Endless Answers #7

I answer:
TyroneSandalphon (1 day ago) 0




| Remove | Block User | Spam
where are the 69 steps?
dawgfacedgremlin (1 day ago) 0




| Remove | Block User | Spam
Well Bob, judging from the questions thus far you wont be as busy as perhaps you thought, lol!
StevenErnest (1 day ago) 0




| Remove | Block User | Spam
Writing during the Writers' Strike, eh? j/k. ;)
Would like to hear your thoughts on recent movies, Stardust, 300, Beowulf, Golden Compass. (As you've been busy writing, when you catch up, that is.) ^_^
nicanicabad (1 day ago) +3




| Remove | Block User | Spam
Welcome back, good to see you! My question is, aren't you sorry you asked people to ask you questions?
LoveCraken (1 day ago) 0




| Remove | Block User | Spam
Are you familiar with the writer Philip K Dick? Are you a fan of his work? Elaborate.
seanbedlam (1 day ago) +2




| Remove | Block User | Spam
If you're a bit older than me, does that mean you're living in the future?
PositiveLogic (1 day ago) 0




| Remove | Block User | Spam
And in those Days Of Future Passed have you ever met anyone that REMOTELY approaches the twisted, madcap, eclectical animus that is Sean Bed..
WAIT, not that...Have you had an occasion to meet or observe up close someone "famous" outside "the industry"? And did they inspire or dissappoint?
themaxxxi (1 day ago) 0




| Remove | Block User | Spam
Oh yeah, one more thing.

What editing software do you recomend for a newbie in filmmaking without all to much money?
squiggey (1 day ago) 0




| Remove | Block User | Spam
If you had the chance to meet one historical person - who would it be and why? :)

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Answer
• tyroneSandalphon
• dawgfacedgremlin
• StevenErnest
• nicanicabad
• LoveCraken
• seanbedlam
• PositiveLogic
• themaxxxi
• squiggey

[WARDOG1138]

Maxi? anyways, I use Adobe Premier, however Avid is better!

~Damian

[dicklicka1]

YOU SEXY BITCH YOU!

[GirlyVoice]

well done, you pronounced beowulf correctly!

[Kuba022]

One last thing. Imagine that you are trying to start a new religion and you already have a bunch of people waiting for their savior.

Are you (A) trying to convince them that you are the son of god?

Or (B) trying to convince them that you met son of god and that you are giving them his teachings?

Hmm...

[Kuba022]

"Fresh access to alternative accounts..."

Do you really think that simple people were double checking the stories told by traveling evangelists?

PS.

Are you sure that the consensus among the peer-reviewed historians is that definite? "Jesus existed, end of the story".

Or maybe it's more like "based on what we know it is possible that historical Jesus existed". Because I happen to agree with the latter.

[Kuba022]

"Why would deliberate fakers..."

Well, for the same reason people before them created bunch of others contradictory, embarrassing and disreputable deities, including Jahwe. Do you think they had to conform to biographical facts about Adam and Eve?

The question: what the rational people do about things that cannot be proved or disproved

My humble answer: rational people don't believe in such things.

[Kuba022]

"Devious leaders were lying..."

Bob, I know you are trying discredit my point of view, but no matter which theory you follow this remains true: preachers were lying to the people. If Jesus really existed probably he was also lying. The founders of Christianity knew Jewish myth about the coming of the savior. It is possible that they decided to make it true. We will never know.

[MetaBob]

"Christians in early Middle Ages. Did any of them saw his messiah? Or did they just believe what they were told?" Believing what you're told a thousand years after the fact is very different from believing it decades after the fact, when there's fresh access to alternative accounts. It's one thing to insist that a man who actually existed had powers that he didn't actually have; it's another thing to invent the man himself in the presence of living people who would have known him, or of him.

[MetaBob]

Re your point #1: you want to be seen as reasonable, yet you completely misstate my argument - deliberately or did you just misunderstand? See my 1 and 2 above.

Re your point #2: you highlight the axe you're grinding (devious leaders were lying to gullible dupes!) while evading the question: why would deliberate fakers make up such a contradictory, embarrassing and disreputable God -- IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO CONFORM TO ANY BIOGRAPHICAL FACTS?

[MetaBob]

There are conspiracy theories that turn out to be true. But a conspiracy theory becomes a crackpot theory when it's based on faked, misstated and/or misunderstood evidence that fails to stand up to peer review. Crackpots dismiss peer-reviewed experts as "stupid," "in on it" or "afraid of the truth." But peer-reviewed evidence is all we have to prove that -- for instance -- the facts back up the theory of evolution. Or that the earth is more than 6,000 years old.