Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

[Billie from Ockham]

When it comes to the internet, I actually agree that lesbian sex is better than hetero sex. In real life, not so much...

[Satan]

I don't think we've reached peak SJW yet.

Christ, seriously?

They aren't murdering people yet.

[Scented Nectar]

The fact that I kinda know a former lesbian cult memeber makes me happy in ways I can not easily explain.

I'm happy to spread happiness around. :lol:

Back then though, my response to you would be something about how all men see lesbians from their own sick evil patriarchal expectations, and how dare you picture lesbian sex acts for your own patriarchal penis-promoting purposes, you're picturing joining in, aren't you, blah blah blah you're evil cuz male blah blah pornography is evil (pause to suppress my own thoughts of how I enjoy porn featuring penises) blah blah penis etc.

[another lurker]

the Pit' where claims of in-offense causes offense! Lol


And it is odd how sometimes we allow the annoying in our lives to color our opinions on things that should be totally unrelated to them. ( music, sports teams, tattoo styles etc.)

Don't let it happen again.

[comhcinc]

I mean you wouldn't be wrong.....

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

When it comes to the internet, I actually agree that lesbian sex is better than hetero sex. In real life, not so much...

Wisdom.

[Kirbmarc]

I'm not dead set against the idea that there was no historical Jesus, or that the sources are so unreliable and inconsistent that we can't confidently say there was a historical Jesus. But I think there being a historical Jesus is a far more parsimonious explanation for the existence of Christianity than the mythicist explanation, which multiplies entities beyond necessity. For there to have been a historical Jesus does not propose anything there is no evidence for, the reliability or otherwise of that evidence notwithstanding. The mythicism position requires us to posit (1) the existence of a movement worshipping a celestial-but-not-historical Jesus, which (2) became a movement worshipping a historical-yet-divine Jesus, (3) forgetting in the process that it had ever worshipped a celestial-but-not-historical Jesus, in the space of the handful of decades between Paul's last letter and the first Gospel. Those three things need more support than pointing out inconsistencies in the traditional story before they can be accepted.

I agree with you.

However the three things that you talked about happened to the John Frum cult, which in 12-20 years grew from a cult of a local mountain god linked to a mythical figure which represented Western technology to a cult where that figure is believed to have been a real person who is going to come back bringing prosperity.

Of course the fact that this happened to the John Frum cult doesn't mean that it's what happened to the Jesus cult, but at least it means that it's not impossible that this happened, like many anti-mythicists said.

Carrier seems to believe that he's somehow proven his hypothesis when all he has done is giving an argument on its general plausibility. In terms of physics Carrier thinks that his theory is quantum mechanics when it's the hidden variables theory at best.

As you said the more parsimonious position is that a religious leader named Jesus existed and that at least some of what is written about him is somewhat accurate. Although this doesn't excludethe idea that the story grew in the telling and therefore much of the gospels is bullshit, not only the supernatural parts but also some, if not most of the "mundane" anecdotes and details of this leader's life.

The Christian apologists' idea that the gospels are completely or even partly reliable as a historical document is pretty ridicolous even for a non-mythicist.

[Scented Nectar]

:lol: :lol:

Poe or not Poe?

That's real. It's part of the radical lesbian separatist form of feminism. Back in the 80s the concept of lesbianism being healthier, more moral, and even spiritually 'purer', than heterosexuality was pretty common. I believed that stuff for a while back then when I was in the cult (and so fucking gullible that it boggles my current mind). I don't think it's a poe. Religious lesbian-separatists believed in goddesses. I was always an atheist, but back then I changed all my "oh my gods" to "oh my goddesses" for political reasons and some sort of moral superiority or some shit. When you see goddess references, it's a warning sign.

I can believe that some radical lesbians can believe that lesbian sex is "purer", or "more ethical" than het sex. Ethics, after all, are ultimately based on certain assumptions, and the idea of "purity" is highly subjective.

What made me skeptical about the post is the claim that heterosexuality is a "social construct" invented by men. Because you have deny the existence of reproduction to believe that heterosexual attraction is a social male conspiracy. It just boggles my mind.

We usually dealt with the reproduction issue by avoiding the question and going off into fantasies of someday being able to reproduce via parthenogenesis or egg-mixing, and only having female children. I had one friend who actually believed that a woman she knew could do a witch spell to cause her a virgin birth sort of thing guaranteed to be a girl. She told me that the woman was going to help her have a parthenogenetic daughter. At least I wasn't quite that gullible and tried to suggest that her friend was pulling one over on her. I lost touch with her after that, but I always wondered later whether this self-proclaimed witch ended up sneaking some sperm into her using some made-up vaginal ritual on the 50/50 change that the kid would be female. I suspect that my friend was talked into giving her money for the service.

[Lsuoma]

However, even if we factor all that in, it is likely that there exists *some* point in which the EV becomes positive, even if we have not hit that point yet. Concentrated seem to be suggesting that even if the EV is positive, a sober gambler should not play the game, and I am trying to understand why.

Given that the sales of tickets rises faster than the size of the pot (at least in my state), I doubt that the EV gets better when the pot becomes huge. There may be a sweet-spot somewhere in the middle, but the actuaries running lotteries aren't stupid, so I doubt that the EV is ever positive.

Odd. I would estimate that the Powerball sold approx 425 million tickets when the jackpot was $900M and expect to sell 550 million tickets with a $1.5B jackpot. Tickets sold are roughly equal to the increase in jackpot size (generally the lottery system "keeps" 50% and the tickets are $2. I quote keeps because most of that goes to the states not the private entity running the lottery) So a 30% increase in players for a 60% increase in jackpot. IOW, ticket sales are not rising faster than the size of the pot. Since the pot includes previous pots, I do expect there will eventually become a net positive return.

With that said, if you actually find a game of chance with a positive EV, go ahead and play. But try to keep what is known about psychological EVs being distinct from objective EVs, so you don't fool yourself. For example, keep in mind that many people think that, all else being equal, it is better to buy one ticket per week for a year than to buy 52 (different) tickets for a single drawing. The reason is that the "psychological loss" of $2 is less than one-fifty-second of the "psychological loss" of $104.

I would actually argue that this is rational (economic, if not statistical) behavior. Since, even if the EV is positive, the odds are so long that the typical player will still likely lose even across a lifetime of playing, one should only play with "throwaway money" ie, money that one will not miss when you lose. For most people $2 a week qualifies, while $104 would make a dent in their weekly budget. Most people operate on a paycheck-to-paycheck basis, not an annual budget where the two amounts become equivalent.

