On 25/09/2023 15:59, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 10:10:47 PM UTC+10,
>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>>> You can probably see the problem here. God's justice means that
>>> justice can be achieved by punishing an innocent party (Jesus) for
>>> someone else's (well, everybody else's) wrong doings. That does not
>>> square with what most people consider justice, their secondary
>>> assessment, in your terms. A secondary assessment also does not look
>>> very kindly upon, say, childhood cancers, natural disasters, and
>>> other evils that do not depend on bad people doing them, and even
>>> then, my own secondary assessment would not look too kindly on the
>>> idea that 6 million Jews had to die so that a bunch of Nazis could
>>> have free will. A benevolent, omnipotent God should have found a
>>> better way, if he were really out there.
>>
>> Jesus, who is God, gave himself willingly:
>>
>> "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so
>> that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay
>> it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I
>> have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from
>> My Father.” (John 10:17-18)
>
> Personally, I think the "Christ died for your sins" trope was a late
> gloss added to explain how a supposedly life-bringing god could die.
> Worse, I think it distracts from the important part of the gospels:
> Christ's teachings during his life.  Jesus did not die for your sins; he
> lived for them.

WikiPedia attributes penal substitutionary atonement to Martin Luther.
Some other variations on substitutionary atonement are older, but if we
are to trust WikiPedia they are not collectively universal in Christianity.

--
alias Ernest Major

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 08:35:01 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 10:40:48?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 04:12:10 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
>> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:05:47?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
>> >> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 12:00:48?PM UTC+1, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 4:30:48?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
>> >> > > On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 1:35:47?AM UTC+1, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > > > On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:15:47?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
>> >> > > [...]
>> >> > > > > Jesus, who is God, gave himself willingly:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father." (John 10:17-18)
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > Why does it matter whether Jesus was willing to let himself be killed? He was innocent. If X commits a capital crime and Y, who is innocent, volunteers to go to the electric chair, that's not justice. In no non-religious setting would punishing an innocent person for someone else's crimes be considered just.
>> >> > > You never read A Tale of Two Cities?
>> >> > Sure, I have, and I don't consider the Terror to be a paradigm of justice.
>> >> Do you regard Charles Darnay as part of the Terror?
>> >
>> >No, but the situation which required the sacrifice was the result of the Terror. The sacrifice may have been a "far better thing than he had ever done before," but the Terror was unjust. I don't really think Tale of Two Cities is a good analogy for the redemption.
>> It wasn't intended to be an analogy, I was just having a
>> tongue-in-cheek pop at "In no non-religious setting would punishing an
>> innocent person for someone else's crimes be considered just." ;)
>
>Sure, but I doubt you really think the punishment of Canton instead of Darnay was just, do you?

Oops, got my characters mixed up - that will teach me to go on
memories from 40+ years ago instead of checking properly!

In response to your question, it doesn't really matter what I think,
Carton seemed to regard it as just so whether or not something just
depends on POV.

>>
>> >>
>> >> > >
>> >> > > [...]

This is another MarkE thread of which I completely lost track.
The first thread I "rediscovered" seems to have completely befuddled
all the folks who tuned in on this one, because it has to do with the primitive
current state of OOL -- the origin of life:
"Re: Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer."

That is a far more dangerous idea from the POV most of the people posting to
this thread than the Resurrection, which seems not to stir anyone else on this thread
to comment seriously except MarkE and myself.

Yet it meant everything to Saul of Tarsus, a.k.a. Paul the Apostle, a.k.a. St. Paul.
Just read I Corinthians 15.

And it seems to mean something very similar to Peter Hitchens.

Just read the OP, Mark, perhaps for the first time with an effort to wrap your mind around it

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:00:47 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 9/24/23 4:13 PM, MarkE wrote:

> > Jesus, who is God, gave himself willingly:
> >
> > "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.” (John 10:17-18)

> Personally, I think the "Christ died for your sins" trope was a late
> gloss added to explain how a supposedly life-bringing god could die.

I dislike the "for your sins" bit myself. St. Paul's message seem to say
that Christ died to bring us hope that this world, with its monstrous injustices that go
unalleviated, is not the end of everything for billions who don't get
a fair shake in life.

Islam tries to base itself on such hope, but by denying that Christ died
and rose from the dead, it cuts itself off from any assurance that its heaven
[which seems rather primitively conceived] exists at all. Jesus was more
reticent about what heaven is like. It took the Sadducees to get him to
tell anything specific about it, and even that was a negative.

The most concrete statement I could find was in a letter attributed to
St. Peter: "Do you not know that we are to judge angels?"

> Worse, I think it distracts from the important part of the gospels:

For you, who seem to be comfortable with the idea that death is oblivion.
Why didn't you say so (or otherwise) on the thread where I tried to
get people to talk about their own particular take on life after death?

> Christ's teachings during his life. Jesus did not die for your sins; he
> lived for them.

So, Jesus was just another great teacher, like Gautama or St. Benedict? Where exactly
do the sins come into play, besides Jesus's claim that he had the power to forgive them?

Peter Nyikos

On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 8:42:07 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> This is another MarkE thread of which I completely lost track.
> The first thread I "rediscovered" seems to have completely befuddled
> all the folks who tuned in on this one, because it has to do with the primitive
> current state of OOL -- the origin of life:
> "Re: Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer."
>
> That is a far more dangerous idea from the POV most of the people posting to
> this thread than the Resurrection, which seems not to stir anyone else on this thread
> to comment seriously except MarkE and myself.

Your personal perspective on what is serious seems defective.

Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try.
No hell below us, above us only sky.
Imagine all the people, livin' for today
Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion, too
Imagine all the people, livin' life in peace

Now go ahead and call me a dreamer.

> Yet it meant everything to Saul of Tarsus, a.k.a. Paul the Apostle, a.k.a.. St. Paul.
> Just read I Corinthians 15.
>
> And it seems to mean something very similar to Peter Hitchens.
>
> Just read the OP, Mark, perhaps for the first time with an effort to wrap your mind around it
> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:00:47 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> > On 9/24/23 4:13 PM, MarkE wrote:
>
> > > Jesus, who is God, gave himself willingly:
> > >
> > > "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.” (John 10:17-18)
>
> > Personally, I think the "Christ died for your sins" trope was a late
> > gloss added to explain how a supposedly life-bringing god could die.
> I dislike the "for your sins" bit myself. St. Paul's message seem to say
> that Christ died to bring us hope that this world, with its monstrous injustices that go
> unalleviated, is not the end of everything for billions who don't get
> a fair shake in life.
>
> Islam tries to base itself on such hope, but by denying that Christ died
> and rose from the dead, it cuts itself off from any assurance that its heaven
> [which seems rather primitively conceived] exists at all. Jesus was more
> reticent about what heaven is like. It took the Sadducees to get him to
> tell anything specific about it, and even that was a negative.
>
> The most concrete statement I could find was in a letter attributed to
> St. Peter: "Do you not know that we are to judge angels?"
> > Worse, I think it distracts from the important part of the gospels:
> For you, who seem to be comfortable with the idea that death is oblivion.
> Why didn't you say so (or otherwise) on the thread where I tried to
> get people to talk about their own particular take on life after death?
> > Christ's teachings during his life. Jesus did not die for your sins; he
> > lived for them.
> So, Jesus was just another great teacher, like Gautama or St. Benedict? Where exactly
> do the sins come into play, besides Jesus's claim that he had the power to forgive them?
>
>
> Peter Nyikos

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 1:47:07 PM UTC+11, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 8:42:07 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > This is another MarkE thread of which I completely lost track.
> > The first thread I "rediscovered" seems to have completely befuddled
> > all the folks who tuned in on this one, because it has to do with the primitive
> > current state of OOL -- the origin of life:
> > "Re: Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer."
> >
> > That is a far more dangerous idea from the POV most of the people posting to
> > this thread than the Resurrection, which seems not to stir anyone else on this thread
> > to comment seriously except MarkE and myself.
> Your personal perspective on what is serious seems defective.
>
> Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try.
> No hell below us, above us only sky.
> Imagine all the people, livin' for today
> Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do
> Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion, too
> Imagine all the people, livin' life in peace
>
> Now go ahead and call me a dreamer.

