Women In The Ministry And Teachings Of Jesus

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Here's a relevant, multiple-choice question for you, Ironhorse.

 

"Why do you agree with what Jesus has to say about the topic of this thread? "

 

A.

Because he said it and by definition it must therefore be true, good and right - and you agree with what's true, good and right.

B.

Because he's your God and you should agree with Him (by faith), even if you don't understand why.

C.

Because you've questioned everything he said (as your parents taught you to do) and you now have a coherent, rational and reasoned understanding of his words - one that doesn't require you to take anything he said on faith.

D.

Another reason. (Please specify.)

.

.

.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Ironhorse,

 

You've given your promise to answer the questions put to you, so if you keep dodging them we'll be forced to conclude that your promises to us mean nothing.

 

Your faithful and truthful defense of Christianity doesn't only hang on who you quote, which vids you post or how many times you write, "I believe".  It also hangs on how you conduct yourself... that's the spiritual fruit we see from you.  Or in the case of dodging questions, that's the spiritual fruit of faithfulness we don't see from you.

 

Your silence is deafening, your promises are broken and your witness to Christ...?

 

BAA

 

 

For D: I checked all of the above.

 

A. Yes I do. The truth will set you free.

 

B. I believe he is"my god" but he is the only God. I have stated before there are many things I

do not know or understand about God. The mysteries of God makes the journey a grand adventure to me.

 

C. Again, I have stated before, I did go through a period in my late teens and twenties when I did

 a lot of questioning and study of Christianity and other religions. I was searching for the truth. I decided that only the Christian

message and faith made sense of life and this world. 

 

 

B and C are mutually exclusive, Ironhorse.

 

You cannot take take anything on faith from Jesus (B) and also question everything he said (C).

 

If you question everything Jesus says, then you take nothing from him on faith.

 

If you take anything Jesus says on faith, then you can't have questioned everything he said, as your parents taught you to do.

.

.

.

(Sigh.)

It seems that you're incapable of answering questions that grade school kids would have no trouble with.

Since you lack the necessary critical thinking skills, you're unlikely to ever have your beliefs challenged by logic, by the facts and by the evidence.  You simply don't know how to question what you believe - so when you claim that you have questioned everything, we should factor your inability to do so, into the equation.

 

Ok, I'm sure you believe that you've questioned everything.

But there's so much evidence to the contrary in your posts and your replies, that it's clear you haven't.   Your bottomless capacity to believe things to be true, on faith, is an unbreakable barrier to critical thinking, to questioning and to the proper understanding of facts and evidence.  So long as you answer with, "I believe", you'll never really question anything.

 

When questioning anything, the default position you begin from is non-belief, not belief.

 

I wonder...?

Do you understand what I've just written?  Or do you just believe you do?

Go on then, Ironhorse.  Explain the sentence I've highlighted to me in words of your own choice.  Please show me that you do understand it.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

 

Here's a relevant, multiple-choice question for you, Ironhorse.

 

"Why do you agree with what Jesus has to say about the topic of this thread? "

 

A.

Because he said it and by definition it must therefore be true, good and right - and you agree with what's true, good and right.

B.

Because he's your God and you should agree with Him (by faith), even if you don't understand why.

C.

Because you've questioned everything he said (as your parents taught you to do) and you now have a coherent, rational and reasoned understanding of his words - one that doesn't require you to take anything he said on faith.

D.

Another reason. (Please specify.)

.

.

.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Ironhorse,

 

You've given your promise to answer the questions put to you, so if you keep dodging them we'll be forced to conclude that your promises to us mean nothing.

 

Your faithful and truthful defense of Christianity doesn't only hang on who you quote, which vids you post or how many times you write, "I believe".  It also hangs on how you conduct yourself... that's the spiritual fruit we see from you.  Or in the case of dodging questions, that's the spiritual fruit of faithfulness we don't see from you.

 

Your silence is deafening, your promises are broken and your witness to Christ...?

 

BAA

 

 

For D: I checked all of the above.

 

A. Yes I do. The truth will set you free.

 

B. I believe he is"my god" but he is the only God. I have stated before there are many things I

do not know or understand about God. The mysteries of God makes the journey a grand adventure to me.