You also have to factor in the fact that for many of the buyers the opportunity cost of $2 is extremely small, within delta of zero so there is no reason not to buy one ticket. The opportunity cost of increasing numbers of tickets is within delta of zero for smaller numbers of people, but for lots of folks $20 is still within that delta.

[Lsuoma]

The mythicist account involves one or several "disciples" getting together and deciding to proselytize on behalf of a complete fabrication, and managing to assemble a following without the presence of a actual charismatic leader.

Not that there aren't mythicists who say that, but Carrier's position is that the disciples did believe Jesus existed, just not in physical form. From modern times, Mormonism is a good analogy. Joseph Smith would be Paul, and Moroni would be Jesus.

Wouldn't Joe Smith qualify as a Jesus type character?

He was the prophet, spread the word and was martyred for his beliefs( or for going one young lady too far...) although he isn't worshipped as Jesus is.

Brigham Young might be a fit for Paul/Peter. Just a thought.

[youtube]MHExlzqWVyM[/youtube]

[Scented Nectar]

I mean you wouldn't be wrong.....

Yeah, picturing lesbians is a very common male fantasy, but I would have been wrong about it being evil and motivated by misogyny. We figured that men who got aroused by lesbianism really just didn't want to see us enjoying ourselves without a penis present.

[comhcinc]

I mean you wouldn't be wrong.....

Yeah, picturing lesbians is a very common male fantasy, but I would have been wrong about it being evil and motivated by misogyny. We figured that men who got aroused by lesbianism really just didn't want to see us enjoying ourselves without a penis present.

........I mean you wouldn't be wrong.......

[another lurker]

I mean you wouldn't be wrong.....

Yeah, picturing lesbians is a very common male fantasy, but I would have been wrong about it being evil and motivated by misogyny. We figured that men who got aroused by lesbianism really just didn't want to see us enjoying ourselves without a penis present.

Which I don't understand.

Penises are just outtie-clits.

Didn't you get the memo?

[Scented Nectar]

I mean you wouldn't be wrong.....

We figured that lesbians in porn were not real lesbians. In some cases, we were probably right, but we went by the assumption that no real lesbian would ever grow her fingernails long (which many lesbians in porn had back then), since no woman would want to be fingered by someone with long nails. Also, make up was seen as a sign of doing it for male pleasure rather than 'pure' or 'true' lesbianism. Some less radical friends once gave me shit for referring to someone as a 'real' lesbian and it took me by surprise, but they were right. Lesbians who happened to wear make-up sometimes found themselves outcasts in the more radically separatist parts of the lesbian community.

[Scented Nectar]

I mean you wouldn't be wrong.....

Yeah, picturing lesbians is a very common male fantasy, but I would have been wrong about it being evil and motivated by misogyny. We figured that men who got aroused by lesbianism really just didn't want to see us enjoying ourselves without a penis present.

........I mean you wouldn't be wrong.......

:lol:

[comhcinc]

I mean you wouldn't be wrong.....

We figured that lesbians in porn were not real lesbians. In some cases, we were probably right, but we went by the assumption that no real lesbian would ever grow her fingernails long (which many lesbians in porn had back then), since no woman would want to be fingered by someone with long nails. Also, make up was seen as a sign of doing it for male pleasure rather than 'pure' or 'true' lesbianism. Some less radical friends once gave me shit for referring to someone as a 'real' lesbian and it took me by surprise, but they were right. Lesbians who happened to wear make-up sometimes found themselves outcasts in the more radically separatist parts of the lesbian community.

.....This cult seems to make a lot of sense. What was the health care like?

[Bourne Skeptic]

You haven't seen Blazing Saddles? You mean, you've never seen it? Ever?

I might be in a minority but I think To Be or Not to Be is Brooks' best film.

I also really like the Silent Movie.

[youtube]dwea0LZQe9k[/youtube]

[Scented Nectar]

I mean you wouldn't be wrong.....

Yeah, picturing lesbians is a very common male fantasy, but I would have been wrong about it being evil and motivated by misogyny. We figured that men who got aroused by lesbianism really just didn't want to see us enjoying ourselves without a penis present.

Which I don't understand.

Penises are just outtie-clits.

Didn't you get the memo?

I think the one rational thing we did believe was that that biological sex was not a construct. A man can't rationally claim to be a woman and vice versa. So, we were mostly TERFs back then. We didn't use the term 'TERF' though. Back then, the T part of LGBT mostly meant transvestites who were honest about their orientation and didn't try to claim they were really women.

The only problem we saw in that was that we figured transvestites were mocking femininity and that they were slumming it as oppressed and objectified females while enjoying male positions of power the rest of the time. We also believed that they were celebrating the most evil stereotypes of being female, which meant anything that that men might find arousing.

There were also starting to be some trans-sexuals back then, which we defined as only people who had gone through genital surgery, not Daniel Muscato style pre-op bears. Most lesbian feminists kept them banned from 'womyn-only' events. You had to be born a woman from a woman to be allowed into the girl's club. That was before they switched the label from trans-sexual to trans-gender.

[Scented Nectar]

I mean you wouldn't be wrong.....

We figured that lesbians in porn were not real lesbians. In some cases, we were probably right, but we went by the assumption that no real lesbian would ever grow her fingernails long (which many lesbians in porn had back then), since no woman would want to be fingered by someone with long nails. Also, make up was seen as a sign of doing it for male pleasure rather than 'pure' or 'true' lesbianism. Some less radical friends once gave me shit for referring to someone as a 'real' lesbian and it took me by surprise, but they were right. Lesbians who happened to wear make-up sometimes found themselves outcasts in the more radically separatist parts of the lesbian community.

.....This cult seems to make a lot of sense. What was the health care like?

Canada, so pretty good.

[Dave]

We figured that lesbians in porn were not real lesbians.

...I mean, you wouldnt be wrong...

I used to have a bit of a routine about men not fantasizing about actual lesbians, but porno-lesbians, abbreviated plesbians (the p is silent). While plesbians like to do lesbian things, they also love a good dicking and so are always looking for a penis-person to join them when they do lesbian things. Plesbians are better known as bisexual sluts.

[Dave]

We figured that lesbians in porn were not real lesbians.

...I mean, you wouldnt be wrong...