“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956

> > Yet it meant everything to Saul of Tarsus, a.k.a. Paul the Apostle, a.k..a. St. Paul.
> > Just read I Corinthians 15.
> >
> > And it seems to mean something very similar to Peter Hitchens.
> >
> > Just read the OP, Mark, perhaps for the first time with an effort to wrap your mind around it
> > On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:00:47 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> > > On 9/24/23 4:13 PM, MarkE wrote:
> >
> > > > Jesus, who is God, gave himself willingly:
> > > >
> > > > "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.” (John 10:17-18)
> >
> > > Personally, I think the "Christ died for your sins" trope was a late
> > > gloss added to explain how a supposedly life-bringing god could die.
> > I dislike the "for your sins" bit myself. St. Paul's message seem to say
> > that Christ died to bring us hope that this world, with its monstrous injustices that go
> > unalleviated, is not the end of everything for billions who don't get
> > a fair shake in life.
> >
> > Islam tries to base itself on such hope, but by denying that Christ died
> > and rose from the dead, it cuts itself off from any assurance that its heaven
> > [which seems rather primitively conceived] exists at all. Jesus was more
> > reticent about what heaven is like. It took the Sadducees to get him to
> > tell anything specific about it, and even that was a negative.
> >
> > The most concrete statement I could find was in a letter attributed to
> > St. Peter: "Do you not know that we are to judge angels?"
> > > Worse, I think it distracts from the important part of the gospels:
> > For you, who seem to be comfortable with the idea that death is oblivion.
> > Why didn't you say so (or otherwise) on the thread where I tried to
> > get people to talk about their own particular take on life after death?
> > > Christ's teachings during his life. Jesus did not die for your sins; he
> > > lived for them.
> > So, Jesus was just another great teacher, like Gautama or St. Benedict? Where exactly
> > do the sins come into play, besides Jesus's claim that he had the power to forgive them?
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos

On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 9:47:07 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 8:42:07 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> > This is another MarkE thread of which I completely lost track.
> > The first thread I "rediscovered" seems to have completely befuddled
> > all the folks who tuned in on this one, because it has to do with the primitive
> > current state of OOL -- the origin of life:

> > "Re: Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer."
> >
> > That is a far more dangerous idea from the POV most of the people posting to
> > this thread than the Resurrection, which seems not to stir anyone else on this thread
> > to comment seriously except MarkE and myself.

> Your personal perspective on what is serious seems defective.

In what way? I see no attempt by you to undermine what I wrote about OOL.

> Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try.
> No hell below us, above us only sky.
> Imagine all the people, livin' for today
> Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do
> Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion, too
> Imagine all the people, livin' life in peace
>
> Now go ahead and call me a dreamer.

Are you dreaming a world where ALL of John Lennon's "Imagine"
is a reality? If so, you might also love Billy Joel's advice
to Catholic girls. And I doubt that Martin Harran will
criticize you if you do.

> > Yet it meant everything to Saul of Tarsus, a.k.a. Paul the Apostle, a.k..a. St. Paul.
> > Just read I Corinthians 15.

> > And it seems to mean something very similar to Peter Hitchens.

What's the matter, "Daggett", don't you want to say something extra about this?

Do you think John Lennon is an adequate refutation of St. Paul?

If so, perhaps you will also agree with all the Beatles --- what exactly did they mean
when they compared themselves to Jesus?

Don't get me wrong, they were a great group with some great songs,
and they weren't at all bad solo either. "My sweet Lord" was a great song, readily applicable
to the "My Sweet Lord" of Christians once the "Hare Krishna, Hare Rama"
is appreciated only for the way there is sincere (but misguided) religion there.

And Paul McCartney's "Admiral Halsey/Uncle Albert" has been
great for getting me out of many a funk with its exuberant zaniness.

But I don't have such a rosy view of Lennon's "Imagine". Sorry about that.

Peter Nyikos

PS I've left in everything you did below, even though you made no comment on it.

> > Just read the OP, Mark, perhaps for the first time with an effort to wrap your mind around it

> > On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:00:47 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> > > On 9/24/23 4:13 PM, MarkE wrote:
> >
> > > > Jesus, who is God, gave himself willingly:
> > > >
> > > > "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.” (John 10:17-18)
> >
> > > Personally, I think the "Christ died for your sins" trope was a late
> > > gloss added to explain how a supposedly life-bringing god could die.

> > I dislike the "for your sins" bit myself. St. Paul's message seem to say
> > that Christ died to bring us hope that this world, with its monstrous injustices that go
> > unalleviated, is not the end of everything for billions who don't get
> > a fair shake in life.
> >
> > Islam tries to base itself on such hope, but by denying that Christ died
> > and rose from the dead, it cuts itself off from any assurance that its heaven
> > [which seems rather primitively conceived] exists at all. Jesus was more
> > reticent about what heaven is like. It took the Sadducees to get him to
> > tell anything specific about it, and even that was a negative.
> >
> > The most concrete statement I could find was in a letter attributed to
> > St. Peter: "Do you not know that we are to judge angels?"

> > > Worse, I think it distracts from the important part of the gospels:

> > For you, who seem to be comfortable with the idea that death is oblivion.
> > Why didn't you say so (or otherwise) on the thread where I tried to
> > get people to talk about their own particular take on life after death?

> > > Christ's teachings during his life. Jesus did not die for your sins; he
> > > lived for them.

> > So, Jesus was just another great teacher, like Gautama or St. Benedict? Where exactly
> > do the sins come into play, besides Jesus's claim that he had the power to forgive them?
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 8:27:08 AM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 9:47:07 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 8:42:07 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > This is another MarkE thread of which I completely lost track.
> > > The first thread I "rediscovered" seems to have completely befuddled
> > > all the folks who tuned in on this one, because it has to do with the primitive
> > > current state of OOL -- the origin of life:
>
> > > "Re: Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer."
> > >
> > > That is a far more dangerous idea from the POV most of the people posting to
> > > this thread than the Resurrection, which seems not to stir anyone else on this thread
> > > to comment seriously except MarkE and myself.
>
> > Your personal perspective on what is serious seems defective.
> In what way? I see no attempt by you to undermine what I wrote about OOL.
> > Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try.
> > No hell below us, above us only sky.
> > Imagine all the people, livin' for today
> > Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do
> > Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion, too
> > Imagine all the people, livin' life in peace
> >
> > Now go ahead and call me a dreamer.
> Are you dreaming a world where ALL of John Lennon's "Imagine"
> is a reality? If so, you might also love Billy Joel's advice
> to Catholic girls. And I doubt that Martin Harran will
> criticize you if you do.
> > > Yet it meant everything to Saul of Tarsus, a.k.a. Paul the Apostle, a..k.a. St. Paul.
> > > Just read I Corinthians 15.
>
> > > And it seems to mean something very similar to Peter Hitchens.
> What's the matter, "Daggett", don't you want to say something extra about this?
>
> Do you think John Lennon is an adequate refutation of St. Paul?

Paul was the anti-Jesus. I lay most of the defects in christianity at his feet.
He bypasses the message for rules, structure, and ritualized worship.
So many future abuses can be lain at his feet and the underlying mentality
he epitomizes.

> If so, perhaps you will also agree with all the Beatles --- what exactly did they mean
> when they compared themselves to Jesus?

