Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 08-08-2009, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

...

Now, who developped the theory that Jesus was only human after the Church claimed he was truly God and man? And what evidence did they present?

Enlightement era humanists and Deists originated the idea that Jesus was a mere human. Evidence? The Bible, read with the supernatural elements ignored because they were obviously impossible. But the idea that the texts are correct because they are ancient is a hard one to shake.

There is absolutely no evidence presented in the Bible that show Jesus Chriist was only a man.

It is clear as daylight. There is Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35 and John 1.1-14. Jesus was presented in the Bible as a God or the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God.

And then Jesus the God/man, the Creator of heaven and earth, left the earth by floating through the clouds.

It is absolutely absurd to ignore all the evidence or information that shows Jesus as a God and then claim Jesus was a man.

It is absolute stupidity to ignore that a mermaid is described as half fish and half woman and claim mermaids are only human or only fish by just ignoring the description of mermaids.

The NT cannot be used to show that Jesus Christ was human, it was compiled to show that Jesus was a God, the Creator of heaven and earth, that transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds.

If Jesus was only human, then the entire NT and the Church writers were not credible, and once they were not credible then there is nothing else to find about Jesus. No other source of antiquity mentioned Jesus Christ except for forgeries in Josephus.

Yellum Notnef · 08-08-2009, 02:10 PM

Who fucking cares? Seriously. Fuck Jesus and the cloud he floated away on.

This will and should probably be moved, but someone had to say it.

Toto · 08-08-2009, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

...

I cheerily invite the reader to go back and have a look at whether or not that is an accurate depiction of the words that have come out of your posts.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

I invite the reader who cares to go over the last decade of debates on this board relating to the subject to see if this is an accurate description of the state of the debate.

Otherwise, just take this as my opinion, and form your own.

aa5874 · 08-08-2009, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenton Mulley

Who fucking cares? Seriously. Fuck Jesus and the cloud he floated away on.

This will and should probably be moved, but someone had to say it.

You must care.

There are people who believe they will float away, ascend to heaven, when God blows a trumpet, just like Jesus the world greatest floater Pilot during the days of Pilate.

Lu 24:51 -

Quote:

And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

Acts 1:9 -

Quote:

And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

1 Cor 15:52 -

Quote:

In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

According to HJers the greatest floater Pilot did exist.

But HJers don't care that they have no ........ing evidence.

spin · 08-08-2009, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I'm not worried. I just don't allow such trivializing get gotten away with here.

There is no trivializing, particularly not of Golb. My very point is that simply pointing to the tyranny of the majority as a reason for people to be unfamiliar with a branch of study--particuarly for them to not have the depth of familiarity Toto implies, doesn't cut it.

You've misunderstood the notion of hegemony. Think about the American media when it is necessary to sell a certain political line to the public.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Whether you call it sublimated or fringe, the fact remains that Golb did get published. Even Thiering has managed that. Doherty hasn't tried particularly hard to do so, by his own admission.

Getting published in hegemony is an act of "repressive tolerance".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Which goes back to my original point with Toto, you can't make assumptions about what knowledge or level inquiry a scholar has preformed without having reasonable grounds to expect them to share it.

It's not, for example, Crossan's fault that he hasn't heard of Doherty. He's simply not going to show up in any bibliography Crossan is likely to be looking at, and consequently we can't draw any conclusions from Crossan's failure to address Doherty.

I agree. That does nothing to help Toto's charge, which is that the academy knows of Jesus Myth theories that they fail to address. Even that we should expect to find a case laid out by every academic who publishes on the historical Jesus. And that, consequently, anyone who fails to do so has simply assumed it.

I'm afraid I find that line of reasoning to be silly.

I merely took you up on your lightweight statement about Golb being fringe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

If you think Drews was trivialized in his time one must wonder how familiar you are with the actual events. Drews was involved in a great many public debates, warranted great and hearty response from the academy.

The revision of Schweitzer's Quest I mention above that deals with the Christ Myth does so exclusively by addressing Drews. The man earned a whole chapter. The same treatment, for example, that Schweitzer accords Strauss.