I used to have a bit of a routine about men not fantasizing about actual lesbians, but porno-lesbians, abbreviated plesbians (the p is silent). While plesbians like to do lesbian things, they also love a good dicking and so are always looking for a penis-person to join them when they do lesbian things. Plesbians are better known as bisexual sluts.

I remember years ago, posting something about this at Dispatches when people were asking why men fantasize about lesbians. I was roundly yelled at for "slut-shaming" which confused the hell out of me. Shaming sluts? I thought I was celebrating them.

[Scented Nectar]

We figured that lesbians in porn were not real lesbians.

...I mean, you wouldnt be wrong...

I used to have a bit of a routine about men not fantasizing about actual lesbians, but porno-lesbians, abbreviated plesbians (the p is silent). While plesbians like to do lesbian things, they also love a good dicking and so are always looking for a penis-person to join them when they do lesbian things. Plesbians are better known as bisexual sluts.

Oh, you mean evil bisexual women who just didn't want to give up male approval. We called them fence-sitters. I talked like that about them, but all the while I was suppressing my own bisexuality. Turns out I'm like 99% het and 1 % lezzie. During my cult years, I didn't even want to acknowledge back then that I used to enjoy het sex for the couple years prior to my political dyke days.

[jet_lagg]

Wouldn't Joe Smith qualify as a Jesus type character?

He was the prophet, spread the word and was martyred for his beliefs( or for going one young lady too far...) although he isn't worshipped as Jesus is.

Brigham Young might be a fit for Paul/Peter. Just a thought.

Brigham Young knew Joseph Smith quite well, whereas Paul never so much as saw Jesus (well, in divine visions, but nobody here would accept that). Peter works, but then we have nothing written by Peter. The Mormon analogy does fall flat in that Mormons don't believe Moroni was a flesh a blood person walking about the earth. If they did, I think that would be very close to what Carrier is saying happened with Christianity. It is odd how little Paul actually talks about an earthly Jesus.

[Dave]

Oh, you mean evil bisexual women who just didn't want to give up male approval.

As opposed to the only mildly misbehaving bisexual women who would be happy to give up male approval, but were reluctant to give up the warm throbbing cocks?

Or is "male approval" a euphemism?

[another lurker]

We figured that lesbians in porn were not real lesbians.

...I mean, you wouldnt be wrong...

I used to have a bit of a routine about men not fantasizing about actual lesbians, but porno-lesbians, abbreviated plesbians (the p is silent). While plesbians like to do lesbian things, they also love a good dicking and so are always looking for a penis-person to join them when they do lesbian things. Plesbians are better known as bisexual sluts.

I used to work in a garage, and I asked the guys what it was about lesbo porn that they found so exciting. I said 'is it the idea that two hot lesbos will be getting it on, and that you will just be casually walking by and that they will demand that you join in?'

Yes, that was it.

[Jan Steen]

See what popped in in the last couple of mins ... And there is more below the fold.

Its like those movies where someone places a well aimed shot and then ducks down as the crazies ineffectually open up and spray shit everywere.

http://i.imgur.com/5mKmFJV.jpg

The audacity. The fucking audacity.

Where do I overstate the relevance of peer review?

This coming from the guy who would claim his farts were peer-reviewed if he thought he could get away with it. He can't mention any of his publications without compulsively boasting that it was peer-reviewed. It's "my peer-reviewed this" and "my peer-reviewed that". It comes across as neurotic. As obsessive. Yeah, that is overstating it, Dicky.

[another lurker]

Oh, and my very very first job as a stripper was simulated lesbian porn on stage. With a contortionist.

I drove 20 hours to be told 'oh, btw, we will be simulating hot lesbo sex'. "What, they didn't tell you? "

I am a good sport though, so yeah. I didn't have a clue what I was doing though, and she had to give me directions.

"OK pretend to eat my pussy out now"

"You know, your hair is really long, that's great, they can't actually see that you're just pretending"

The audience loved it though, because I was soooooooooo sweet and innocent and utterly clueless.

[Steersman]

In other news, FWIW, I've picked up another "campaign badge":

January 13, 2016 at 3:04 AM

Update: Steersman banned for deadnaming a trans woman. I mean, there are a lot of other reasons, but that’s the final straw.

Edit: I apologize to everyone for letting that go on as long as it did. I appreciate everyone who tried to engage with Steersman, but this is a person whose mind is apparently set against the trans struggle of untying gender from sex. They won’t be bothering us any more.

Simply amazing: for one thing, I'll stop calling Jenner "Bruce" and referring to him as "he" when he returns his "Woman of the Year" award. While I suppose that "we" might redefine the word "her" to refer to both "real" women and "transwomen" - pay the word extra, I figure calling a guy still with a functioning dick and testicles - Jenner did sire 4 or 5 kids if I'm not mistaken - is an outright abuse of language and logic - a bridge not just too far, but one in the next galaxy - "far, far, away".

And for another, I'm not against the idea of "untying gender from sex", even if I think the concept of "gender" is largely incohent twaddle - as suggested by the fact that Facebook allows selection of 1 of 56 genders; really need to provide 7 billion (for starters). What I object to is the insistence that "woman" is merely a gender, and the tendency to engage in the fallacy of equivocation. Enough to make a man - or a woman or a transwoman or a transman (did I miss anyone?) - spit.

And for a third, never met so many so unwilling to actually address an argument that disputes or questions their dogma, their received "wisdom". Go ahead "Lux" (a misnomer if ever I saw one as they sure aren't shedding much light on the matter) - stick your head in the sand, or someplace else where the sun don't shine.

[comhcinc]

We figured that lesbians in porn were not real lesbians.

...I mean, you wouldnt be wrong...

I used to have a bit of a routine about men not fantasizing about actual lesbians, but porno-lesbians, abbreviated plesbians (the p is silent). While plesbians like to do lesbian things, they also love a good dicking and so are always looking for a penis-person to join them when they do lesbian things. Plesbians are better known as bisexual sluts.

[youtube]iNTV8A3i8TE[/youtube]

[Bourne Skeptic]

Oh, and my very very first job as a stripper was simulated lesbian porn on stage. With a contortionist.

I drove 20 hours to be told 'oh, btw, we will be simulating hot lesbo sex'. "What, they didn't tell you? "

I am a good sport though, so yeah. I didn't have a clue what I was doing though, and she had to give me directions.