You feed a gross mischaracterization. The comment that set folks off was to
the effect of "to these kids, we're bigger than Jesus", and the context was clear.
They weren't comparing themselves to Jesus, they were comparing the enthusiasm
kids were showing to Beatlemania to the enthusiasm kids showed to Jesus.
And in the fine tradition of religious kooks misunderstanding, they contorted a
statement about an __is__ to an assertion that things __ought__ to be that way.
I'm not at all surprised that you choose to feed that misconception.

> Don't get me wrong, they were a great group with some great songs,
> and they weren't at all bad solo either. "My sweet Lord" was a great song, readily applicable
> to the "My Sweet Lord" of Christians once the "Hare Krishna, Hare Rama"
> is appreciated only for the way there is sincere (but misguided) religion there.
>
> And Paul McCartney's "Admiral Halsey/Uncle Albert" has been
> great for getting me out of many a funk with its exuberant zaniness.
>
> But I don't have such a rosy view of Lennon's "Imagine". Sorry about that..
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>
> PS I've left in everything you did below, even though you made no comment on it.

There are no comments by me below. Maybe you need a break.

> > > Just read the OP, Mark, perhaps for the first time with an effort to wrap your mind around it
>
> > > On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:00:47 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> > > > On 9/24/23 4:13 PM, MarkE wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Jesus, who is God, gave himself willingly:
> > > > >
> > > > > "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.” (John 10:17-18)
> > >
> > > > Personally, I think the "Christ died for your sins" trope was a late
> > > > gloss added to explain how a supposedly life-bringing god could die..
>
> > > I dislike the "for your sins" bit myself. St. Paul's message seem to say
> > > that Christ died to bring us hope that this world, with its monstrous injustices that go
> > > unalleviated, is not the end of everything for billions who don't get
> > > a fair shake in life.
> > >
> > > Islam tries to base itself on such hope, but by denying that Christ died
> > > and rose from the dead, it cuts itself off from any assurance that its heaven
> > > [which seems rather primitively conceived] exists at all. Jesus was more
> > > reticent about what heaven is like. It took the Sadducees to get him to
> > > tell anything specific about it, and even that was a negative.
> > >
> > > The most concrete statement I could find was in a letter attributed to
> > > St. Peter: "Do you not know that we are to judge angels?"
>
> > > > Worse, I think it distracts from the important part of the gospels:
>
> > > For you, who seem to be comfortable with the idea that death is oblivion.
> > > Why didn't you say so (or otherwise) on the thread where I tried to
> > > get people to talk about their own particular take on life after death?
>
> > > > Christ's teachings during his life. Jesus did not die for your sins; he
> > > > lived for them.
>
> > > So, Jesus was just another great teacher, like Gautama or St. Benedict? Where exactly
> > > do the sins come into play, besides Jesus's claim that he had the power to forgive them?
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter Nyikos

peter2...@gmail.com <peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 9:47:07 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 8:42:07 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> This is another MarkE thread of which I completely lost track.
>>> The first thread I "rediscovered" seems to have completely befuddled
>>> all the folks who tuned in on this one, because it has to do with the primitive
>>> current state of OOL -- the origin of life:
>
>>> "Re: Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer."
>>>
>>> That is a far more dangerous idea from the POV most of the people posting to
>>> this thread than the Resurrection, which seems not to stir anyone else on this thread
>>> to comment seriously except MarkE and myself.
>
>> Your personal perspective on what is serious seems defective.
>
> In what way? I see no attempt by you to undermine what I wrote about OOL.
>
>
>> Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try.
>> No hell below us, above us only sky.
>> Imagine all the people, livin' for today
>> Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do
>> Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion, too
>> Imagine all the people, livin' life in peace
>>
>> Now go ahead and call me a dreamer.
>
> Are you dreaming a world where ALL of John Lennon's "Imagine"
> is a reality? If so, you might also love Billy Joel's advice
> to Catholic girls. And I doubt that Martin Harran will
> criticize you if you do.
>
From a Playboy interview (it actually has articles?) cited here
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagine_(John_Lennon_song)) Lennon says:

“The concept of positive prayer ... If you can imagine a world at peace,
with no denominations of religion—not without religion but without this my
God-is-bigger-than-your-God thing—then it can be true ... the World Church
called me once and asked, "Can we use the lyrics to 'Imagine' and just
change it to 'Imagine one religion'?" That showed [me] they didn't
understand it at all. It would defeat the whole purpose of the song, the
whole idea.”

From the same wiki (https://www.robertchristgau.com/get_album.php?id=1791)
“Primal goes pop--personal and useful. The title cut is both a hymn for the
Movement and a love song for his wife, celebrating a Yokoism and a
Marcusianism simultaneously…”

So the bogeyman Herbert Marcuse was influential? Imagine was woke mob
critical theory? Florida should ban it then. Note: that’s my flippancy
acting up again.

As a historic counterfactual, imagine there had been no Babylonian
captivity and subsequent Persian influence on 2nd Temple Judaism. Would
there be Christianity, Gehenna as a garbage dump metaphor, or Hassatan as
the scapegoat embodiment of the evil God had himself unleashed with the
Creation?

No hell below us…imagine! Thus spake Zarathustra.
>
>>> Yet it meant everything to Saul of Tarsus, a.k.a. Paul the Apostle, a.k.a. St. Paul.
>>> Just read I Corinthians 15.
>
>>> And it seems to mean something very similar to Peter Hitchens.
>
> What's the matter, "Daggett", don't you want to say something extra about this?
>
> Do you think John Lennon is an adequate refutation of St. Paul?
>
> If so, perhaps you will also agree with all the Beatles --- what exactly did they mean
> when they compared themselves to Jesus?
>
It was Lennon himself, not the band, that did the deed.

https://www.britannica.com/story/did-the-beatles-really-say-they-were-more-popular-than-jesus

“”Christianity will go,” Lennon said, according to Cleave’s article. “It
will vanish and shrink. I needn’t argue about that; I’m right and I will be
proved right. We’re more popular than Jesus now; I don’t know which will go
first—rock ’n’ roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right but his disciples
were thick and ordinary. It’s them twisting it that ruins it for me.” As
Cleave noted in the profile, Lennon had been using his time off from
Beatles commitments to read about religion.”

This was roughly the time that people were predicting secularization and
this came out:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_God_Dead%3F (linked in
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_popular_than_Jesus)

Lennon later clarified:
“Rather than read from a prepared statement, he gamely faced the volley of
hostile questions head on, clambering to clarify his thoughts. “I’m not
anti-God, anti-Christ or anti-religion,” he said. “I was not knocking it. I
was not saying we’re better or greater, or comparing us with Jesus Christ
as a person or God as a thing or whatever it is. I happened to be talking
to a friend and I used the word ‘Beatles’ as a remote thing – ‘Beatles’
like other people see us. I said they are having more influence on kids and
things than anything else, including Jesus. I said it in that way, which
was the wrong way.””

https://www.rollingstone.com/feature/when-john-lennons-more-popular-than-jesus-controversy-turned-ugly-106430/