 

C. Again, I have stated before, I did go through a period in my late teens and twenties when I did

 a lot of questioning and study of Christianity and other religions. I was searching for the truth. I decided that only the Christian

message and faith made sense of life and this world. 

 

 

B and C are mutually exclusive, Ironhorse.

 

You cannot take take anything on faith from Jesus (B) and also question everything he said (C).

 

If you question everything Jesus says, then you take nothing from him on faith.

 

If you take anything Jesus says on faith, then you can't have questioned everything he said, as your parents taught you to do.

.

.

.

(Sigh.)

It seems that you're incapable of answering questions that grade school kids would have no trouble with.

Since you lack the necessary critical thinking skills, you're unlikely to ever have your beliefs challenged by logic, by the facts and by the evidence.  You simply don't know how to question what you believe - so when you claim that you have questioned everything, we should factor your inability to do so, into the equation.

 

Ok, I'm sure you believe that you've questioned everything.

But there's so much evidence to the contrary in your posts and your replies, that it's clear you haven't.   Your bottomless capacity to believe things to be true, on faith, is an unbreakable barrier to critical thinking, to questioning and to the proper understanding of facts and evidence.  So long as you answer with, "I believe", you'll never really question anything.

 

When questioning anything, the default position you begin from is non-belief, not belief.

 

I wonder...?

Do you understand what I've just written?  Or do you just believe you do?

Go on then, Ironhorse.  Explain the sentence I've highlighted to me in words of your own choice.  Please show me that you do understand it.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

I predict IH won't understand what you've written and won't understand that he doesn't understand.

 

Which is why I gave up trying to explain anything to him a long time ago.  But good on you for trying. You're persistent, I'll say that much.

[bornagainathiest]

Ok Ironhorse...

 

Let's see if you've honored your father and mother by doing what they taught you... that is, to question everything.

.

.

.

 

You attend a local Baptist church.

So, do you question everything you hear and read there - as a true skeptic would?

Or do you simply accept what you see and hear by faith, without questioning it?

 

You agree with the position of the priesthood of the believer.

Have you questioned everything about this - as a true skeptic would?

Or do you simply accept everything about this by faith, without questioning it?

 

You also agree with the other historic Baptist positions on the major doctrines of the faith.

Have you questioned everything about this - as a true skeptic would?

Or do you simply accept everything about this by faith, without questioning it?

 

You also agree with the historic Baptist positions on the minor doctrines of the faith.

Have you questioned everything about this - as a true skeptic would?

Or do you simply accept everything about this by faith, without questioning it?

 

You quoted Galatians 3 : 28

Have you questioned the validity of this verse - as a true skeptic would?

Or do you just accept the whole Bible as true (by faith), without questioning it?

 

You mention the three preaching daughters of Philip, in Acts 21 : 9

"He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied."

 

Have you questioned your recall of this Bible verse before citing it - as a true skeptic would have?

Before mistaking three daughters for four and before mistaking prophesying for preaching?

Or do you just have faith that your memory of scripture is AOK?

[bornagainathiest]

Persistent ...much, FTNZ?

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

In the Book of Acts Philip had three daughters who were preachers.

 

(Snip)

 

 

Acts 21 : 9, NIV.

 

"He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied."

 

Since this is your thread Ironhorse, you'll no doubt be pleased to get the facts of this topic right... right?

 

Prophecy isn't preaching.  Prophets don't preach.  

 

Ok?

[miekko]

Jesus' attitudes and actions toward women were revolutionary in comparison with Rabbinic teachings.

 

1. Throughout his ministry Jesus talked to women and engaged them in conversation. This was

in stark contrast to first century Judaism thought and practice.  The religious leaders did not view women as equals to men. Women were considered subordinate and inferior to men in religion and society. 

 

The religious leaders were so afraid of even looking at women in the street in fear of conversation or having "lust" enter

their heads that they would often walk across the street to avoid contact with women or close their eyes when one 

passed by.

 

The common people called them the "the Bloody Nosed Pharisees" because they often bumped into a wall or post with

their eyes shut.

These claims about rabbinic views re: women are fabrications, not based on anything we actually know about the rabbis.