"OK pretend to eat my pussy out now"

"You know, your hair is really long, that's great, they can't actually see that you're just pretending"

The audience loved it though, because I was soooooooooo sweet and innocent and utterly clueless.

I wanna see video conformation of this.

[comhcinc]

Oh, and my very very first job as a stripper was simulated lesbian porn on stage. With a contortionist.

I drove 20 hours to be told 'oh, btw, we will be simulating hot lesbo sex'. "What, they didn't tell you? "

I am a good sport though, so yeah. I didn't have a clue what I was doing though, and she had to give me directions.

"OK pretend to eat my pussy out now"

"You know, your hair is really long, that's great, they can't actually see that you're just pretending"

The audience loved it though, because I was soooooooooo sweet and innocent and utterly clueless.

I wanna see video conformation of this.

I'd be happy with a video re creation.

[Tigzy]

In other news, FWIW, I've picked up another "campaign badge":

January 13, 2016 at 3:04 AM

Update: Steersman banned for deadnaming a trans woman. I mean, there are a lot of other reasons, but that’s the final straw.

Edit: I apologize to everyone for letting that go on as long as it did. I appreciate everyone who tried to engage with Steersman, but this is a person whose mind is apparently set against the trans struggle of untying gender from sex. They won’t be bothering us any more.

Simply amazing: for one thing, I'll stop calling Jenner "Bruce" and referring to him as "he" when he returns his "Woman of the Year" award. While I suppose that "we" might redefine the word "her" to refer to both "real" women and "transwomen" - pay the word extra, I figure calling a guy still with a functioning dick and testicles - Jenner did sire 4 or 5 kids if I'm not mistaken - is an outright abuse of language and logic - a bridge not just too far, but one in the next galaxy - "far, far, away".

And for another, I'm not against the idea of "untying gender from sex", even if I think the concept of "gender" is largely incohent twaddle - as suggested by the fact that Facebook allows selection of 1 of 56 genders; really need to provide 7 billion (for starters). What I object to is the insistence that "woman" is merely a gender, and the tendency to engage in the fallacy of equivocation. Enough to make a man - or a woman or a transwoman or a transman (did I miss anyone?) - spit.

And for a third, never met so many so unwilling to actually address an argument that disputes or questions their dogma, their received "wisdom". Go ahead "Lux" (a misnomer if ever I saw one as they sure aren't shedding much light on the matter) - stick your head in the sand, or someplace else where the sun don't shine.

Steers, bless ya - your naivety is every bit as amusing as your dogged, may insane, persistence. Did you not for one moment look at the video thumbnail at the very start of the blog -

http://i.imgur.com/hRQY48W.png

- and stop to wonder if this person might truly be interested in a more nuanced discussion?

:lol: :lol:

[DaveDodo007]

The thing is if you're going to create a messiah out of whole cloth then why not make him conform to prophecy instead of retconning which happens quite a bit in the New Testament?

Jesus is made to conform to prophecy time and again in the gospels. From his birth narratives to his suspiciously prophetic name and title "Jesus Christ" (translates to "Saviour Messiah") to his awkward triumphal ride into Jerusalem on a young donkey, to his Abrahamic father/son human sacrifice, his entire biography is a collection of carefully retconned OT prophecy. In other words, midrash.

If there is a genuine biography under all that mythical fulfillment narrative (as there may well be) you're going to need an army of trained Bayesian statisticians to dig it out.

I don't think the historicists are actually claiming to know very much about the historical Jesus. Its one thing to say that a series of heavily mythologized accounts from history were based on the life of a real person, and another to say we know where the myths end and the history begins, or that we know anything at all about that person.

I'm not the first to make this argument, but I actually think the historicism is more parsimonious for one reason. Historicism would give a simpler (and more plausible) account of how an initial Christian following would have developed. Under a historicist account a historical Jesus would have developed a small cult following during his lifetime, which grew after his death. This group would later include the people who would write the gospels based on embellished and retconned oral tradition. The mythicist account involves one or several "disciples" getting together and deciding to proselytize on behalf of a complete fabrication, and managing to assemble a following without the presence of a actual charismatic leader.

We have real examples of cults from the modern day, and they all form by a mechanism that looks like the historicist thesis. L. Ron Hubbard was a real man who started a cult. His cult believes that he used the power of what would become dianetics and scientology to cure himself of blindness and diseases. His successor David Miscavaige also described his death as something like "L. Ron abandoned his body last night. He is working on new OT levels, and his body is now a hindrance which he no longer needs" (paraphrase). It's unclear to me whether that is taken literally or as poetic license by Scientologists, but it's not at all hard to imagine it evolving into a doctrine about L. Ron's supposed immortality, if the church is still around in 100 or 200 years. We have similar situations with people like Joseph Smith, Haile Selassie or Kim Jong Il, who are real people with cult followings that believe them to be prophets or godlike figures. OTOH I can't think of a single cult that has been formed on behalf of a person who is alleged to have died and resurrected 40 or 50 years ago, whose existence can't actually be verified. Maybe you know of one, but I would have to resort to something like The Church of the Subgenius or Pastafarianism in order to come close to an example of that, and I don't think anyone would take that seriously.

Then how do you explain every Pagan religion throughout history until the joos come along with their one god, thunder, lightning volcanoes and any unexplained shit led to supernatural beliefs.

[Kirbmarc]

Simply amazing: for one thing, I'll stop calling Jenner "Bruce" and referring to him as "he" when he returns his "Woman of the Year" award. While I suppose that "we" might redefine the word "her" to refer to both "real" women and "transwomen" - pay the word extra, I figure calling a guy still with a functioning dick and testicles - Jenner did sire 4 or 5 kids if I'm not mistaken - is an outright abuse of language and logic - a bridge not just too far, but one in the next galaxy - "far, far, away".

And for another, I'm not against the idea of "untying gender from sex", even if I think the concept of "gender" is largely incohent twaddle - as suggested by the fact that Facebook allows selection of 1 of 56 genders; really need to provide 7 billion (for starters). What I object to is the insistence that "woman" is merely a gender, and the tendency to engage in the fallacy of equivocation. Enough to make a man - or a woman or a transwoman or a transman (did I miss anyone?) - spit.

And for a third, never met so many so unwilling to actually address an argument that disputes or questions their dogma, their received "wisdom". Go ahead "Lux" (a misnomer if ever I saw one as they sure aren't shedding much light on the matter) - stick your head in the sand, or someplace else where the sun don't shine.

