RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2020.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $1050Goal: $3000

Talk:Pantera

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Tempted by the fruit of amother...[edit]

look, with all teh ugliness going on here lately, I'm not going to get in a pissing match about this, but any historian would tell you that soldiers and local girls are not just "tempted" ho have sexual relations, they have them - sometimes consensually for mutual benefit, sometimes as a result of coercion - but they have them...PFoster 14:51, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Okay, so that last edit summary is either totally Freudian or I need a coffee...PFoster 14:52, 18 February 2008 (EST)

You forgot the local boys. By the way, wouldn't Straight to Hell have been a good edit summary? Oh, and Squeeze is now mentioned in two places on this wiki. Should we make them our honorary house band for a day? humanUser talk:Human 14:54, 18 February 2008 (EST)
I fuckin' love Squeeze. And I ain't saying the fact soldiers made it with local girls= Pantera was the Jesus' Baby Daddy. i'm just saying that you can pretty much rest assured Roman soldiers were gettin' some whilst stationed in Mary's corner of the world...PFoster 14:56, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Where are the daytime talk shows and their paternity tests when you need them? --Edgerunner76 Buddy christ.jpg 15:22, 18 February 2008 (EST)

I saw Squeeze in about '92 over to the local University. Tilbrook works his ass off. humanUser talk:Human 15:42, 18 February 2008 (EST)

AFD?[edit]

Very nice article perhaps, but I'd suggest to move this to [[Fun:Pantera]] - regardless of religious or atheist views, I don't know if this article is up to the high quality standard RW strives for. Editor at RWwas rooting for HD DVD 15:13, 18 February 2008 (EST)

what are these "high standard" of which you speak? PFoster 15:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)

There is a reason if we are here and not on CP, Uncyclopedia or Wikipedia, isn't there? Editor at RWwas rooting for HD DVD 15:21, 18 February 2008 (EST)
The only case for moving this to Fun is the stupid band stuff. Lets drop the bands and make this the serious article which it deserves to be. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 15:24, 18 February 2008 (EST)
Alien abduction is not? Editor at RWwas rooting for HD DVD 15:28, 18 February 2008 (EST)
As far as it relates to issues of biblical literalism, I see it as fine in the mainspace. But since it is also a little far-fetched, I think the weird stuff (aliens, bands, etc.) makes it more entertaining. humanUser talk:Human 15:43, 18 February 2008 (EST)
Well I think the bands are more of a disambiguation and diversion. Debunking of BibLit is sometimes harmed by the fun stuff. But hey I'm just one bigoted loudmouth so WTF? Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 15:48, 18 February 2008 (EST)
I threw in the bit about alien abduction because I was trying to highlight how wildly speculative and effing absurd the entire article subject was. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:55, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia[edit]

Conservapedia has stuff about a Roman soldier raping Mary on it's Main page now. I got 'Basic Instinct' Director Paul Verhoeven: Jesus Was Son of Mary and Roman Rapist, Wednesday, April 23, 2008 from there. Proxima Centauri 07:58, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

There's the proof: even influential people (Verhoeven) read RW. We should be more responsible when writing articles. ;-) (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 08:16, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Type of people category[edit]

It's a stretch, but how about "Biblical figures"? ħumanUser talk:Human 16:22, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

I thought of that, too, but... is Pantera actually mentioned in the Bible? If he was mentioned in the Apocrypha, then I could see that category fitting. But if he was just a hypothetical made up by a scholar, then no. I'm at a loss for this, really. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 19:01, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
Well, his only "use" is to interact with Biblical characters, I suppose. Or... we could delete it... ħumanUser talk:Human 00:25, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

This Pantera guy didn't exist, you people are idiots[edit]

You RationalWiki assholes don't even take the time to explain this, even Wikipedia admitd to this. You douche bags will say anything to continue your agenda. — Unsigned, by: 66.87.114.133 / talk / contribs

You can't possibly be suggesting Phil Anselmo was never real! ConCass (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
If Pantera didn't exist, why does his tombstone? FuzzyCatPotato of the Common Bathtubs (talk/stalk) 15:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Given the rest of the BoN's post, they mean the mythical one. You are conflating him with the owner of the tombstone, which is quite a large jump even if we assume that the rape story is true. (Which is unlikely.)--ZooGuard (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You might want to comment here as well.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 15:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Whoops. I thought BON meant "Tiberius", which is relevant to the tombstone, but he/she meant "father of Jesus", which isn't. Thanks Zoo. FuzzyCatPotato of the Common Bathtubs (talk/stalk) 15:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

truth-and-justice.info[edit]

Oh, my.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that link is dead now. FuzzyCatPotato of the Common Bathtubs (talk/stalk) 18:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Quote mining the bible[edit]

I know the section starts of by saying "The Bible, if read in a certain way, ...", but I've got a problem with this whole section Gospel support.

