You can live with hope or you can live without hope.

[jeremyp]

According to whom?

It's an answer by Alexandra Pell (English tutor) from the Quora web site

http://www.quora.com/Punctuation/If-you-finish-a-sentence-with-a-smiley-face-should-you-use-a-full-stop-as-well

The trouble with Bashful Anthony is that he can't ever admit that his posts aren't always perfect.  Then his defence just enhances his wrongness and makes the perceived humiliation of admitting to being wrong even worse.  Thus starts a vicious circle that usually escalates into actual viciousness.

[Shaker]

Thanks JP. Why Bashers was so coy about this I have no idea.

I've not come across Quora before so I'll look into it. I'll find out who Alexandra Pell is and why I should listen to her opinion too while I'm at it 

[Leonard James]

Hi Rhi,

You have still not explained to me why you think Jesus was referring to Roman soldiers and not to swine.

[jeremyp]

Thanks JP. Why Bashers was so coy about this I have no idea.

I've not come across Quora before so I'll look into it. I'll find out who Alexandra Pell is and why I should listen to her opinion too while I'm at it 

It's a general Q&A web site, a bit like a more general version of stackoverflow.com.  I've been on it for a few months, and it does have interesting stuff.  However, there's no reason why Alexandra Pell should be a world authority on emoticon punctuation.  That answer was just her opinion (although she does give a logical reason).

[Leonard James]

Hi Rhi,

You have still not explained to me why you think Jesus was referring to Roman soldiers and not to swine.

EDIT. At the same time perhaps you can explain how it was better to drown legions of soldiers just to rid two men of the devils. Not exactly loving your neighbour, is it? 

[Nearly Sane]

Hi Rhi,

You have still not explained to me why you think Jesus was referring to Roman soldiers and not to swine.

EDIT. At the same time perhaps you can explain how it was better to drown legions of soldiers just to rid two men of the devils. Not exactly loving your neighbour, is it? 

I think the point is that they were only metaphorically 'drowned'

[Rhiannon]

Hi Rhi,

You have still not explained to me why you think Jesus was referring to Roman soldiers and not to swine.

EDIT. At the same time perhaps you can explain how it was better to drown legions of soldiers just to rid two men of the devils. Not exactly loving your neighbour, is it? 

I think the point is that they were only metaphorically 'drowned'

Exactly. Jesus didn't do or say anything. It's the writer of Mark composing a satire, myth, whatever, to make a point.

[Leonard James]

Hi Rhi,

You have still not explained to me why you think Jesus was referring to Roman soldiers and not to swine.

EDIT. At the same time perhaps you can explain how it was better to drown legions of soldiers just to rid two men of the devils. Not exactly loving your neighbour, is it? 

I think the point is that they were only metaphorically 'drowned'

Exactly. Jesus didn't do or say anything. It's the writer of Mark composing a satire, myth, whatever, to make a point.

But how can you be sure of that? Who decided that that was what the gospel meant?

[Rhiannon]

Hi Rhi,

You have still not explained to me why you think Jesus was referring to Roman soldiers and not to swine.

EDIT. At the same time perhaps you can explain how it was better to drown legions of soldiers just to rid two men of the devils. Not exactly loving your neighbour, is it? 

I think the point is that they were only metaphorically 'drowned'

Exactly. Jesus didn't do or say anything. It's the writer of Mark composing a satire, myth, whatever, to make a point.

But how can you be sure of that? Who decided that that was what the gospel meant?

I'm not. But do I think it more likely that we are expected to take it literally? No, not given the use of myth and allegory throughout the Gospels.

The point is to remain open-minded. It makes it a lot more interesting.

[Leonard James]

I'm not. But do I think it more likely that we are expected to take it literally? No, not given the use of myth and allegory throughout the Gospels.

So the crucifixion itself may be just myth or allegory?

The point is to remain open-minded. It makes it a lot more interesting.

And at the same time quite unconvincing! 