I frankly don't know what you expected to happen, Steers. The people you talked with are trans activists and you thought you could argue with them that you can refuse to acknowledge their identity.

It wasn't going to work. Not only they have made their ideas personal, but they've made them into the core of their identity. From their point of view, if you "deadname" Jenner you're saying that their identity is a lie.

Of course they weren't going to listen to you. You'd have better luck defending evolution in a creationist forum.

[Spike13]

I don't think we've reached peak SJW yet.

Christ, seriously?

They aren't murdering people yet.

Give them time, they're still in the ruining lives for fun and profit stage.

[comhcinc]

Of course they weren't going to listen to you.

Why should they? No one else does.

[DaveDodo007]

Jesus is made to conform to prophecy time and again in the gospels. From his birth narratives to his suspiciously prophetic name and title "Jesus Christ" (translates to "Saviour Messiah") to his awkward triumphal ride into Jerusalem on a young donkey, to his Abrahamic father/son human sacrifice, his entire biography is a collection of carefully retconned OT prophecy. In other words, midrash.

If there is a genuine biography under all that mythical fulfillment narrative (as there may well be) you're going to need an army of trained Bayesian statisticians to dig it out.

I don't think the historicists are actually claiming to know very much about the historical Jesus. Its one thing to say that a series of heavily mythologized accounts from history were based on the life of a real person, and another to say we know where the myths end and the history begins, or that we know anything at all about that person.

I'm not the first to make this argument, but I actually think the historicism is more parsimonious for one reason. Historicism would give a simpler (and more plausible) account of how an initial Christian following would have developed. Under a historicist account a historical Jesus would have developed a small cult following during his lifetime, which grew after his death. This group would later include the people who would write the gospels based on embellished and retconned oral tradition. The mythicist account involves one or several "disciples" getting together and deciding to proselytize on behalf of a complete fabrication, and managing to assemble a following without the presence of a actual charismatic leader.

We have real examples of cults from the modern day, and they all form by a mechanism that looks like the historicist thesis. L. Ron Hubbard was a real man who started a cult. His cult believes that he used the power of what would become dianetics and scientology to cure himself of blindness and diseases. His successor David Miscavaige also described his death as something like "L. Ron abandoned his body last night. He is working on new OT levels, and his body is now a hindrance which he no longer needs" (paraphrase). It's unclear to me whether that is taken literally or as poetic license by Scientologists, but it's not at all hard to imagine it evolving into a doctrine about L. Ron's supposed immortality, if the church is still around in 100 or 200 years. We have similar situations with people like Joseph Smith, Haile Selassie or Kim Jong Il, who are real people with cult followings that believe them to be prophets or godlike figures. OTOH I can't think of a single cult that has been formed on behalf of a person who is alleged to have died and resurrected 40 or 50 years ago, whose existence can't actually be verified. Maybe you know of one, but I would have to resort to something like The Church of the Subgenius or Pastafarianism in order to come close to an example of that, and I don't think anyone would take that seriously.

I do think the Jesus-was-real position gains a degree of verisimilitude from the sheer banality of the story. Stripping out the obvious hokum around miracles, what do we have? A crackpot hippie with a few hangers-on gets arrested and executed. Wow. Not exactly Lawrence of Arabia, is it? If the Jesus life story had been made up from whole cloth, you'd think they would have come up with something a little bit more interesting.

You are simply ignoring all the gospels that were rejected by the council of Narcia, the gospel of Thomas (amongst others) was considered too batshit crazy even for the early Christians. So what is and isn't canon was just the opinion of so 4th century Romans.

[another lurker]

Steers, bless ya - your naivety is every bit as amusing as your dogged, may insane, persistence. Did you not for one moment look at the video thumbnail at the very start of the blog -



- and stop to wonder if this person might truly be interested in a more nuanced discussion?

:lol: :lol:

Why. It's simple.

Steers is a Text Robot. This video is his lived experience.

[youtube]uzO2mi4uHAs[/youtube]

[DaveDodo007]

http://i.imgur.com/XypyObR.jpg

Ahhh...I always wondered why humans were the only animal species where the females were attracted to the males.

Now I know.

:doh:

Erm...We are the only species to mate because we are attracted to each other, without it we would die out. Every other species on the planet has some hormonal (mating) reproduction strategy. I'm not playing down human's hormonal factors in the part of the attraction we have for each other.

[HunnyBunny]

This coming from the guy who would claim his farts were peer-reviewed if he thought he could get away with it. He can't mention any of his publications without compulsively boasting that it was peer-reviewed. It's "my peer-reviewed this" and "my peer-reviewed that". It comes across as neurotic. As obsessive. Yeah, that is overstating it, Dicky.

His peer review adds prestige and validity to his book of conjecture,

and yet when he is discussing Evo -psych? Well even peer-reviewed journal papers aren't worth the paper they are written on:

[Kirbmarc]

This coming from the guy who would claim his farts were peer-reviewed if he thought he could get away with it. He can't mention any of his publications without compulsively boasting that it was peer-reviewed. It's "my peer-reviewed this" and "my peer-reviewed that". It comes across as neurotic. As obsessive. Yeah, that is overstating it, Dicky.

His peer review adds prestige and validity to his book of conjecture,

[.tweet][/tweet]

[.tweet][/tweet]

and yet when he is discussing Evo -psych? Well even peer-reviewed journal papers aren't worth the paper they are written on:

[.tweet][/tweet]

[.tweet][/tweet]

Obsession with peers reviews, no sense of humor or self-awareness....wait a minute...is Nerd of Redhead a Carrier sockpuppet? :lol:

[another lurker]

Here is one for you steers
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... n-of-kids/

[Steersman]

Here is one for you steers
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... n-of-kids/

:lol: Waving a red flag in front of a bull? (Or a "text robot"? ;-) )

[d4m10n]

The mythicism position requires us to posit (1) the existence of a movement worshipping a celestial-but-not-historical Jesus, which (2) became a movement worshipping a historical-yet-divine Jesus, (3) forgetting in the process that it had ever worshipped a celestial-but-not-historical Jesus, in the space of the handful of decades between Paul's last letter and the first Gospel. Those three things need more support than pointing out inconsistencies in the traditional story before they can be accepted.