And also from the wikipedia: “In April 2010, the Vatican newspaper
L'Osservatore Romano published an article marking the 40th anniversary of
the Beatles' self-titled album (also known as the "White Album") which
included comments on Lennon's "more popular than Jesus" remark. Part of the
response read: "The remark ... which triggered deep indignation, mainly in
the United States, after many years sounds only like a 'boast' by a young
working-class Englishman faced with unexpected success, after growing up in
the legend of Elvis and rock and roll."[119] Ringo Starr responded: "Didn't
the Vatican say we were possibly Satanic, and they've still forgiven us? I
think the Vatican's got more to talk about than the Beatles."[120][121]”
>
> Don't get me wrong, they were a great group with some great songs,
> and they weren't at all bad solo either. "My sweet Lord" was a great
> song, readily applicable
> to the "My Sweet Lord" of Christians once the "Hare Krishna, Hare Rama"
> is appreciated only for the way there is sincere (but misguided) religion there.
>
The Beatles were ok. Too Boomerish for me. Rock got much better in the 90s
when Gen X took the helm. But Oasis were full of themselves:
“In 1997, Noel Gallagher claimed that his band Oasis was "bigger than God",
but reaction was minimal.[92] The following day Melanie C responded to
Gallagher saying "If Oasis are bigger than God, what does that make the
Spice Girls? Bigger than Buddha? Because we are a darn sight bigger than
Oasis".[93]” (same wikipedia as above)
>
> And Paul McCartney's "Admiral Halsey/Uncle Albert" has been
> great for getting me out of many a funk with its exuberant zaniness.
>
> But I don't have such a rosy view of Lennon's "Imagine". Sorry about that.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>
> PS I've left in everything you did below, even though you made no comment on it.
>
I wonder what Lennon meant by this:
“In the letter, Lennon labels McCartney as playing “simple, honest ole’
human Paul” in the interview and fires back about McCartney’s stance that
song Imagine wasn’t political. He writes, “It’s ‘working class here’ with
sugar on it for conservatives like yourself. You obviously didn’t dig the
words. Imagine!” He then compares McCartney’s political stance to that of
Mary Whitehouse – a conservative activist, most famous for her campaigns
against the prominence of sex and swearing on British television.”

https://guitar.com/news/music-news/heated-letter-john-lennon-wrote-paul-mccartney-auction/

On 12/12/23 5:38 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:00:47 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 9/24/23 4:13 PM, MarkE wrote:
>
>>> Jesus, who is God, gave himself willingly:
>>>
>>> "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.” (John 10:17-18)
>
>> Personally, I think the "Christ died for your sins" trope was a late
>> gloss added to explain how a supposedly life-bringing god could die.
>
> I dislike the "for your sins" bit myself. St. Paul's message seem to say
> that Christ died to bring us hope that this world, with its monstrous injustices that go
> unalleviated, is not the end of everything for billions who don't get
> a fair shake in life.
>
> Islam tries to base itself on such hope, but by denying that Christ died
> and rose from the dead, it cuts itself off from any assurance that its heaven
> [which seems rather primitively conceived] exists at all. Jesus was more
> reticent about what heaven is like. It took the Sadducees to get him to
> tell anything specific about it, and even that was a negative.

Islam has God's angelic messenger directly asserting the existence of
heaven. Seems like a pretty significant assurance to me.

> The most concrete statement I could find was in a letter attributed to
> St. Peter: "Do you not know that we are to judge angels?"
>
>
>
>> Worse, I think it distracts from the important part of the gospels:
>
> For you, who seem to be comfortable with the idea that death is oblivion.
> Why didn't you say so (or otherwise) on the thread where I tried to
> get people to talk about their own particular take on life after death?

Why on earth should I? Do you think I have any special perspective or
evidence on the subject that nobody else has?

>> Christ's teachings during his life. Jesus did not die for your sins; he
>> lived for them.
>
> So, Jesus was just another great teacher, like Gautama or St. Benedict? Where exactly
> do the sins come into play, besides Jesus's claim that he had the power to forgive them?

There should be some penalty for using "just a" to belittle greatness.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

On 12/12/23 7:19 PM, MarkE wrote:
> [...]
> “If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
> ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956

That is going in my quote file.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 18:46:44 -0800 (PST), Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 8:42:07?PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> This is another MarkE thread of which I completely lost track.
>> The first thread I "rediscovered" seems to have completely befuddled
>> all the folks who tuned in on this one, because it has to do with the primitive
>> current state of OOL -- the origin of life:
>> "Re: Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer."
>>
>> That is a far more dangerous idea from the POV most of the people posting to
>> this thread than the Resurrection, which seems not to stir anyone else on this thread
>> to comment seriously except MarkE and myself.
>
>Your personal perspective on what is serious seems defective.
>
>Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try.
>No hell below us, above us only sky.
>Imagine all the people, livin' for today
>Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do
>Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion, too
>Imagine all the people, livin' life in peace
>
>Now go ahead and call me a dreamer.

Nothing wrong with dreaming as such but it really needs action to
change anything. That's probably why Jesus put so much emphasis on
what we should be doing.

>
>
>> Yet it meant everything to Saul of Tarsus, a.k.a. Paul the Apostle, a.k.a. St. Paul.
>> Just read I Corinthians 15.
>>
>> And it seems to mean something very similar to Peter Hitchens.
>>
>> Just read the OP, Mark, perhaps for the first time with an effort to wrap your mind around it
>> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:00:47?AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> > On 9/24/23 4:13 PM, MarkE wrote:
>>
>> > > Jesus, who is God, gave himself willingly:
>> > >
>> > > "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.” (John 10:17-18)
>>
>> > Personally, I think the "Christ died for your sins" trope was a late
>> > gloss added to explain how a supposedly life-bringing god could die.
>> I dislike the "for your sins" bit myself. St. Paul's message seem to say
>> that Christ died to bring us hope that this world, with its monstrous injustices that go
>> unalleviated, is not the end of everything for billions who don't get
>> a fair shake in life.
>>
>> Islam tries to base itself on such hope, but by denying that Christ died
>> and rose from the dead, it cuts itself off from any assurance that its heaven
>> [which seems rather primitively conceived] exists at all. Jesus was more
>> reticent about what heaven is like. It took the Sadducees to get him to
>> tell anything specific about it, and even that was a negative.
>>
>> The most concrete statement I could find was in a letter attributed to
>> St. Peter: "Do you not know that we are to judge angels?"
>> > Worse, I think it distracts from the important part of the gospels:
>> For you, who seem to be comfortable with the idea that death is oblivion.
>> Why didn't you say so (or otherwise) on the thread where I tried to
>> get people to talk about their own particular take on life after death?
>> > Christ's teachings during his life. Jesus did not die for your sins; he
>> > lived for them.
>> So, Jesus was just another great teacher, like Gautama or St. Benedict? Where exactly
>> do the sins come into play, besides Jesus's claim that he had the power to forgive them?
>>
>>
>> Peter Nyikos

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 05:25:50 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 9:47:07?PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 8:42:07?PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> > This is another MarkE thread of which I completely lost track.
>> > The first thread I "rediscovered" seems to have completely befuddled
>> > all the folks who tuned in on this one, because it has to do with the primitive
>> > current state of OOL -- the origin of life:
>
>> > "Re: Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer."
>> >
>> > That is a far more dangerous idea from the POV most of the people posting to
>> > this thread than the Resurrection, which seems not to stir anyone else on this thread
>> > to comment seriously except MarkE and myself.
>
>> Your personal perspective on what is serious seems defective.
>
>In what way? I see no attempt by you to undermine what I wrote about OOL.
>
>
>> Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try.
>> No hell below us, above us only sky.
>> Imagine all the people, livin' for today
>> Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do
>> Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion, too
>> Imagine all the people, livin' life in peace
>>
>> Now go ahead and call me a dreamer.
>
>Are you dreaming a world where ALL of John Lennon's "Imagine"
>is a reality? If so, you might also love Billy Joel's advice
>to Catholic girls. And I doubt that Martin Harran will
>criticize you if you do.

Oh dear, Peter, en't even lasted 4 weeks this time. Your obnoxiousness
is getting ever more out of control, it really is time that you got
help with it.

[...]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 16:50:02 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 05:25:50 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
><peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 9:47:07?PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 8:42:07?PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> > This is another MarkE thread of which I completely lost track.
>>> > The first thread I "rediscovered" seems to have completely befuddled
>>> > all the folks who tuned in on this one, because it has to do with the primitive
>>> > current state of OOL -- the origin of life:
>>
>>> > "Re: Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer."
>>> >
>>> > That is a far more dangerous idea from the POV most of the people posting to
>>> > this thread than the Resurrection, which seems not to stir anyone else on this thread
>>> > to comment seriously except MarkE and myself.
>>
>>> Your personal perspective on what is serious seems defective.
>>
>>In what way? I see no attempt by you to undermine what I wrote about OOL.
>>
>>
>>> Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try.
>>> No hell below us, above us only sky.
>>> Imagine all the people, livin' for today
>>> Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do
>>> Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion, too
>>> Imagine all the people, livin' life in peace
>>>
>>> Now go ahead and call me a dreamer.
>>
>>Are you dreaming a world where ALL of John Lennon's "Imagine"
>>is a reality? If so, you might also love Billy Joel's advice
>>to Catholic girls. And I doubt that Martin Harran will
>>criticize you if you do.
>
>Oh dear, Peter, en't even lasted 4 weeks this time. Your obnoxiousness
>is getting ever more out of control, it really is time that you got
>help with it.
>
>[...]

