Sunday, August 7, 2011

My Favorite Agnostic: Vincent Bugliosi


Radio interview with “Divinity of Doubt” author Vincent Bugliosi

by Larry Simons
August 7, 2011

I will admit I was late posting this interview. It was posted on YouTube 11 days ago but the interview is from May 10, 2011. Host Barry Lynn interviews former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi on his new book “Divinity of Doubt”.

I am currently reading the book and I promise I will post a full review of the book when I am done.

So far, I only have minor issues with some things Bugliosi covers, but he overwhelmingly makes up for it by making many excellent points. I will cover this later in my review.

Listen to the interview

95 comments:

Papa Giorgio said...

~
I was doing a large post for my blog on Ron Paul and happened across your blog. And I found this topic entertaining, as, I stand on the opposing side. I would be more than happy to discuss which of the arguments from the book you think are good ones. For time sake, you may want to pick just one. I uploaded his interview on the John & Ken show in topic form for apologetic friends here. One compatriot critiqued bugliosi in three parts:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Enjoy

Larry said...

wow, so you're a Christian? How could you possibly miss the post directly below and above this one, which point out massive flaws in the Bible, yet you conveniently chose to ignore them? Especially the post above it [the other one about Bugliosi].

Papa Giorgio said...

Larry, pick one and lets talk about it.

Larry said...

why does it have to be only ONE? Anyway, start with my review of the book, the long Bugliosi post.

Papa Giorgio said...

Let us start with one so we do not get sidetracked. Typically if you have a list and we take the first three and they show to be a bit different in outcome than presented by someone else (a lot of straw-men involved in the list), then you have to pause and ask yourself if talking about a hundred of them is going to be different. So for sake of clarity, Larry, choose a topic or verse and lets delve into discussion... something I am sure you are not afraid of, right?

Larry said...

Ok, lets start with God's obsession with killing.

The flood [killing the whole earth when he knew IN ADVANCE that everyone would become sinners and corrupt]. This is an issue of whether God is all knowing---because if he IS all-knowing, why would he know IN ADVANCE the world would be corrupt and KNEW he was going to kill everyone, and STILL create people ANYWAY.

The 10 plagues onto Egypt for the actions of ONE man, which ended with God killing all the first born, just to get at Pharaoah's first born. This is an issue of God's being JUST. Also, about his being all-knowing again. If he was all-knowing, why didn't he know the first 9 plaques wouldnt work? Also, why did God PREVENT Pharaoh from releasing the Israelites by hardening his heart??

God sending two bears to rip to shreds 42 YOUNG KIDS just because they called Elisha a "baldhead". Not only is God obsessed with death, but for TRIVIAL actions like calling someone a name. This is an issue of God not being just again. Where in the Mosaiac Law does it say "Thou shall not do petty acts like name call...for if you do, you will get mauled to death by two giant bears"???

These are just THREE examples. I can name dozens and dozens more. Got a response to this?

Larry said...

God down and read my bill o reilly story that is TWO posts below this one on my blog, the one where he say "no one who believes in Jesus commits mass murder". Read that story. I mention these same things in that story. Respond to it.

Larry said...

I meant "go down"

Larry said...

Just as I thought: I pick a topic and give excellent, irrefutable examples, and you disappear...nowhere to be found.

Papa Giorgio said...

(1 of 4)

Good, let us take the first verse you mentioned and work through it. I find -- many times -- that skeptics will “shotgun” a person with multiple topics… maybe not on purpose, but out of habit maybe. So we will agree to hash out Genesis 6:7 here, for a bit. A few things before starting, FIRST, we have all the time in the world. Good conversations come from reflection and time taken to consider the person’s position. As you will see, I reference audio and video in regards to some issues. To best attack evidence for your rejection, you may want to take your time and watch these short clips provided. SECONDLY, this is something I post prior to these discussions:

"By-the-by, for those reading this I will explain what is missing in this type of discussion due to the media used. Genuflecting, care, concern, one being upset, etc, are all not viewable because we are missing each others tone, facial expression, and the like. I afford the other person I am dialoguing with the best of intentions and read his/her comments as if we were out having a talk over a beer. You will see that often times I USE CAPS -- which in www lingo for YELLING. I use it to merely emphasize and often times say as much: *not said in yelling tone, but merely to emphasize*. So in all my discussions I afford the best of thought to the other person as I expect he or she would to me... even if dealing with tough subjects as the above. I have had more practice at this than most, and with half-hour pizza, one hour photo and email vs. 'snail mail,' know that important discussions take time to meditate on, inculcate, and to process. So be prepared for a good thought provoking discussion if you so choose one with me."

Larry, I don’t know you, but I assume you work hard, have a family that you provide for, are a taxpayer, and probably enjoy a good dark beer. You are not an enemy. Likewise, I work, have a large blog I keep up, read at least one book a week, have two sons and a wife, plus debate multiple subjects all over the www. So there may be some time between posts.

And please, in the following discussion separate the logical conclusions of worldviews from the person [you from the logical conclusion of atheism for instance]. Okay, I think we can begin. I will deal first with the verse specific of your very first choice. Then we will deal with an aspect of your challenge that applies to all examples.

Papa Giorgio said...

(2 of 4)

Two aspects of this verse you are pointing out, if I understand you correctly, are:

1) God commits evil;
2) God is not all-knowing, and hence, all-powerful and the like… thusly negating “Godhood.”

Perfect. Let us deal with this verse in two way. One way will be applied as we move along, the other is verse specific. Since you do not have access to book like I do, I will quote a few apologists dealing with this verse that may help you understand some of the divergent views of point on the topic which will allow you to pull from a larger pool of knowledge to make a more informed decision on this verse specifically. That is what we all need in our lives right Larry? Choice made with the best/most available information offered on a subject?

=============QUOTE
While it is perfectly true that God in His sovereign omniscience knows all things in advance, and that nothing that happens can ever come to Him as a surprise, yet it is a mistake to infer from this that He is incapable of emo¬tion or reaction to the willful depravity of His creatures. The Scriptures never present Him as an impassive Being, in¬capable of sorrow or wrath, but quite the contrary. This is because He is a God who cares, a God who loves and has a deep concern even for those un¬grateful children of Adam who have mocked His gracious promises and have trifled with His mercy.

The depth of corruption to which the human race had plunged by Noah's time was utterly revolting to the God of holiness and justice, and He re¬sponded to these disgusting excesses as His righteousness and purity de¬manded. He was sorry He had created such an abominable generation of moral perverts as the antediluvian race had become. "And He repented" (Heb. wayyinnãhem, the niphal of netham) is somewhat anthropomorphic (or anthropopathic) to be sure, for it serves to convey God's response to sin after a human analogy (just as the Bible speaks of God's having hands or eyes or a mouth, as if He had a body with physical parts and organs).

Of course the element of surprise by the unexpected or unlooked for is im¬possible for one who is omniscient, but His response to humanity was a neces¬sary adjustment to the change in hu¬manity's feeling about Him. Because they had stubbornly rejected and flouted Him, it was necessary for Him to reject them. The shift in their at¬titude required a corresponding shift in His attitude toward them, and it is this shift that is expressed by the Hebrew niham ("repent," "be sorry about," "change one's mind about").

Similarly, in the time of Jonah, God is said to have repented (ni4am) of the judgment He had threatened to bring down on the city of Nineveh, because He observed the Ninevites' sincere and earnest repentance after Jonah had preached to them. Their change in at¬titude toward God made appropriate a change in His attitude toward them. Therefore, much to Jonah's disgust, God allowed the forty days to elapse and withheld the blow of destruction He had threatened to bring on them. This shows that God may change His response from severity to leniency and mercy when people come to Him in repentance and with supplication.

Yet when it comes to His announced covenant purposes toward His cove¬nant people. God is indeed incapable of repentance—as Balaam points out in Numbers 23:19: "God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent; has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spo¬ken, and will He not make it good?" (NASB). The context here pertains to God's steadfast purpose to bless Israel, despite all the machinations of King Balak of Moab, who tried to bribe the prophet of Yahweh to bring down a curse on the Hebrew nation. In such a situation God is indeed incapable of repentance….
=============UNQUOTE

Papa Giorgio said...

(3 of 4)

Genesis 6:7: “And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them." (ESV,)

One of the Systematic Theology texts I used in Seminary has a few paragraph portion on this, but simply stated the Hebrew and context of the Hebrew do not rise to the point that we are required to think God is wrong in expressing present displeasure with present actions of mankind:

=============QUOTE
These instances should all be understood as true expressions of God's present attitude or intention with respect to the situation as it exists at that moment. If the situation changes, then of course God's attitude or expression of intention will also change. This is just saying that God responds differently to different situations. …. In the cases of God being sorry that he had made man, or that he had made Saul king, these too can be understood as expressions of God's present displeasure toward the sinfulness of man. In neither case is the language strong enough to require us to think that if God could start again and act differently, he would in fact not create man or not make Saul king. It can instead imply that God's previous action led to events that, in the short term, caused him sorrow, but that nonetheless in the long term would ultimately achieve his good purposes.

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, pp. 164-165.
=============UNQUOTE

So what have we learned from this “verse specific” aspect of Genesis 6:6-7? FIRST, God is as Judeo-Christian/Theistic theologians and philosophers say God is like… personal. He expresses emotion in regards to sin and the failure of what His creation can do and what they do do with their choices, at that time.

Papa Giorgio said...

(4 of 4)

❝QUOTE❞
“They [the critics] start with some improbable presumption; and having so decreed it themselves, proceed to draw inferences, and censure the poet as though he had actually said whatever they happen to believe, if his statement conflicts with their notion of things.... Whenever a word seems to imply some contradiction, it is necessary to reflect how many ways there may be of understanding it in the passage in question.... So it is probably the mistake of the critics that has given rise to the Problem.... See whether he [the author] means the same thing, in the same relation, and in the same sense, before admitting that he has contradicted something he has said himself or what a man of sound sense assumes as true…. In Poetic s Aristotle outlined twelve responses to critics who hunt for various kinds of defects when examining the work of authors from the past. He divided the critics' mistakes into five categories…. “The objections, then, of critics start with faults of five kinds: the allegation is always that something is either (1) impossible, (2) improbable, (3) corrupting, (4) contradictory, or (5) against technical correctness. The answers to these objections must be sought under one or other of the above--mentioned heads, which are twelve in number.” ~ Aristotle (Poetics)
❝QUOTE❞


SECONDLY, applying a proper interpretation of an ancient text goes to the heart of what Vincent Bugliosi is missing. (By the way, he wrote the definitive book on rejecting JFK conspiracies.) He is taking his style and investigative reporting to a topic that requires something else. Literary criticism requires rules that were present in the ancient world (B.C.), and with a more modern twist as well. It is analogous to Al Gore presenting science… as a politician:

Rule of Definition.
Define the term or words being considered and then adhere to the defined meanings.

Rule of Usage.
Don't add meaning to established words and terms. What was the common usage in the cultural and time period
when the passage was written?

Rule of Context.
Avoid using words out of context. Context must define terms and how words are used.

Rule of Historical background.
Don't separate interpretation and historical investigation.

Rule of Logic.
Be certain that words as interpreted agree with the overall premise.

Rule of Precedent.
Use the known and commonly accepted meanings of words, not obscure meanings for which their is no precedent.

Rule of Unity.
Even though many documents may be used there must be a general unity among them.

Rule of Inference.
Base conclusions on what is already known and proven or can be reasonably implied from all known facts.

On my SCRIBD I posted a paper a while ago that better explains the ideas behind LANGUAGE GAPS, THE CULTURE GAPS, THE GEOGRAPHY GAPS, THE HISTORY GAP… and APPLICATION OF ARISTOTLE'S DICTUM (Defined: Inerrancy [Exegesis & Hermeneutics As Well]).

So, to recap… ORIGINAL language, the SCIENCE of interpretation, and other ANTHROPOMORPHIC examples throughout the text in question, all point to a different outcome than you give here.

Papa Giorgio said...

P.S.

The reference to the quote in part 2 did not fit, here it is:

Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pp. 80-81.

Papa Giorgio said...

Agnostic. There are two kinds... Bugliosi is a hard agnostic -- which is indistinguishable from an atheist.

A soft agnostic says: "I do not know, you may, therefore I wish to dialogues because you may have information I do not."

A hard agnostic says: "I do not know, and neither can you."

