Did Jesus of Nazareth Actually Exist?

[Sea Skimmer]

BTW, here's another gem from self-proclaimed genius Visionrazor:

I'm also impressed with the way you completely ignored the tactic of assaulting strategic targets aboard a threat vessel using TR16 rifles from a captured escape pod.

Yep, he seriously argued that Fed ships could launch snipers aboard captured Imperial escape pods as a battle tactic! This clown is a laugh riot.

Lets just ignore those pesky shields and ECM gear the Empire protects most everything with..

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

That 1000:1 numerical advantage coming into play as quickly as you say it will, with no forewarning, is the assumption I challenge.

Red herring, ie- changing the subject. In your original debate, you denied the importance of the numerical superiority in general.

Besides, since the Imps have faster FTL than the Feds, deployment is actually yet ANOTHER disadvantage for the Feds. 1% of the Empire is still more than 50 times the Federation, with 1000 times the propulsion speed. You're just too damned stubborn to admit error, aren't you?

Actually, I'll dispute that the Imperials could deploy their FTL drives in Federation space as easily as you say they can.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

BTW, here's another gem from self-proclaimed genius Visionrazor:

I'm also impressed with the way you completely ignored the tactic of assaulting strategic targets aboard a threat vessel using TR16 rifles from a captured escape pod.

Yep, he seriously argued that Fed ships could launch snipers aboard captured Imperial escape pods as a battle tactic! This clown is a laugh riot.

Lets just ignore those pesky shields and ECM gear the Empire protects most everything with..

Did you read the part where I used the caveat "tractored inside their shields"?

[draven] "Mr. Gideon... you're not paying attention." THWACK![/draven]

[Master of Ossus]

Actually, I'll dispute that the Imperials could deploy their FTL drives in Federation space as easily as you say they can.

Okay, dispute it. Why is Mike's site wrong about that part of the war?

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Actually, I'll dispute that the Imperials could deploy their FTL drives in Federation space as easily as you say they can.

Okay, dispute it. Why is Mike's site wrong about that part of the war?

Because in order to secure the data necessary to employ their hyperdrives, they would need scouts (detectable) or spies (likewise detectable). This would eliminate the element of surprise and allow defenses (weak though they may be) to increase.

[Master of Ossus]

LMAO! The "defensive" capabilities of the Federation would be irrelevent. What are they going to do, blow up on the Imperials? Do you even read your posts before you present them? And secondly, the Empire would probably not need scouts or spies in order to scout out the Federation. It could use its own scanners, it could barter for the information, or it could use spies that would be very difficult to detect for Federation security. In any one of these cases, it would be very easy and very quick. It would probably not affect their element of surprise, but even if it did disrupt this it would quite obviously not affect the Imperials very much. SF defenses would be too weak to mount a successful defense, anyway, and the UFP would have no ability to prevent localized sneak attacks. ISD's and other ships would be surprising them, anyway, on local fronts almost regardless of what the Federation did.

Also, the Yuuzhan Vong use of hyperspace (ref. Traitor) clearly did not necessitate massive scouting operations that risked detection. The YV have been able to rapidly conquer a huge portion of the galaxy in a matter of less than five years. This conclusively demonstrates that the use of hyperspace does not necessitate lengthy probes and detectable scouts. Also, the Hapan ability to move rapidly across the Galaxy provides further circumstantial evidence of this, as does Thrawn's rapid movement through vast tracks of the Unknown Territories and hte Ssi-Ruuk plan to invade the Galaxy itself.

Further, you assume that scouts would be detectable, and that the UFP would recognize the danger quickly and act upon it. This is also flawed.

Finally, you are really not thinking about this very well. Even if the UFP bolstered its defenses ten-fold, it would hardly delay the Imperial advance at all. Imperial forces could by-pass the UFP strongpoints or attack them at their leisure. The UFP would still have no chance, and the localized Imperial firepower would rapidly route their forces that did manage to engage the Imperials.

Can a mod split this off into a seperate thread on the other forum? It clearly has no bearing on Jesus of Nazareth.

[HemlockGrey]

I was wondering how a thread about Jesus managed to become another ST vs SW threaD

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

LMAO! The "defensive" capabilities of the Federation would be irrelevent. What are they going to do, blow up on the Imperials? Do you even read your posts before you present them? And secondly, the Empire would probably not need scouts or spies in order to scout out the Federation. It could use its own scanners, it could barter for the information, or it could use spies that would be very difficult to detect for Federation security. In any one of these cases, it would be very easy and very quick. It would probably not affect their element of surprise, but even if it did disrupt this it would quite obviously not affect the Imperials very much. SF defenses would be too weak to mount a successful defense, anyway, and the UFP would have no ability to prevent localized sneak attacks. ISD's and other ships would be surprising them, anyway, on local fronts almost regardless of what the Federation did.

