we do not recognise the bible as a valid historical factual book

Zombrex

Erren Music wrote: »

I do not see it as being oppressed, if you choose to believe something and then prove it by referring to a book, then that book needs to pass any challenge.

If you do not know who wrote that book, when, why, or how is was written, then that book has no basis in anything.

All of which you are free to point out to any theist dumb enough to start quoting from scripture on this forum.

We don't need a charter rule saying "This is invalid" for each dumb thing a theist might propose on this forum, Boards.ie would run out of database space :pac:

Erren Music

Wicknight wrote: »

All of which you are free to point out to any theist dumb enough to start quoting from scripture on this forum.

:pac:

Why not nip that in the bud then. Less space wasted

Wicknight wrote: »

Saying your proposal didn't get much support is hardly a personal attack

Look at the full quote.

The "if any" is personal for a mod.

Zombrex

Erren Music wrote: »

Why not nip that in the bud then. Less space wasted

Cause there is no reason to pick that dumb argument over any other dumb argument and also it is the type of behavior we expect in forums that don't have such an open attitude to debate as we do here.

It is a solution to a problem no one but yourself has, and individuals don't decide the charter, that is done with group consensus.

Erren Music wrote: »

The "if any" is personal for a mod.

Is it?

If I said, say, that there was little, if any, support for a new proposal to start a new Agnostic forum separate from A&A (a debate from a while back), would you consider that a personal slur on anyone who proposed such a move?

Of course not (or I very much hope not).

It is simply a statement of fact, while at the same time recognizing that I haven't double checked every single response. There may be a tiny amount, there may be none. I doesn't actually matter, nor is it is not a slur on anyone.

The only way you could take it as a personal insult is if you thought it was insulting that no one supported your proposal. That's more your issue than Dades.

Irlandese

bnt wrote: »

It should be obvious, but it happens repeatedly. It bugs me only indirectly, the number of threads that get clogged up with biblical quotes that don't contribute to the discussion. I wouldn't support any kind of penalty for it, I just think it's just worth reminding scripture quoters that they're losing their audience when they do that.

I don't think they worry about stuff like our re-actions. They are usually on another planet and talking to themselves anyway. Posting multiple quotes and dissecting your own replies and sub-dividing the segments into little strips, like tearing a paper tissue into shreds is another obvious dead give-away.
Anyone else have any other sure signs of the "crazies" to look out for??

Irlandese

Dades wrote: »

Hey not's lump everyone in here with the OP, thanks!

His suggestion got little support here, if any.

I support it !
There are probably lots who would, old son !

Irlandese

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

If you people start banning religious people's right to advance fallacious arguments then it's the last you'll be hearing of me...

My guess is the OP is some religious nut trying to convince atheists to descend as low as they do in their stellar historical record.

Another obvious point, why would you want these people to stop quoting biblical scripture when 90% of the time the same verse can be reinterpreted against their very point???

Trolling IMO...

Now, now !
Calling someone a religious nut is insulting, you religious nut !

Sandvich

Great idea; but it should extend to all works of fiction. Especially ATLAS SHRUGGED, since some people seem to mistake that for fact as well.

Irlandese

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Have you been taking tips from this bloke OP?

Now, now, thats OOO.
Mussolini is said to have done an awful lot of good things too.
I will admit he has to answer for leaving us his awful grandaughter, but,
fair is fair..............he was only going along with Pope Pius and he did give the old pope his own toy country status etc.......

Irlandese

Wicknight wrote: »

All of which you are free to point out to any theist dumb enough to start quoting from scripture on this forum.

We don't need a charter rule saying "This is invalid" for each dumb thing a theist might propose on this forum, Boards.ie would run out of database space :pac:

We have dumb theists quoting garbage here on this forum all the time, often just to clog up debate or to hear themselves rant off or maybe even to just boost their insane posting levels.
Ha, I said it............

Sandvich

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

If you people start banning religious people's right to advance fallacious arguments then it's the last you'll be hearing of me....

But it's not banning religious people's fallacious arguments, it applies to everyone. Enforcing some kind of logic in a debating ground makes sense. Otherwise what's the point of debating?