Hard agnostics are self refuting. Here, in this one minute and forty second audio, you hear clearly Bugliosi say he is a hard agnostic.

Let me show how his position -- and most probably yours, is self refuting... incoherent, illogical.

This comes from my chapter from my book on Reincarnation vs. the Laws of Logic:

=========QUOTE
....To begin, pantheists claim that God is unknowable because it [God] is above and beyond human logic. In other words, we are told that we cannot intellectually comprehend God because he is beyond all understanding. However, this is nonsensical and self-defeating statement. Why? “Because the very act of claiming that God is beyond logic is a logical statement about God.” Also, to say that we cannot know or comprehend God, as do the agnostics, is to say that we know God. How? I will answer this with a response to agnostic claims by the associate professor of philosophy and government at the University of Texas at Austin:

✔ To say that we cannot know anything about God is to say something about God; it is to say that if there is a God, he is unknowable. But in that case, he is not entirely unknowable, for the agnostic certainly thinks that we can know one thing about him: That nothing else can be known about him. Unfortunately, the position that we can know exactly one thing about God – his unknowability in all respects except this – is equally unsupportable, for why should this one thing be an exception? How could we know that any possible God would be of such a nature that nothing else could be known about him? On what basis could we rule out his knowability in all other respects but this one? The very attempt to justify the claim confutes it, for the agnostic would have to know a great many things about God in order to know he that couldn’t know anything else about him.

Although not the time nor place to explain the law of non-contradiction, for those who do not know, a brief perusal may be warranted. The law of non-contradiction is simply this: “‘A’ cannot be both ‘non-A’ and ‘A’ at the same time.” In the words of Professor J. P. Moreland:

✔ When a statement fails to satisfy itself (i.e., to conform to its own criteria of validity or acceptability), it is self-refuting…. Consider some examples. “I cannot say a word in English” is self-refuting when uttered in English. “I do not exist” is self-refuting, for one must exist to utter it. The claim “there are no truths” is self-refuting. If it is false, then it is false. But is it is true, then it is false as well, for in that case there would be no truths, including the statement itself.

(All references can be seen at link)
===========UNQUOTE

Do you see -- after listening to Bugliosi, where he went wrong? If you think like Bugliosi, he knows just as much as the atheist (according to his own words). Which is why "hard agnostics" ARE atheists.

Papa Giorgio said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Papa Giorgio said...

I posted on this topic: The Shallow, Self-refuting, Incoherent, and Illogical Thinking of `Agnositc` ~ Vincent Bugliosi

Larry said...

"Agnostic. There are two kinds... Bugliosi is a hard agnostic -- which is indistinguishable from an atheist."

That's a lie. Bugliosi has a chapter in his book about atheism and how being an atheist and a theist are equally foolish. So, you're just simply wrong.

"A hard agnostic says: "I do not know, and neither can you.""

He also says to the atheist, that "neither can you" know there is NOT a god. You're lying.

I also noticed that you are never going to DIRECTLY answer my questions about God's obsession with killing. I have no idea how your latest posts were related to my last posts telling you that you didnt directly answer my questions. Do you need the questions again? Here they are. Maybe this time you will DIRECTLY answer them and stop pussy-footing around them:

"Ok, lets start with God's obsession with killing.

The flood [killing the whole earth when he knew IN ADVANCE that everyone would become sinners and corrupt]. This is an issue of whether God is all knowing---because if he IS all-knowing, why would he know IN ADVANCE the world would be corrupt and KNEW he was going to kill everyone, and STILL create people ANYWAY.

The 10 plagues onto Egypt for the actions of ONE man, which ended with God killing all the first born, just to get at Pharaoah's first born. This is an issue of God's being JUST. Also, about his being all-knowing again. If he was all-knowing, why didn't he know the first 9 plaques wouldnt work? Also, why did God PREVENT Pharaoh from releasing the Israelites by hardening his heart??

God sending two bears to rip to shreds 42 YOUNG KIDS just because they called Elisha a "baldhead". Not only is God obsessed with death, but for TRIVIAL actions like calling someone a name. This is an issue of God not being just again. Where in the Mosaiac Law does it say "Thou shall not do petty acts like name call...for if you do, you will get mauled to death by two giant bears"???

These are just THREE examples. I can name dozens and dozens more. Got a response to this?"

Bugliosi was correct in his book about Christians AVOIDING answering these types of questions. Look how much YOU are avoiding them.

Larry said...

I am not interested in hearing anything you have to say about Bugliosi unless you have READ HIS BOOK and you are critiquing the BOOK...not just some 10 minute interview. He says ALOT more in the book than he does in interviews. I even did my review on it, but you fail to post comments under THAT story....I wonder why.

Papa Giorgio said...

So you admit Bugliosi is a hard agnostic. He defines the undefinable. That contradicts the Laws of Logic. Yes, like there are Laws of Physics and Laws of Mathematics, there are laws of Logic. I have Bugliosi's book in front of me... go. Not only is this illogical, i.e., as incoherent as me saying I cannot type a sentence in English, him saying you cannot know something that is unknowable IS knowing. His main premise collapses -- and hence, yours.

Papa Giorgio said...

... I mean "Go" in you disproving the illogic in having a "conversation with an insane person if you start out from his or her insane premise" (p.99) [Bugliosi's unvetted starting premise].

I have already taken one of the verses you offered (the Genesis reference in order to deal with one verse at a time and to have order from chaos) and talked about how one can approach such a verse or any ancient text for that matter wrongly. So I suppose we are ready to move out of this verse specific and enter into another problem you have, namely, calling actions evil -- God killing people as an example?

Larry said...

"...him saying you cannot know something that is unknowable IS knowing. His main premise collapses -- and hence, yours."

It's not KNOWING. It's saying you CAN'T know. What exactly are you claiming he's admitting he knows? That something is unknowable?

He IS saying that he KNOWS that no one can know there is a God---that is NOT synonymous with saying he KNOWS there is NOT a God. That would be atheism, which he is not. He calls that just as silly as theism. You have the book, did you read the chapter on atheism??

"So I suppose we are ready to move out of this verse specific and enter into another problem you have, namely, calling actions evil -- God killing people as an example?"

All THREE of my examples are examples of God killing people.

1. The flood
2. Plagues in Egypt [killing of first born]
3. 42 Youths torn to shreds by bears for name-calling

Since you have NOT addressed ANY of the 3 so far, let's start with the 42 young kids. Now, tell me, why on Earth would God send two bears to rip apart 42 young kids for calling Elisha a "baldhead"???

Now, please---do NOT respond with copy-and-paste bullshit and a bunch of gobbily gook just meant to distract and obfuscate. Just simply ANSWER THE QUESTION DIRECTLY.

Is that possible?

Larry said...

"The depth of corruption to which the human race had plunged by Noah's time was utterly revolting to the God of holiness and justice, and He re¬sponded to these disgusting excesses as His righteousness and purity de¬manded. He was sorry He had created such an abominable generation of moral perverts as the antediluvian race had become."

There are two major problems with this deduction:

First, why did God create mankind and NOT give man free will? If man chooses bad over good and God punishes mankind for this choice by wiping him from the face of the Earth, can you STILL call this free will? If one is FORCED into choosing something [because he will be punished if they choose otherwise] that is NOT free will. Bugliosi was correct in saying the free will concept in the Bible is completely made up. It doesn't exist.

"Choose ME or you DIE and go to hell" is NOT free will. That's called dictatorship.

The second problem is that if God created man in a perfect state to begin with, he wouldn't have had all the corruption to wipe from the Earth. Isn't God all knowing? Then why didn't he know in advance that mankind would become perverse and he'd have to off them in a big flood, and therefore reconsider creating them?

If he is all-good, why would he ONLY save 8 people and murder the rest? Is the message of the great flood "if you are a really bad sinner the you deserve death"? But the New Testament god is much more compassionate. In that Testament, the apostle Paul [once Saul] at one time murdered Christians. Surely there is no greater sin to God than to murder his own followers right [or kids calling someone a "baldhead"]? So, why did God find it worthwhile to spare Saul's life and make his life productive, but he murdered the entire population of the earth in the flood? NONE of them were worthy of having a life-change? Hmmmm.

So, we find that the flood story demonstrates 3 characteristics about God that people have all wrong:

1. God is all-knowing [wrong: if he is all-knowing, then why create an entire race of people that you will eventually wipe out in a mass drowning? He needed something to do? He was bored?]

2. God is all-good [wrong: God murdered the entire earth's population except for 8. Now, how is that GOOD?]

3. God is all-powerful [wrong: apparently, God is unable to create human beings in a perfect state---the SAME state that he claims we will be in in Heaven---because most of the Earth eventually becomes corrupt and therefore gets wiped of the planet by good, loving God. We also see that this act demonstrates that free will does not exist, unless the definition of free will is "OBEY GOD OR DIE AND GO TO HELL". Well, that wouldn't be free will then, would it? To be given two choices and when you pick the one God doesn't like, you're thrown into a lake of fire? Insanity.

Also, why did God instruct Noah to spend 100+ years to build a giant boat for him and his family to be safe on [from the flood] if the supposed Earth's population were wicked in the PRESENT day?? Or are you saying that Noah was building the boat that God KNEW would take him 100 years to build because the earth's population would be wicked and corrupt IN THE FUTURE?

Why the need of an ark? Why the need for a flood? Why couldn't God just wave his hand and all the wicked people fall over dead?

How was the wood held together for the ark? They had no nails back then. How as the wood CUT? There were no machines to cut it. The wood would have had to be cut evenly. How was the wood held together with no nails? Why couldn't God just speak a giant boat into existence like he spoke the Earth and sun into existence? You mean, he can create the sun instantly, but he needs and 800 year old man to build a boat?

You actually believe this complete bullshit?? The 60's are over. Put down the LSD.

I asked about 15 questions here. I bet you don't answer ONE.

Papa Giorgio said...

What did Huxley have in common with Fascism?

[QUOTE]================
“Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition…. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity…. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.”

Mussolini, Diuturna pp. 374-77, quoted in A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist (Ignatius Press; 1999), by Peter Kreeft, p. 18.
============[QUOTE]

Larry said...

You said:

"Using simple logic, the hard-atheist precludes the idea that one can know, thus, knowing his position is the correct one. Bugliosi says "YOU CANNOT KNOW." Saying one knows there is no knowledge of God even possible and saying God does not exist is a claim to ALL-KNOWLEDGE. It fails ITS OWN STANDARD.."

You keep using the words "atheist" and "agnostic" interchangably, as if they are the same thing. Why?

I also noticed your complete cop-out of answering all my questions by claiming you'd only like ONE at a time. Why would it be so hard for you to answer them ALL?

The truth is, it's not an issue of it being HARD, it's an issue that you HAVE NO ANSWER, so you hide behind your little smokescreen of not wanting to "answer them ALL".

Besides I DID say:

"Since you have NOT addressed ANY of the 3 so far, let's start with the 42 young kids. Now, tell me, why on Earth would God send two bears to rip apart 42 young kids for calling Elisha a "baldhead"???

Now, please---do NOT respond with copy-and-paste bullshit and a bunch of gobbily gook just meant to distract and obfuscate. Just simply ANSWER THE QUESTION DIRECTLY.

Is that possible?"

So I will appease your lame excuse to not want to "answer them ALL" by just starting with the deaths of the 42 kids by the two bears in 2 Kings.

Answer please?

Larry said...

Yep, just as I thought. NO answer. None at ALL. That's because nobody HAS any answer for God sending two bears to maul to death 42 kids in the Bible.

This would be a great scare tactic in church youth ministries, wouldn't it? If they fall out of line, just tell them that God will kill them if they so much as call someone a "baldhead".

Papa Giorgio said...

You should refer to Aristotle’s dictum in this verse and what I have written for the Genesis example. You see, if you apply the same standard they do in a legal/court setting to a document, you will notice how you have this wrong. (And Larry, I work, have kids, a wife, my blog, helping my in-laws install a kitchen… so please do not assume I do not have an answer for stuff… calma, we have time.)

Okay, I gave a great example of a verse specific in Genesis, I will give another example of a verse specific in 2 Kings you bring up.

2Kings 2:23-25
He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, "Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!" And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys. From there he went on to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.

You are saying: "How can I believe in a God who would send bears to devour little children for innocently teasing an old man whose appearance probably was unusual even for that day"

Now, let's look at some of the elements of the historical background, and the various players in the event using some of ther things we learned from the 2,500 year old legal application.

