Skip Navigation

User banner

HM King Charles III DG FD

@ Flax_vert @feddit.uk

Posts
19
Comments
1781
Joined
3 yr. ago

A sinner and a Fediverse Advocate.

Proud citizen of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 🇬🇧 Proud citizen of the European Union 🇪🇺

I hate strawmen.

🏅Officially Recognised by the Tesseract hard-coded block list

Disclaimer: not really The King

  • hœ ær yœ ßurē yœ ær rytê

  • I think you need your hard drive checked

    • believe once Israel builds a temple the judgement day comes

    Not true, that's zionism.

    • believe in free market capitalism and hate all kinds of communism and state control in economy (even science)

    Also not true.

    It's an overlap. Those two things have nothing to do with Evangelical Christianity.

  • I don't think the America of the 50s is what they think it is.

    The ideal though is being able to afford a house, a car and a family all on one wage.

  • Nah bro, let them have their schizo rant lol

  • You can choose to federate with a specific server. I believe some mastodon servers would honour requests to only share with specific accounts, but that's it.

    You could possibly have some encryption key shenanigans go on at the client side and build it ontop of the fediverse. It might be possible.

  • I don't think blocking is an effective measure.

  • Apart from real world means, the best defence against stalking/harassment is to stop posting on a public account associated with the identity that's being stalked/harassed. If someone is that horrible to stalk you, they'll be more than capable of circumventing a block.

  • If you don't want everyone seeing your activity, don't post it on a public internet system. Blocks can easily be circumvented.

  • Well, no, as the replier will be federating that reply.

  • The posting server would have to honour that, though

  • Will you cry "ai slop" on the day of judgement?

  • Excellent point tbh

  • Why not, exactly? I think with the way the fediverse works, this would be a needless hassle for them to program this in. IIRC, posts are all separate and are just referring to another post. I think it'll be up to their server on whether or not to honour that block (your server could possibly sever the link on it's frontend, but that won't change that the person linked your post to theirs)

    And even if you could, they could still post a screenshot locally or write stuff about you.

  • Evil is the absence of good

  • I know some ISPs can enable it if you call them and ask them

  • I tried, but my IMAP server recently stopped working. It also got flagged as spam by literally everyone I sent an email to.

  • Nah, just circular reasoning.

    You were claiming John couldn't have been written by John because it was written in AD100. I did the maths and shown how it definitely could have been written in AD100

    Convenient of you to not actually link the articles, and cut out the important parts of the quote. Here it is in full.

    https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/oral-tradition-in-the-new-testament

    Another difficulty is that the doctrine of the apostles came to them in oral form from Jesus. In one sense the entire Christian message is based on oral tradition and is only augmented by using the written revelation of the Old Testament. From this perspective, perhaps 90 percent of the New Testament is based on authoritative oral tradition (from Jesus), and the remain ten percent is from written sources.

    They're claiming the apostles wrote down what Jesus wrote. And this is an argument surrounding Sola Scriptura, not Gospel authorship. The rest of the article is then talking about an old testament oral tradition existing, which I do not dispute. That's not the same as the New Testament being an account of Jesus. He's just making a statement against sola scriptura by saying "Well, Jesus didn't literally write this".

    The second quote doesn't even contradict anything I said. Just because stories were exchanged orally first, doesn't mean the written accounts are firsthand. If I witnessed a car crash, and went and told my colleagues at work, then family about it at dinner, then the next day the police ask for a written statement, and I submit it in the evening after more talking about it in work, it doesn't devalue my original testimony. As yes, stories of that car crash were told orally before being written down.

    Lol, and you have the gall to talk about forgeries....

    The main reason people say it is a forgery because Josephus was a practicing Jew and a Jew wouldn't say that (circular reasoning) and that the earliest copy of that is quoted by Eusebius, so it mustn't be reliable. They aren't really good arguments.

    So pick a side here. Is it possible for a non Christian to write something in defence of Christianity, or not? If it is possible, then Josephus isn't a forgery. If it isn't, then you cannot dismiss the new testament and Church Fathers, lest you be irrational

  • God doesn't create evil