Irlandese

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Which one of the hundreds of versions and re-writes and cogging of fairy stories from other books on the go at the time? Most of the so-called old testament fables are direct cogs off various old tales from around the oraltraditions of countless older religions and cultures, that were plagerised by the idle hands that were trying to amuse the new troops !

Irlandese

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

Pathetic trolling attempt.

Not very fair, or even very nice, seeing as this is the type of thread you like to start yourself;
" Ashamed to be Irish
Has anyone else noticed on a Saturday night (unfortunately not just Saturady nights,people have pointed out to me) once the bars and clubs start to close and let people out,this ENTIRE country (Ireland) turns into a f**king zoo."

Just making a quiet point.

Rev Hellfire

Asking a hard-core Christian not to talk about the bible is like asking a desert dweller not to talk about sand.

If you want to have a dialogue you can't have it solely on your own terms.

Sandvich

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Asking a hard-core Christian not to talk about the bible is like asking a desert dweller not to talk about sand.

If you want to have a dialogue you can't have it solely on your own terms.

But it's not on ourown terms. How do you propose a middleground between Bible and Not Bible exactly? Only allow them to use certain verses as evidence? Just as they can't use the Bible as fact, seculars can't use the opinion of Richard Dawkins as fact. Pulling up stuff written in a book that sounds kind of clever shouldn't be acceptable for either side; it has to have some basis in reality that can be shown in the course of the argument.

If Christianity has any validity then it can justify itself over the argument. I have never seen an interesting religious discussion that falls back on bible quotes. There is plenty to discuss from a philosophical point of view, and investigating the likelihood of truth in the Bible instead of assuming it as fact.

Irlandese

Sandvich wrote: »

But it's not on ourown terms. How do you propose a middleground between Bible and Not Bible exactly? Only allow them to use certain verses as evidence? Just as they can't use the Bible as fact, seculars can't use the opinion of Richard Dawkins as fact. Pulling up stuff written in a book that sounds kind of clever shouldn't be acceptable for either side; it has to have some basis in reality that can be shown in the course of the argument.

If Christianity has any validity then it can justify itself over the argument. I have never seen an interesting religious discussion that falls back on bible quotes. There is plenty to discuss from a philosophical point of view, and investigating the likelihood of truth in the Bible instead of assuming it as fact.

The bible should be allowed between consenting adults behind closed doors, bedroom or otherwise.
It should never be discussed in front of children, in mixed company or with people who have half a brain or more, as it may damage your perception of reality.
"This is the same faith that believes a cosmic Jew who was his own father by a virgin can enable you to live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh, drink his blood and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from something invisible called your soul that is present because a woman made from a rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple from a magical tree." Lovely, I think Steven Spielbarg is the director we want for this one and maybe David Bowie in the lead role??

Sandvich

I'd like to see a movie made about GodJesus by atheists/agnostics, as a fantasy/sci-fi story. That isn't ****.

JimiTime

Right Irlandese and Erren music, the games up! You're really Jackass and PDN trying to make atheists look like bitter, insecure, idiots aren't you?

Good one! Ye had me convinced.

kiffer

JimiTime wrote: »

Right Irlandese and Erren music, the games up! You're really Jackass and PDN trying to make atheists look like bitter, insecure, idiots aren't you?

Good one! Ye had me convinced.

I've often thought that certain posters are deep cover agents...

Dades

@JimiTime - careful now.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Irlandese

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You are very welcome.
Always good to share the truth with new people.
Here is some more worrying proof for the poor old bible-thumpers to have sleepless nights about:
http://www.effedieffe.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10028&Itemid=152
Archaeologists working in Turkey have unearthed an Assyrian tablet dating to around 670 BCE that "could have served as a model for the biblical description of God's covenant with the Israelites." What this fascinating discovery suggests, of course, is that the Bible tale of a divine pact does not represent "history" or a "factual" event, but is instead a fictional rewrite, borrowing or plagiarism of this older Assyrian treaty.

Over the centuries, many Bible critics, minimalists and mythicists have asserted that much of the Old Testament constitutes not factual history but a rehash of ancient myths and traditions dating to before the founding of the Jewish kingdom. This new find apparently adds more evidence to that theory, and it is quite refreshing that both the scholars and the media are spelling out clearly this possible "borrowing," without prejudice in favor of bibliolatry or upholding unprovable matters of faith.