....(CON'T).....

Papa Giorgio said...

"LITTLE KIDS"
“Little children” is an unfortunate translation. The Hebrew expression neurim qetannim is best rendered “young lads” or “young men.” From numerous examples where ages are specified in the Old Testament, we know that these were boys from twelve to thirty years old. One of these words described Isaac at his sacrifice in Genesis 22:12, when he was easily in his early twenties. It described Joseph in Genesis 37:2 when he was seventeen years old. In fact, the same word described army men in 1 Kings 20:14-15...these are young men ages between twelve and thirty." (Hard Sayings of the Bible)

ELISHA’S AGE
But was Elisha an old man short on patience and a sense of humor? This charge is also distorted, for Elisha can hardly have been more than twenty-five when this incident happened. He lived nearly sixty years after this... (Hard Sayings of the Bible)

HARMLESS TEASING/PUBLIC SAFETY
A careful study of this incident in context shows that it was far more serious than a "mild personal offense." It was a situation of serious public danger, quite as grave as the large youth gangs that roam the ghetto sections of our modern American cities. If these young hoodlums were ranging about in packs of fifty or more, derisive toward respectable adults and ready to mock even a well-known man of God, there is no telling what violence they might have inflicted on the citizenry of the religious center of the kingdom of Israel (as Bethel was), had they been allowed to continue their riotous course.
(Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties)

The harmless "teasing" was hardly that--they were direct confrontation between the forces of Baal and the prophet of YHWH that had just healed the water supply (casting doubt on the power and beneficence of Baal!). This was a mass demonstration (if 42 were mauled, how many people were in the crowd to begin with? 50? 100? 400?):

"As Elisha was traveling from Jericho to Bethel several dozen youths (young men, not children) confronted him. Perhaps they were young false prophets of Baal. Their jeering, recorded in the slang of their day, implied that if Elisha were a great prophet of the Lord, as Elijah was, he should go on up into heaven as Elijah reportedly had done. The epithet baldhead may allude to lepers who had to shave their heads and were considered detestable outcasts. Or it may simply have been a form of scorn, for baldness was undesirable (cf. Isa. 3:17, 24). Since it was customary for men to cover their heads, the young men probably could not tell if Elisha was bald or not. They regarded God's prophet with contempt....Elisha then called down a curse on the villains. This cursing stemmed not from Elisha pride but from their disrespect for the Lord as reflected in their treatment of His spokesman (cf. 1:9-14). Again God used wild animals to execute His judgment (cf., e.g., 1 Kings 13:24). That 42 men were mauled by the two bears suggests that a mass demonstration had been organized against God and Elisha." [Bible Knowledge Commentary]

...(CON'T)...

Papa Giorgio said...

ELISHA’S MISSION-HELPING NEEDY
The chapter closes with two miracles of Elisha. These immediately established the character of his ministry--his would be a helping ministry to those in need, but one that would brook no disrespect for God and his earthly representatives. In the case of Jericho, though the city had been rebuilt (with difficulty) in the days of Ahab (1 Kings 16:34, q.v.), it had remained unproductive. Apparently the water still lay under Joshua's curse (cf. Josh 6:26), so that both citizenry and land suffered greatly (v. 19). Elisha's miracle fully removed the age-old judgment, thus allowing a new era to dawn on this area (vv. 20-22). Interestingly Elisha wrought the cure through means supplied by the people of Jericho so that their faith might be strengthened through submission and active participation in God's cleansing work. (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties)

MORE CAN BE FOUND HERE:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1147

Papa Giorgio said...

Okay, you wanted to deal with minor issues that were verse specific... but you still need to answer a deeper question, a worldview question. You should be aware that there are foundational aspects to every world religion/non-faith. (All of the worlds 10,000 religions can be categorized into seven foundational worldviews, which makes our job easier.)

Okay, here we go on the mush more important aspect for you to defend.

Can God be moral in ordering the deaths of “innocent peoples”? I will answer this in three statements. One in study note fashion, another in a way that re-words the question, and the third in a way that is exhaustive, as to answer the really skeptical critics. But first, in SeanG fashion (a sean-g-ism, if you will), let us deal with the statement that God did something morally. How do you define what is right and wrong? Are you not invoking the Judeo-Christian moral wrong. Whoever states that something is “evil or wrong” is making a value judgment based on right and wrong concept of right and wrong when judging the actions of innocence dying in a seemingly un-called for way. Because if the moral system of people are defined culturally, then Israel would not and could not be judged. If morals are autonomous to the individual, Israel wouldn’t and couldn’t be judged. Mussolini said of relativism, “the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.” And if evolution were true, relativism is thus true, and there are no moral rights and wrongs to begin with, so the person attacking God on a moral issue is using what he or she is trying to disprove! If I say my reality is to rid society of all atheists, and I convince enough people to my side, then I will have the right to rid you however I see fit. It (moral or value judgements) are reduced to an opinion that or “ideology that I can attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.”

(This is the Q & A time for the students after the Veritas lectures/debates at Harvard where Ravi Zacharias debated an atheist professor.)


....(CON'T)...

Papa Giorgio said...

=============QUOTE
First Questioner: “My question is: Isn’t rather unrealistic and self-centered for God to condemn a bunch of atheists who don’t believe in Him when he hasn’t given them a convincing reason to?”

Ravi Zacharias answers: “It will take me about five to ten minutes, so you might want to have a seat. I remember once when I was responding to a doctrinal questionnaire. The first question was: God is perfect – explain. I jokingly quipped to my wife that ‘the only more difficult question I can think of is to say: Define God and give two examples.’ As you can appreciate, some questions are thorny.

Your question, sir, is a very good one, but first let me point out to you some of the assumptions of your question that you will first have to defend before the question is even valid and that are vitally important for you to bear in mind. You have invoked a moral law in raising the question, a moral law that basically says: It would be immoral of God to do this without giving sufficient evidence to condemn somebody. Is that not the presupposition of your question?”

First Questioner: “I guess that seems to be my assumption.”

Ravi Zacharias (long): “Not only seems, it has to be or the question self-destructs. The issue you have raised points to a larger question on the fairness or moral legitimacy of all that God does. That is why I would like to deal with it in its larger indictment, which if satisfactorily dealt with, automatically addresses the particular issue too. And since this is the most often raised obstacle that honest skeptics present as a barrier to their belief in God, it is worthy of special attention. Let me narrate an interaction I had with a student at the University of Nottingham in England: As soon as I finished one of my lectures, he shot up from his seat and blurted out rather angrily, ‘There is too much evil in this world; therefore, there cannot be a God.’ I asked him to remain standing and answer a few questions for me.

I said, ‘If there is such a thing as evil, aren’t you assuming there is such a thing as good?’
He paused, reflected, and said: ‘I guess so.’
‘If there is such a thing as good,’ I countered, ‘you must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil’


...(CON'T)...

Papa Giorgio said...

I reminded him of the debate between philosopher Frederick Copleston and the atheist Bertrand Russell. At one point in the debate:

Copleston said, ‘Mr. Russell, you do believe in good and bad, don’t you?’[*]Russell answered, ‘Yes I do.’
‘How do you differentiate between them?’ challenged Copleston.[*]Russell shrugged his shoulders as he was wont to do in philosophical dead ends for him and said: ‘The same way I differentiate between yellow and blue.’
Copleston graciously responded and said, ‘But Mr. Russell, you differentiate between yellow and blue by seeing, don’t you? How do you differentiate between good and bad?’[*]Russell, with all of his genius still within reach, gave the most vapid answer he could have given: ‘On the basis of feeling – what else?’

I must confess, Mr. Copleston was a kindlier gentleman than many others. The appropriate answer would have been, ‘Mr. Russell, in some cultures they love their neighbors; in other cultures they eat them, both on the basis of feeling. Do you have any preference?’ [Chocolate ice-cream or vanilla?]

So I return to my questioning student in Nottingham: ‘When you say there is evil, aren't you admitting there is good? When you accept the existence of goodness, you must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But when you admit to a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver. That, however, is who you are trying to disprove and not prove. For if there is no moral lawgiver, there is no [absolute] moral law. If there is no moral law, there is no good [in the final sense of the word]. If there is no good, there is no evil. What, then, is your question? (AUDIO of similar: http://youtu.be/4EeOvWdHGaM)

===================UNQUOTE


...(CON'T)...

Papa Giorgio said...

My answer was a theistic answer. For instance, you could break down the worlds 10,000 religions and non-faiths into just seven worldviews. Theism is one of these seven that Judaism and Christianity fit perfectly into. Having an absolute moral position on what is wrong to do, and applying that to God's actions as well, is your problem... one that theists do not have. For instance, in atheism -- which presupposes a philosophical naturalism (all that exists is matter) -- posits that all sexual acts are something from our evolutionary past and advantageous (so-to-speak); rape is said to not be a pathology but an evolutionary adaptation – a strategy for maximizing reproductive success. (Two recent books deal with this: Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence; and, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion.)

The point is IS that you are a few blocks down the road (asking about moral questions in people being sent to hell) in your mind, but you haven't even pulled out of the driveway yet. You should -- in the least -- watch these two videos to see the general idea I am getting at. You have to defend posing a moral question meaning anything at all if you do not posit [to begin with] an absolute moral code. Here is the post from a recent "Serious Saturday" post on my blog: MY BLOG


=============QUOTE
Let's consider a basic question: Why does the natural world make any sense to begin with? Albert Einstein once remarked that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. Why should we be able to grasp the beauty, elegance, and complexity of our universe?

Einstein understood a basic truth about science, namely, that it relies upon certain philosophical assumptions about the natural world. These assumptions include the existence of an external world that is orderly and rational, and the trustworthiness of our minds to grasp that world. Science cannot proceed apart from these assumptions, even though they cannot be independently proven. Oxford professor John C. Lennox asks a penetrating question, "At the heart of all science lies the conviction that the universe is orderly. Without this deep conviction science would not be possible. So we are entitled to ask: Where does the conviction come from?"" Why is the world orderly? And why do our minds comprehend this order?


...(CON'T)...

Papa Giorgio said...

Toward the end of The God Delusion, Dawkins admits that since we are the product of natural selection, our senses cannot be fully trusted. After all, according to Darwinian evolution, our senses have been formed to aid survival, not necessarily to deliver true belief. Since a human being has been cobbled together through the blind process of natural selection acting on random mutation, says Dawkins, it's unlikely that our views of the world are completely true. Outspoken philosopher of neuro-science Patricia Churchland agrees:

The principle chore of brains is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing [the world] is advantageous so long as it... enhances the organism's chances for survival. Truth, whatever that is, takes the hindmost.

Dawkins is on the right track to suggest that naturalism should lead people to be skeptical about trusting their senses. Dawkins just doesn't take his skepticism far enough. In Miracles, C. S. Lewis points out that knowledge depends upon the reliability of our mental faculties. If human reasoning is not trustworthy, then no scientific conclusions can be considered true or false. In fact, we couldn't have any knowledge about the world, period. Our senses must be reliable to acquire knowledge of the world, and our reasoning faculties must be reliable to process the acquired knowledge. But this raises a particularly thorny dilemma for atheism. If the mind has developed through the blind, irrational, and material process of Darwinian evolution, then why should we trust it at all? Why should we believe that the human brain—the outcome of an accidental process—actually puts us in touch with reality? Science cannot be used as an answer to this question, because science itself relies upon these very assumptions.

Even Charles Darwin was aware of this problem: "The horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust the conviction of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" If Darwinian evolution is true, we should distrust the cognitive faculties that make science possible.
===================UNQUOTE

Larry said...

Good Lord, Can you ever just ANSWER A QUESTION without giving this long-winded, dragged out response that its sole purpose is just to obfuscate DIRECTLY answering?

Your last FIVE posts had NOTHING TO DO with answering my question. I can also tell that you are copying-and pasting your responses from other websites and the answer is not coming from just your own words. Why can't you just answer a question?

Let me address some things you DID say:

I NEVER used the terms "little children" or "little kids" in describing the youths that God killed. You simply SAID I used those terms. That would be a LIE. So, let me ask you this? If you cared about the TRUTH, why do you put words in my mouth?? Go back and read my posts. I NEVER said "little children" or "little kids"........YOU did.