Also, the Yuuzhan Vong use of hyperspace (ref. Traitor) clearly did not necessitate massive scouting operations that risked detection. The YV have been able to rapidly conquer a huge portion of the galaxy in a matter of less than five years. This conclusively demonstrates that the use of hyperspace does not necessitate lengthy probes and detectable scouts. Also, the Hapan ability to move rapidly across the Galaxy provides further circumstantial evidence of this, as does Thrawn's rapid movement through vast tracks of the Unknown Territories and hte Ssi-Ruuk plan to invade the Galaxy itself.

Further, you assume that scouts would be detectable, and that the UFP would recognize the danger quickly and act upon it. This is also flawed.

Finally, you are really not thinking about this very well. Even if the UFP bolstered its defenses ten-fold, it would hardly delay the Imperial advance at all. Imperial forces could by-pass the UFP strongpoints or attack them at their leisure. The UFP would still have no chance, and the localized Imperial firepower would rapidly route their forces that did manage to engage the Imperials.

Can a mod split this off into a seperate thread on the other forum? It clearly has no bearing on Jesus of Nazareth.

Oh, well I suppose I have now been Imperially Smacked Down. Fine. Have fun debating this with... who exactly will debate you now, anyway?

[Master of Ossus]

I was wondering how a thread about Jesus managed to become another ST vs SW threaD

Basically, this dumb-fuck named Raoul Duke, Jr. showed up and started debating Mike about religion and his disbelief in God. Mike then ran an ISP account check that showed him to be Daniel Rogers, from the Hate Mail page, and showed that he was masquerading under numerous identities. The guy then attacked Mike and said that the whole issue was a red-herring and an ad hominem. Mike then said that he was only pointing out that it was the same guy, and not that he was trying to ignore his argument, so Raoul Duke, Jr. used that as an excuse to start going after Mike in terms of SW vs. ST.

[Master of Ossus]

You had already been Imperially Smacked Down by Darth Wong. My attack on you was independent of that, and wholly separate from Darth Wong's attacks. Since you just conceeded, I see no reason anymore to continue debating this.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

You're a little off, there, MoO. Mike started "going off" as you put it, with his usual "mindless" this and "laughable" that. Naturally, my instinct was self-defense.

[Wicked Pilot]

I ask again, why hasen't someone put this retart out of his misery? Aren't there laws against letting brain dead people live this long?

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I ask again, why hasen't someone put this retart out of his misery? Aren't there laws against letting brain dead people live this long?

Now what the hell is your problem? Were you bottle-fed or something?

[HemlockGrey]

Ok. All I knew was that Raoul had a VI title, and that he was defending Christanity, and I started getting rather nervous...

[Master of Ossus]

You're a little off, there, MoO. Mike started "going off" as you put it, with his usual "mindless" this and "laughable" that. Naturally, my instinct was self-defense.

I never said "going off." I never use that expression. I said, "going after."

[Wicked Pilot]

Now what the hell is your problem? Were you bottle-fed or something?

You're my problem you ignorant obnixious peice of amphibion shit. Why don't you go back to Section 31 or whatever cess pool of obnixious trek masteurbation that you origionally came from.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Ok. All I knew was that Raoul had a VI title, and that he was defending Christanity, and I started getting rather nervous...

Okay, for the last fucking time: I am not defending Christianity. That religion can go take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut for all I care. I am defending an individual's right to believe whatever the fuck he or she chooses. Do you get it now? Do you understand? Does anybody here need that in monosyllables?

[Master of Ossus]

Should I have the right to believe that all black people should be shot under this freedom of belief you are advocating? What about white people? Should I have the right to believe that everyone in the entire world but me should be killed horribly? Obviously, people should not have the freedom to believe whatever the hell they want to believe. Should we allow them to believe in utterly irrational things? Many serial killers actually believe that what they are doing is correct, but should we allow them to continue in this belief? We understand your point, but by defending an individual's right to believe in Christianity, you are defendingthe religion itself. There should not be distinctions drawn here, for the obvious reason that if we allowed for distinctions we would be forced to allow people to defend beliefs on any matter.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Should I have the right to believe that all black people should be shot under this freedom of belief you are advocating? What about white people? Should I have the right to believe that everyone in the entire world but me should be killed horribly? Obviously, people should not have the freedom to believe whatever the hell they want to believe. Should we allow them to believe in utterly irrational things? Many serial killers actually believe that what they are doing is correct, but should we allow them to continue in this belief? We understand your point, but by defending an individual's right to believe in Christianity, you are defendingthe religion itself. There should not be distinctions drawn here, for the obvious reason that if we allowed for distinctions we would be forced to allow people to defend beliefs on any matter.

