Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0

I seem to have angered a MOD in a thread I started. I thought it was a stand alone topic in its own right. I wanted to see the issue discussed. I felt that the topic might enlighten us Westerners if we could have a discussion about straight history absent (what otherwise would have been continued) all the typical digressions into people's theological and/or personal opinions. A historian looks at what happened and not as much what one's opinion is. I felt a contained focussed demonstration by EVCers might have enabled facts to be laid bare. I did. I wanted to watch it with open eyes. But I would have stayed out of it. I do think it possible for gay marriage to be part of the fabric of early recorded Western Civilization and not counter cultural but I don't know for sure but it was a worthy topic IMO.

My point is that Faith (and her ilk )do seem to genuinely think that gay marriage chronologically post dates Christianity and that the issue is little more than a major swipe against the faith. I noticed that there is an ignorance of history that needs to be addressed before any real breakthrough can happen which chills the Faith's of the world out. She seems to think that Paul and Jesus never could have heard of such a thing as gay marriage so we couldn't expect them to condemn what they never had to consider. That might explain why Faith didn't give 1/1000 of a second's thought to Paul not challenging the legality of so-called sinful activity (soft or effiminate men means what? ) and that it can happen to be lawful despite the in context quote in I Corinthians 6.

I was (if you insist ) "complaining " about how the 800 post thread is missing the largest point of all: Faith thinks homosexual marriage is just some new issue to attack Christianity and the western civilization. Not to take away the other discussions but to insist on a focused discussion that takes the issue of historical ignorance into account.

I am now thinking my suggestion was a bad one. I researched and found that the Ancient Greek unions are not legally considered marriages so there will be a definition argument that will go nowhere. The Roman precedents will be quibbled over too. I don't see any solution at this impase. I concede the point and am ashamed that I seem to have posted so much in this thread HERE. I was responding to you PaulK and lost track of what I was doing here. I didn't mean to take debate here but it does look like it.

I will stop talking to you so this can be dropped.Also, it seems I DID say you told a "slick lie" in one post so I am sorry. (in my defense you kept ridiculing me as "making stuff up" when I was insisting that you disregard post-Easter commands as "ceremonial" and you really made it a point to hammer me as a liar when I kept asking you to explain yourself. THEN you used the very "ceremonial" argument once I pestered you enough to finally get your to engage the Acts 15 post-Easter issue )Once you engaged the issue, instead of ignoring it, I really should not have described your earlier denials of using the "ceremonial" dismissal as a "slick lie". I guess I was just annoyed at being personally attacked as a liar when you were making me look dishonest for even suggesting you use "ceremonial" arguments for post-Easter commands.Now I have to deal with my own past words that contradict what I want to claim (that being my claim of innocence in the personal attack area ).Sorry.

I am not trying to debate but just want to clarify so this isn't left hanging.See posts 78, 116, 117, and especially 252 where Acts 5:19-29 was referenced as a parallel to these business owners situation. ( the discussion involved the possibility of a business owner running so afoul of the law that not only fines but prison punishments for refusing services were brought up as a consequence )My reference to the Alabama motto Audemus Jura Nostra Defendere had to do with comments like that.I wasn't saying race was the issue (in these cake cases )but I don't feel that the parallels were out of line as you have a case of a very conservative Christian culture feeling like THEIR rights were the ones violated and not those who were barred services.I understand that the business owners want rights to suit their concerns.However.I don't see why I was seen as performing a procedure out of order jjust for raising the issue. (Faith seems really irritated by my request for her to respond to the parallel ) (that was when 3 mods jumped in )If we don't discuss parallels then we aren't giving the general public a proper and full perspective.

Theodoric edited the text, 18 minutes later, to make it sound like he was ONLY talking about reading the ANC statement on Ukraine.But the entire substance (and exact wording) of the challenge, I laid out, was that Theodoric quote every single line in the ANC statement, then respond to it.He responded, saying he would if he had a way to open the ANC page.A refusal, on his part, will constitute blatantly obvious trollish behavior.If Theodoric refuses to honor his word, then I ask that every post, of his, should have big bold red letters, warning that he is a troll. Right above his text.