Irlandese

JimiTime wrote: »

Right Irlandese and Erren music, the games up! You're really Jackass and PDN trying to make atheists look like bitter, insecure, idiots aren't you?

Good one! Ye had me convinced.

Here is one you can share with the would-be biblical scholars back in Christianity, who try to spin it that the dead sea scrolls actually help their arguaments. Bizarre ! ;

http://freethoughtnation.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=280:dead-sea-scrolls-prove-bible-unoriginal&catid=45:general
Dead Sea Scrolls prove Bible unoriginal
Sunday, 24 January 2010 16:31 Acharya S World News - General


(Photo by Berthold Werner)
"They speak of a Teacher of Righteousness and a pierced messiah, of cleansing through water and a battle of light against darkness.
"But anyone looking to the Dead Sea Scrolls in search of proof, say, that Jesus of Nazareth was the messiah presaged by the prophets, or that John the Baptist lived among the scroll's authors, will be disappointed."
News items are circulating about how "hints" and "insights" contained in the famous Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in caves near the ancient site of Qumran can be found in the Bible. In other words, certain ideas in the scrolls also appear in the New Testament, meaning, of course, that the impression of Christianity as a "divine revelation" appearing whole cloth miraculously from the very finger of God is clearly erroneous.
Few scholars today claim that any of the Dead Sea Scrolls ("DSS") date to the time after Christianity was allegedly founded by a "historical" Jesus in the first century of the common era. Indeed, it is agreed that most of the scrolls pre-date the turn of the era and that none of them show any knowledge of Jesus Christ or Christianity.
In my book The Christ Conspiracy, I demonstrate that Christianity is an amalgam of the many religions, sects, cults and brotherhood traditions of the Mediterranean and beyond. One of the major influences on Christianity is that of Jews, obviously, including those mentioned in the New Testament, i.e., the Pharisees and Sadducees. Ancient Jewish historian Josephus also mentions the sect of the Essenes, who are traditionally associated with Qumran, in a "by default" argument. However, scholar Solomon Schecter - who discovered a scroll at Cairo that was later found at Qumran - points to a heretical sect of Sadducees or Zadokites, as they are called in both the Bible and DSS. In The Christ Conspiracy, I discuss this Zadokite origin of the DSS and this group's obvious influence on the New Testament.
What this rumination all means, of course, is that Christianity is, as I contend in my books, largely unoriginal, representing not fresh and new "divine revelation" but, again, the amalgamation of not only the ideas of the Zadokite authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls but also influences from the Essenes, Jews, Samaritans and many others.
Hints of the Scrolls in Bible
To understand how the Dead Sea Scrolls influenced early Christianity, just turn to the New Testament.

Take, for example, the Great Isaiah Scroll, a facsimile of which is on display as part of the Milwaukee Public Museum's Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit. Written around 125 B.C. and the only scroll to emerge virtually intact from the caves at Qumran, its messianic message is quoted in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, John and Luke, the earliest of which wasn't written until around A.D. 65.
The scrolls' so-called "Son of God" text reads much like the story of the Annunciation in the Gospel of Luke. And the Scrolls' "Blessing of the Wise" echoes the beatitudes of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount....
This early dating of the gospels, it should be noted, is based only on the a priori assumption that the story they relate is at least partially true in recounting a "historical" Jesus who truly walked the earth at the time he is claimed in the gospels themselves. There is no external evidence whatsoever for the existence of any canonical gospel at this early a date. In fact, the canonical gospels as we have them do not show up clearly in the historical record until the end of the second century.
Moreover, the Sermon on the Mount - supposedly the original monologue straight out of the mouth of the Son of God Himself - can be shown to be a series of Old Testament scriptures strung together, along with, apparently, such texts from Qumran. No "historical" founder was necessary at all to speak these words, as they are a rehash of extant sayings. (Even in this patent literary device the gospels cannot agree, as Luke 6:17-49 depicts the Sermon as having taken place on a plain.)
It is easy to see why the Catholic Church would blanche upon the discovery of these scrolls, as it could be - and has been - argued that these texts erode the very foundation of Christianity. It appears that this news, however, when released slowly has little affect on the mind-numbing programming that accompanies Christian faith.
The bottom line is that the existence of the Old Testament and the intertestamental literature such as the Dead Sea Scrolls shows how Christianity is a cut-and-paste job - a fact I also reveal in The Christ Conspiracy, in a chapter called "The Making of a Myth," which contains a discussion of some of the texts obviously used in the creation of the new faith. These influential texts evidently included some of the original Dead Sea Scrolls, serving not as "prophecy," "prefiguring" or "presaging" but as blueprints of pre-existing, older concepts cobbled together in the New Testament.