The historical Jesus position requires us to posit (1) the existence of a movement following a flesh-and-blood rabbi which (2) became a movement worshipping a celestial divine figure seated on his throne of judgment at the right hand of god and (3) forgetting in the process that the flesh-and-blood rabbi never actually claimed to be divine.

Either way, you have to deal with (at least) two distinctly different and seemingly incompatible movements. The crucial question is which one came first. Carrier’s argument is essentially that you can tell which one came first by looking at the evolution of doctrine on a timeline starting at the genuine Pauline epistles and going forward from there.

[Steersman]

In other news, FWIW, I've picked up another "campaign badge":

January 13, 2016 at 3:04 AM

Update: Steersman banned for deadnaming a trans woman. I mean, there are a lot of other reasons, but that’s the final straw.

Edit: I apologize to everyone for letting that go on as long as it did. I appreciate everyone who tried to engage with Steersman, but this is a person whose mind is apparently set against the trans struggle of untying gender from sex. They won’t be bothering us any more.

Simply amazing: for one thing, I'll stop calling Jenner "Bruce" and referring to him as "he" when he returns his "Woman of the Year" award. While I suppose that "we" might redefine the word "her" to refer to both "real" women and "transwomen" - pay the word extra, I figure calling a guy still with a functioning dick and testicles - Jenner did sire 4 or 5 kids if I'm not mistaken - is an outright abuse of language and logic - a bridge not just too far, but one in the next galaxy - "far, far, away".

And for another, I'm not against the idea of "untying gender from sex", even if I think the concept of "gender" is largely incohent twaddle - as suggested by the fact that Facebook allows selection of 1 of 56 genders; really need to provide 7 billion (for starters). What I object to is the insistence that "woman" is merely a gender, and the tendency to engage in the fallacy of equivocation. Enough to make a man - or a woman or a transwoman or a transman (did I miss anyone?) - spit.

And for a third, never met so many so unwilling to actually address an argument that disputes or questions their dogma, their received "wisdom". Go ahead "Lux" (a misnomer if ever I saw one as they sure aren't shedding much light on the matter) - stick your head in the sand, or someplace else where the sun don't shine.

Steers, bless ya - your naivety is every bit as amusing as your dogged, may insane, persistence. Did you not for one moment look at the video thumbnail at the very start of the blog -

[.img]http://i.imgur.com/hRQY48W.png[/img]

- and stop to wonder if this person might truly be interested in a more nuanced discussion?

:lol: :lol:

:) "I regret that I have but one avatar/user-name to lose for the anti-SJW cause!"

But I kind of expected that and was somewhat surprised, and impressed, that Lux let me have my say for so long. However, I still think it's worth the effort - allowing such bullshit as "trans women are women" to stand with nary a peep in objection only tends to compound the problem: "silence like a cancer grows ...." There might well be others lurking about either there or here who will become increasingly disillusioned with such shenanigans and their perpetrators.

[Steersman]

The mythicism position requires us to posit (1) the existence of a movement worshipping a celestial-but-not-historical Jesus, which (2) became a movement worshipping a historical-yet-divine Jesus, (3) forgetting in the process that it had ever worshipped a celestial-but-not-historical Jesus, in the space of the handful of decades between Paul's last letter and the first Gospel. Those three things need more support than pointing out inconsistencies in the traditional story before they can be accepted.

The historical Jesus position requires us to posit (1) the existence of a movement following a flesh-and-blood rabbi which (2) became a movement worshipping a celestial divine figure seated on his throne of judgment at the right hand of god and (3) forgetting in the process that the flesh-and-blood rabbi never actually claimed to be divine.

Either way, you have to deal with (at least) two distinctly different and seemingly incompatible movements. The crucial question is which one came first. Carrier’s argument is essentially that you can tell which one came first by looking at the evolution of doctrine on a timeline starting at the genuine Pauline epistles and going forward from there.

Considering the well-known tendency to inflate various stories that do have some actual truth to them - many Hollywood movies for general example, and the case of that woman helicopter pilot (?) in Iraq, in particular - I certainly don't find it implausible that Jesus was very much a tale that grew in the telling over several hundred years (Shadow of the Third Century) - to the point of seriously wagging the dog.

[comhcinc]

Is it still talking?

I am going to lay down. I am too sick for this shit.

[Jan Steen]

The incredibly morphing paragraph: How Dr. Richard Carrier PhD is rewriting history

Carrier is getting more and more entrapped in his own web of lies, like a particularly inept kind of spider.

First he wrote:

My new book, On the Historicity of Jesus, has passed peer review and is now under contract to be published by a major academic press specializing in biblical studies: Sheffield-Phoenix, the publishing house of the University of Sheffield (UK). I sought four peer review reports from major professors of New Testament or Early Christianity, and two have returned their reports, approving with revisions, and those revisions have been made. Since two peers is the standard number for academic publications, we can proceed. Two others missed the assigned deadline, but I’m still hoping to get their reports and I’ll do my best to meet any revisions they require as well.

When he was questioned on Twitter about the dodgy state of these alleged peer reviews, he went back to his two-and-a-half year old blog post, and modified this paragraph as follows:

My new book, On the Historicity of Jesus, has passed peer review and is now under contract to be published by a major academic press specializing in biblical studies: Sheffield-Phoenix, the publishing house of the University of Sheffield (UK). I sought four peer review reports from major professors of New Testament or Early Christianity, and two have returned their reports, approving with revisions, and those revisions have been made. Since two peers is the standard number for academic publications, we can proceed. Sheffield’s own peer reviewers have also approved the text and their revision requests have been satisfied. Two others missed the assigned deadline, but I’m still hoping to get their reports and I’ll do my best to meet any revisions they require as well. [changed bits in red+bold, JS]

But adding this one twist did nothing to erase the other lie, namely that Sheffield Phoenix (not Sheffield-Phoenix, as Carrier consistently misspells it) is "the publishing house of the University of Sheffield." More retconning was needed. The final (?) revision now reads:

My new book, On the Historicity of Jesus, has passed peer review and is now under contract to be published by a major academic press specializing in biblical studies: Sheffield-Phoenix, a publishing house at the University of Sheffield (UK). I sought four peer review reports from major professors of New Testament or Early Christianity, and two have returned their reports, approving with revisions, and those revisions have been made. Since two peers is the standard number for academic publications, we can proceed. And Sheffield’s own peer reviewers have approved the text. Two others missed the assigned deadline, but I’m still hoping to get their reports and I’ll do my best to meet any revisions they require as well.