To answer your question: in a word, yes. Unfortunately, you have every right in the world to believe any of those things, or all of them. BUT -- you do not have the right, fortunately, to act on those beliefs. There is a difference there that I think has been confused, misrepresented or discounted altogether in this kind of debate.

I have the right to believe whatever I choose, but I only have a limited right to act on my belief. There's not a god damned thing wrong with that setup, in my opinion.

[Master of Ossus]

I don't see how repeatedly repressing people's beliefs is any nobler than just limiting their beliefs to reasonable and rational things. Nonetheless, I can kind of see your point. I would, however, prefer if everyone believed that I should continue to live and not be horribly murdered.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I don't see how repeatedly repressing people's beliefs is any nobler than just limiting their beliefs to reasonable and rational things. Nonetheless, I can kind of see your point. I would, however, prefer if everyone believed that I should continue to live and not be horribly murdered.

Yeah, that is one of Christianity's more hilariously ironic points: Their God seems to be saying, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" with the omitted subtext, "Until After I Have My Fun."

[Utsanomiko]

Damn soliphistic kids.
NEWS FLASH!!:
-We are all entitled to opinions, but some opinions are WRONG!!
-The world does make sense, you just have to be smart enough to see it.


Raoul, you are extremist in your irresolute support of irrational belief. From what I can tell, it's not that you're in favor of people's beliefs, moreso than you are too spineless and stupid to accept an objective mindset towards reality. Afterall, being firmly alligned to a logical perspective is a rigorous trial to go through; being wishy-washy about every subject is just so much easier.

I'm tired of kids like this. Do you actually think your dismissal of logic and reasoning gives you an unbiased outlook on beleifs? Your 'opinion' is not an opinion at all, but a thinly-veiled mantra to avoid confrontation. And that is what makes it so extremist.

The problem with it is, along with religion, cults, political parties, facists groups, etc., is that it subverts the importance of rattional thinking. Brainwashing, dogmatic beliefs, and anti-individualsim are put at the top of people's priorities, which allows them to be self-destructive and ignore all outside reasoning, all for the good of the group's beliefs. Your only divergent trait is that you root for all teams. And that's even more pathetic; the suck-up lap-doggie without an owner.

Logic and rational analysis help people look at the big picture of all people's needs. Irrational beliefs, such as your fanatical, cowardly, free-lancing support, as well as all other 'with god on our side' extremist ideals, have no place in modern society. Not only I can face up to the real world and come to a conclusion as to how the world truly works and how I should get through it, but I can do it without your pansy-assed 'everyone's right' solophism or some pansy-assed 'the group is right' mentality.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

You think my standing up for people's right to believe what they want and do what they like within the confines of the law is pansy-assed? Tell you what, slugger -- go to a Christian web site and spout this intellectual elitist "we know better than you" line of yours. I mean, really stand up to them, stand up for what you believe, in a place where you're the only one who believes it, and THEN tell me that doesn't take spine.

I may not be one of your clique, but by God, I will not be humiliated, insulted, cajoled or browbeaten into toeing the party line. You may call me an idiot, or mindless, or laughable, or whatever you want, but you are purely flatlined delusional if you think I lack backbone.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Logic and rational analysis help people look at the big picture of all people's needs.

Really? Then try using some logic and rational thought in evaluating the needs of all people to be allowed to live (again, within the confines of the law) as they choose; to believe what they choose and to pursue their beliefs to the extent allowed by society. Your application of logic is at best selective -- you can find the logical reason to humiliate those who believe differently from yourself, but your logic falls short of informing you that said practice is the same that has left religion so reviled.

[Master of Ossus]

You think my standing up for people's right to believe what they want and do what they like within the confines of the law is pansy-assed? Tell you what, slugger -- go to a Christian web site and spout this intellectual elitist "we know better than you" line of yours. I mean, really stand up to them, stand up for what you believe, in a place where you're the only one who believes it, and THEN tell me that doesn't take spine.

I may not be one of your clique, but by God, I will not be humiliated, insulted, cajoled or browbeaten into toeing the party line. You may call me an idiot, or mindless, or laughable, or whatever you want, but you are purely flatlined delusional if you think I lack backbone.

I've already gone to three Christian websites and gotten into flame wars with four separate moderators. Guess what? I won on every count. Two of them eventually had to admit that their beliefs were irrational. One of them concluded by saying, "I will pray for you," (thanks, guy ) and one of them told me that he was sickened that anyone would spend so much time trying to destroy someone else's beliefs (as if he hadn't spent just as much time, and probably more, trying to say that I was completely wrong in my beliefs). It does not take guts if you know that you are right. In this case, you were wrong. Then it does take guts, because all the time you must know that anyone who bothers to do a really well researched job of it can easily take you apart. That does take guts. It does not take brains.