Irlandese

kiffer wrote: »

I've often thought that certain posters are deep cover agents...

shhhh, you fool,
This is Ratty here.
I had such a great time in Malta.
Now you go and spoil my pet hobby, playing agnostic on boards !
It's a howl.
Ok,the bastards are probably right, but we have the big guns on our side,
like those crazies over on the Christianity forum.
So, feck off and leave me in deep cover, thanks
and , ok, ten plenary indulgences and a silly red hat.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Erren Music

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Asking a hard-core Christian not to talk about the bible is like asking a desert dweller not to talk about sand.

If you want to have a dialogue you can't have it solely on your own terms.

Yes but I would not have an indepth scientific discussion with someone if their opinion was based on a fictional book.

Irlandese wrote: »

The bible should be allowed between consenting adults behind closed doors, bedroom or otherwise.
It should never be discussed in front of children, in mixed company or with people who have half a brain or more, as it may damage your perception of reality.
"This is the same faith that believes a cosmic Jew who was his own father by a virgin can enable you to live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh, drink his blood and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from something invisible called your soul that is present because a woman made from a rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple from a magical tree." Lovely, I think Steven Spielbarg is the director we want for this one and maybe David Bowie in the lead role??

Brilliant. Just worth reading again and agin, I may even use it as my sig with your permission.

Religion began when the 1st scoundrel met the 1st fool. (voltaire)

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So the original christians were converted by con men, without even the luxury of having a fictional book to con people with.

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

Pathetic trolling attempt.

Calssic heckle, well done, you showed me.

Wicknight wrote: »

Is it?
If I said, say, that there was little, if any, support for a new proposal to start a new Agnostic forum separate from A&A (a debate from a while back), would you consider that a personal slur on anyone who proposed such a move?

They way it is implied is that no one supported the idea which was incorrect.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is simply a statement of fact, while at the same time recognizing that I haven't double checked every single response. There may be a tiny amount, there may be none. I doesn't actually matter, nor is it is not a slur on anyone.

The only way you could take it as a personal insult is if you thought it was insulting that no one supported your proposal. That's more your issue than Dades.

They way it is implied is that no one supported the idea which was incorrect. I shall await what the wonderous dades infers from this.

Erren Music

Sandvich wrote: »

But it's not on ourown terms. How do you propose a middleground between Bible and Not Bible exactly? Only allow them to use certain verses as evidence? Just as they can't use the Bible as fact, seculars can't use the opinion of Richard Dawkins as fact. Pulling up stuff written in a book that sounds kind of clever shouldn't be acceptable for either side; it has to have some basis in reality that can be shown in the course of the argument.

If Christianity has any validity then it can justify itself over the argument. I have never seen an interesting religious discussion that falls back on bible quotes. There is plenty to discuss from a philosophical point of view, and investigating the likelihood of truth in the Bible instead of assuming it as fact.

Christianity has no validity, along with every other religion that currently exists or ever existed.

There is no middle ground. All you have to do is engage your common sense and logically work out that it is BS. It makes no sense whatsoever, how can people function properly in reality, when in this area of their lives they are indoctrinated robots.

Erren Music

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Jesus you have an answer or an interpretation for everything that even remotely contradicts the brainwashing.

sponsoredwalk

Erren Music wrote: »

Religion began when the 1st scoundrel met the 1st fool. (voltaire)

Haha! Gotta Voltaire




& in the same collegial spirit

JimiTime

Dades wrote: »

@JimiTime - careful now.

No bother boss. Just playin'. I'll leave the atheist version of 'stormfront' to its love in.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Erren Music

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

way to go

Whatever religion you are you only have a 17% chance of being in the right one (there is no god).