[Rhiannon]

I'm not. But do I think it more likely that we are expected to take it literally? No, not given the use of myth and allegory throughout the Gospels.

So the crucifixion itself may be just myth or allegory?

The point is to remain open-minded. It makes it a lot more interesting.

And at the same time quite unconvincing! 

What are you unconvinced of? That the Gospel writers didn't just randomly make up stuff but had something interesting to say in places?

Of course the crucifixion could be a myth, although I find it extremely plausible (but not the resurrection). And I know that Alien won't agree, being a conservative evangelical sort of a chap, but it's now quite mainstream among scholars to think that the Nativity accounts are both allegorical - Matthew is concerned with proving Jesus to be the promised King of the Jews whereas Luke's Jesus is come to save the dispossessed, lowly and poor, Jew and Gentile alike.

[Leonard James]

What are you unconvinced of? That the Gospel writers didn't just randomly make up stuff but had something interesting to say in places?

The gospel writers simply wrote down what they had heard or believed, and because of that I am unconvinced of the truth of it, as I would be of any far-fetched story put about nowadays.

My common sense tells me that much of the stuff that is claimed to have been spoken by Jesus is good advice. My common sense also tells me that all the miracles claimed by them are just the product of rumours they had heard.

[BashfulAnthony]

I see the religion obsessionists are out in force today. You are a sad lot.  There's Shaker, unable ever to admit an error, backed up by the unctuous jp, just looking to make a cheap shot;  and followed by the sycophantic Leonard, and the pathetic  Floo.  What a bunch of losers.  Get a life you lot!

[BeRational]

I see the religion obsessionists are out in force today. You are a sad lot.  There's Shaker, unable ever to admit an error, backed up by the unctuous jp, just looking to make a cheap shot;  and followed by the sycophantic Leonard, and the pathetic  Floo.  What a bunch of losers.  Get a life you lot!

Do you still maintain YOU can choose your beliefs?

I say you cannot.

[Rhiannon]

What are you unconvinced of? That the Gospel writers didn't just randomly make up stuff but had something interesting to say in places?

The gospel writers simply wrote down what they had heard or believed, and because of that I am unconvinced of the truth of it, as I would be of any far-fetched story put about nowadays.

My common sense tells me that much of the stuff that is claimed to have been spoken by Jesus is good advice. My common sense also tells me that all the miracles claimed by them are just the product of rumours they had heard.

No doubt there are some stories that were based on rumour. But I think there are also some that  give us interesting glimpses of the world in which Jesus and his followers lived, and the mindset of the Gospel writers. I think the myth of the Gadarene swine falls into that category.

[BashfulAnthony]

I see the religion obsessionists are out in force today. You are a sad lot.  There's Shaker, unable ever to admit an error, backed up by the unctuous jp, just looking to make a cheap shot;  and followed by the sycophantic Leonard, and the pathetic  Floo.  What a bunch of losers.  Get a life you lot!

Do you still maintain YOU can choose your beliefs?

I say you cannot.

Do you still call me a liar?  I asked you to prove it, and so far you have failed the test.

[BeRational]

I see the religion obsessionists are out in force today. You are a sad lot.  There's Shaker, unable ever to admit an error, backed up by the unctuous jp, just looking to make a cheap shot;  and followed by the sycophantic Leonard, and the pathetic  Floo.  What a bunch of losers.  Get a life you lot!

Do you still maintain YOU can choose your beliefs?

I say you cannot.

Do you still call me a liar?  I asked you to prove it, and so far you have failed the test.

Easy.

You choose to believe that there is no god.

Let me know when you have done that.

If you do not, then explain why you still believe a god exists.

[BashfulAnthony]

I see the religion obsessionists are out in force today. You are a sad lot.  There's Shaker, unable ever to admit an error, backed up by the unctuous jp, just looking to make a cheap shot;  and followed by the sycophantic Leonard, and the pathetic  Floo.  What a bunch of losers.  Get a life you lot!

Do you still maintain YOU can choose your beliefs?