I REPEATEDLY said the term "young kids" and once I used "youths". But I NEVER said "little kids" or "little children".

Why the need to LIE to attempt to make your point?

You're saying that the young kids were from "12 to 30"?? So, let me get this straight....God has 42 young people ripped to shreds for such a petty incident as name-calling, and you're going to sit there and JUSTIFY it by quibbling over their precise ages?? That is fucked up----almost as fucked up as the Bible itself.

WHO CARES how old they are really? The fact that God sends two bears to rip apart these HUMANS for such a petty incident is indicative of how monstrous and vicious God is.

Also, why did you even bring up Elisha's age? Name ONE place where I even made this a point of importance? NOWHERE did I mention Elisha's AGE. That has NO relevence to the story or to my question----so why did you MISREPRESENT what I said by bringing it up? What relevence is there to the question I asked?

Also, you said this [actually it was a copy-and-paste job]:

"A careful study of this incident in context shows that it was far more serious than a "mild personal offense."

A "careful study"? So now we have to STUDY what God is telling us? So, are you telling us that God doesn't tell us the WHOLE, PRECISE story? So we have to "study" things more in-depth because the all-knowing, all-powerful God leaves VITAL informtion out of the Bible? You're insane.

"It was a situation of serious public danger, quite as grave as the large youth gangs that roam the ghetto sections of our modern American cities."

Only problem is....the Bible doesn't actually SAY this, now does it? NOPE. You made it up. Why didn't GOD HIMSELF tell us that this was a public danger and that the youths were a GANG? Also, you're implying that even if the youths WERE a gang, tht JUSTIFIES God murdering them. Are you JUSTIFYING murder?

"If these young hoodlums were ranging about in packs of fifty or more, derisive toward respectable adults and ready to mock even a well-known man of God, there is no telling what violence they might have inflicted on the citizenry of the religious center of the kingdom of Israel (as Bethel was), had they been allowed to continue their riotous course."

IF these youths were ranging in packs of 50...derisive toward respectable adults???? IF??? God didn't KNOW? Again, you're saying God is NOT all-knowing. CORRECT?

Larry said...

"..there is no telling what violence they might have inflicted on the citizenry of the religious center of the kingdom of Israel"????

Again, you're admitting God is NOT all-knowing by saying "THERE IS NO TELLING". Of course there was. God is all-knowing right? Surely he would have known! Let's assume God DID know the future and these youths WOULD have caused a lot of trouble. That warrants DEATH? God couldn't have figured out a way to deal with it OTHER than DEATH? The fact that you ADMIT that greater damage may have been caused by the youths, you're ADMITTING that DEATH was the ONLY way for God to handle it. I'm simply asking: WHY? Couldn't he have just waved his hand and the youths would have been carried off to another location, say, 100 miles away? No, of course not...God KILLS them, because God is a murderer.

"The harmless "teasing" was hardly that--they were direct confrontation between the forces of Baal and the prophet of YHWH that had just healed the water supply (casting doubt on the power and beneficence of Baal!)."

Even IF true...SO? Here you ADMITTING AGAIN that the "all-powerful" God is intimidated by a bunch of thugs who were representatives of Baal. Why is God threatened by this? Isn't that the equivalent to a huge Hulk Hogan-sized man being mocked by Steve Urkel, and the ONLY solution the bigger man comes up with is KILLING the little guy? Why would he be threatened AT ALL to even resort to death? Or to even THINK about killing?

Besides, the text doesn't SAY they were representatives of Baal. You made that up.

"This was a mass demonstration (if 42 were mauled, how many people were in the crowd to begin with? 50? 100? 400?)"

The text does NOT say this was a "mass demonstration", does it? AGAIN, made up. If there was 50, 100 or 400 people there---SO??? You're saying God is NOT all-powerful enough to wave his hand and transport even, let's say...1,000 people through the sky to another location---NOT killing them, but simply just REMOVING them from the scene?

It all boils down to you being more concerned with semantics than actual FACTS and LOGIC. You make up definitions that are nowhere to be found in the text itself and you concern yourself with trivial things like the AGES of the youths and resort to LIES by saying I used terms like "little kids" when I did no such thing.

The thing that bothers me the most is the fact that you don't actually answer these questions YOURSELF. You resort to OTHER SOURCES and copy-and-paste jobs to even ATTEMPT to answer, and even then, you STILL don't accomplish your task.

rob said...

another person that cant answer your questions larry, go figure. larry youve exsposed another fraud. you own him. why the long worthless answeres. hes a joke.

Papa Giorgio said...

Larry,

Point #1) I answered your question on another verse specifically. You did not apply Aristotle's dictum to that verse. So, for instance, you said 42-children were killed. We know that if you used the 2,500[+] year old legal standard and applied it to the document [The Bible], you would find out that the Hebrew phrase for "children" in that verse is used of standing military aged person from 12 to their mid to late 20's. This is just one example of where you get it wrong -- that I gave you. Like the Genesis verse, you do not apply what lawyers do in a legal setting and literary critics do as well literary critics. Again, Aristotle:

They [the critics] start with some improbable presumption; and having so decreed it themselves, proceed to draw inferences, and censure the poet as though he had actually said whatever they happen to believe, if his statement conflicts with their notion of things.... Whenever a word seems to imply some contradiction, it is necessary to reflect how many ways there may be of understanding it in the passage in question.... So it is probably the mistake of the critics that has given rise to the Problem.... See whether he [the author] means the same thing, in the same relation, and in the same sense, before admitting that he has contradicted something he has said himself or what a man of sound sense assumes as true.

Papa Giorgio said...

Point #2) I have over 5,000 books in my home library . All quotes I use come directly from these books. The two most common and famous books used most apologetic sites were used in responding to your challenge about the Second Kings verse. I write for a few sites myself, and even have my own book online. When I quote I usually quote from these books or from my blog. In fact, I amswered your “foreknowledge” question in the Genesis round, the same still applies here:

=============QUOTE
These instances should all be understood as true expressions of God's present attitude or intention with respect to the situation as it exists at that moment. If the situation changes, then of course God's attitude or expression of intention will also change. This is just saying that God responds differently to different situations. …. In the cases of God being sorry that he had made man, or that he had made Saul king, these too can be understood as expressions of God's present displeasure toward the sinfulness of man. In neither case is the language strong enough to require us to think that if God could start again and act differently, he would in fact not create man or not make Saul king. It can instead imply that God's previous action led to events that, in the short term, caused him sorrow, but that nonetheless in the long term would ultimately achieve his good purposes.

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, pp. 164-165.
=============UNQUOTE

Papa Giorgio said...

Point #3 [QUOTING YOU] I NEVER used the terms "little children" or "little kids" in describing the youths that God killed. You simply SAID I used those terms. That would be a LIE. So, let me ask you this? If you cared about the TRUTH, why do you put words in my mouth?? Go back and read my posts. I NEVER said "little children" or "little kids"........YOU did.[UNQUOTING YOU]

[QUOTING YOU]
Yep, just as I thought. NO answer. None at ALL. That's because nobody HAS any answer for God sending two bears to maul to death 42 kids in the Bible. This would be a great scare tactic in church youth ministries, wouldn't it? If they fall out of line, just tell them that God will kill them if they so much as call someone a "baldhead".[UNQUOTING YOU]

Again, I showed that there is more to the story. God knew the obvious danger, which is why He probably sent the Bears in to disperse the larger crowd. You referred to kids & youth group, but again, the Hebrew word stands for people almost in their thirties. The city they came from was very violent, and it would be similar, like the quote I scanned in from The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. You do not know from the text how many people/warriors/crazed-riotess mob had formed. The bears merely got to 42 of them. In fact, using your logic that examples such as these disprove God’s foreknowledge, then this example could likewise be used as an example of God using His foreknowledge and omnipotence to make sure a future event came out a certain way.

Papa Giorgio said...

Point #4) Quit accusing me of lying. I am not, and you shouldn’t lower yourself to ad hominem attacks. Just because I quote from a book[s] that uses TITLES and responds to the popular attacks on such passages does not mean you are doing it EXACTLY the same way and manner, but only similar. It still responds to your main thesis. Well, in fact. You see, while I have most every book written by leading atheists, like Bugliosi (*jab*), Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, Smith, Russell, Stenger, Sartre, Barker, Ellerbe, Epicurus, Freud, Rand, Sagan, Gould, Pinker, Erhman, etc – very rarely do I meet non-believers (and a true agnostic would have some of these authors) who interact with the big thinkers in Christianity, like: Craig, Moreland, Lewis, Montgomery, Geivett, Habermas, Bahnsen, Beckwith, Geisler, Kreeft, Menuge, and the like. This shows a side of respect and dignity for someone to know what they reject. Bugliossi – and you – take verses that have nothing to do with omnipotence and twist them into such, taking the original language, culture, history, concepts, out of context. It is the strangest thing. AGAIN, my pointing out that you characterize them as kids, when, they were in fact men, and there were probably 100’s of riotess people there, and that more was probably said that “baldhead,” is astounding. You take what is said as black and white fact without considering what was not said in the text – effectively arguing from silence.

Papa Giorgio said...

Point #5) The Bible is a historical book… it tells the history of the Hebraic peoples in short form and condenses stories and is full of parables, histories, poetics, law, etc. You have failed to determine this and much worse than the most conservative evangelical dogmatists have written in stone what the Bible says, out of context that is. Again, “These instances should all be understood as true expressions of God's present attitude or intention with respect to the situation as it exists at that moment. If the situation changes, then of course God's attitude or expression of intention will also change.” You really should consider my posted paper on this.

Papa Giorgio said...

Point #6) [QUOTING YOU] "...there is no telling what violence they might have inflicted on the citizenry of the religious center of the kingdom of Israel"???? Again, you're admitting God is NOT all-knowing by saying "THERE IS NO TELLING".[UNQUOTING YOU] As Reagan would say, “there you go again.” No one is speaking about God’s knowledge?one?two?three?four? (*had to match your emphasis*). I am speaking of our knowledge and the people involved in the situation you mentioned. There was, since we know 42 people wouldn’t stick around to fight bears, this fact (people would typically try to escape these types of attacks) would show that there were probably a large crowd (probably hundreds) involved. Unless you are saying God froze the only 42 people there and allowed the bears to proceed down the line and maul them? (*Side-Note* Your proposition is also not in the text… which is, how 42-people would stand there and allow bears to kills them.)

Larry said...

"You did not apply Aristotle's dictum to that verse. So, for instance, you said 42-children were killed. We know that if you used the 2,500[+] year old legal standard and applied it to the document [The Bible], you would find out that the Hebrew phrase for "children" in that verse is used of standing military aged person from 12 to their mid to late 20's."

And apparently you IGNORED my comment about this, whn I said:

"You're saying that the young kids were from "12 to 30"?? So, let me get this straight....God has 42 young people ripped to shreds for such a petty incident as name-calling, and you're going to sit there and JUSTIFY it by quibbling over their precise ages?? That is fucked up----almost as fucked up as the Bible itself.

WHO CARES how old they are really? The fact that God sends two bears to rip apart these HUMANS for such a petty incident is indicative of how monstrous and vicious God is."

Larry said...

You said:

"If the situation changes, then of course God's attitude or expression of intention will also change."

Oh really? Then James is wrong when he says:

God “never changes” [James 1:17]

You said this:

"In the cases of God being sorry that he had made man, or that he had made Saul king, these too can be understood as expressions of God's present displeasure toward the sinfulness of man. In neither case is the language strong enough to require us to think that if God could start again and act differently, he would in fact not create man or not make Saul king. It can instead imply that God's previous action led to events that, in the short term, caused him sorrow, but that nonetheless in the long term would ultimately achieve his good purposes."

Eveything you just wrote is utter crapola, because in MANY instances in the Bible God CONTROLS events and he CONTROLS PEOPLE.

He hardened Pharaoh's heart, therefore PREVENTING him from releasing the Israelites. This act ALONE proves God can CONTROL a situation, and therefore it nullifies EVERY WORD of your above quote.

Moses parted the Red Sea. This was also an act of God CONTROLLING a situation. Do I REALLY need to give MORE examples?

Larry said...

"Again, I showed that there is more to the story. God knew the obvious danger, which is why He probably sent the Bears in to disperse the larger crowd."