..... haven't even lasted ....

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 8:52:08 AM UTC-8, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 05:25:50 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 9:47:07?PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 8:42:07?PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> > This is another MarkE thread of which I completely lost track.
> >> > The first thread I "rediscovered" seems to have completely befuddled
> >> > all the folks who tuned in on this one, because it has to do with the primitive
> >> > current state of OOL -- the origin of life:
> >
> >> > "Re: Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer."
> >> >
> >> > That is a far more dangerous idea from the POV most of the people posting to
> >> > this thread than the Resurrection, which seems not to stir anyone else on this thread
> >> > to comment seriously except MarkE and myself.
> >
> >> Your personal perspective on what is serious seems defective.
> >
> >In what way? I see no attempt by you to undermine what I wrote about OOL..
> >
> >
> >> Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try.
> >> No hell below us, above us only sky.
> >> Imagine all the people, livin' for today
> >> Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do
> >> Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion, too
> >> Imagine all the people, livin' life in peace
> >>
> >> Now go ahead and call me a dreamer.
> >
> >Are you dreaming a world where ALL of John Lennon's "Imagine"
> >is a reality? If so, you might also love Billy Joel's advice
> >to Catholic girls. And I doubt that Martin Harran will
> >criticize you if you do.
> Oh dear, Peter, en't even lasted 4 weeks this time. Your obnoxiousness
> is getting ever more out of control, it really is time that you got
> help with it.
>
> [...]
Oh, come now. Peter just wants these dangerous ideas stamped out
once and for all. Who could disagree?

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 12:02:08 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 8:52:08 AM UTC-8, Martin Harran wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 05:25:50 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> > <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 9:47:07?PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > >> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 8:42:07?PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >> > This is another MarkE thread of which I completely lost track.
> > >> > The first thread I "rediscovered" seems to have completely befuddled
> > >> > all the folks who tuned in on this one, because it has to do with the primitive
> > >> > current state of OOL -- the origin of life:
> > >
> > >> > "Re: Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer."
> > >> >
> > >> > That is a far more dangerous idea from the POV most of the people posting to
> > >> > this thread than the Resurrection, which seems not to stir anyone else on this thread
> > >> > to comment seriously except MarkE and myself.
> > >
> > >> Your personal perspective on what is serious seems defective.
> > >
> > >In what way? I see no attempt by you to undermine what I wrote about OOL.

Daggett left the crickets chirping here.

> > >> Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try.
> > >> No hell below us, above us only sky.
> > >> Imagine all the people, livin' for today
> > >> Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do
> > >> Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion, too
> > >> Imagine all the people, livin' life in peace
> > >>
> > >> Now go ahead and call me a dreamer.
> > >
> > >Are you dreaming a world where ALL of John Lennon's "Imagine"
> > >is a reality? If so, you might also love Billy Joel's advice
> > >to Catholic girls. And I doubt that Martin Harran will
> > >criticize you if you do.

> > Oh dear, Peter, en't even lasted 4 weeks this time. Your obnoxiousness
> > is getting ever more out of control, it really is time that you got
> > help with it.

Martin is unable to deal with the content of what I wrote,
so he is resorting to transparently insincere gaslighting.

And you, Erik, seem to be in an "I've got your back" role here
towards Martin:

> > [...]
> Oh, come now. Peter just wants these dangerous ideas stamped out
> once and for all. Who could disagree?

Anyone who knows you are committing libel, unless you've cracked
a nasty joke that your role model Harshman will assess with his
usual flagrant double standards.

If jillery's periodic tiffs with Harshman were more than skin-deep,
she would long ago have accused him of being addicted to double standards
and being proud of it.

Peter Nyikos

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 3:57:08 PM UTC-8, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 12:02:08 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 8:52:08 AM UTC-8, Martin Harran wrote:
> > > On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 05:25:50 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> > > <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 9:47:07?PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > > >> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 8:42:07?PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> > This is another MarkE thread of which I completely lost track.
> > > >> > The first thread I "rediscovered" seems to have completely befuddled
> > > >> > all the folks who tuned in on this one, because it has to do with the primitive
> > > >> > current state of OOL -- the origin of life:
> > > >
> > > >> > "Re: Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer."
> > > >> >
> > > >> > That is a far more dangerous idea from the POV most of the people posting to
> > > >> > this thread than the Resurrection, which seems not to stir anyone else on this thread
> > > >> > to comment seriously except MarkE and myself.
> > > >
> > > >> Your personal perspective on what is serious seems defective.
> > > >
> > > >In what way? I see no attempt by you to undermine what I wrote about OOL.
> Daggett left the crickets chirping here.
> > > >> Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try.
> > > >> No hell below us, above us only sky.
> > > >> Imagine all the people, livin' for today
> > > >> Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do
> > > >> Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion, too
> > > >> Imagine all the people, livin' life in peace
> > > >>
> > > >> Now go ahead and call me a dreamer.
> > > >
> > > >Are you dreaming a world where ALL of John Lennon's "Imagine"
> > > >is a reality? If so, you might also love Billy Joel's advice
> > > >to Catholic girls. And I doubt that Martin Harran will
> > > >criticize you if you do.
>
> > > Oh dear, Peter, en't even lasted 4 weeks this time. Your obnoxiousness
> > > is getting ever more out of control, it really is time that you got
> > > help with it.
> Martin is unable to deal with the content of what I wrote,
> so he is resorting to transparently insincere gaslighting.
>
> And you, Erik, seem to be in an "I've got your back" role here
> towards Martin:
> > > [...]
> > Oh, come now. Peter just wants these dangerous ideas stamped out
> > once and for all. Who could disagree?
> Anyone who knows you are committing libel, unless you've cracked
> a nasty joke that your role model Harshman will assess with his
> usual flagrant double standards.

I can't parse that sentence.

>
> If jillery's periodic tiffs with Harshman were more than skin-deep,
> she would long ago have accused him of being addicted to double standards
> and being proud of it.

What does jillery. have to do with this? This looks like a non-sequitur post.

