Search results

If you'd ever engaged in any extended form of textual criticism instead of attempting to allegorize yourself into being god, you might actually find the answers to your questions. They're available.

IOW... No answers. Of course. But I knew that already.

Who authored this? Who has verified any of this content, or any other portions of the 2000 pages of the UB? Other than just blindly believing its contents based on some preference for its dynamics, what evidence is there for its validity in ANY regard to even be considered non-fiction? What...

Bare assertion, and unapplied in the same manner equitously to the UB and ALL writings, etc. that freelight quotes, links, and alludes to. Thanks for outing all that according to what I've exposed. Bare assertion, and unapplied in the same manner equitously to the UB and ALL writings, etc...

This key difference... Centuries of textual criticism for Christian scripture, along with archeological and anthropological historical veracity. And you must have that scripture for your "allegories". Also, in regard to "inner matters", it's best to look for substantiation lest any asylum be...

It's not. Other than a valid concern for their souls, I don't care. What's important is that they spew alleged absolutes of bare assertion, and demonstrate constant inequities of double standards without one shred of substantiation for their propagated "truths". I despise inequities and...

You might want to ask freelight, the parrot. All he can do is make bare assertions with no validation as he declares whatever he says to be truth with no support. You could regurge one for him. Give it a shot.

So... Why have you never substantiated anything you adamantly declare as truth that is merely deluded opinion of a hurt little boy all grown up to become something to prove his worth to himself apart from his failure in "real" life? Yes, your face has met the mirror of your bare assertions and...

No. You side-stepped it with your double standard of bare assertion. Excuses with script-flipping inequitous double standards and bare assertion and declaration from deluded opinion and personal preference is all you have. You psychopathy is noted, as is your banality of incessant naked...

More bare assertion. Same song, bazillionth verse. Nothingness.

You don't have a "technique" for evaluating anything. That's the point. You just declare and assert by presumption and preference. Plugging in the works of Dr. Seuss would be no different, or Shakespeare. I'm not in one. That's not even true if someone cares about the Pharisees and their...

What's ironic is your alleged clairvoyance of what I've read. And yes, apologetics is a defense of a belief system. It's not bare assertion while disallowing such bare assertion from others. It's the double standard that is at issue. The content can only be considered for veracity AFTER the...

Yes, like yours and freelight's and Caino's. Exactly.

The allegedly self-validating "truth" of the UB that purportedly needs no substantiation to be more than a novel. THAT's the delusion. Bare assertion. Naked.

No. YOU're assuming that because you or others say something is the truth, including the UB, that's it's the truth by your psychopathic and demented bare assertion. You don't get to flip the script like this, while not taking the same responsibility yourself. What an epi-umental double...

No. What's delusional is your bare assertion and declaration, as always. There's no objective means of even examining it for veracity.

Bare assertion about written bare assertion. It's a circus. You demand a writing be taken at face value, just like any novel or other fictitious work. There is no textual criticism as a field of study. All you can do is make opinionated assertions from personal preference and preconceptions...

Forget the discussion of content. It's fictional until you provide apologetics that substantiate its veracity beyond your bare assertions, presumptions, and declarations. The UB has NO authority. It's fiction. A novel. You have no valid defense of its authenticity or accuracy. All you have...

I have. No, they don't. As always, this is your bare assertion. You don't have ANY apologetics for ANY content of ANYTHING you have ever posted or linked or alluded to. It's just the same diatribe of your opinion that content is valid. You have NO means of proof. That's your modus...

If you only knew... but you can't and don't. No. I'm neither. You're both.