Stop reviving issues that I have ALREADY addressed as if I never addressed it. I previously addressed this when I said:

"Let's assume God DID know the future and these youths WOULD have caused a lot of trouble. That warrants DEATH? God couldn't have figured out a way to deal with it OTHER than DEATH? The fact that you ADMIT that greater damage may have been caused by the youths, you're ADMITTING that DEATH was the ONLY way for God to handle it. I'm simply asking: WHY? Couldn't he have just waved his hand and the youths would have been carried off to another location, say, 100 miles away? No, of course not...God KILLS them, because God is a murderer."

You IGNORED this portion of my last posts. Hmmm, I wonder why.

I also said this:

"Only problem is....the Bible doesn't actually SAY this, now does it? NOPE. You made it up. Why didn't GOD HIMSELF tell us that this was a public danger and that the youths were a GANG? Also, you're implying that even if the youths WERE a gang, tht JUSTIFIES God murdering them. Are you JUSTIFYING murder?"

THIS was IGNORED too. Why do you IGNORE my response to something, and then regurgitate it AGAIN as if I never addressed it?

You said this:

"You referred to kids & youth group, but again, the Hebrew word stands for people almost in their thirties."

Already addressed THIS too, when I said:

"God has 42 young people ripped to shreds for such a petty incident as name-calling, and you're going to sit there and JUSTIFY it by quibbling over their precise ages??"

Here is where you LIE...AGAIN:

"In fact, using your logic that examples such as these disprove God’s foreknowledge, then this example could likewise be used as an example of God using His foreknowledge and omnipotence to make sure a future event came out a certain way."

Ahhh, but that's not what you said before. You said "there is NO TELLING" what would happen so God had to kill them. But there IS a TELLING, because supposedly has foreknowledge and would KNOW...not THINK....but KNOW what the future would bring. So, my question to YOU [that you NEVER answered] is simply this:

Assuming God is all-knowing and has foreknowledge, why would God resort to DEATH and KILL 42 youths when he could have picked 100 ways to PREVENT this INSTEAD OF killing them?? He's all-powerful RIGHT? So, it sands to reason that he could have picked ANY one of 100 ways to NOT cause these 42 youths' deaths. Am I NOT correct on this?

He could have waved his hand and transported them through the air to another city, RIGHT? He spoke the planets into existence but transporting humans through the air is IMPOSSIBLE? He picked DEATH, because God loves DEATH.

If I as a mere mortal in my limited knowledge can come up with ways NOT to murder 42 youths, why can't all-powerful, all-knowing and all-just God? Do NOT ignore that question.

Larry said...

"Bugliossi – and you – take verses that have nothing to do with omnipotence and twist them into such, taking the original language, culture, history, concepts, out of context."

Care to provide examples?

In FACT, he does bring up a very good point in his book about CORRECT translation. In my longer story about Bugliosi's book [which you fail to read...Hmmm, I wonder why] Bugliosi makes this excellent point on the changing of meaning of the word for "virgin" in the OT.

This is from my story:

"Bugliosi starts off by making a very good point about the fact that Isaiah’s use of the word [in Isaiah 7:14 where it prophesizes about Jesus’ birth] that describes the mother of a child “almah” [meaning, “young woman”] was changed in Septuagint [the 3rd century translation of the Hebrew into Greek] to the word “parthenos” [meaning “young woman” or “virgin”], it somehow became known as only “virgin” in modern Greek. The correct Hebrew word that Isaiah should have used if describing a “virgin” would have been “betulah”. Bugliosi makes a very good point that if Jesus was really born to a virgin, why didn’t Isaiah use the CORRECT Hebrew word [betulah] for “virgin”?"

Good question RIGHT? Why didn't Isaiah use the CORRECT word for virgin???

Larry said...

"There was, since we know 42 people wouldn’t stick around to fight bears, this fact (people would typically try to escape these types of attacks) would show that there were probably a large crowd (probably hundreds) involved. Unless you are saying God froze the only 42 people there and allowed the bears to proceed down the line and maul them? (*Side-Note* Your proposition is also not in the text… which is, how 42-people would stand there and allow bears to kills them.)"

Thank you. You just provided evidence for MY point, that they were young kids [as the bible says they are...not people in their 30's]. This gives MY argument credence that they were MUCH younger than you claim, because it's more believable that YOUNG boys would not be able to escape such an attack.

By the way, you said "youths" can refer to people in their 30's, right?

Jesus began his ministry at age 30. But NOWHERE can I find in the Bible that he was ever referred to as a "YOUTH".

Correct?

rob said...

game set match larry wins. he just wont answer the question directly. he said he other books to refer to, but were not discussing them. he goes around to get to his point, but still wont answer your questions. another fraud exposed.

Anonymous said...

larry is schooling this guy. another person refuted and debunked by larry. larry owns another blog.

Papa Giorgio said...

Rob and anonymous, how is Larry working me? I am applying secular aspects that any literary critic would to an ancient document? I am not arguing metaphysics in any way (miraculous behavior), I am merely showing Larry how he is applying a 21st century logic, eisegesis, to an ancient document. He may reject this correction, but as you will see, his reference to “the Virgin” aspect will see once again he is way off [like in the Genesis example, and in the example still mentioned herein].

Again, the Bible -- if you apply the legal standard to the document -- interprets itself. The people in the crowd were anywhere from 12 to 27[ish]. These are military aged and most likely violent young men since we know they came from a city that was violent and cultic (Baal worship: The principal pillars of Baalism were child sacrifice, and sexual immorality, and pantheism).

I did used the Dictum?
==============================

Rule of Definition.

Define the term or words being considered and then adhere to the defined meanings.

Rule of Usage.
Don't add meaning to established words and terms. What was the common usage in the cultural and time period.

…etc….

Genesis 22:12; Genesis 37:2; 1 Kings 20:14-15 are examples of this usage, as well as Absalom was considered a na'ar, even though he was old enough to lead the troops in rebellion against David: "And the king commanded Joab and Abishai and Ittai, saying, Deal gently for my sake with the young man, even with Absalom" (2 Sa 18:5).
==================================

I used the text in questions’ definition, I looked at least 3 Hebrew/Aramaic specialists view of it (Strongs; Zodhiates; Brown-Driver-Briggs), looked at manners and cultural habits of the time period, looked at what city these youths came from, etc., etc. This is called exegesis and is applying the science of hermeneutics. Which was birthed in Poetics:

They [the critics] start with some improbable presumption; and having so decreed it themselves, proceed to draw inferences, and censure the poet as though he had actually said whatever they happen to believe, if his statement conflicts with their notion of things.... Whenever a word seems to imply some contradiction, it is necessary to reflect how many ways there may be of understanding it in the passage in question.... So it is probably the mistake of the critics that has given rise to the Problem.... See whether he [the author] means the same thing, in the same relation, and in the same sense, before admitting that he has contradicted something he has said himself or what a man of sound sense assumes as true…. The objections, then, of critics start with faults of five kinds: the alle¬gation is always that something is either (1) impossible, (2) improbable, (3) corrupting, (4) contradictory, or (5) against technical correctness. The answers to these objections must be sought under one or other of the above--mentioned heads, which are twelve in number.

No one said 30, by-the-by. At any rate, what I am pointing out that a large group was gathered to do harm to a prophet of God. Applying this Dictum of Aristotle, we know culturally/historically that this group could not see that the prophet was bald. (If they could, they had already physically assaulted him and removed his robe that we know -- again, from culture and history -- covered him well.)

…more tomorrow… I still think you are saying an action by God is morally wrong, but in order to say such a thing, you have to borrow from the theistic worldview. This is the larger position you are taking – that is, moral absolutes. VIRGIN tomorrow, after that I will have answered you on three verses. We need to talk about where you are pulling moral absolutes from after that.

Larry said...

Blah blah blah. More gobbily-gook just meant to distract and obfuscate my question.

Once AGAIN, this fuckstick is fixated on the AGES of the youth rather than the savage and brutal act in and of itself of sending 2 bears to rip apart YOUTHS [as the Bible says]. He will NEVER answer the question: How did NAME CALLING warrant a death sentence?

There IS no answer, because the Bible is BULLSHIT.

I found this statement hilarious:

"I am merely showing Larry how he is applying a 21st century logic, eisegesis, to an ancient document."

If God is ALWAYS the SAME, please tell me why it MATTERS if the document is ancient? Are you saying the Bible is outdated and has no use in today's society? If God is the same YESTERDAY TODAY AND FOREVER, tell me how the AGE of the document is relevant. Please tell me...I'm all ears.

Isn't the Bible GOD'S WORD? Didn't God know [in his "supposed" foreknowledge] that this document was going to be passed down to generations and generations---billions an billions of people during a 3,000-5,000 year time frame? So, if he KNEW as you MUST BELIEVE he did, tell me WHY God would make the language "dated"? Why wouldn't he make the language understandable to ALL generations?

I can't wait to see how you spin your answer to this!

rob said...

gobbliy gook. thats good larry. he still wont answer the questions that you asked larry. bah bah bah. mr sheeple, larry owns you and your blog. larry has explained to you in 1st century logic whats going on and still you stand on you bull just to try to prove your right. horse hockey.

Anonymous said...

your right rob this guy is a fucktard.

Papa Giorgio said...

Again, it was most probably a violent attack that involved a large crowd (arguing from evidence in the text) in which we get a hint from that if 42 were killed how many more escaped, by a group of people we know were from a city that killed infants on a regular basis (thus providing us with a biography of violence from which these 20-year[+/-] old persons came from) [Larry may not have lived in a city like this (a violent city)... but I grew up in the worse neighborhood Detroit had to offer and years later (as a multiple felon) was a trustee and fed juveniles their breakfast-lunch-and-dinner and know just how big a youth can get (Larry has a picture of innocent kids)], we know that in order for this group to tell the prophet had a bald head they would have had to remove part of his robe (so they were already laying hands on him). Etc, etc.

This is a great example of what happens when persons like Larry do not apply the science of hermeneutics. He says [Larry]: If God is ALWAYS the SAME, please tell me why it MATTERS if the document is ancient? Using the application Larry has in our short discussion, God has wings, feathers, is a rock, a fireball, blew his nose to drown the Egyptians in the sea, and carried the entire Hebrew nation in his giant hand. The lack of applying the methods I write about HERE, allows anyone to interpret any book how they wish. Poetics, historical narratives, quick stories with little description are all deconstructed in a way that Derrida would be proud of. A great example is the word “virgin,” which is mentioned time-and-time again by second rate skeptics. And to which I responded to in the past – already, time-and-time again.

As you will see, the anecdotal evidence Bugliosi gives (“a professor who is from Greece told me,” p. 155 & “I found a Jewish Rabbi,” p. 156 – giving no further qualifications) and the self-serving motivations of the gospel writers (not his own presuppositions or a single Rabbi in L.A.), nope, history is rejected in light of these two “scholastic” enterprises Bugliosi set out on....

Papa Giorgio said...

#1) bethulah: The proper meaning denotes a virgin maiden (Gen. 24:16; Lev. 21:13; Deut. 22:14, 23, 28; Judg. 11:37; 1 Kin. 1:2). Joel 1:8 is, according to Unger, not an exception because here it “refers to the loss of one betrothed, not married.”

#2) almah (veiled): A young woman of marriageable age. This word is used in Isaiah 7:14. “The Holy Spirit through Isaiah did not use bethulah, because both the ideas of virginity and marriageable age had to be combined in one word to meet the immediate historical situation and the prophetic aspect centering in a virgin-born Messiah.” (Unger’s Bible Dictionary)

“virgin” is denoted in Greek by the word Parthenos: a virgin, marriageable maiden, or young married women, pure virgin (Matt. 1:23 & 25:1, 7, 11; Luke 1:27; Acts 21:9; 1 Cor. 7:25, 28, 33; 2 Cor. 11:2) (The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary)

When the translators of the Septuagint LXX translated Isaiah 7:14 into Greek they used the Greek word parthenos. To them Isaiah 7:14 denoted the Messiah would be born of a virgin.

....

Papa Giorgio said...

...Septuagint LXX
This is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament started in the third century B. C. in Alexandria, Egypt. The name Septuagint comes from the Greek word for “seventy”; hence the symbol LXX in Roman numerals. It refers to the seventy-two Jewish translators brought to Egypt by Ptolemy II Philadelphius (285-246 B. C.) to translate the Hebrew Bible for the non-Hebrew-speaking- Jews. The translation was completed around 100 B. C.. It also should be noted that the early Church used the Septuagint when citing Old Testament and patristic sources (see: Matt. 1:23 & 25:1, 7, 11; Luke 1:27; Acts 21:9; 1 Cor. 7:25, 28, 33; 2 Cor. 11:2). [see also: Bauer, Walter, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.]