In my opinion, it is still somewhat misleading to call the independent company Sheffield Phoenix "a publishing house at the University of Sheffield". But I'll let this pass (for now). More interesting is the change in wording from this:

Sheffield’s own peer reviewers have also approved the text and their revision requests have been satisfied.

to this:

And Sheffield’s own peer reviewers have approved the text.

What happened to their "revision requests"?

In a comment added at the same time as the latest revision, Carrier explains:

Update: I have revised “Sheffield’s own peer reviewers have also approved the text and their revision requests have been satisfied” to simply “And Sheffield’s own peer reviewers have approved the text” because checking my records I realize the only peer reviewer they had been working with whom I know by name (others remain anonymous) also happened by chance to be one of the professors I had chosen myself (as I discovered later); and though all reviewer revision requests I received were satisfied, not all peer reviewers sent revision requests.

It's getting curiouser and curiouser. We are now to believe that Sheffield's "own" peer reviewers did not ask for revisions, because one of them happened to be one of the professors whom Carrier had already asked on his own initiative to do a peer review of his Jesus book. This "major professor" presumably told Sheffield Phoenix that he had already reviewed the bloody tome and that he wouldn't do it again. Which is reasonable, isn't it? Except that it is strange that Sheffield Phoenix would have approached this professor in the first place, because they would have seen his review, presented to them by the pro-active Dr. Carrier himself. He knew who this professor was and would proudly have conveyed the famous scholar's identity to Sheffield Phoenix. This whole tale stinks. To me it looks as if Sheffield Phoenix have asked Carrier to cut out his BS, as they will also have asked him to stop misrepresenting their company as being a branch of Sheffield University.

What about the other peer reviewer, who found nothing to revise in a 700+ page manuscript written by Richard Carrier? That too beggars belief. Anybody who has read even one blog post ejaculated by Carrier will know that such a lack of revision requests is just impossible. Unless, that is, the poor reviewer simply collapsed under the thankless task and was admitted to a mental hospital for recuperation.

In any case, it was rather irresponsible of Sheffield Phoenix not to find a reviewer who would have come up with something, anything at all, to revise. But probably they never really tried in the first place. This cock-and-bull story about Sheffield Phoenix's own peer reviewers who ended up not reviewing anything looks like yet another lie by the desperate Dr. Carrier.

Poor little spider, trapped in his own web of deception. Waiting to be sucked up by a vacuum cleaner.

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Carrier now characterizes the attention he receives from the Slymepit as "harassment". It's what SJWs do when their lies are exposed.

Richard Carrier says

January 12, 2016 at 5:35 pm

I’m aware. And yes, this is part of continuing Slymepit harassment. To head off any chance of their continued confusion, I have revised all my references to being published “by” Sheffield University to being published “at” Sheffield University, since the matter concerns the triviality of bylaws and administrative control. Sheffield-Phoenix Press is located in Sheffield University campus facilities and run by members of the Sheffield University faculty. And is of course a fully peer reviewed academic press. It just isn’t under the control of the non-faculty administration. All of which is obvious. And of course has no bearing on anything of relevance.

What a tool. What a stupid, lying tool.

[RebeccaB]

The historical Jesus position requires us to posit (1) the existence of a movement following a flesh-and-blood rabbi which (2) became a movement worshipping a celestial divine figure seated on his throne of judgment at the right hand of god and (3) forgetting in the process that the flesh-and-blood rabbi never actually claimed to be divine.

Either way, you have to deal with (at least) two distinctly different and seemingly incompatible movements. The crucial question is which one came first. Carrier’s argument is essentially that you can tell which one came first by looking at the evolution of doctrine on a timeline starting at the genuine Pauline epistles and going forward from there.

Actually, Step Two is a well-observed technique for dealing with cognitive dissonance "when prophecy fails". See Festinger's book of the same name, where the failure of the aliens to arrive in a nuts'n'bolts flying saucer was transmuted into their successful arrival on a spiritual plane, or something of the sort, no pun intended.

[Old_ones]

Then how do you explain every Pagan religion throughout history until the joos come along with their one god, thunder, lightning volcanoes and any unexplained shit led to supernatural beliefs.

What unexplained thing does jeebus supposedly explain? I'm well aware that humans are fond of our weird fairy stories, but how does an invented cult leader make more sense than a real one?

Its a silly comparison.

On the one hand you have jeebus the impolite carpenter who could turn some water into fermented grape juice but got his shit ruined by a few Roman soldiers and local officials (and then turned into an angry ghost to prove a point before fucking off into the sky anyway). On the other hand you have Odin, who traded his eye for the mead of poetry, hung from a tree for seven days to win the runes (which gave him foresight btw) and rode around the nine worlds on an 8 legged horse matching wits with frost giants and talking to a pair of wolves and ravens to get his bearings.

Which of those characters sounds like they might have been an embellished version of someone real?

Or put another way, I realize that all the Hebrew myths are the bargain basement as far as mythology goes, but at least the old testament had some pillars of salt and explosions. If jebus the mild mannered snuff porn victim is the best the could construct from their boundless creativity when it came to a follow up act, then that truly is sad.

[Sunder]

OTOH I can't think of a single cult that has been formed on behalf of a person who is alleged to have died and resurrected 40 or 50 years ago, whose existence can't actually be verified.

Carrier brings up the examples of the John Frum cult. I'm not a mythicist but I have to say that the example fits.

What makes the cargo cults unique though is the severe clash of cultures. The more traditional society doesn't get how planes and shipping work and confuse radio towers and landing strips for magic rituals which summon goods from nowhere.

[free thoughtpolice]

The Jesus that was accepted by the Roman world may have been very different than the Jesus of the obscure Jewish cult it came from.
He is like Hercules, a demigod that has God for a dad and some inconsequential wench for a mom, he realizes his godly/magic when he grows up and goes to heaven/Mt. Olympus after a dramatic death.
Meanwhile, in the Roman world dead emperors became gods after they died, so men becoming gods was normal and believable.
The Jews expected Messiahs from the times more than a century before Jebus to a century after him but he wasn't supposed to be godlike, but a human blessed by god like David. These guys were crucified and otherwise executed by the score by the Greeks and later the Romans. There were plenty of Judas and theudas, and no doubt more than one Yeshua.
My thought is Jesus is a construct of several jewish leaders, such as John the Baptist and whoever the Teacher of Righteousness from the Dead Sea Scrolls was, and others that were never documented.
I think that Jesus is more of a legend or a myth than a historical figure.

