrored deitys has been known for centuries. This is a simple story really.

From your post:
The other number I posted shows that although visible, Crux was very, very low in the sky in the year 0. You have to go back thousands more years before it has a prominent place in the night sky.

The point of the video is that other religions mirrored Christianity thousands of years ago.

This is the entire argument. Not Peter Joseph, not anyones education. History shows that religions of antiquity mirrored Christianity. Is it a mere coincidence that dozens of other virgin births took place thousands of years before Christianity was invented and added to the long list of ancient religions?

That is the discussion here, but few seem to want to stick to that subject for some reason. Anyone else want to try?

I-D-I-O-T huh? Back to the name calling I see..... All my "owned" picture spoke to was the fact that RedDirt gave you back the exact same type of rebuttal that you gave him, that being the bold face "YOUR" count and the apparent obsession over it. Nothing more, nothing less. And then you resort to name calling like a common third grader.

Very classy, and lends well to your desperate attempt to convert people from this site to God only knows what.

I was chastised by one of the moderators for failing to heed my own "Troll Feeding" advice, so not to repeat the mistake I made in other threads, I am going to utilize the ignore feature of the site. Congratulations, you'll be the only forum member on that certain list. :congrats:

So, rant away, I shan't participate in your childish name calling or sophomoric post baiting any further.

I-D-I-O-T huh? Back to the name calling I see..... All my "owned" picture spoke to was the fact that RedDirt gave you back the exact same type of rebuttal that you gave him, that being the bold face "YOUR" count and the apparent obsession over it. Nothing more, nothing less. And then you resort to name calling like a common third grader.

Very classy, and lends well to your desperate attempt to convert people from this site to God only knows what.

I was chastised by one of the moderators for failing to heed my own "Troll Feeding" advice, so not to repeat the mistake I made in other threads, I am going to utilize the ignore feature of the site. Congratulations, you'll be the only forum member on that certain list. :congrats:

So, rant away, I shan't participate in your childish name calling or sophomoric post baiting any further.

Looky here pal, you run about posting your childish pictures, which is essentially no better than name calling and is simply idiotic. You have added nothing of substance to this thread or any of the others, and run around like a little playground child shouting "nanny-nananny-poo-poo", and then try to call others childish. Mighty mature of you. I gave you a taste of your own medicine and you don't like it so much do you?

So, I'm done stooping to your level. Either contribute something of substance or STFU and move on.

God forbid someone provide an alternate possibility to something that was pushed into your head while it was still soft! Oh noooo's! You'd still believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa had someone not ruined it for you, lol.

I'm surprised it took a thread like this on a forum like this so long to become active.