The seriousness Schweitzer accorded Drews is representative of what most of his contemporaries afforded him.

The charge that the Jesus Myth has always been ignored is simply false. Drews was quite certainly not ignored.

I say Drews was handled because he was. That's the simple reality of it. His case hinges too heavily on Frazer's "dying and rising" god category, which simply didn't exist in the sense that Frazer, and later Drews, thought it did.

Have you, like Toto, perhaps not bothered to actually read Drews?

Drews was with few others out in limbo here. It was new territory, just as Freud and Darwin found themselves (and don't press the analogy, it's just the new territory that's important). They made mistakes (Freud made lots), but those mistakes don't mean that their basic position was inherently wrong. Drews was in a different position from the others, because the subject he was out in limbo on was under the hegemony of a flotilla of religious interests. Once big voices had been leveled against him, whatever he had to say was no longer worth toilet paper.

Scholars tend to depend on scholars in other fields for their knowledge of specific materials. Frazer was what was available regarding analysis of dying gods in comparative religions. Drews may simply have been wrong in his thought, but it's not just by tarring him with Frazer that will get you there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Quote:

Hegemony says that it is sufficient to denegrate the opposition (call them that happy little category "fringe"

Call the category whatever you want, it doesn't matter, and I don't mean "fringe" derisively.

It doesn't matter. You're in no position to label it any way it seems. What I tried to show you is that what Golb is saying finds sizable support in the archaeological community. That makes your label wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

We can give it any name your little heart desires.

Can't help yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

The fact remains that, contra Toto, we cannot make conclusions based on an author's failure to address a subject when that author cannot reasonably expect his audience or his peers to challenge him on the conclusion.

Why don't you take that up with Toto?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

It is, for example, the reason the International Q project doesn't build an argument for Q. It's assumed that the target audience and the participants all accept that Q exists.

So it is here. Crossan (to keep with the same example) has probably never read Doherty's book, and has no reason to believe that many of his target audience have ever heard of Earl Doherty. Consequently, it would be more bizarre for Crossan to respond to the argument than it would be for him not to.

There's nothing like a sympathetic audience.

spin

rlogan · 08-08-2009, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

First of all, let me be clear that I don't think there is a vast conspiracy of academics against mythicism or Doherty in particular. Doherty is still trying to find the best way to get his ideas across, but his battle has been with group think and normal academic politics.

Rick Sumner claims that I make assumptions, but he is arguing against positions that I don't hold, perhaps because I have been discussing this on the boards for so long that I no longer want to repeat myself.

But for Chaucer:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

More broadly, I'm now interested in addressing a further question respecting "demographics". DS has made reference here to "the regulars in this forum". Now I feel that DS is essentially correct in characterizing the JM stance as reflective of the regulars in this forum. Consequently, I'm curious as to any thoughts here on how come the regulars in forums such as these seem to adopt the JM stance, while the whopping majority of skeptics in the "off-line" world are much more like the skeptic that Toto encountered at UCLA, who see no problem with viewing the historic record as sufficient enough to show a likelihood of Jesus being a historic human being?

The Internet Infidels established a forum around 2000 of the Common Era, as internet technology advanced and more people got internet access at home and at work. It attracted a lot of atheists looking for community and Christians who were in the process of losing their faith, so it also attracted a group of Christian apologists who came here specifically to proclaim the truth of Christianity and bash atheism.

One of the constant claims from these Christian apologists was that there are some people who are so deluded that they don't think Jesus existed, ha ha, but the scholarly consensus is that Jesus existed. Why, these deluded people are just like Creationists who reject the scholarly consensus on evolution!! At that point, I suspect most atheists here, like me, had no concerns about mythicism, and thought that there probably was a historical Jesus, but he wasn't the son of god and didn't rise from the dead, and this alone was enough to make Christianity false, so why go further? But the Christian apologists kept raising the issue, and I became aware that Campus Crusade for Christ made the existence of a historical Jesus a key point of their recruitment of naif students into their cult.