>
>
> Peter Nyikos

On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 12:12:09 AM UTC, erik simpson wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 3:57:08 PM UTC-8, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 12:02:08 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 8:52:08 AM UTC-8, Martin Harran wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 05:25:50 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> > > > <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 9:47:07?PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > > > >> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 8:42:07?PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> > This is another MarkE thread of which I completely lost track.
> > > > >> > The first thread I "rediscovered" seems to have completely befuddled
> > > > >> > all the folks who tuned in on this one, because it has to do with the primitive
> > > > >> > current state of OOL -- the origin of life:
> > > > >
> > > > >> > "Re: Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer."
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > That is a far more dangerous idea from the POV most of the people posting to
> > > > >> > this thread than the Resurrection, which seems not to stir anyone else on this thread
> > > > >> > to comment seriously except MarkE and myself.
> > > > >
> > > > >> Your personal perspective on what is serious seems defective.
> > > > >
> > > > >In what way? I see no attempt by you to undermine what I wrote about OOL.
> > Daggett left the crickets chirping here.
> > > > >> Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try.
> > > > >> No hell below us, above us only sky.
> > > > >> Imagine all the people, livin' for today
> > > > >> Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do
> > > > >> Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion, too
> > > > >> Imagine all the people, livin' life in peace
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Now go ahead and call me a dreamer.
> > > > >
> > > > >Are you dreaming a world where ALL of John Lennon's "Imagine"
> > > > >is a reality? If so, you might also love Billy Joel's advice
> > > > >to Catholic girls. And I doubt that Martin Harran will
> > > > >criticize you if you do.
> >
> > > > Oh dear, Peter, en't even lasted 4 weeks this time. Your obnoxiousness
> > > > is getting ever more out of control, it really is time that you got
> > > > help with it.
> > Martin is unable to deal with the content of what I wrote,
> > so he is resorting to transparently insincere gaslighting.
> >
> > And you, Erik, seem to be in an "I've got your back" role here
> > towards Martin:
> > > > [...]
> > > Oh, come now. Peter just wants these dangerous ideas stamped out
> > > once and for all. Who could disagree?
> > Anyone who knows you are committing libel, unless you've cracked
> > a nasty joke that your role model Harshman will assess with his
> > usual flagrant double standards.
> I can't parse that sentence.
> >
> > If jillery's periodic tiffs with Harshman were more than skin-deep,
> > she would long ago have accused him of being addicted to double standards
> > and being proud of it.
> What does jillery. have to do with this? This looks like a non-sequitur post.

You are surprised at the master of non-sequiturs posting a non-sequiter?

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 4:42:08 PM UTC-8, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 12:12:09 AM UTC, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 3:57:08 PM UTC-8, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 12:02:08 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 8:52:08 AM UTC-8, Martin Harran wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 05:25:50 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> > > > > <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 9:47:07?PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > > > > >> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 8:42:07?PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > This is another MarkE thread of which I completely lost track.
> > > > > >> > The first thread I "rediscovered" seems to have completely befuddled
> > > > > >> > all the folks who tuned in on this one, because it has to do with the primitive
> > > > > >> > current state of OOL -- the origin of life:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > "Re: Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer."
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > That is a far more dangerous idea from the POV most of the people posting to
> > > > > >> > this thread than the Resurrection, which seems not to stir anyone else on this thread
> > > > > >> > to comment seriously except MarkE and myself.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Your personal perspective on what is serious seems defective.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >In what way? I see no attempt by you to undermine what I wrote about OOL.
> > > Daggett left the crickets chirping here.
> > > > > >> Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try.
> > > > > >> No hell below us, above us only sky.
> > > > > >> Imagine all the people, livin' for today
> > > > > >> Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do
> > > > > >> Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion, too
> > > > > >> Imagine all the people, livin' life in peace
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Now go ahead and call me a dreamer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Are you dreaming a world where ALL of John Lennon's "Imagine"
> > > > > >is a reality? If so, you might also love Billy Joel's advice
> > > > > >to Catholic girls. And I doubt that Martin Harran will
> > > > > >criticize you if you do.
> > >
> > > > > Oh dear, Peter, en't even lasted 4 weeks this time. Your obnoxiousness
> > > > > is getting ever more out of control, it really is time that you got
> > > > > help with it.
> > > Martin is unable to deal with the content of what I wrote,
> > > so he is resorting to transparently insincere gaslighting.
> > >
> > > And you, Erik, seem to be in an "I've got your back" role here
> > > towards Martin:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > Oh, come now. Peter just wants these dangerous ideas stamped out
> > > > once and for all. Who could disagree?
> > > Anyone who knows you are committing libel, unless you've cracked
> > > a nasty joke that your role model Harshman will assess with his
> > > usual flagrant double standards.
> > I can't parse that sentence.
> > >
> > > If jillery's periodic tiffs with Harshman were more than skin-deep,
> > > she would long ago have accused him of being addicted to double standards
> > > and being proud of it.
> > What does jillery. have to do with this? This looks like a non-sequitur post.
> You are surprised at the master of non-sequiturs posting a non-sequiter?
Not really. He sounds pretty distracted.

On 12/13/23 3:53 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 12:02:08 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 8:52:08 AM UTC-8, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 05:25:50 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 9:47:07?PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 8:42:07?PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> This is another MarkE thread of which I completely lost track.
>>>>>> The first thread I "rediscovered" seems to have completely befuddled
>>>>>> all the folks who tuned in on this one, because it has to do with the primitive
>>>>>> current state of OOL -- the origin of life:
>>>>
>>>>>> "Re: Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is a far more dangerous idea from the POV most of the people posting to
>>>>>> this thread than the Resurrection, which seems not to stir anyone else on this thread
>>>>>> to comment seriously except MarkE and myself.
>>>>
>>>>> Your personal perspective on what is serious seems defective.
>>>>
>>>> In what way? I see no attempt by you to undermine what I wrote about OOL.
>
> Daggett left the crickets chirping here.
>
>
>>>>> Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try.
>>>>> No hell below us, above us only sky.
>>>>> Imagine all the people, livin' for today
>>>>> Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do
>>>>> Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion, too
>>>>> Imagine all the people, livin' life in peace
>>>>>
>>>>> Now go ahead and call me a dreamer.
>>>>
>>>> Are you dreaming a world where ALL of John Lennon's "Imagine"
>>>> is a reality? If so, you might also love Billy Joel's advice
>>>> to Catholic girls. And I doubt that Martin Harran will
>>>> criticize you if you do.
>
>>> Oh dear, Peter, en't even lasted 4 weeks this time. Your obnoxiousness
>>> is getting ever more out of control, it really is time that you got
>>> help with it.
>
> Martin is unable to deal with the content of what I wrote,
> so he is resorting to transparently insincere gaslighting.
>
> And you, Erik, seem to be in an "I've got your back" role here
> towards Martin:
>
>>> [...]
>> Oh, come now. Peter just wants these dangerous ideas stamped out
>> once and for all. Who could disagree?
>
> Anyone who knows you are committing libel, unless you've cracked
> a nasty joke that your role model Harshman will assess with his
> usual flagrant double standards.
>
> If jillery's periodic tiffs with Harshman were more than skin-deep,
> she would long ago have accused him of being addicted to double standards
> and being proud of it.

I think this may win a prize for most posters name-dropped and insulted
in one post and with a minimum numbere of words.

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 7:12:09 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 3:57:08 PM UTC-8, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 12:02:08 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 8:52:08 AM UTC-8, Martin Harran wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 05:25:50 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> > > > <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 9:47:07?PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > > > >> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 8:42:07?PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> > This is another MarkE thread of which I completely lost track.
> > > > >> > The first thread I "rediscovered" seems to have completely befuddled
> > > > >> > all the folks who tuned in on this one, because it has to do with the primitive
> > > > >> > current state of OOL -- the origin of life:
> > > > >
> > > > >> > "Re: Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer."
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > That is a far more dangerous idea from the POV most of the people posting to
> > > > >> > this thread than the Resurrection, which seems not to stir anyone else on this thread
> > > > >> > to comment seriously except MarkE and myself.
> > > > >
> > > > >> Your personal perspective on what is serious seems defective.
> > > > >
> > > > >In what way? I see no attempt by you to undermine what I wrote about OOL.

> > Daggett left the crickets chirping here.

> > > > >> Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try.
> > > > >> No hell below us, above us only sky.
> > > > >> Imagine all the people, livin' for today
> > > > >> Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do
> > > > >> Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion, too
> > > > >> Imagine all the people, livin' life in peace
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Now go ahead and call me a dreamer.
> > > > >
> > > > >Are you dreaming a world where ALL of John Lennon's "Imagine"
> > > > >is a reality? If so, you might also love Billy Joel's advice
> > > > >to Catholic girls. And I doubt that Martin Harran will
> > > > >criticize you if you do.
> >
> > > > Oh dear, Peter, en't even lasted 4 weeks this time. Your obnoxiousness
> > > > is getting ever more out of control, it really is time that you got
> > > > help with it.