There is a need for some rules.The fine-line will be complicated.What are the perimeters of the subject matter, allowed?A JESUS MYTHER thread is, in its extremely limited form, only about whether Jesus existed as a man, or not.But, it must be admitted that is is within the realm of the broader Historical Jesus debate. The discussion will, at times, need to broaden out a bit, and then it is understandable if the discussion necessarily covers certain details about Jesus' disputed life. I suppose so.I don't know if these issues are particularly relevant to a JESUS MYTHER debate, but it might be instructional for me offer some issues that often (or at times) debated in a historical Jesus investigation:Did Jesus ever consider himself a messiah or not?Was Jesus apocalyptic?Was Joseph his biological father or was Pantera ( or another)?Did Jesus have views closer to the Essenes or Parisees? (Questions about other sects come up, also)How often did Jesus leave the Galilee region.What was Jesus' ancestral line?ISSUES RARELY PART OF THE HISTORIAN'S DISCUSSION:The later Christian religionMiraculous storiesSupernatural featsCONCLUSION:The latter three aren't looked at by a historical examination, so far as I know . The discussion of miracles, the supernatural, etc. should be banned from the Jesus Myth thread.

A survey of beliefs among the academic community - in areas such as science, historical studies, degrees, etc. is fine.References to academic studies are fine.Polls and/or studies of views of scientists and scientific studies are fine.If a scientific or historical consensus is an important part of the debate, then the supernatural views and religious beliefs can become part of the topic.

First the Financial thread:Theodoric kept telling me to provide a link showing profits are 15 to 20 percent of the pharmaceutical drug industry.I provided a reference to the Center For American Progress August 30 2019 piece which quoted and linked to a GAO study, showing 2018 saw prescription drugs marketplace totaling $535 billion with profits fluctuating in the 15 to 20 percent range.The GAO is the United States government's General Accounting Office.The CFAP link also shows the price it costs to produce insulin (I wanted Taq to help me understand the difference between a vial COMPARED to a yearly supply, because I feel like there were two different measurements in the CFAP text) in the United States.Theodoric kept harassing me (3 times, even though I provided a source) over my non-controversial position (to start with) that profits are around 15 to 20 percent, AS IF I DID NOT SOURCE IT.Taq was the one who made it sound like profits are, literally ten times more than the cost to produce,market, and distribute the drugs.I was trying to figure out a way to show how he was not looking at the big picture - which is what matters.(I am going to start a new thread on drugs, because Theodoric's disruptive bombardment stopped a discussion where we coukd have ALL learned about prescription drug prices. I was hoping to learn about the different cost of different insulin products, and what people generally use worldwide)OTHER ISSUEA Moderator claimed that I have not been sourcing claims in the War In Europe thread. Tell the moderator to be more specific. My most recent reference was to the conservative Los Angeles Times , which is pro war & anti Russia. So I have no idea what is being referred to. I can back up every claim I make with mainstream sources. Easily)

Did you read message 274?That is the one I am referencing.

And the biggest reason that people are bitching, is because I get arguments over issues that should not even be considered controversial.I never get the chance to get around to areas where we might "agree" on Russia & Ukraine, because people can't understand even the basics.One area of BIG (if you have any grip on reality) importance is the public opinion polls of Eastern Ukraine:People like to dismiss polls (and referendums), when they don't show evidence consistent with a pre-conception, but I don't have any pre-conception problem, like posters here have.The uncritically minded here might "agree" with me (but we go about forming opinions in a very different way) when I plan on showing:Public opinion polls in eastern Ukraine show only one percent of respondents in south Ukraine, and four percent in eastern Ukraine have a positive view of Russia.My views are always in the context of a theory/hypothesis that can be falsified, unlike the posters here.Clearly, something has changed between 2014/2015, 2015-Feb 2022, and the 2022-2024 period.But, it is hard to talk to uncritically minded people, even when we might agree on a big issue. I will try to explain why, on the coming weeks - with examples.

The Adminnemooseus individual should post the issues that he/she/it feels I introduced, but which need a credible source.My comments are actually pretty much 100 percent based on mainstream background details.I say I can easily source any issue Adminnemooseus raisesBut people have to be willing TO READ THE SOURCE.Theodoric has been caught multiple times ignoring evidence.He asked for a source documenting Ukraine executing pacifist mayors.I referenced Volodymyr Struk.He ignored the reference. He actually said it was "off topic".So, no discussion developed, even though I solidly provided evidence