 

We know that one rabbi forbade his son from marrying one woman until the marriage contract was amended with the requirement that the wife teach the groom Torah, since the rabbi was so awed with the knowledge of the Torah this particular woman had.

 

No evidence of "the Bloody Nosed Pharisees" exists until some Christian made this phrase up in the 19th or 20th century to paint them in as negative a light as possible. (note: I saw you gave sources, but these sources are not convincing. The Talmud only says 'the kizai pharisee who bleeds on the walls'. Indeed, Cohen does give this explanation, but Cohen often accepted relatively recent Christian understandings of the text, sometimes from very explicitly Christian interpretations. Everyman's Talmud is a good starting point for getting into learning about the talmud from a secular perspective, but it's far from the last word on anything in it. Further, the segment of the Talmud that is referred to seems to exaggerate some behaviors among certain pharisees - the Talmudic rabbis often exaggerate to make a point. So, we have an exaggeration that is there to make a point, which doesn't even explicitly state that it's due to avoiding looking at women this happens. And Christians make up a snappy saying 2000 years later to make the pharisees seem excessive?

[miekko]

IH, taking your story book at face value, who was the one that told moses what to write in the torah, the books that your pharisees used?

You seem unaware that the pharisaic biblical interpretation added a lot of ideas to their rules that had no biblical basis whatsoever. Get a bit educated before you continue this debate, plz.

[ironhorse]

 

IH, taking your story book at face value, who was the one that told moses what to write in the torah, the books that your pharisees used?

You seem unaware that the pharisaic biblical interpretation added a lot of ideas to their rules that had no biblical basis whatsoever. Get a bit educated before you continue this debate, plz.

 

 

 

Three points points:

 

"You seem unaware that the pharisaic biblical interpretation added a lot of ideas to their rules that had no biblical basis whatsoever. Get a bit educated before you continue this debate, plz."

~miekko,

 

1. Thank you miekko for adding this point to the discussion. I failed to make that clear in my original post.

The religious leaders had indeed added many non-biblical traditions that had become part and parcel of Judaism by the time of Jesus. I've read these teachings numbered in the thousands. They were fanatics on the letter of the law, but not the spirit. I do disagree with you on the origin of the term "Bloody nose Pharisees'. (See comment 3)

 

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:

 

“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.  So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.  They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others."

 

~Matthew 23:1-7

 

 

2."So, the rampant sexism of your family and friends is minor and a non-issue for you.  Good to know where you stand."

~FreeThinkerNZ

 

This and some others here accuse me of sexism and demeaning women in the ministry. Major doctrines deal with the issues

of God and salvation. By saying that the issue of women was a minor doctrine was in no way a put down of women's roles in the church. 

 

 

3 "No evidence of "the Bloody Nosed Pharisees" exists until some Christian made this phrase up in the 19th or 20th century to paint them in as negative a light as possible. (note: I saw you gave sources, but these sources are not convincing. The Talmud only says 'the kizai pharisee who bleeds on the walls'."

~miekko

 

I guess we will disagree, but here is another source to support the view was from the first century.

 

The Pharisees had a huge control of the populace and therefore the Sadducees which were primarily a political, Jewish group hated them because they had to do what the Pharisees said.

 

"The Sadducees divided the Pharisees into 7 categories based on their character, in jest, but their jest was very accurate based on historical records -

 

1). "The Shoulder Pharisee" - He wears his "good deeds" on his shoulder. He won't let you escape without letting you know of his good deeds. He wears his badge of spirituality as a recitation of all that he had done. The sadducees said this type wasn't interested in God but rather just in people seeing how good he was, so that they would include him in business deals. They were like the men who go to church to look good in the community. They always make sure their in church on Sunday to make sure the deal goes through on Monday sort of chaps.

 

2). "The Wait-A-Little-Bit Pharisee" - He would always tell people while ringing his hands, "Well, I'm not what I ought to be. Pray for me because I'm not what I ought to be." He was always preaching and saying, "I'm not what I ought to be but give me time."