And then there was Peter Kirby, of legendary status, a young man who lost his Catholic religion about the age of 16, but was devoting his talents to maintaining his websites, including www.earlychristianwritings.com . Peter had a particularly civilized and rational approach to internet debates, and he was aware of Doherty's work.

One thing led to another. Doherty joined the debate here. One of the Christian apologists engaged in a Formal Debate with Doherty, but Doherty withdrew because he considered the quality of the Christian's arguments to be insultingly farcical. In general, the arguments from the Christian apologists did not hold up - they depended on unwarranted assumptions, logical disconnects, and appeals to authority. This should not be surprising since their main evidence for Jesus was that he had touched their hearts or their lives or fixed their drinking problem.

Finally, Richard Carrier agreed to do a review of Doherty's work from the standpoint of a professionally trained historian (Carrier was at the time in the process of getting his PhD in ancient history from Columbia University. He how has that PhD.) You can read the result here. Carrier decided that Doherty had presented enough of a case for mythicism to shift the burden of proof to the historicists.

So, for many on this board, it was at least clear that the mythicist case was worth taking seriously and was not a lunatic fringe theory. It was also clear that the historicist case was on shaky grounds.

About this time, the Christian apologists withdrew from the boards. Ironically, we suddenly had a few atheists take up the cause of the historical Jesus with an even greater passion - but they still couldn't come up with any better arguments.

Subsequently, Carrier adopted more of a mythicist stance, and then raised some money to write a book on the issue of the historicity of Jesus. I have seen a preliminary draft of that work, which is due out in 2010, and I think it will at least change the debate. Carrier's position (stated in his latest lectures) is that the question is open, but the balance of evidence is against historicity. Carrier is also upset with the quality of a lot of the popular mythicists' work (e.g., the movie Zeitgeist.)

So I am not all that interested in discussing the issue any more, at least until Carrier's book comes out. I feel an interest in keeping the debate civil, which means preventing people from demonizing their opponents, especially with the over the top rhetoric that Chaucer employed (some of which has been removed.)

And for the record, I would not consider the UCLA professor I referred to as a "skeptic." He was trained in theology, and Jesus was an important cultural icon for him. I can sympathize with this. Jesus is an important part of our culture, and the gospel stories that we tell ourselves contain a lot of valuable insights and cultural wisdom. But are they parables or real history? How are the gospels used and how are they misused? How can Jesus be both a socialist-pacifist hero and the hero to militarists and American conservative free market fundamentalists? Can we get beyond their current misuse if we are stuck on trying to prove that Jesus existed?

We depend on mythological narratives to make sense of our world and our psyches. Is it actually important that Jesus existed in history? I'd like to move on. But the issue won't go away.

Thanks Toto. Nice recap.

"Historical Jesus" belief really is a misnomer. The arguments (HJ vs. Mythers) were better termed "legend vs myth". (Where legend means no Gospel Jesus, but some itinerant preacher who got crucified, later giving rise to legendary tales. Myth means just made up, and I would submit from quote mining the Hebrew Bible).

Really, how are these so different? Both begin with rejecting gospel jesus, and hopefully also both accept the scientific method.

I've never done this, but if you took, line by line, every statement about Jesus' alleged history in the gospels and asked the typical HJer vs Mythicist whether it was true or false, they would be much closer together than they were further apart.

Eg True or false:

Born in Bethlehem
Wise men
Slaughter of innocents
came out of Egypt
Mother Virgin
Water into wine
pigs into sea
Lazarus
etc.

I think further that doing this analytically would make HJers on average 93.47% mythicists.

Rick Sumner · 08-08-2009, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Getting published in hegemony is an act of "repressive tolerance".

Call it whatever you want. The fact remains that Thiering's crackpot theories get more attention than Doherty ever will. In academic sources. Even in academic sources intended for academic consumption.

Thiering gets more attention because she has published. Doherty doesn't even make much effort, so we really can't fault the academy for failing to address him. They don't know he exists.

Quote:

I merely took you up on your lightweight statement about Golb being fringe.

I think you're taking a different meaning of "fringe" than I intend. The sampling of scholars I chose, including names like Mack and Goulder and, yes, Golb, was deliberately intended to avoid the reading your taking.

