Vorkosigan

History's most pronoid thread, ever.

Huon

For what you tell us of these eyewitnesses, they could as well be called Johnny, Bill, Ted, or Gus.

mrsonic

adam, what is your opinion on the science of islamic hadeeth? muslim scholars in the past identify the narrators in the chain and know who thier students were and where the narrators lived, but can we say the same for matthew, mark, luke and john?

quote:
Some hadith narrators are known by different names and this can give rise to error and confusion; hence a branch of hadith sciences is devoted exclusively to the knowledge of those who are known by different names (ma ‘ rifat man dhukira bi—asma’ mukhtalifa) .This is not just a function of the fact that Arabic names often consist of long series of attributions to father, son, mother, etc., but also that pen-names, nicknames and appellations were sometimes used by those who might have known the individual narrator by any of his other attributes or names.

Another branch of hadith sciences, known as ma’rifat al-mu ‘talif wa’l-mukhtalif min al-asma (knowledge of the look-alike but different names and genealogies) discusses names which are written similarly but pronounced differently. There are numerous names of this type, so much so that some have written individual works on the subject. Names such as Salam Sallam , ‘Umara and Imara, Kurayz and Kariz, Safr and Safar, etc., are written similarly in the Arabic script and text which may not provide the vowelling and declensions of words; and most often they are not given, hence the possibility of confusion of one name or narrator for another. Resembling this last branch of hadith sciences , there is yet another branch of hadith which addresses hadith narrators that had identical names and could easily be confused with one another. There were, for example, no less than six hadith narrators by the name Khalil ibn Ahmad , and four Ahmad b.Ja’far b Hamdan, all of whom lived in the same generation, and many other cases of this kind. These have been isolated and identified by reference to other indicators such as the father’s name, locality, teachers and disciples of the narrator in question, etc.

hadith studies by H Kamali page 7-8

end quote

Huon

Oh, and a fraction of what I assigned to Bill should be now assigned to Mike.
:huh:

Adam

OK, I'll bite.
At first I thought you had forgotten how to spell "paranoid". It's not in dictionaries. But I found:
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/29/paranoia.html
Surely I have not expected to be loved here. I've been polite and professional, but I'm quite aware that it would take the intervention of God to make believers of you here. But all is well--I had expected that refutation of me would take the ugly form of denouncing the "eyewitnesses" as liars. I had hardly expected that I would uncover the earliest eyewitnesses as accommodating a "Gospel according to the Atheists". I guess that is indeed "pronoid".

Or these?:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pronoid
I do admit I feel myself to be different from other people. I've always expected to be liked, but never found it to be so. But I keep trying. Intrinsic to that is some paradoxical paranoia.

For the next one, best to read the whole article:
http://cloudblog.salesforce.com/2011...id-thrive.html

And that's surely the most constructive way to view the thread (though requiring ignoring 80% of the posters).

Or from the apparent expert:
"Pronoia is the suspicion that the universe is a conspiracy on your behalf, the opposite of the popular sense of paranoia."
http://www.worldwidewords.org/turnsofphrase/tp-pro5.htm

Or just my creativity in unusual combination with both analysis and synthesis, able to parasitize the work of others.

Sheshbazzar

I don't recall any of us here making any effort to denounce your claimed 'eyewitnesses' as being liars.
That would have been rather silly in that our objections all along have been that you have failed to provide any evidence that any such claimed 'eyewitnesses' ever existed, outside of being a collection of fictional bit characters briefly mentioned in a fictional and highly implausible tale.

It was ethically objectionable when you made up this horse-shit the first time, and your claims still stink just as bad.
You didn't 'uncover' no 'earliest eyewitnesses'. You only stupidly and repetitively claim that you did.
Your imaginative bogus claims do not amount to being facts... But of course the distinction would be lost on you.

There is no "Gospel according to Atheists" and you damn well know it.
And it is utterly despicable of you to attribute beliefs and positions to others that you know they DO NOT hold.

Do you actually wish to persuade us of something here regarding the Bible's contents or your religious beliefs, or to just prove to us what an absolute asshole you can be?

You are doing a terrific job of undermining the earnest efforts of sincere Christians everywhere with your vain self-promoting self-important crap.






.

Doug Shaver

That can't be. Christians who disagree with him aren't being sincere.

Sheshbazzar

:hysterical:

Adam

I keep allowing time for someone here to correct unfair misrepresentations of me, but no one here seems inclined to be fair. No, Shesh, I never said that any of you jumped to the obvious retort that anything I might have said could be refuted by condemning the eyewitnesses as liars. I had expected someone would.Not when the supposed fictional story encases simple testimony lacking legendary accruals. Not one of you shows any capability of dealing with the obvious sources underlying the larger gospels. Here again you atheists and Fundamentalists live off one another. You have equal need to limit consideration to the extant texts.Tilt. Are you seriously saying that I said there is or ever was a "Gospel according to the Atheists"? That you guys believe in any such thing? No, that was a gift-wrapped present I gave to you guys that none of you had the presence of mind to accept. It was no tricks. But even you HJ types were not willing to accept this disproof of the MJ school. Are any of you open to any new information that does not fit your preconceptions? (Of course that's as true of Christians too, whether Fundie or Liberal.)Once again, Fundies and Atheists live off one another, completely impervious to new information.

Vorkosigan

Thank god you're here to save us from our stupidity, Galileo.