[Old_ones]

. L. Ron Hubbard was a real man who started a cult. His cult believes that he used the power of what would become dianetics and scientology to cure himself of blindness and diseases. His successor David Miscavaige also described his death as something like "L. Ron abandoned his body last night. He is working on new OT levels, and his body is now a hindrance which he no longer needs" (paraphrase). It's unclear to me whether that is taken literally or as poetic license by Scientologists, but it's not at all hard to imagine it evolving into a doctrine about L. Ron's supposed immortality.

From what I've read, scientologists take it literally (or at least are supposed to) and are awaiting Hubbard's return. If you're interested in more detail I highly recommend Lawrence Wright's Going Clear. Best book about Scientology I've yet read.

I saw the documentary, which was pretty fascinating, and also my source for that paraphrase. I didn't know that there was also a book, so I might look into that. Thanks for the recommendation.

[free thoughtpolice]

Speaking of the reliability of sacred writings of the time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infancy_Gospel_of_Thomas

Although the miracles seem quite randomly inserted into the text, there are three miracles before, and three after, each of the sets of lessons. The structure of the story is essentially:

Bringing life to a dried fish (this is only present in later texts)
(First group)
3 Miracles - Breathes life into birds fashioned from clay, curses a boy, who then becomes a corpse, curses a boy who falls dead and his parents become blind
Attempt to teach Jesus which fails, with Jesus doing the teaching
3 Miracles - Reverses his earlier acts, resurrects a friend who fell from a roof, heals a man who chopped his foot with an axe.[2]
(Second group)
3 Miracles - Carries water on cloth, produces a feast from a single grain, stretches a beam of wood to help his father finish constructing a bed
Attempts to teach Jesus, which fail, with Jesus doing the teaching
3 Miracles - Heals James from snake poison, resurrects a child who died of illness, resurrects a man who died in a construction accident
Incident in the temple paralleling Luke

[another lurker]

http://c.shld.net/rpx/i/s/i/spin/101065 ... 1629786712

[Couch]

However, even if we factor all that in, it is likely that there exists *some* point in which the EV becomes positive, even if we have not hit that point yet. Concentrated seem to be suggesting that even if the EV is positive, a sober gambler should not play the game, and I am trying to understand why.

Given that the sales of tickets rises faster than the size of the pot (at least in my state), I doubt that the EV gets better when the pot becomes huge. There may be a sweet-spot somewhere in the middle, but the actuaries running lotteries aren't stupid, so I doubt that the EV is ever positive.

With that said, if you actually find a game of chance with a positive EV, go ahead and play. But try to keep what is known about psychological EVs being distinct from objective EVs, so you don't fool yourself. For example, keep in mind that many people think that, all else being equal, it is better to buy one ticket per week for a year than to buy 52 (different) tickets for a single drawing. The reason is that the "psychological loss" of $2 is less than one-fifty-second of the "psychological loss" of $104.
This US Powerball lottery jackpot is big new here today. As a card-carrying Sheeple I bought a ticket just now through an Australian agent (after hours of trying - their website is not coping).

The jackpot works out to be AUD$1.9Bil-ish. You don't pay taxes in Australia for winnings which aren't income, but we still need to pay the US taxes for foreign national's earning derived in the US, which I think works out to be about twenty-five percent.

Nonetheless, AUD$1.4Bil clear is a reasonable chink of change, and I'll definitely be applying some proportion of the winnings to having a Connie St Louis COTY Trophy made to Rushmore-esque proportions.

:cdc:

In summary: Humans should not be let out of their cages.

[another lurker]

http://i.imgur.com/HRr71Su.jpg

[Dolores Fuller]

Oh Canada, you deserve better.
Now you can get special treatment in your universities without having to disclose why. This PHD student in"critical disabilities studies" filed a human rights complaint against York University. Apparently, she is part of a "tidal wave" of students claiming disabilities in Ontario.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/01 ... ?referrer=

[Couch]

However, even if we factor all that in, it is likely that there exists *some* point in which the EV becomes positive, even if we have not hit that point yet. Concentrated seem to be suggesting that even if the EV is positive, a sober gambler should not play the game, and I am trying to understand why.

Given that the sales of tickets rises faster than the size of the pot (at least in my state), I doubt that the EV gets better when the pot becomes huge. There may be a sweet-spot somewhere in the middle, but the actuaries running lotteries aren't stupid, so I doubt that the EV is ever positive.

With that said, if you actually find a game of chance with a positive EV, go ahead and play. But try to keep what is known about psychological EVs being distinct from objective EVs, so you don't fool yourself. For example, keep in mind that many people think that, all else being equal, it is better to buy one ticket per week for a year than to buy 52 (different) tickets for a single drawing. The reason is that the "psychological loss" of $2 is less than one-fifty-second of the "psychological loss" of $104.
This US Powerball lottery jackpot is big new here today. As a card-carrying Sheeple I bought a ticket just now through an Australian agent (after hours of trying - their website is not coping).

The jackpot works out to be AUD$1.9Bil-ish. You don't pay taxes in Australia for winnings which aren't income, but we still need to pay the US taxes for foreign national's earning derived in the US, which I think works out to be about twenty-five percent.

Nonetheless, AUD$1.4Bil clear is a reasonable chink of change, and I'll definitely be applying some proportion of the winnings to having a Connie St Louis COTY Trophy made to Rushmore-esque proportions.

:cdc:

In summary: Humans should not be let out of their cages.

Oops. My contribution was intended to be:

This US Powerball lottery jackpot is big new here today. As a card-carrying Sheeple I bought a ticket just now through an Australian agent (after hours of trying - their website is not coping).

The jackpot works out to be AUD$1.9Bil-ish. You don't pay taxes in Australia for winnings which aren't income, but we still need to pay the US taxes for foreign national's earning derived in the US, which I think works out to be about twenty-five percent.

Nonetheless, AUD$1.4Bil clear is a reasonable chink of change, and I'll definitely be applying some proportion of the winnings to having a Connie St Louis COTY Trophy made to Rushmore-esque proportions.

:cdc:

[Matt Cavanaugh]

What does joining a church have to do with it?

http://s3-media1.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/ ... mzQ/ls.jpg

Because, like that truck, Jesus was raised.