 

3). "The Bleeding Pharisee". - He was absolutely petrified of the possibility of lust. He knew that wherever there were women, there you'd find lust. In his mind, the best way not to lust after women was to close your eyes when you saw one coming. And these poor fellows would go around with their eyes closed and would be continually be banging into walls and they had a continual bloody scar on their forehead. And many times their nose was bloodied on the end because they were forever walking around with their eyes closed lest they should lust.

 

4). "The Mortar Pharisee" - He had a hat shaped like a mortar bowl that came right down over his eyes so that he shouldn't see anything that was evil or anything that would upset his spirituality. He was almost as bad as the Bleeding Pharisee, only he added to it his stance of humility. He would always bend all the way over and shuffle as he walked just to show you how humble he was. He was sometimes called, "The Tumbling Pharisee" because he tripped over himself often.

 

5). "The What Have I Yet To Do Pharisee" - He was forever counting up his good deeds to see what else he must do to be right with God. Paul might have been this kind. (Phil. 3)

 

6). "The Fear Pharisee" - The Sadducees despised this one the most because he lived in fear of hell. He kept all the commands of God just so he wouldn't go to hell. They despised him for that because he had no love for God - just feared hell.

 

7). "The Pharisee Who Loved" - He did love God and were operating in this idiotic system out of sincerity & love. Example: Nicodemus, he came to Jesus and his questions were loaded with a genuine love for God. Another example: Josephus of Arimathea - he dared to stand before the whole nation of Israel and offer his tomb for Jesus. There were others mentioned in Luke who came to warn Jesus that Herod was out to get him. Here and there you'd find these Pharisees who had an open and sincere heart and really wanted the truth. The Sadducees said this group out of the whole bunch were the real ones, the rest were hypocrites."

 

~ Dr. Malcolm Smith,"Jesus and the Pharisees" 

[miekko]

What Sadduceean work is that supposed to be based on? We have no extant textual evidence from the sadducees whatsoever.

[bornagainathiest]

Hey Miekko!

 

Did you notice?  Ironhorse is quite prepared to... disagree ...with you. 

 

So why don't you ask him if he's prepared to let you PERSUADE HIM AND CHANGE HIS MIND, rather than just agreeing to disagree?

Or you could even go a little further and ask him if he's prepared to be PERSUADED AND HAVE HIS MIND CHANGED about anything?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[moanareina]

Ironhorse

 

There is my question:

 

Assume there is a church with a female pastor. She is married and in her thirties. She has a team of five other women, married too and in their thirties and fourties. They lead different ministries and once in a while they preach. Once in a while, like every half a year one of the husbands gets to preach. But they are not involved in the main leading of the church. They have some side ministries like mens ministry or ushering or the organizing of the small groups. Of course they give a lot of time volunteering but their main task is to support their women morally. But the leading is all up to the women.

Would you be an active part in that church, if it comprises your convictions about the bible and Jesus and what you think Jesus message was?

 

If yes, why?

If no, why not?

[ironhorse]

Ironhorse

 

There is my question:

 

Assume there is a church with a female pastor. She is married and in her thirties. She has a team of five other women, married too and in their thirties and fourties. They lead different ministries and once in a while they preach. Once in a while, like every half a year one of the husbands gets to preach. But they are not involved in the main leading of the church. They have some side ministries like mens ministry or ushering or the organizing of the small groups. Of course they give a lot of time volunteering but their main task is to support their women morally. But the leading is all up to the women.

Would you be an active part in that church, if it comprises your convictions about the bible and Jesus and what you think Jesus message was?

 

If yes, why?

If no, why not?

 

 

If the church believed and taught the major doctrines

of the Christian faith and message and not false teachings?

Yes, I could be an active member.

 

 

What was the message of Jesus?

 

This verse I think is the main message from which all

other thing he said flow:

 

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

 

~John 14:6

[miekko]

So, ironhorse, whence does your source find stuff the sadducees have written?

 

Your source further claims there is other evidence from antiquity regarding this. What evidence is that, pray tell. (Hint: it's all fabrication. Something Christians really love when it comes to describing Judaism. Apparently, making negative shit up about Jews is not antisemitic, because lots of people who do this also maintain they really love the jews. If you really did, you'd stop making shit up or propagating that shit. False witness is a violation of one of the commandments you guys want posted at courts nationwide, so you could think of what effect your false witnessing has in the court of public opinion!)