I meant "fringe" as in "outside the mainstream." Not "fringe" as in "not worthy of discussion."

Quote:

Drews was with few others out in limbo here. It was new territory, just as Freud and Darwin found themselves (and don't press the analogy, it's just the new territory that's important). They made mistakes (Freud made lots), but those mistakes don't mean that their basic position was inherently wrong.

I believe what I said was that Drews case was dealt with. Drews conclusions may well be right. That doesn't mean Drews is right.

Quote:

Drews was in a different position from the others, because the subject he was out in limbo on was under the hegemony of a flotilla of religious interests. Once big voices had been leveled against him, whatever he had to say was no longer worth toilet paper.

The current disdain for mythicism is largely owed to Bultmann. Drews never won many supporters. He was always taken seriously.

Quote:

Scholars tend to depend on scholars in other fields for their knowledge of specific materials. Frazer was what was available regarding analysis of dying gods in comparative religions. Drews may simply have been wrong in his thought, but it's not just by tarring him with Frazer that will get you there.

If you think Drews' case can stand without Frazer then I was right. You haven't read him. Perhaps you should do so before you present a defense?

Quote:

It doesn't matter. You're in no position to label it any way it seems. What I tried to show you is that what Golb is saying finds sizable support in the archaeological community. That makes your label wrong.

What I am trying to explain is that when Golb published he did not have sizable support for what he was saying. A point Golb was far too aware of, and stresses repeatedly.

Quote:

Can't help yourself.

You realize it's an expression lifted from a Disney song, right? We're seriously going to point to that with an eyeroll, as though it is some thin rhetorical ploy?

You're kidding me, right?

Quote:

Why don't you take that up with Toto?

I believe I was. It is, in fact, Toto I was addressing with my comments. Consequently, you're appraisal of them needs to take that context into consideration. It is the specific context of the specific portion you've taken issue with.

Quote:

There's nothing like a sympathetic audience.

Rightly or wrongly, it is what it is. And it's unjust to fault a scholar for not addressing an audience he scarcely, if at all, realizes it has. We certainly cannot safely reach conclusions on their competencies based on such a failure to discuss the subject.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Trog · 08-08-2009, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trog

I see. So that would make me a non-Jesus Mythicist who considers BibleJesus mythological? What is the local term for that? Is there something between Jesus Mythicist and Jesus Historicist, or would I fall fully in the Historicist camp?

That's an excellent question. I have a feeling each answer you get may depend more on each individual mythicist's own personal take than anything else. But I'd still be interested in seeing any responses you get to this one. Personally, as one who views Jesus the simple human being as somewhat more likely to be historical than not, I can only answer that question from my perspective: I'd say -- given that caveat -- that you would probably still be a mythicist to me, since in believing that Jesus of Nazareth of Mark, Josephus et al, is an amalgamation of a number of Jesuses, rather than one identifiable individual, you thereby take away the uniqueness of one special human being who attempted to raise the consciousness of all in stressing the giving and service to others, the last being first and the first last, the loving of one's enemies, and so on. It's that unique counterculturalism and the state's execution of such a unique counterculturalist that makes Jesus of special interest to a skeptic humanist like me.

I don't go so far as to say I believe the gospel Jesus was an amalgam from several people, but I do think it could have been.

And if the goodnees you see in the Jesus personage was so remarkably unique, isn't that actually a rather pessimistic outlook for a humanist?

Quote:

OTOH, since you do credit the notion that there was one unique Nicholas in particular rather than several, I'd say that puts you in the historicist camp when it comes to Santa Claus. As in the case of Jesus, though, no self-respecting educated skeptic is going to credit the tall tales involving immortality and/or supernatural miracles associated with Santa Claus. Crediting such tall tales is not necessary to being a historicist in either case.

Interesting. So if I'm understanding you correctly, if I believed some of the mundane biographical particulars of the BibleJesus were merged from more than one individual, and I also believed that all the magical miracle stuff was pure myth and claptrap, it would be the former belief which would qualify me as a mythicist, and not the latter. Is that right? If so, that looks like almost an exact reversal of what one would expect from vernacular meanings.