And when all the passages in the Old Testament are investigated, the only conclusion one can come to is that the word means “virgin.” To date, no one has produced a clear context, either in Hebrew or in the closely related Canaanite language from Ugarit (which uses the cognate noun glmt), where almah can be applied to a married women. Moreover, the definite article with this word [ha almah in Isaiah 7:14] must be rendered “the virgin”. Added to this is the question of what would be so miraculous about (“sign”) about a “young woman” having a baby. The word (almah) is used six or more times in the Old Testament and in all instances the context favors (or at least does not preclude) its rendering as “virgin.” Conception by an “young unmarried woman” would hardly be a sign of anything except sin, for such events occur frequently. A virgin conception would require a mighty act of creation by God Himself. The quotation of this verse in the New Testament (Matt. 1:23) should remove any lingering doubt, for the Greek word parthenos used here (as in the LXX) can only mean “virgin” (Jer. 31:32).

(APPLYING the DICTUM – Culture and original language) The scholars closest to the original language translated it one way, so we know that the closer you get to the ancient language, the more one interprets the word a certain way. Unfortunately, Levi Dershowitz doesn’t have the linguistic authority that Alfred Edersheim.

According to Alfred Edersheim, the great Jewish scholar who converted to Christianity over a century ago, the Jews recognize eight stages of growth (3). He says that the word almah pertains to the sixth stage, which is between dependent childhood and independent youth (4). By its connotation of firmness and strength, the word suggests the rapid bodily growth of early adolescence (5). Thus, an almah was a girl about twelve to fourteen years old. The closest English equivalents to almah are "maiden" and "damsel" (6). "Young woman," although passable as a translation, stretches the concept too far into adulthood. The rabbis taught that a father should betroth his daughter to his slave rather than keep her unbetrothed beyond puberty (7). A girl was normally married before she passed much beyond fourteen (8). Thus, since almah specifically denotes a girl at the stage of growth just before marriage, the term apparently came to signify "unmarried girl of marriageable age" (9). And since nearly all unmarried girls in ancient Hebrew culture were chaste, the term seems to have acquired the further meaning "virgin" (10). In some of the texts exhibiting almah, "virgin" is clearly the most appropriate translation. (http://themoorings.org/apologetics/VirginBirth/Isaiah.html)

Papa Giorgio said...

Now the fun part!

How do you, Larry, determine what is an evil act? You keep pressing me to answer a question, but you have to ground your ethics in something that is beyond nature. So, back to a conversation I tried to start earlier. Since skeptics and agnostics admit that moral absolutes have no ultimate grounding. So, I gave examples of philosophers in a debate forum (where the rubber meets the road) trying to defend a position and then admitting that they cannot defend -- ultimately -- that position.

For example, in theism, rape is always morally wrong in all times and places in the known universe. In non-religious Darwinian terms, rape is not a pathology, but an evolutionary adaptation – a strategy for maximizing reproductive success.

thus you have two modals contrasting two world views:

The naturalistic worldview (which atheist and agnostics fall into) says that rape was the moral norm in that it allowed for the "highest good" [survival of the fittest]. Currently, however, it is taboo [not morally wrong]. --- Dale Peterson and Richard Wrangham, Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence (New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing, 1997); Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000). The theistic worldview says moral evils (like toruring infants with red-hot iron pokers for fun) are real and we all know they are such in our hearts, evil.


What principle do you derive from nature that says there are moral wrongs and rights? Atheists, in debates (who are honest), say so.

Larry said...

Just as I thought....more gobbily-gook, copy-and-paste obfuscation.

NOWHERE in your posts did I see an answer to this question:

"How did NAME CALLING warrant a death sentence?"

Why don't you post comments under my really long story of my review of the book? Hmmm?

Papa Giorgio said...

You still have to -- from a naturalistic worldview -- give a reason why even one death, let alone 42 is an evil act. Nature is full of meaningless death and violence.

I did give an answer, by the way: [QUOTING ME]Applying this Dictum of Aristotle, we know culturally/historically that this group could not see that the prophet was bald. (If they could, they had already physically assaulted him and removed his robe that we know -- again, from culture and history -- covered him well.)[UNQUOTING ME]

Larry said...

"You still have to -- from a naturalistic worldview -- give a reason why even one death, let alone 42 is an evil act. Nature is full of meaningless death and violence."

Better question: Why is it NOT murder if God kills but it IS murder if man kills?

You still hvent answered my question:

"How did NAME CALLING warrant a death sentence?"

By the way, look at my most recent post. I bet you can't answer ONE of the 31. My personal faves are questions 28, 30 and 31.

Papa Giorgio said...

We know it wasn't just name calling because they had to have assaulted the man to see that he was bald. We know these group of 20-year olds [+/-] came from a violent city, so this wouldn't be large leap of logic considering we know the prophet was covered so they couldn't see his head. Which means they had already physically attacked him.

All I am pointing out, like other scientists/professors/atheists that agree - there is no ethics or meaning in life if God does not exist. So an agnostic or atheist pointing out that there is an unjust act being done borrows from the theists position and not his own worldview.

I will check out the most recent post.

Larry said...

"We know it wasn't just name calling because they had to have assaulted the man to see that he was bald. We know these group of 20-year olds [+/-] came from a violent city, so this wouldn't be large leap of logic considering we know the prophet was covered so they couldn't see his head. Which means they had already physically attacked him."

The major problem with what you just said is that NONE of it is in the actual text of the story. I didn't think Christians ADDED to the Bible.

Papa Giorgio said...

The Bible is not a police report? it is a history (a descriptive history, the Qu'ran is prescriptive history) that spans many years. The Bible is not one “book,” it is a “library” of sixty-six books that were written over a period of more than a 1,500 years by many different authors. It has: Law, History, Wisdom, Poetry, Gospel, Epistles, Prophecy, and Apocalyptic Literature.

a passage of Scripture must be
taken (interpreted) by a believer in accord with its author's purpose; degrees of
precision appropriate to that purpose at that time; and its grammatical,
historical, cultural, and theological contexts


None of the examples you have given have risen to show God is not omniscient, all you have shown is that these instances should all be understood as true expressions of God's present attitude or intention with respect to the situation as it exists at that moment. If the situation changes, then of course God's attitude or expression of intention will also change. This is just saying that God responds differently to different situations. .... In neither case is the language strong enough to require us to think that if God could start again and act differently, .... Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, pp. 164-165.

In fact, you are arguing from a position that God already exists (minutia) when you should be focused on the existence of God (theism -- the macro) and how your worldview even rises to the level of moral judgement (the depravity of atheism positing moral duty).

Anonymous said...

larry, this papa john guy still wont answer your question. his a ass. hes a sheeple to the tenth power. youve explained to him in 1st century truth and he still wont give a simple answer. he just gives around the bullshit splatter. by the way larry, if name calling deserves death, then what does taking a shit our making yourself look like a jackass on this site call for?

dave said...

this guy is the reason why people hate bible thumpers.

Papa Giorgio said...

I have answered every question asked of me... how have I not Anonymous? Please tell me.


People hate Christians because we use secular applications that every legal court in the West uses? People hate Christians because we apply science, philosophy in a logically sound way/manner. We point out that people like Bugliosi (and Real Truth) does not know what a self-refuting (and thusly incoherent) principle of being a hard agnostic is? Oh man... watch out for those crazy Christians!? They will apply Aristotelian logic (Laws of Thought) and Big-Bang science every chance they get. Ooohhhhh! Those Christians!! (*said in an Elmer Fudd voice*)

Papa Giorgio said...

Dave and anonymous,

I realize the internet somehow causes one to throw away etiquit and how they treat people. But you have to imagine that people are out having a beer, talking over politics and religion. -- For instance, I think Ron Paul is one of the worse Reps in Congress right now. I get emotional when i think that he believes America planned the attacks on the Twin Towers. However, when I am out talking about these issues with people in a public setting (which is what the internet is), one should treat others like they would bumping into a person and discussing issues in the line at a grocery store. When you start to name call and cuss, all you are doing is showing your lack of argument and appeal to ad-hominem attacks. Which really negates any argument you may have been trying to get across.

Just thought I would try and raise the level of dialogue here... or you guys can keep lowering it and only you guys will visit Real Truth and others of a different stripe will stay away. in other words, do you want mini-me's around as a sounding board... or do you want to allow your ideas out in the real world to see if they stand up to the test of time?

Much Thought, Papa Giorgio.

Larry said...

You said:

"I think Ron Paul is one of the worse Reps in Congress right now."

But yet, you give NO reasons.

"I get emotional when i think that he believes America planned the attacks on the Twin Towers."

Name ONE time Ron Paul has EVER said this. He may FEEL this [as I do] but he has NEVER publically SAID it. In fact, he has said the opposite in debates, interviews, etc... But this doesnt surprise me that someone could say one thing and you put the complete opposite in their mouths. You did it to Bugliosi. He's CLEARLY an agnostic and you keep calling him an atheist.

People like you make me fucking sick. If they don't believe in the CHRISTIAN god, they are atheists right? Bugliosi DID admit that he is NOT an agnostic about the CHRISTIAN God, he flat out doesnt believe in it. That does NOT make him an atheist. He still believes in the possibility of a creator, he just REJECTS to CHRISTIAN god, and that makes your fucking blood boil, doesn't it?

"When you start to name call and cuss, all you are doing is showing your lack of argument and appeal to ad-hominem attacks. Which really negates any argument you may have been trying to get across."

You haven't even STARTED an argument because EVERY SINGLE TIME you reply, you post giant portions of OTHER PEOPLE'S writings and its nothing but a giant copy and paste job.

Do you EVER answer questions YOURSELF? By the way, when did I ever use ad hominem attacks?? The cussing thing is just a smokescreen. I've heard it before. It's an old debate tactic that doesn't work with me. People will pretend that cussing bothers them so they won't answer the questions because the other has been cussing. Crapola.

Papa Giorgio said...

I have written about Ron Paul on my old Blogspot blog quite a bit. I really have only posted about him once on my new blog: RPTs Thought on Ron Paul.

I also have some PAGES dealing with WTC-7 and the PENTAGON on my blog:

Pentagon
WTC7
❖ Not a conspiracy as much as a liberal mantra, WMDs
C-O-N-Debunker Page

I can see why you reject rational, linear thinking in other areas (the self-refuting nature of hard-agnosticism, answers to most of your questions, and the like).

Anonymous said...

see larry he still hasnt answered your questions when he said he has. dahh . hes got to get over himself. he hasnt proved anything about DR ron paul. by the way the man is a war VET. did papa john serve. nnnooooo hes a writer. big FN whoop. just answer larry question with out copy and paste bullshit you dick. with my homer simpson voice. by the way you jackhole when you got to this site the iq hit the floor. so dont praise yourself., remember the lord hates YOU for that. again just answer larrys question with out all the dialogue. k?

Papa Giorgio said...

Got Anonymous, dialogue bad. I am a three time convicted felon that broke my C-7 and fractured my T-1 and T-2. All about 18-years old. This precludes me from any service. I love the military (you dick) and consider myself an avid reader/amateur historian of the Cold War.

Since I had a rough life, my wife and I raised our kids well. Religion (*which almost every study shows increases health and well being), ROTC (which allows for order and leadership ability), and my oldest son is in the Marines.

Also, Anonymous, Just because someone is a vet, doesn't ad hoc make someone correct. All I have heard from you are platitudes... and for all I know, you are Larry. So I never take anything people with linked bios have to say. Outside of refuting their crassness, ad hominem attacks (latin for to the man), and appeal to authority.

Larry said...

One thing I didnt see in your posts...ANSWERS to any of my questions.

I read your Ron Paul link and just as I imagined before reading, it was just a litany of accusations and attacks but not ONCE in the entire story did you ever say WHY the things you reject are BAD.

It was an entire guilt-by-association article---calling Ron Paul crazy for believing in 9-11 conspiraies, a secret banking cabal, Bilderbergers and wanting to end the drug war---but not ONCE...not ONCE did you say WHY these beliefs are crazy.

Ive had many arguments before with your ilk, and Ive been thru all this before---people who just attack, attack, attack certain things [like the John Birch Society] without EVER saying why that thing is to be attacked.