[ironhorse]

So, ironhorse, whence does your source find stuff the sadducees have written?

 

Where is your source for stating that the slang term "bloody nosed pharisee" is a

of recent origin invented by Christians?

 

 

http://virtualreligion.net/iho/pharisee.html

[pratt]

really a fucked up christian answering a question with a question,,,, fuck you ironhorse

[miekko]

 

So, ironhorse, whence does your source find stuff the sadducees have written?

 

Where is your source for stating that the slang term "bloody nosed pharisee" is a

of recent origin invented by Christians?

 

 

http://virtualreligion.net/iho/pharisee.html

 

You were the first person in this discussion to make a claim, the burden of evidence is on you. The fact that you provide questionable evidence for it does not help your case. The fact that neither  the Talmud nor the Midrashes NOR the targums NOR any other relevant text of the era contains the wording is pretty damning insofar as that goes. The further fact that all the Christian sources point to ancient sources that do not contain that claim is even more damning. If it really exists, one of the sources claiming it exists would have a genuine ancient source for the claim don't you think?

 

Seriously, look at your sources - the sources they claim to support their contention does not support their contention!

 

The source you gave now even supports my contention rather than yours, see

"Though well-established by tradition, the nicknames were obscure enough in rabbinic circles that Palestinian and Babylonian amoraim had to devise varying explanations. The original meaning of many of the nicknames is beyond proof. The translations presented here at points differ from traditional interpretations."

 

Further, how does your source know anything about Sadducean traditions about the pharisees? WE DON'T HAVE ANY SURVIVING TEXTS FROM THE SADDUCEES. If your sources have access to one, they would do well to share it with the scholarly world, since scholars would be all over that text.

[ironhorse]

 

 

So, ironhorse, whence does your source find stuff the sadducees have written?

 

Where is your source for stating that the slang term "bloody nosed pharisee" is a

of recent origin invented by Christians?

 

 

http://virtualreligion.net/iho/pharisee.html

 

You were the first person in this discussion to make a claim, the burden of evidence is on you. The fact that you provide questionable evidence for it does not help your case. The fact that neither  the Talmud nor the Midrashes NOR the targums NOR any other relevant text of the era contains the wording is pretty damning insofar as that goes. The further fact that all the Christian sources point to ancient sources that do not contain that claim is even more damning. If it really exists, one of the sources claiming it exists would have a genuine ancient source for the claim don't you think?

 

Seriously, look at your sources - the sources they claim to support their contention does not support their contention!

 

The source you gave now even supports my contention rather than yours, see

"Though well-established by tradition, the nicknames were obscure enough in rabbinic circles that Palestinian and Babylonian amoraim had to devise varying explanations. The original meaning of many of the nicknames is beyond proof. The translations presented here at points differ from traditional interpretations."

 

Further, how does your source know anything about Sadducean traditions about the pharisees? WE DON'T HAVE ANY SURVIVING TEXTS FROM THE SADDUCEES. If your sources have access to one, they would do well to share it with the scholarly world, since scholars would be all over that text.

 

 

 

I've posted multiple sources.

My first source was a professor of New Testament I had in college. 

I gave another source or two. I gave one a few minutes ago.

 

 

Since my sources are so ancient, you should not have any trouble verifying

the term is of recent origin.

[miekko]

 

 

 

So, ironhorse, whence does your source find stuff the sadducees have written?

 

Where is your source for stating that the slang term "bloody nosed pharisee" is a

of recent origin invented by Christians?

 

 

http://virtualreligion.net/iho/pharisee.html

 

You were the first person in this discussion to make a claim, the burden of evidence is on you. The fact that you provide questionable evidence for it does not help your case. The fact that neither  the Talmud nor the Midrashes NOR the targums NOR any other relevant text of the era contains the wording is pretty damning insofar as that goes. The further fact that all the Christian sources point to ancient sources that do not contain that claim is even more damning. If it really exists, one of the sources claiming it exists would have a genuine ancient source for the claim don't you think?

 

Seriously, look at your sources - the sources they claim to support their contention does not support their contention!