Other verses in the same gospels talk about angels talking to both Mary and Joseph to give them information. We disregard these as obviously false. But then we use other verses as if they are reliable testimony in an attempt to support the point the article is making.

Surely if you are going to disregard parts of the story as obviously false it's not reasonable to then cherry-pick other parts of the story and present them as true because they can be construed to support the hypothesis.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 11:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The whole section reminds me unpleasantly of the way conspiracy theorists try to read emotions and motivations into the behavior of people, e.g. the whole "they look guilty" thing attached to the Apollo 11 post-landing conference. It also suggests that FuzzyCatPotato really wants to believe in the bloody thing, which is... disappointing.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I didn't make that section, I just didn't delete it. It certainly is quotemining. Please, add contradictory verses.
ZooGuard, you'll notice that I debunked another set of verses from the Bible immediately below, about Jesus' trip to Sidon. If I want to believe it, why would I do so? FuzzyCatPotato of the Common Bathtubs (talk/stalk) 13:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I apologize - I read the first sub-section and on a first look, the next one look the same, so I didn't notice the debunking. It was sloppy on my part. As a general rule of debunking style, though, suspect material should be presented as such, e.g. "X claims that the argument is supported by the Gospel... but...", instead of directly reproducing the claim.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I don't believe for a moment that Fuzy.C.P believes it. I'm just pointing out that the Gospels are not good evidence for anything. The gospels were written many years after the death of Jesus (whoever he may have been) by people who were not there and who had had no contact with the alleged protagonists - so minutely analysing them in an effort to discern subtle evidence is rather a waste of time. I would be inclined to delete the whole section.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 15:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The only reason I would keep it (now) is so that we can debunk the claim of the support of the Gospels, by providing the alternate verse. Since Christians may be inclined to believe the Gospels as teh TRUTH, it's worthwhile for a discussion of Christian-related stuff. (Same as the Biblical contradictions page, we need to discuss what Christians believe). FuzzyCatPotato of the Common Bathtubs (talk/stalk) 22:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
1. These are obviously quote mines which attempt to make the Gospel account say something which it clearly doesn't.
2. Following from the above it treats the the non-magic parts of the gospel story as though they were reliable while ignoring the far more significant magical parts.
3. No part of the Gospel is any any way historically reliable anyway. The people who wrote it can have had no idea how long Mary spent with a relative, how many times Jesus visited Sidon or what were the exact words used by the angels when they spoke to Joseph.
4. Using information which you know to be false in order to prove a point is akin to the Christian practice of Lying for Jesus. We have taken information from a source which has no credibility and then manipulated in an effort to make it mean something else. This is unethical. The fact that the unreliable and subsequently manipulated source has some credibility to the people the people we may be trying to persuade does not justify it.
5. Although you state that this information is in the article in an effort to persuade Christians it gives the impression that we, as RW, feel that the Bible can be used as a reliable source for such information. How are non-Christians supposed to know that we have used this information only to persuade Christians and that we do not really believe that the bible is historically accurate?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 09:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

How's this edit? FuzzyCatPotato of the Common Bathtubs (talk/stalk) 17:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

*cough* FuzzyCatPotato of the Common Bathtubs (talk/stalk) 01:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, so I see you've qualified it with "if we accept the bible as being true" - but if we accept that, then we accept that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit and that angels explained the nature of the problem to everybody.
If, on the other hand if we don't accept it to be a reliable account, then quoting it in a highly selective manner to prove points is a waste of time as, well, we don't accept it to be true. (Not to mention being disingenuous.)
I understand that you are trying to accommodate my position and I appreciate that. But I still think the whole section is problematic and we would be better off without it.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 12:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
So I'll delete in 48 hours unless it can be justified.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
How I see it:
Tabor claims that said verses of the Gospels support his position.
We provide reasons that, even if we were to accept the Gospels as true, that the Gospels would contradict Tabor's position.
Basically, it's debunking Tabor.
FuzzyCatPotato of the Common Bathtubs (talk/stalk) 22:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
So? FuzzyCatPotato of the Common Bathtubs (talk/stalk) 05:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
So I've given you multiple reasons showing why we shouldn't use this argument. But as the only person who seems to care about it is me I've decided not to fight the issue.  :-) So good luck with it.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 21:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
All right. Thanks! ^_^ FuzzyCatPotato of the Common Bathtubs (talk/stalk) 21:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Still crap[edit]

Though reading it again I still think it's crap. (But I'll only mention it from time to time.)--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 15:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I may pay it a visit after I'm done with the Soviet Union.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Dalmatia[edit]

The article states:

"[...] the First Cohort of Archers, to which Pantera belonged, had moved to Dalmatia (in Germany) in 6 AD [...]"

Dalmatia is a region now located in present-day Croatia. [1]

As far as I can find, there never was a Dalmatia anywhere else, not in the Roman Empire at least. Is there something I'm missing here? Kvltcat (talk) 05:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)