Quote:

Only crediting the likelihood of such a figure having lived once and died normally and of not being confusable with anyone else makes one a sensible skeptic historicist.

That would be in distinction from a sensible skeptical mythicist? (ie. If one credits the likelihood of biographical particulars having merged from more than one "Joe")

Quote:

(Trog) If it is just a hypothesis (a tentative account, subject to revision, or a working assumption set forward for the purposes of argument or investigation) I don't see what's so irrational about that.(/Trog)

The problem is -- and whatever others' experiences may have been, I can only attest to what I have personally encountered -- the degree of frequency with which this notion has been dogmatically presented on line as more than a hypothesis but absolute fact instead, to the point where skeptics like me are dismissed as Christian fundamentalist trash, is frankly chilling.

So the likening of Jesus Mythicists to Creationists was turnabout? A way, perhaps, to get across how it feels to be on the receiving end? Because I didn't really grasp the parallel. But maybe I got tripped up by applying non-local word meanings.

Quote:

Maybe some here sincerely feel that many mythicists are not absolutist at all, and that could well be based on sincere reflections of their own personal experience; but where I sit, as a skeptic who started out quite neutral on Jesus mythicism for many, many years, in fact rather uninterested in the whole question, further more detailed reading of people like Doherty, Price and Wells, plus interactions with a number of mythicists on line, have started to suggest to me the mindset of a crusade rather than a wish to seriously test a hypothesis.

Back when I was a Christian, one of my priests made the confident assertion that the fully independent and secular evidences for Jesus would fill a library, and I accepted that claim at face value, all too uncritically. When I fell out of Christianity, I failed to revisit that claim, and I merely assumed any ancient records of miracles would have been vulnerable to at least as much fallibility as we see in modern reporting. It was years before I was prompted to actually go try to find this putative library of evidence, and found that all of it combined would barely fill two panels in a tri-fold pamphlet. I was at peace with the idea that priests could be sincere in their god delusions, but on this point, I felt like I had been deliberately lied to by a total cheat, and my resentment at that was compounded with annoyance at myself for having been so gullible. So when I see people getting exercised about trumpeting the lack of evidence for any actual Gospel Jesus, I may not agree with their emotionalism as the most effective way to get their message across, but I can certainly understand it.

What I don't understand is why there would be open hostility between those who tend toward the view the magic myth came first, and the mundane embellishments to make it plausible and personal followed later, and those who lean towards the notion that the mundane human biographical accounts came first, and the miracle mystical embellishments to make it amazing and fearsome came later. Even if it is granted that there may have been scraps of actual human mixed in with the groaning load of fiction, I don't see what is gained by efforts to track down and positively identify any given bits as definitely human. At best, the fragments are so tiny, all the rest will have to be filled in with speculation. Seems like one could just as profitably, and more easily, draw meaningfulness from an inkblot.

spin · 08-08-2009, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Getting published in hegemony is an act of "repressive tolerance".

Call it whatever you want. The fact remains that Thiering's crackpot theories get more attention than Doherty ever will. In academic sources. Even in academic sources intended for academic consumption.

Thiering gets more attention because she has published. Doherty doesn't even make much effort, so we really can't fault the academy for failing to address him. They don't know he exists.

Rick, me boy, I really don't give a fig about Barbie and I'm not interested in Earl either. I'm trying to deal with your politico-societal misconceptions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

I think you're taking a different meaning of "fringe" than I intend. The sampling of scholars I chose, including names like Mack and Goulder and, yes, Golb, was deliberately intended to avoid the reading your taking.

I meant "fringe" as in "outside the mainstream." Not "fringe" as in "not worthy of discussion."

Yes, I did shift the focus. Mainstream in the field of Qumran archaeology, as against some ignorant mainstream notion you seem to be flogging.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

I believe what I said was that Drews case was dealt with. Drews conclusions may well be right. That doesn't mean Drews is right.