I say you cannot.

Do you still call me a liar?  I asked you to prove it, and so far you have failed the test.

Easy.

You choose to believe that there is no god.

Let me know when you have done that.

If you do not, then explain why you still believe a god exists.

I strongly suspect you do not know what you are talking about.  As far as I'm concerned, you are talking nonsense.

How about answering my question, rather than just ignoring it?  Presumably because you haven't a clue how to respond.

[BeRational]

I see the religion obsessionists are out in force today. You are a sad lot.  There's Shaker, unable ever to admit an error, backed up by the unctuous jp, just looking to make a cheap shot;  and followed by the sycophantic Leonard, and the pathetic  Floo.  What a bunch of losers.  Get a life you lot!

Do you still maintain YOU can choose your beliefs?

I say you cannot.

Do you still call me a liar?  I asked you to prove it, and so far you have failed the test.

Easy.

You choose to believe that there is no god.

Let me know when you have done that.

If you do not, then explain why you still believe a god exists.

I strongly suspect you do not know what you are talking about.  As far as I'm concerned, you are talking nonsense.

How about answering my question, rather than just ignoring it?  Presumably because you haven't a clue how to respond.

I see you fail the test yet again!

What question do you have?

Unlike you I will answer honestly and not lie.

Do you for now though retract the claim that YOU can choose your beliefs?

[BashfulAnthony]

I see the religion obsessionists are out in force today. You are a sad lot.  There's Shaker, unable ever to admit an error, backed up by the unctuous jp, just looking to make a cheap shot;  and followed by the sycophantic Leonard, and the pathetic  Floo.  What a bunch of losers.  Get a life you lot!

Do you still maintain YOU can choose your beliefs?

I say you cannot.

Do you still call me a liar?  I asked you to prove it, and so far you have failed the test.

Easy.

You choose to believe that there is no god.

Let me know when you have done that.

If you do not, then explain why you still believe a god exists.

I strongly suspect you do not know what you are talking about.  As far as I'm concerned, you are talking nonsense.

How about answering my question, rather than just ignoring it?  Presumably because you haven't a clue how to respond.

I see you fail the test yet again!

What question do you have?

Unlike you I will answer honestly and not lie.

Do you for now though retract the claim that YOU can choose your beliefs?

"What question do you have?"  ?  I have asked you repeatedly, only just now being the latest time:  you called me a liar, and I asked you to prove it.  Do so.

I have answered your question, if not to your satisfaction.

[BeRational]

I see the religion obsessionists are out in force today. You are a sad lot.  There's Shaker, unable ever to admit an error, backed up by the unctuous jp, just looking to make a cheap shot;  and followed by the sycophantic Leonard, and the pathetic  Floo.  What a bunch of losers.  Get a life you lot!

Do you still maintain YOU can choose your beliefs?

I say you cannot.

Do you still call me a liar?  I asked you to prove it, and so far you have failed the test.

Easy.

You choose to believe that there is no god.

Let me know when you have done that.

If you do not, then explain why you still believe a god exists.

I strongly suspect you do not know what you are talking about.  As far as I'm concerned, you are talking nonsense.

How about answering my question, rather than just ignoring it?  Presumably because you haven't a clue how to respond.

I see you fail the test yet again!

What question do you have?

Unlike you I will answer honestly and not lie.

Do you for now though retract the claim that YOU can choose your beliefs?

"What question do you have?"  ?  I have asked you repeatedly, only just now being the latest time:  you called me a liar, and I asked you to prove it.  Do so.

I have answered your question, if not to your satisfaction.

I just did prove it.

You say you can choose your beliefs.

Okay, so YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THERE IS NO GOD.

If you do not do that, then you are a LIAR.

[BashfulAnthony]

I see the religion obsessionists are out in force today. You are a sad lot.  There's Shaker, unable ever to admit an error, backed up by the unctuous jp, just looking to make a cheap shot;  and followed by the sycophantic Leonard, and the pathetic  Floo.  What a bunch of losers.  Get a life you lot!