Hows that for odds, and how selfish is it for you to think that yours is the right one and the other 6 billion people are wrong.

your st paul was the conman saul.

nobody knew this jesus you lot keep talking about, no historians even mentioned him.

strobe

JimiTime wrote: »

No bother boss. Just playin'. I'll leave the atheist version of 'stormfront' to its love in.

Wow........."atheist version of stormfront"?......classy move Jimi.

I'm sure you are either extremely proud of that post or infinitely embarrassed by it. To be honest, either way you just came across as an uncontrollable asshole. Nice job.

JimiTime

strobe wrote: »

Wow........."atheist version of stormfront"?......classy move Jimi.

I'm sure you are either extremely proud of that post or infinitely embarrassed by it. To be honest, either way you just came across as an uncontrollable asshole. Nice job.

Quite surprised at you strobe, but hey, no biggie. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you think I'm referring to more than just the two particular venemous posters. I've a feeling you think I was referring to this forum though, as you seem a little bit better than the post you just wrote. If I'm wrong though, then meh, enjoy the love in.

kiffer

bad form there jimi, bad form.
Stealth Godwin

strobe

JimiTime wrote: »

Quite surprised at you strobe, but hey, no biggie.

I take it that what I quoted was supposed to be a joke then? It's hard to tell sometimes....which is worrying in and of itself.

sponsoredwalk

JimiTime

kiffer wrote: »

bad form there jimi, bad form.
Stealth Godwin

I stand unashamed and amused.

JimiTime

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Good one. Well I am a 'crazy' now aren't I. You expected more??

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

kiffer

JimiTime wrote: »

I stand unashamed and amused.

no jimi, you missunderstand... You were to subtle... You should have really gone over the top...
Like ... "Stormfront doesn't have a patch on you guys" then posted a macro image of something... And some smilies... Though that might make you look a bit J C... And a bible verse would have been perfect... Maybe the one about calling someone a fool is risking hell fire.... Or better yet a totaly unrelated snippet of verse that has nothing todo with the topic at hand then if anyone says "hey, that's totally unrelated to what we were talking about or even the rest of you post", you can try to make it sound like they're just not able to understand because they're blocked... Which will be our clue that your taking the piss becaue a christian wouldn't use the phrase blocked... It's a newage type term...

Bed time for me! Night all!

JimiTime

kiffer wrote: »

no jimi, you missunderstand... You were to subtle... You should have really gone over the top...
Like ... "Stormfront doesn't have a patch on you guys" then posted a macro image of something... And some smilies... Though that might make you look a bit J C... And a bible verse would have been perfect... Maybe the one about calling someone a fool is risking hell fire.... Or better yet a totaly unrelated snippet of verse that has nothing todo with the topic at hand then if anyone says "hey, that's totally unrelated to what we were talking about or even the rest of you post", you can try to make it sound like they're just not able to understand because they're blocked... Which will be our clue that your taking the piss becaue a christian wouldn't use the phrase blocked... It's a newage type term...

Bed time for me! Night all!

*gets notepad* I see, so is 'blocked' some kind of brain constipation then? I need answers damn it!!

Evolute

For all anyone knows the bible could have been a big story book for kids.
Either that or It could have been written by a good few opium heads who wrote about the guy they imagined:p

JimiTime

^^Just had one of those moments where I looked at a post and thought 'ey, whats that got to do with anything', then realising, 'oh yeah, thats the topic of the thread, I've just been trolling the last hour'

Defo bedtime for me. Good riddance says you!
Don't forget to tip your waitress!

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

You're really Jackass and PDN trying to make atheists look like bitter, insecure, idiots aren't you?

Irlandese wrote: »

shhhh, you fool, This is Ratty here. [...] Ok,the bastards are probably right, but we have the big guns on our side, like those crazies over on the Christianity forum.

Erren Music wrote: »

It makes no sense whatsoever, how can people function properly in reality, when in this area of their lives they are indoctrinated robots.

JimiTime wrote:

I'll leave the atheist version of 'stormfront' to its love in. [...] I see, so is 'blocked' some kind of brain constipation then?

Brain constipation? Looks like a general outbreak of cognitive dyspepsia to me.