 

The source you gave now even supports my contention rather than yours, see

"Though well-established by tradition, the nicknames were obscure enough in rabbinic circles that Palestinian and Babylonian amoraim had to devise varying explanations. The original meaning of many of the nicknames is beyond proof. The translations presented here at points differ from traditional interpretations."

 

Further, how does your source know anything about Sadducean traditions about the pharisees? WE DON'T HAVE ANY SURVIVING TEXTS FROM THE SADDUCEES. If your sources have access to one, they would do well to share it with the scholarly world, since scholars would be all over that text.

 

 

 

I've posted multiple sources.

My first source was a professor of New Testament I had in college. 

I gave another source or two. I gave one a few minutes ago.

 

 

Since my sources are so ancient, you should not have any trouble verifying

the term is of recent origin.

 

My point is that neither of these sources give primary sources. Your latter source agrees with me on this, and your first one did not provide an original source that agreed with his interpretation of the material. Do you understand this? PRIMARY SOURCE = ancient texts, not interpretations of ancient texts. In this case, they both cite the same part of the Talmud, but that part of the Talmud does not say what you want it to say, it says much less. Do you understand this? 

 

Let's give an analogy. Let's say I tell you the bible says to evade taxes. You claim I am lying, and I say, sure, look Romans 2:3 up. I have given you an ancient source! However, the ancient source does not say what I say it says. This is the problem your sources have!

 

Further, your source refer to Sadducean traditions - traditions of which we have no evidence whatsoever. None of your sources tell us where in the corpus of Sadducean literature we can find this tradition - and that is for the simple reason that we have no extant Sadducean literature to find that evidence in. Fabrication is lying. Your sources are lying to you. Face it. What do those ten commandments say about false witness? Oh wait, I forgot - that has been scrapped in favour of the much more popular one that bans gay sex.

[Deidre]

When I was a Christian, I thought that Jesus seemed different in his dealings with women, as compared to other men depicted in the Bible. But that was when I had faith and couldn't imagine "judging" Jesus's actions. The truth is, if he was all for gender equality, he would have asked at least one woman to be one of his 12 apostles. Christians can quote various "pro female" scripture all day long, the end result is in what actually happened. (going along with the story as if it actually all happened)

 

There has been speculation amongst historians and theology "experts" that Mary Magdalene was a chosen apostle, so who knows. But, the church to this day is largely sexist based on the NT, and how all 12 apostles were men. Paul's writings also seemed skewed towards a bias for men, and not women.

 

This has also been studied as being representative of the times, but here we are and female leadership is still frowned on in many denominations of Christianity. There's the prosperity preachers like Joyce Meyer, who have found a way to make a wealthy living off of "the word of god," and there are others like her. But, they have started their own "ministry."

 

I think the entire Bible is bullshit frankly, but many don't and oppression of women under the guise of religious doctrine, is still going on, sadly.

 

So keep posting trite scripture quotes about women, at the end of the day, actions not words are what matters.

 

I'd imagine Jesus knew that.

[florduh]

 

1 Corinthians Chapter 14

³⁴ Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

³⁵ And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

 

 

 

What am I missing here? Is the Bible the Word of God or not? 

[miekko]

ironhorse, if you don't understand why reposting that stuff is propagating a lie, I ask you to really think carefully about it or ask me to explain. From now on, every time you are reposting that somewhere, you are violating the commandment of false witness. Hope you enjoy violating it!

[Bedouin]

Can we get back to the "bloody nose" thing for a second?

 

If there were these types of Pharisees about, Jesus seems to have given them good reason to continue their practice of walking about blindly...

 

Matthew 5:28 (NIV)

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

[bornagainathiest]

Belief, Florduh. Belief.

 

That's what Ironhorse has in abundance and that's what you're missing here.

[bornagainathiest]

Miekko,

 

Don't you understand it yet?

 

If Ironhorse believes he isn't lying... then he isn't lying.

 

Trivial things like facts, evidence and primary sources are irrelevant, my friend!

 

Belief is ALL!

[bornagainathiest]

Oh... and if he believes that we must answer his questions asap, whenever he ask them, then we MUST do so!

 

Why?

 

Because he believes we must, that's why.