Agreed. I am interested though in the current state of mythicism and how it got to be. People seem to want to treat it like it should be well-formed in its range of apologetics, despite the fact that it hasn't had much opportunity to develop a comfortable apologetic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

The current disdain for mythicism is largely owed to Bultmann. Drews never won many supporters. He was always taken seriously.

Understandable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

If you think Drews' case can stand without Frazer then I was right. You haven't read him. Perhaps you should do so before you present a defense?

You seem to want to misunderstand my interest. I don't really care about Drews either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

What I am trying to explain is that when Golb published he did not have sizable support for what he was saying. A point Golb was far too aware of, and stresses repeatedly.

You may be right, but I think Golb was a little too histrionic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

You realize it's an expression lifted from a Disney song, right?

No, never heard of it. (Me? Disney? You must be joking.) But then it's not like it's a new cliche. * * *... etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

We're seriously going to point to that with an eyeroll, as though it is some thin rhetorical ploy?

You're kidding me, right?

Everything is overdetermined, Rick.

Just look at your "fringe". (It needs cutting.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

I believe I was. It is, in fact, Toto I was addressing with my comments. Consequently, you're appraisal of them needs to take that context into consideration. It is the specific context of the specific portion you've taken issue with.

And it was one specific comment of yours (not Toto's) that pricked my interest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Quote:

There's nothing like a sympathetic audience.

Rightly or wrongly, it is what it is. And it's unjust to fault a scholar for not addressing an audience he scarcely, if at all, realizes it has. We certainly cannot safely reach conclusions on their competencies based on such a failure to discuss the subject.

I can fault an academic on not having done their job any day. Playing to an audience that doesn't look outside the box is convenient and not stretching for one's mental resources, but historical Jesusers all assume their conclusions and then hone the results rather than ever having the integrity to deal with the first principles they've never confronted. People who work with the received ancient chronology need to be able to respond to Rohl, rather than assume their chronology. People who work with a historical Jesus need to be able to demonstrate the historicity. And they haven't. And apparently they can't. This is not a matter of mythicism here: it's a matter of dire scholarly necessity. When these people want to deal with their own first principles then they can start being scholars.

(Just to recap

, my comment about the sympathetic audience was not one about mythicism at all. My only interest in mythicism is that people leaning on centuries of apologetics behind a historical Jesus seem to like to pillory mythicism for not having had the opportunity to build up a similar apologetic yet.)

spin

maryhelena · 08-09-2009, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenton Mulley

Who fucking cares? Seriously. Fuck Jesus and the cloud he floated away on.

This will and should probably be moved, but someone had to say it.

You must care.

There are people who believe they will float away, ascend to heaven, when God blows a trumpet, just like Jesus the world greatest floater Pilot during the days of Pilate.

Thanks aa5874 - I needed a good laugh! "...the world greatest floater Pilot" - never heard that one before - its made my day (morning actually...)

Yes, I agree with you - we must care.....When daylight robbery is taking place right under our very noses and we don't raise a voice to call attention to what is happening - something is amiss with us! Sure, the daylight robbery may not seem such to those willingly to reach deep into their pocket book - they do not see the gun being pointed at their head - all they see is the trip on that floating cloud to the promised hereafter..

Probably the biggest scam in history - being bought into through either fear of the unknown or just plain vanity and self-righteousness in doing the 'right' thing....Could well be viewed as a luxury for those with nothing better to do with their hard earned cash - but for the vast majority of us - that money would be better invested in a pension fund or health insurance....

For in our hour of need - that floating cloud will just go floating by - and the scammers will just be offering up their prayers for our well-being - while living to the ninth degree on their ill-gotten millions....and most likely tax free.....what an upside down world we live in...

These scammers need to be taken to account - told to put *their* money where their mouth is - service to the poor and downtrodden. Let them work for a pittance and hand over everything else for a health care system - then we can begin to separate the wolves from the sheep.....

OK - off my soapbox now....

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-08-2009, 02:10 PM	#292
Yellum Notnef Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Gone Posts: 4,676	Who fucking cares? Seriously. Fuck Jesus and the cloud he floated away on. This will and should probably be moved, but someone had to say it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.