The next poster who so much as meeps will be getting a good hard poke with the forum's lightening rod.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Brain constipation? Looks like a general outbreak of cognitive dyspepsia to me.

The next poster who so much as meeps will be getting a good hard poke with the forum's lightening rod.

Don't suppose you've any sleeping pills in that Mod bag do ye?

Sorry, I'm going to bed, I promise.

kiffer

JimiTime wrote: »

*gets notepad* I see, so is 'blocked' some kind of brain constipation then? I need answers damn it!!

I'm trying to get to bed here... But I'll just quickly say... Yeah kind of... It's what ever you need it to be if the mark isn't feeling the energy your pushing at them...
Best use of it I ever saw was on a documentry about martial artists whos training had given them super human abilities... Some were pretty amazing but one guy claimed to be able to knock you out at a distance by throwing chi...
There was video of him knocking down students with it... He'ed been training for years to gain this skill...
When the film crew tried to get him to try it on them he refused, saying it was too dangerous and his students had trained to deal with the massive overload of power ....
In the end they talked him into it and whooosh.... Nothing happened.
Whoosh... Again nothing... The guy goes... Um... Yeah you are just not sensitive enough... You are blocked so it wont work on you. Which the documentry guy thought was pretty crappy...

I've heard various magical practitioners say it to people when they fail to feel the effects of energy... Best past is for the low low price of only a few hour long treatments you can get unblocked!

The Christian version would probably be if some one said "I've never felt that God existed... Never felt his pressence like you claim to..." and you could reply "you've never really tried then" or "you have but you're in denial"

edit: hope I've dodged the lightning, started post before the mod warning was made and the phone keyboard is slow to use...

it's late and I'm sleepy and I'm posting from my phone so the above story might need some work.... But you get the drift right?

Irlandese

Erren Music wrote: »

Yes but I would not have an indepth scientific discussion with someone if their opinion was based on a fictional book.



Brilliant. Just worth reading again and agin, I may even use it as my sig with your permission.

Religion began when the 1st scoundrel met the 1st fool. (voltaire)



So the original christians were converted by con men, without even the luxury of having a fictional book to con people with.



Calssic heckle, well done, you showed me.


They way it is implied is that no one supported the idea which was incorrect.


They way it is implied is that no one supported the idea which was incorrect. I shall await what the wonderous dades infers from this.

Only the bit about consenting adults is mine, as you can also see from later posts, hence the rest was in invertaed commas. But, you are always welcome to use any of any of my posts as you wish, friend.

Irlandese

kiffer wrote: »

no jimi, you missunderstand... You were to subtle... You should have really gone over the top...
Like ... "Stormfront doesn't have a patch on you guys" then posted a macro image of something... And some smilies... Though that might make you look a bit J C... And a bible verse would have been perfect... Maybe the one about calling someone a fool is risking hell fire.... Or better yet a totaly unrelated snippet of verse that has nothing todo with the topic at hand then if anyone says "hey, that's totally unrelated to what we were talking about or even the rest of you post", you can try to make it sound like they're just not able to understand because they're blocked... Which will be our clue that your taking the piss becaue a christian wouldn't use the phrase blocked... It's a newage type term...

Bed time for me! Night all!

Hoorah, Goddot moves in mysterious ways!
Ratty here again, to help you in your moment of need,
"blocked" too new age? Hmmn ...
would this maybe do ?
" agh, my right ear is causing me to "sin of ommission" by not hearing properly"?
so pluck it off etc etc. ?

Irlandese

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Lovely stuff !
"So it's not surprising that factual events should have undergone anagogical and typological scrutiny. "
Sure, jasus, thats it !
Thats the nub of the whole question, you old dote you !
Feck that old " economic with the truth" side-stepping.
This is the real McCoy.
Yes, " Scrutinise the facts" with your old typologies and analogies enough and we can turn them around backwards and back up their proverbial bums !
That means we can take any fact and make it into an "un-fact".
Go on George Orwell, "eat your heart out, that you never put that one in Animal Farm" !
Boys o boys !
And all this happened while I was taking a quick nap !
If my name wasn't Ratty, I would kiss an altar boy, I am so excited !

Plowman

This post has been deleted.