> > Martin is unable to deal with the content of what I wrote,
> > so he is resorting to transparently insincere gaslighting.

This last comment went like water off a duck's back in Martin's subsequent post.

> > And you, Erik, seem to be in an "I've got your back" role here
> > towards Martin:
> > > > [...]
> > > Oh, come now. Peter just wants these dangerous ideas stamped out
> > > once and for all. Who could disagree?

> > Anyone who knows you are committing libel, unless you've cracked
> > a nasty joke that your role model Harshman will assess with his
> > usual flagrant double standards.

> I can't parse that sentence.

I was answering your question, "Who could disagree?"
by telling you who could disagree with the falsehood that
preceded that question. The rest of the sentence assesses that falsehood and one of the effects
it is almost sure to have on Harshman. Capice?

> >
> > If jillery's periodic tiffs with Harshman were more than skin-deep,
> > she would long ago have accused him of being addicted to double standards
> > and being proud of it.

> What does jillery. have to do with this? This looks like a non-sequitur post.

Stop pretending we are isolated individuals here. There is a major dynamic
permeatng talk.origins, and the four people I mentioned above (including yourself) are
woven into that dynamic in ways that are relevant to it.

Sound cryptic? Well, to give you a little hint, the lot of you (and I too) are very far from the "regular rosy glow of daily life"
mentioned below in passing:

"I don't particularly care about the usual. If you want to get an idea of a friend's temperament, ethics, and personal elegance, you need to look at him under the tests of severe circumstances, not under the regular rosy glow of daily life. Can you assess the danger a criminal poses by examining only what he does on an ordinary day? Can we understand health without considering wild diseases and epidemics? Indeed the normal is often irrelevant. Almost everything in social life is produced by rare but consequential shocks and jumps; all the while almost everything studied about social life focuses on the 'normal,' particularly with 'bell curve' methods of inference that tell you close to nothing. Why? Because the bell curve ignores large deviations, cannot handle them, yet makes us confident that we have tamed uncertainty. Its nickname in this book is GIF, Great Intellectual Fraud."
--Taleb, Nassim Nicholas (22 April 2007). "The Black Swan: Chapter 1: The Impact of the Highly Improbable". The New York Times. Quoted in https://en..wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

Trivia: it was exactly a year ago that I quoted this passage to "Freon Bill" in response to his
asinine slogans, "People are very predictable." and "People are the same everywhere." See here:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/nmTq1MCK3hg/m/JnsJIvllBgAJ
Re: What is the probability?
Dec 13, 2022, 6:45:19 PM

Peter Nyikos

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 16:07:53 -0800 (PST), erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 3:57:08?PM UTC-8, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 12:02:08?PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 8:52:08?AM UTC-8, Martin Harran wrote:
>> > > On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 05:25:50 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> > > <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 9:47:07?PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>> > > >> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 8:42:07?PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> > This is another MarkE thread of which I completely lost track.
>> > > >> > The first thread I "rediscovered" seems to have completely befuddled
>> > > >> > all the folks who tuned in on this one, because it has to do with the primitive
>> > > >> > current state of OOL -- the origin of life:
>> > > >
>> > > >> > "Re: Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer."
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > That is a far more dangerous idea from the POV most of the people posting to
>> > > >> > this thread than the Resurrection, which seems not to stir anyone else on this thread
>> > > >> > to comment seriously except MarkE and myself.
>> > > >
>> > > >> Your personal perspective on what is serious seems defective.
>> > > >
>> > > >In what way? I see no attempt by you to undermine what I wrote about OOL.
>> Daggett left the crickets chirping here.
>> > > >> Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try.
>> > > >> No hell below us, above us only sky.
>> > > >> Imagine all the people, livin' for today
>> > > >> Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do
>> > > >> Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion, too
>> > > >> Imagine all the people, livin' life in peace
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Now go ahead and call me a dreamer.
>> > > >
>> > > >Are you dreaming a world where ALL of John Lennon's "Imagine"
>> > > >is a reality? If so, you might also love Billy Joel's advice
>> > > >to Catholic girls. And I doubt that Martin Harran will
>> > > >criticize you if you do.
>>
>> > > Oh dear, Peter, en't even lasted 4 weeks this time. Your obnoxiousness
>> > > is getting ever more out of control, it really is time that you got
>> > > help with it.
>> Martin is unable to deal with the content of what I wrote,
>> so he is resorting to transparently insincere gaslighting.
>>
>> And you, Erik, seem to be in an "I've got your back" role here
>> towards Martin:
>> > > [...]
>> > Oh, come now. Peter just wants these dangerous ideas stamped out
>> > once and for all. Who could disagree?
>> Anyone who knows you are committing libel, unless you've cracked
>> a nasty joke that your role model Harshman will assess with his
>> usual flagrant double standards.
>
>I can't parse that sentence.
>
>>
>> If jillery's periodic tiffs with Harshman were more than skin-deep,
>> she would long ago have accused him of being addicted to double standards
>> and being proud of it.
>
>What does jillery. have to do with this? This looks like...

.... yet another...

>non-sequitur post.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 6:22:08 PM UTC-8, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 7:12:09 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 3:57:08 PM UTC-8, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 12:02:08 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 8:52:08 AM UTC-8, Martin Harran wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 05:25:50 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> > > > > <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 9:47:07?PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > > > > >> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 8:42:07?PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > This is another MarkE thread of which I completely lost track.
> > > > > >> > The first thread I "rediscovered" seems to have completely befuddled
> > > > > >> > all the folks who tuned in on this one, because it has to do with the primitive
> > > > > >> > current state of OOL -- the origin of life:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > "Re: Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer."
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > That is a far more dangerous idea from the POV most of the people posting to
> > > > > >> > this thread than the Resurrection, which seems not to stir anyone else on this thread
> > > > > >> > to comment seriously except MarkE and myself.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Your personal perspective on what is serious seems defective.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >In what way? I see no attempt by you to undermine what I wrote about OOL.
>
> > > Daggett left the crickets chirping here.
>
> > > > > >> Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try.
> > > > > >> No hell below us, above us only sky.
> > > > > >> Imagine all the people, livin' for today
> > > > > >> Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do
> > > > > >> Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion, too
> > > > > >> Imagine all the people, livin' life in peace
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Now go ahead and call me a dreamer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Are you dreaming a world where ALL of John Lennon's "Imagine"
> > > > > >is a reality? If so, you might also love Billy Joel's advice
> > > > > >to Catholic girls. And I doubt that Martin Harran will
> > > > > >criticize you if you do.
> > >
> > > > > Oh dear, Peter, en't even lasted 4 weeks this time. Your obnoxiousness
> > > > > is getting ever more out of control, it really is time that you got
> > > > > help with it.
>
> > > Martin is unable to deal with the content of what I wrote,
> > > so he is resorting to transparently insincere gaslighting.
> This last comment went like water off a duck's back in Martin's subsequent post.
> > > And you, Erik, seem to be in an "I've got your back" role here
> > > towards Martin:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > Oh, come now. Peter just wants these dangerous ideas stamped out
> > > > once and for all. Who could disagree?
>
> > > Anyone who knows you are committing libel, unless you've cracked
> > > a nasty joke that your role model Harshman will assess with his
> > > usual flagrant double standards.
>
> > I can't parse that sentence.
> I was answering your question, "Who could disagree?"
> by telling you who could disagree with the falsehood that
> preceded that question. The rest of the sentence assesses that falsehood and one of the effects
> it is almost sure to have on Harshman. Capice?

No. What libel? What nasty joke? What double standards?

> > >
> > > If jillery's periodic tiffs with Harshman were more than skin-deep,
> > > she would long ago have accused him of being addicted to double standards
> > > and being proud of it.
>
> > What does jillery. have to do with this? This looks like a non-sequitur post.
> Stop pretending we are isolated individuals here. There is a major dynamic
> permeatng talk.origins, and the four people I mentioned above (including yourself) are
> woven into that dynamic in ways that are relevant to it.
>
> Sound cryptic? Well, to give you a little hint, the lot of you (and I too) are very far from the "regular rosy glow of daily life"
> mentioned below in passing:

What is this "regular rosy glow of daily life"? I do actually have a life, and it's pretty good,
all things considered.