Do you still maintain YOU can choose your beliefs?

I say you cannot.

Do you still call me a liar?  I asked you to prove it, and so far you have failed the test.

Easy.

You choose to believe that there is no god.

Let me know when you have done that.

If you do not, then explain why you still believe a god exists.

I strongly suspect you do not know what you are talking about.  As far as I'm concerned, you are talking nonsense.

How about answering my question, rather than just ignoring it?  Presumably because you haven't a clue how to respond.

I see you fail the test yet again!

What question do you have?

Unlike you I will answer honestly and not lie.

Do you for now though retract the claim that YOU can choose your beliefs?

"What question do you have?"  ?  I have asked you repeatedly, only just now being the latest time:  you called me a liar, and I asked you to prove it.  Do so.

I have answered your question, if not to your satisfaction.

I just did prove it.

You say you can choose your beliefs.

Okay, so YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THERE IS NO GOD.

If you do not do that, then you are a LIAR.

Idiot!  I choose to believe there is a God, and if I decided to change my mind, I could. What has that got to do with proving I'm a liar?  You get yourself into the most silly situations..

[BeRational]

I see the religion obsessionists are out in force today. You are a sad lot.  There's Shaker, unable ever to admit an error, backed up by the unctuous jp, just looking to make a cheap shot;  and followed by the sycophantic Leonard, and the pathetic  Floo.  What a bunch of losers.  Get a life you lot!

Do you still maintain YOU can choose your beliefs?

I say you cannot.

Do you still call me a liar?  I asked you to prove it, and so far you have failed the test.

Easy.

You choose to believe that there is no god.

Let me know when you have done that.

If you do not, then explain why you still believe a god exists.

I strongly suspect you do not know what you are talking about.  As far as I'm concerned, you are talking nonsense.

How about answering my question, rather than just ignoring it?  Presumably because you haven't a clue how to respond.

I see you fail the test yet again!

What question do you have?

Unlike you I will answer honestly and not lie.

Do you for now though retract the claim that YOU can choose your beliefs?

"What question do you have?"  ?  I have asked you repeatedly, only just now being the latest time:  you called me a liar, and I asked you to prove it.  Do so.

I have answered your question, if not to your satisfaction.

I just did prove it.

You say you can choose your beliefs.

Okay, so YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THERE IS NO GOD.

If you do not do that, then you are a LIAR.

Idiot!  I choose to believe there is a God, and if I decided to change my mind, I could. What has that got to do with proving I'm a liar?  You get yourself into the most silly situations..

You are the idiot, because if you could simply chose to believe, then it would be simple to chose NOT to believe.

The fact that you CANNOT chose to believe there is no god, shows that you lied when you said you could.

This is tediously simple, why can you not get it?

[BashfulAnthony]

"You are the idiot, because if you could simply chose to believe, then it would be simple to chose NOT to believe.

The fact that you CANNOT chose to believe there is no god, shows that you lied when you said you could.

This is tediously simple, why can you not get it?"

I said I could, and I can, if I wished.  In fact, in my younger days I did go through a phase when I chose to reject the Faith, and that totally demolishes your silly argument.  Please admit you are wrong, and go your way.  And you still haven't proved I'm a liar, by the way.

[BeRational]

"You are the idiot, because if you could simply chose to believe, then it would be simple to chose NOT to believe.

The fact that you CANNOT chose to believe there is no god, shows that you lied when you said you could.

This is tediously simple, why can you not get it?"

I said I could, and I can, if I wished.  In fact, in my younger days I did go through a phase when I chose to reject the Faith, and that totally demolishes your silly argument.  Please admit you are wrong, and go your way.  And you still haven't proved I'm a liar, by the way.

I have proved it because you still believe in a god, despite saying you could simply choose not to.

I say you cannot, and indeed to always fail to do what you claim you can do.

Do you understand that I cannot simply choose to believe in a god, and need evidence?