You didnt give ONE reason in that article WHY the things you're attacking are things that should be attacked. NOT ONE.

Unlike MY blog, when I attack something or even criticize it, I give REASONS why, and provide PROOF for WHY the thing I am attacking SHOULD be attacked. You DON'T. You just say "Ron Paul thinks there are secret powers controlling everything" and make it appear as if he's crazy for believing it, but don't give ONE REASON why believing that is crazy.

Then you say that the founders themselves were involved in a bunch of foreign wars without telling your 2 readers WHAT WARS HEY WERE an why they were UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

So, what WERE these wars you talk of? And were they UNCONSTITUTIONAL? If so, give EXAMPLES.

Larry said...

Why is waning to end the drug war BAD? Anyone with a brain knows the CIA is the biggest drug dealer in this country. They bring the drugs in, and when they fall into the possession of the American people, they get locked up for it.

You also mention Ron Paul being "stoned", but not ONCE do you even PROVE he takes drugs. Not ONCE do you have any evidence that marijuana is a BAD thing. I dont smoke it [not my thing] but WHY is it BAD? Do you have ANY evidence that even ONE person has been killed from its use?

On the other hand, there are THOUSANDS of deaths a year from alcohol [drunk driving, etc..] but do you see ALCOHOL banned and considered illegal by our government? Hell no. But a non-violent substance like weed that has caused ZERO deaths gets you locked away in prison? Hmmmmm.

I am sure I already know what your 9-11 pages will show. Already debunked bullshit that will be a giant hybrid of a Popular Mechanics website---who have already been debunked time and time again

Anonymous said...

Your pentagon story is hilarious. Not ONCE do you show ONE picture of the Pentagon site BEFORE the Pentagon wall collapsed. If you had, it would clearly show NO hole big enough for a plane to fit through. I think it's just best for you to go to my story on it. I wrote extensively on it here:

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2007/03/
my-top-10-smoking-
guns-that-911-was.html

Look under #3 about the Pentagon. I'm quite sure even if you DO look at it, you will IGNORE 90% of it in your next post----just as you'e ignored my 31 questions Christians can't answer [in your case...REFUSE TO answer].

Papa Giorgio said...

Here is a great example for you to inculcate, although I will doubt you will "get it." To the right you have a photo of a building burning (the Madrid fire) that is a completely different [completely] designs than the buildings in the World Trade center complex -- yes even WTC7.

“This fire is one of the fires Conspiracy theorist like to point to when talking about high raise office fires. This fire lasted 26 hours. But what they don't tell you is that the first collapse happened only 2 hours and 30 minutes after the fire began. But why didn't the building fall completely? It was on fire for 26 hours. The answer is very simple. The building were constructed very differently than the WTC. Reinforced concrete was used in the core and under the 17th floor. Below are detailed descriptions of how the Madrid tower was constructed and the reason for it not collapsing...” More About the Structure at Site

So you “pics” [to the right] is what is known as a non-sequitur. YOUR NON-SEQUITURS ARE LOL I bet you still think WTC7 dropped in 6-seconds... (*do you think that is air you are breathing* ~ Matrix).

Not only do you show a single photo of a few fires at one point during the WTC7 fire (while not showing photos of the entire building on fire after the 15,000[+] gallons of fuel in WTC7 started to catch on fire... and under pressure sent it to a couple of floors... nor the structural damage in the bottom of the building from debris from the Twin Towers.)

As for the Pentagon post, I do not need to show the original photo? Why would I? I explain with the photo of the stripped down plane that the lower frame is the main part slicing through the columns… as well as the wings (which the color coded pillars in the graph display which were destroyed, damaged, and the like.

Larry said...

"As for the Pentagon post, I do not need to show the original photo? Why would I?"

Because it shows you have NO INTEREST in the truth if you are not going to begin the entire discussion about the Pentagon with a photo of the Pentagon BEFORE the wall collapsed but AFTER the object hit it.

This is the EXACT reason WHY they will put planes back together in big hangars after a crash, so they can tell EXACTLY the cause of the crash. But you didn't see them do that after 9/11 with flight 77 did you? NO. Because it was naturally assumed that the plane crashed because hijackers crashed it into the building. But in my opinion, putting the plane back together was STILL a requirement because NOTHING should be assumed.

The outer wall showed ZERO evidence a plane hit it BEFORE the wall collapse. ZERO EVIDENCE. The whole in the building was no bigger than 20 feet wide and there was NO damage from what the wings should have caused and the tail should have caused. There is NO EVIDENCE a 757 hit that building...none whatsoever, and that little pile of rubble you showed means NOTHING. There is always GIANT pieces of planes left over in wreckages after crashes, but the official story says flight 77 vaporized, or most of it did.

Vaporization? That takes more faith to believe than what I believe.

Let me guess, you didnt read my story did you...the one I posted the link to? I will assume no, because you have no interest in FACTS.

By the way, nice diversion from answering my 31 questions christians can't answer---diverting to 9/11---but it doesnt work with me. Gonna address ANY of them?

Anonymous said...

wow a convicted felon. when did you find god? probably right after the police found you. your a poor excuse for religion. being a vet doesnt make you right it just proves that my actions spoke louder than words. and if your son is truly in the marines why would you support anyone else but dr ron paul. hes the only one that wants us to get out of this shit were in.k? and by the way religion doesnt make you healthy exercise does. the only words youll hear from god are begone from me you worker of iniquity for i never knew you. so knuckle head just for once answer larrys question without all the roundabout bullshit, and stop copying and pasting .

Papa Giorgio said...

Body pieces, 747 peices, luggage, all were found at the Pentagon. It didn't vaporize... the photo I have on my post have people in suits for what reason? They were cleaning up many gruesome pieces of people. I have added and updated the post JUST for YOU, the evidence is outstanding. Unless you have a bad logic approaching issues, which our religious and Ron Paul and Conspiracy discussions reveal you have.

Papa Giorgio said...

• Sixth through twelfth graders who attend religious services once a month or more are half as likely to engage in at-risk behaviors such as substance abuse, sexual excess, truancy, vandalism, drunk driving and other trouble with police. Search Institute, "The Faith Factor," Source, Vol. 3, Feb. 1992, p.1.
• Churchgoers are more likely to aid their neighbors in need than are non-attendees. George Barna, What Americans Believe, Regal Books, 1991, p. 226.
• Three out of four Americans say that religious practice has strengthened family relationships. George Gallup, Jr. "Religion in America: Will the Vitality of Churches Be the Surprise of the Next Century," The Public Perspective, The Roper Center, Oct./Nov. 1995.
• Church attendance lessens the probabilities of homicide and incarceration. Nadia M. Parson and James K. Mikawa: "Incarceration of African-American Men Raised in Black Christian Churches." The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 125, 1990, pp.163-173.
• Religious practice lowers the rate of suicide. Joubert, Charles E., "Religious Nonaffiliation in Relation to Suicide, Murder, Rape and Illegitimacy," Psychological Reports 75:1 part 1 (1994): 10 Jon W. Hoelter: "Religiosity, Fear of Death and Suicide Acceptibility." Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, Vol. 9, 1979, pp.163-172.
• The presence of active churches, synagogues… reduces violent crime in neighborhoods. John J. Dilulio, Jr., "Building Spiritual Capital: How Religious Congregations Cut Crime and Enhance Community Well-Being," RIAL Update, Spring 1996.
• People with religious faith are less likely to be school drop-outs, single parents, divorced, drug or alcohol abusers. Ronald J. Sider and Heidi Roland, "Correcting the Welfare Tragedy," The Center for Public Justice, 1994.

[....]

Papa Giorgio said...

• Church involvement is the single most important factor in enabling inner-city black males to escape the destructive cycle of the ghetto. Richard B. Freeman and Harry J. Holzer, eds., The Black Youth Employment Crisis, University of Chicago Press, 1986, p.354.
• Attending services at a church or other house of worship once a month or more makes a person more than twice as likely to stay married than a person who attends once a year or less. David B. Larson and Susan S. Larson, "Is Divorce Hazardous to Your Health?" Physician, June 1990. Improving Personal Well-Being
• Regular church attendance lessens the possibility of cardiovascular diseases, cirrhosis of the liver, emphysema and arteriosclerosis. George W. Comstock amd Kay B. Patridge:* "Church attendance and health."* Journal of Chronic Disease, Vol. 25, 1972, pp. 665-672.
• Regular church attendance significantly reduces the probablility of high blood pressure.* David B. Larson, H. G. Koenig, B. H. Kaplan, R. S. Greenberg, E. Logue and H. A. Tyroler:* " The Impact of religion on men's blood pressure."* Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 28, 1989, pp.265-278.* W.T. Maramot:* "Diet, Hypertension and Stroke." in* M. R. Turner (ed.) Nutrition and Health, Alan R. Liss, New York, 1982, p. 243.
• People who attend services at least once a week are much less likely to have high blood levels of interlukin-6, an immune system protein associated with many age-related diseases.* Harold Koenig and Harvey Cohen, The International Journal of Psychiatry and Medicine, October 1997.
• Regular practice of religion lessens depression and enhances self esteem. *Peter L. Bensen and Barnard P. Spilka:* "God-Image as a function of self-esteem and locus of control" in H. N. Maloney (ed.) Current Perspectives in the Psychology of Religion, Eedermans, Grand Rapids, 1977, pp. 209-224.* Carl Jung: "Psychotherapies on the Clergy" in Collected Works Vol. 2, 1969, pp.327-347.
• Church attendance is a primary factor in preventing substance abuse and repairing damage caused by substance abuse.* Edward M. Adalf and Reginald G. Smart:* "Drug Use and Religious Affiliation, Feelings and Behavior." * British Journal of Addiction, Vol. 80, 1985, pp.163-171.* Jerald G. Bachman, Lloyd D. Johnson, and Patrick M. O'Malley:* "Explaining* the Recent Decline in Cocaine Use Among Young Adults:* Further Evidence That Perceived Risks and Disapproval Lead to Reduced Drug Use."* Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 31,* 1990, pp. 173-184.* Deborah Hasin, Jean Endicott, * and Collins Lewis:* "Alcohol and Drug Abuse in Patients With Affective Syndromes."* Comprehensive Psychiatry, Vol. 26, 1985, pp. 283-295. * The findings of this NIMH-supported study were repilcated in the Bachmen et. al. study above.

Larry said...

God, you are the biggest NUT that has ever lived. I saw your pictures on your site, and in between the laughter I immediately knew that you have NOT gone to MY site where I DEBUNK some of the pictures you provided!

You actually INCLUDE pictures of the Pentagon [pre-collapse] where it shows NO HOLE BIG ENOUGH for a plane to fit through. UNBELIEVABLE.

On my site I debunked the official pictures where it shows the RED shaded in areas as the areas of impact. How can the red shaded areas be where the impact was if you can STILL SEE portions of the actual structure in the red shaded areas???

Another funny picture was the one where you have that piece of scrap metal held up against a real picture of an American Airlines plane "proving" the red marking was part of the "N" in the name, when its CLEAR that is NOT a part of an "N". You can CLEARLY see the top of the supposed "N" doesnt arch like it should. Laughable.

What do the pictures of the human remains prove? First of all, there is no proof the pictures you posted are from the crash scene at the pentagon. Secondly, there's NO proof the bodies were from Flight 77 [there were people who died INSIDE the Pentagon too]. So, what did you prove by posting them? Absolutely nothing.

Then, you posted a picture of a plane where the fuselage was completely destroyed. BRAVO. But one thing I can CLEARLY see in the picture, is a WING and the TAIL from the plane---still completely INTACT. But, there are NO WINGS and NO TAIL at the Pentagon, are there? NOPE. Posting that picture only gave more credence to MY argument---so I owe you a big Thank You.

You actually have the nerve to say this:

"Here are some pre-collapse photos documenting the planes impact with the Pentagon"

and then proceed to have two pictures underneath this statement that show NO SUCH THING. I ask WHERE is the impact of a plane? It's NOWHERE. I still see all the columns standing, I see no tail. Do you realize that the tail of a 757 plane is about 44 feet high? That's more than HALF the size of the entire Pentagon wall from ground to roof [which is 77 feet]. You SEE a 44 foot high hole that was made by the tail? WHERE?