>
> "I don't particularly care about the usual. If you want to get an idea of a friend's temperament, ethics, and personal elegance, you need to look at him under the tests of severe circumstances, not under the regular rosy glow of daily life. Can you assess the danger a criminal poses by examining only what he does on an ordinary day? Can we understand health without considering wild diseases and epidemics? Indeed the normal is often irrelevant. Almost everything in social life is produced by rare but consequential shocks and jumps; all the while almost everything studied about social life focuses on the 'normal,' particularly with 'bell curve' methods of inference that tell you close to nothing. Why? Because the bell curve ignores large deviations, cannot handle them, yet makes us confident that we have tamed uncertainty. Its nickname in this book is GIF, Great Intellectual Fraud."
> --Taleb, Nassim Nicholas (22 April 2007). "The Black Swan: Chapter 1: The Impact of the Highly Improbable". The New York Times. Quoted in https://en..wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
>
> Trivia: it was exactly a year ago that I quoted this passage to "Freon Bill" in response to his
> asinine slogans, "People are very predictable." and "People are the same everywhere." See here:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/nmTq1MCK3hg/m/JnsJIvllBgAJ
> Re: What is the probability?
> Dec 13, 2022, 6:45:19 PM
>
>
> Peter Nyikos

Another weird non-sequitur. Your break can't come too soon.

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 8:22:08 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 4:42:08 PM UTC-8, Martin Harran wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 12:12:09 AM UTC, erik simpson wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 3:57:08 PM UTC-8, peter2....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 12:02:08 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 8:52:08 AM UTC-8, Martin Harran wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 05:25:50 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> > > > > > <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 9:47:07?PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > > > > > >> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 8:42:07?PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > This is another MarkE thread of which I completely lost track.
> > > > > > >> > The first thread I "rediscovered" seems to have completely befuddled
> > > > > > >> > all the folks who tuned in on this one, because it has to do with the primitive
> > > > > > >> > current state of OOL -- the origin of life:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > "Re: Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer.."
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > That is a far more dangerous idea from the POV most of the people posting to
> > > > > > >> > this thread than the Resurrection, which seems not to stir anyone else on this thread
> > > > > > >> > to comment seriously except MarkE and myself.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Your personal perspective on what is serious seems defective..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >In what way? I see no attempt by you to undermine what I wrote about OOL.
> > > > Daggett left the crickets chirping here.
> > > > > > >> Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try.
> > > > > > >> No hell below us, above us only sky.
> > > > > > >> Imagine all the people, livin' for today
> > > > > > >> Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do
> > > > > > >> Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion, too
> > > > > > >> Imagine all the people, livin' life in peace
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Now go ahead and call me a dreamer.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Are you dreaming a world where ALL of John Lennon's "Imagine"
> > > > > > >is a reality? If so, you might also love Billy Joel's advice
> > > > > > >to Catholic girls. And I doubt that Martin Harran will
> > > > > > >criticize you if you do.
> > > >
> > > > > > Oh dear, Peter, en't even lasted 4 weeks this time. Your obnoxiousness
> > > > > > is getting ever more out of control, it really is time that you got
> > > > > > help with it.
> > > > Martin is unable to deal with the content of what I wrote,
> > > > so he is resorting to transparently insincere gaslighting.
> > > >
> > > > And you, Erik, seem to be in an "I've got your back" role here
> > > > towards Martin:
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > Oh, come now. Peter just wants these dangerous ideas stamped out
> > > > > once and for all. Who could disagree?
> > > > Anyone who knows you are committing libel, unless you've cracked
> > > > a nasty joke that your role model Harshman will assess with his
> > > > usual flagrant double standards.
> > > I can't parse that sentence.
> > > >
> > > > If jillery's periodic tiffs with Harshman were more than skin-deep,
> > > > she would long ago have accused him of being addicted to double standards
> > > > and being proud of it.
> > > What does jillery. have to do with this? This looks like a non-sequitur post.

It's a non-sequitur only in the social sense of the word, and a narrow one
at that: netiquette, which does not fit the rough and tumble l that is
the hallmark of talk.origins.

> > You are surprised at the master of non-sequiturs posting a non-sequiter?

> Not really. He sounds pretty distracted.

You should leave the gaslighting to your role model Harshman.
He is much better at it than you are.

Peter Nyikos

peter2...@gmail.com <peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 8:22:08 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 4:42:08 PM UTC-8, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 12:12:09 AM UTC, erik simpson wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 3:57:08 PM UTC-8, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 12:02:08 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 8:52:08 AM UTC-8, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 05:25:50 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>>>>>>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 9:47:07?PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 8:42:07?PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is another MarkE thread of which I completely lost track.
>>>>>>>>>> The first thread I "rediscovered" seems to have completely befuddled
>>>>>>>>>> all the folks who tuned in on this one, because it has to do with the primitive
>>>>>>>>>> current state of OOL -- the origin of life:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Re: Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is a far more dangerous idea from the POV most of the people posting to
>>>>>>>>>> this thread than the Resurrection, which seems not to stir
>>>>>>>>>> anyone else on this thread
>>>>>>>>>> to comment seriously except MarkE and myself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your personal perspective on what is serious seems defective.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In what way? I see no attempt by you to undermine what I wrote about OOL.
>>>>> Daggett left the crickets chirping here.
>>>>>>>>> Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try.
>>>>>>>>> No hell below us, above us only sky.
>>>>>>>>> Imagine all the people, livin' for today
>>>>>>>>> Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do
>>>>>>>>> Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion, too
>>>>>>>>> Imagine all the people, livin' life in peace
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now go ahead and call me a dreamer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you dreaming a world where ALL of John Lennon's "Imagine"
>>>>>>>> is a reality? If so, you might also love Billy Joel's advice
>>>>>>>> to Catholic girls. And I doubt that Martin Harran will
>>>>>>>> criticize you if you do.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh dear, Peter, en't even lasted 4 weeks this time. Your obnoxiousness
>>>>>>> is getting ever more out of control, it really is time that you got
>>>>>>> help with it.
>>>>> Martin is unable to deal with the content of what I wrote,
>>>>> so he is resorting to transparently insincere gaslighting.
>>>>>
>>>>> And you, Erik, seem to be in an "I've got your back" role here
>>>>> towards Martin:
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> Oh, come now. Peter just wants these dangerous ideas stamped out
>>>>>> once and for all. Who could disagree?
>>>>> Anyone who knows you are committing libel, unless you've cracked
>>>>> a nasty joke that your role model Harshman will assess with his
>>>>> usual flagrant double standards.
>>>> I can't parse that sentence.
>>>>>
>>>>> If jillery's periodic tiffs with Harshman were more than skin-deep,
>>>>> she would long ago have accused him of being addicted to double standards
>>>>> and being proud of it.
>>>> What does jillery. have to do with this? This looks like a non-sequitur post.
>
> It's a non-sequitur only in the social sense of the word, and a narrow one
> at that: netiquette, which does not fit the rough and tumble l that is
> the hallmark of talk.origins.
>
Is “rough and tumble I” a Freudian slip? If you expect rough and tumble
would it be possible that expectation influences how you approach the
convos here and creates its own rough and tumble as an interpersonal
reverberation? Tit for tat vicious cycles? What would a virtuous cycle look
like in comparison?
>
>>> You are surprised at the master of non-sequiturs posting a non-sequiter?
>
>> Not really. He sounds pretty distracted.
>
> You should leave the gaslighting to your role model Harshman.
> He is much better at it than you are.
>
Ah come on fellas. Holiday respite? Or spite? Which is better?