The red-shaded areas are covering UNDESTROYED portions of the building--so how can you claim it's DESTROYED when you can clearly see thru the red shaded area and see the building?

INSANITY!

Larry said...

I just posted the same post on your blog. I bet a million dollars you'll delete my comment on your blog, because it makes you look like a fool.

I'm still not falling for the diversion from my religious questions to the 9-11 stuff. Nice try but I still want answers to my 31 questions, Mr. "I have all the answers, yet I deflect, dodge and ignore every chance I get".

Larry said...

Another thing assmunch. I want PROOF the pictures of the bodies you posted were from the PENTAGON---because the OFFICIAL story says that the reason there was no plane visible is because it VAPORIZED.

So, tell me wingnut, how can the fire vaporize the PLANE, which is aluminum and STEEL, but NOT vaporize HUMAN BODIES?

I would love an answer.

So, now you have quite a problem. Even if you DO provide PROOF the pictures of bodies are from the Pentagon site, that presents a problem for the official story that says the plane vaporzied [but it doesnt vaporize human flesh].

Papa Giorgio said...

there isn't a 16.5 foot hole? wierd.

Papa Giorgio said...

Your comments should and always will stay on my POSTS (not my Pages, my pages are not for debating, they are for me to reference), however, writing beyond a fifth grade level is recommended. I debate quite often at the FaceBook group for just such testing of your posts: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories are BS. You can post at a blog on one of these places and even your 5th grade level refutations. Links to your name in the comments and links to your posts would be preferable so the anti-truther community can visit your posts.

9/11 topics: 9/11 Truthers;
Or the larger, Conspiracy category: CONSPIRACIES

To wit…

 The plane didn’t cut through like a knife Larry. Do you think you will see some cartoon cut out of a plane in the side of the Pentagon’s reinforced steel?

This is a question Larry, Do you think that you will see a cartoon cut out of a plane in the side of the Pentagon?

That is the zaniest thing for truthers to want... these planes are very fragile in that it isn't going to make a plane looking cutout. What those red sections show is that a plane looking object (I talked to people who actually saw the 757 hit the Pentagon who live in my valley) started its path there and that the engines and the main body are the only things that made it through, or, punch any type of seeable hole – which is what one of my posted photos show. In fact, I show one section where the right engine went through. Wings and tail are there from slower impacts or simple fires (like the plane fire burning the fuselage of the example I think you are citing)… not at the speed the 757 was traveling, as my f4e example gives a hint of. The tail shredded… the only part that would have punched the hole would be the engines and the enforced part of the fuselage (which was the point of the stripped down plane showing the floor/frame of the plane). The plane is made to fly, the skin of most of it is really thin aluminum. For you to want to see a 40[+] foot high outline of a tail is the most asinine thing I have heard.

Please provide links to your posts… I would love to debunk your “dubunktations,” or at leaset see your input… because I have already debunked what you expect to see (a cartoon cut out Looney Tunes view). I always provide links and references… you just pull shit out of your ass and expect people to say, “uh, okay.”

Bodies and pieces of bodies at Pentagon are attested to by all the workers. So not only do you have pictures, but you have multiple (hundreds of) eyewitness testimony. Pieces of the plane are all over the Pentagon? I show this in my post. Bodies and pieces of the plane and luggage both survived, as the photos clearly show.

rob said...

larry this prick says theres a 17 ft hole in the pentagon, but a 747 would leave a bigger hole. hes trying to compare a grape to a watermelon. he didnt get educated in prison. hes still at grade one schooling. he also believes wtc 7 came down by terrorist. lol.lol. by the way jackhole church also produces alot of brain dead sheep. like you. bah bah bah. just face facts larry youve debunked and refuted this dick just like the devil himself. larry you own him and his blog, pretty soon hell have comment moderation on so you have make him look like the asshole he is. hell one day get over himself.lol

Larry said...

"Do you think that you will see a cartoon cut out of a plane in the side of the Pentagon?"

Why not? There was a perfect shape of the outline of a plane in the twin towers when the planes went through, wasn't there? Look at all the pictures of the WTC after the plane went through. You see a giant slit in the building AND wing damage and tail damage. You don't see this at the Pentagon. You see NO damage that a tail or wings would have made. NONE AT ALL.

"That is the zaniest thing for truthers to want... these planes are very fragile in that it isn't going to make a plane looking cutout."

BUT YET IT DID LEAVE A "PLANE LOOKING CUTOUT" IN THE TWIN TOWERS!

That was simply a LIE.

"the engines and the main body are the only things that made it through, or, punch any type of seeable hole – which is what one of my posted photos show."

Oh really? If they are the ONLY things that made it through, then WHERE ARE THE WINGS AND THE TAIL? They should be laying on the Pentagon lawn then---and yet the are NOT. Also, WHY DIDN'T THE ENGINES LEAVE ZERO DAMAGE TO THE PENTAGON LAWN?

"the only part that would have punched the hole would be the engines and the enforced part of the fuselage"

REALLY? Then why did the planes that hit the WTC leave almost PERFECT OUTLINES of the ENTIRE plane? And by the way, how could the NOSE of the plane [the WEAKEST PART of the plane] make it through SIX WALLS of THREE RINGS of the Pentagon since it's the weakest part?

"The plane is made to fly, the skin of most of it is really thin aluminum."

Then how did this THIN ALUMINUM punch through SIX WALLS of the Pentagon? [BOTH WALLS of E, D and C RING?]

"For you to want to see a 40[+] foot high outline of a tail is the most asinine thing I have heard."

But yet we see TAIL DAMAGE in the WTC towers DONT WE???? So, WHY IS IT ASININE?

I already provided a link to my post discussing this. You simply IGNORED it.

The link is: [under #3, Pentagon]

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2007/03/
my-top-10-smoking-
guns-that-911-was.html

By the way, I LOVE how you IGNORED this:

"I want PROOF the pictures of the bodies you posted were from the PENTAGON---because the OFFICIAL story says that the reason there was no plane visible is because it VAPORIZED.

So, tell me wingnut, how can the fire vaporize the PLANE, which is aluminum and STEEL, but NOT vaporize HUMAN BODIES?

I would love an answer.

So, now you have quite a problem. Even if you DO provide PROOF the pictures of bodies are from the Pentagon site, that presents a problem for the official story that says the plane vaporzied [but it doesnt vaporize human flesh]."

Gonna IGNORE it AGAIN?

Larry said...

By the way, I just went to your Pentagon story again, here:

http://religiopolitical
talk.com/pentagon/

This is where I posted two comments yesterday, the same site that I predicted you would DELETE my comments. You may NOT have deleted them, but NOW when I go to the page it now says you have to LOG IN to post a comment and my 2 comments are not even visible now.

Hmmmmmmm.

It NOW says you have to log in to WORDPRESS. In other words, you can no longer FREELY posts comments under that story. After you saw my comments posted, you went in a changed the settings so that now people have to LOG IN to post, making the comments INVISIBLE unless you are LOGGED IN.

ARE YOU AFRAID THAT PEOPLE WILL SEE MY POSTS? WHY CAN YOU NO LONGER FREELY POST? WHY DO YOU HAVE TO LOG IN NOW WHEN YESTERDAY YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO?

YOU ARE A FUCKING FRAUD!

Papa Giorgio said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Papa Giorgio said...

Rob, how big is the diameter of the fuselage of the 757? What part of that is actually strong enough to make it through the reinforced steel/concrete of the Pentagon. (*segway*) Larry, you make my point... for you wanting to see the same effect at the Pentagon that you saw in the Twin Towers makes my point for me. That is, that you fail to understand how different the two building are and how a plane hitting one is totally different than a plane hitting the other.

Not only did you creative mind going with responding and adding to the debate in regards to 2 Kings, but, you made me realize that I just don't want "Anonymous" or unlinkable "Larry's" leaving comments about what they wrote about something without linking to it. If you post the same thing on a relevant post (not my page), it will stay time immemorial. I have nothing to be afraid of? That's weird? You haven't given a cogent argument yet... you (as Bugliosi says) never see a non-sequitur you don't like. Bring your airtight arguments over to the FaceBook site I linked for you... are you afraid of something?

Larry said...

My post was IGNORED by you---every word of it was IGNORED, so I will post it again:

""Do you think that you will see a cartoon cut out of a plane in the side of the Pentagon?"

Why not? There was a perfect shape of the outline of a plane in the twin towers when the planes went through, wasn't there? Look at all the pictures of the WTC after the plane went through. You see a giant slit in the building AND wing damage and tail damage. You don't see this at the Pentagon. You see NO damage that a tail or wings would have made. NONE AT ALL.

"That is the zaniest thing for truthers to want... these planes are very fragile in that it isn't going to make a plane looking cutout."

BUT YET IT DID LEAVE A "PLANE LOOKING CUTOUT" IN THE TWIN TOWERS!

That was simply a LIE.

"the engines and the main body are the only things that made it through, or, punch any type of seeable hole – which is what one of my posted photos show."

Oh really? If they are the ONLY things that made it through, then WHERE ARE THE WINGS AND THE TAIL? They should be laying on the Pentagon lawn then---and yet the are NOT. Also, WHY DIDN'T THE ENGINES LEAVE ZERO DAMAGE TO THE PENTAGON LAWN?

"the only part that would have punched the hole would be the engines and the enforced part of the fuselage"

REALLY? Then why did the planes that hit the WTC leave almost PERFECT OUTLINES of the ENTIRE plane? And by the way, how could the NOSE of the plane [the WEAKEST PART of the plane] make it through SIX WALLS of THREE RINGS of the Pentagon since it's the weakest part?

"The plane is made to fly, the skin of most of it is really thin aluminum."

Then how did this THIN ALUMINUM punch through SIX WALLS of the Pentagon? [BOTH WALLS of E, D and C RING?]

"For you to want to see a 40[+] foot high outline of a tail is the most asinine thing I have heard."

But yet we see TAIL DAMAGE in the WTC towers DONT WE???? So, WHY IS IT ASININE?

I already provided a link to my post discussing this. You simply IGNORED it.

The link is: [under #3, Pentagon]

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2007/03/
my-top-10-smoking-
guns-that-911-was.html

By the way, I LOVE how you IGNORED this:

"I want PROOF the pictures of the bodies you posted were from the PENTAGON---because the OFFICIAL story says that the reason there was no plane visible is because it VAPORIZED.

So, tell me wingnut, how can the fire vaporize the PLANE, which is aluminum and STEEL, but NOT vaporize HUMAN BODIES?

I would love an answer.

So, now you have quite a problem. Even if you DO provide PROOF the pictures of bodies are from the Pentagon site, that presents a problem for the official story that says the plane vaporzied [but it doesnt vaporize human flesh]."

Gonna IGNORE it AGAIN?"

Larry said...

"Rob, how big is the diameter of the fuselage of the 757? What part of that is actually strong enough to make it through the reinforced steel/concrete of the Pentagon. (*segway*)"

Rob, let me answer this one.

Apparently, Papa Fagio has NO CLUE that the OFFICIAL story says that the NOSE [weakest part of the plane] went through SIX WALLS of the Pentagon [BOTH walls of C,D,and E rings]. There is even a photo of the hole in C RING [which is the SIXTH WALL the "plane" penetrated] ON THIS STUPID ASS' OWN BLOG ABOUT THE PENTAGON.....here

http://religiopolitical
talk.com/pentagon/

Here is the photo that is on Papa's OWN BLOG showing the hole in C RING [the SIXTH WALL that was penetrated]

http://i65.photobucket.
com/albums/h208/papa_giorgio
/C-O-N-spiracies/
PlaneParts.jpg

---and this stupid shit head is DENYING that the plane was NOT strong enough to go through the reinforced steel/concrete of the Pentagon when he said to you "What part of that is actually strong enough to make it through the reinforced steel/concrete of the Pentagon".

Papa ASS---I posted TWO comments on THIS VERY PAGE yesterday:

http://religiopolitical
talk.com/pentagon/

Now they are GONE. You CHANGED it so that now people have to LOGIN to post comments. You DELETED my comments and changed it so people have to LOGIN to wordpress to post. You know you fucking did, you fucking liar.

Anonymous said...

larry, you won. you forced this guy to change his blog. you now own him hes blog along with the other 7 blogs that cant refute nor debunk you. you must have god on your side larry, you predicted he would erase or use comment moderation. this papa john guy is a FN fraud. another person schooled.

Anonymous said...

another asshole destroyed.