You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column



 Sociology > Education > You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 36 of 36

1

 

2

 

3

 

4

 

5

 

6

 

7

 

8

 

9

 

10

 

11

 

12

 

13

 

14

 

15

 

16

 

17

 

18

 

19

 

20

 

21

 

22

 

23

 

24

 

25

 

26

 

27

 

28

 

29

 

30

 

31

 

32

 

33

 

34

 

35

 

36

 
Topic: Sociology > Education
User: "Dominic Torrazzi"
Date: 13 Apr 2006 05:43:24 PM
Object: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column
If you need any evidence that the theocrats don't understand science,
statistics, or logic - have a read.
You bet your life
Posted: April 13, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
When Judas Iscariot agreed to deliver Jesus to the chief priests on Maundy
Thursday some 2,000 years ago, he was betting that Jesus was not who He
claimed to be - the son of God. Judas' payoff was 30 pieces of silver.
However, that betrayal cost Judas his life. History has shown this wager was
against impossible odds.
Today, many are going against the odds and making that same wager.
Just what are the odds that Jesus was God's son?
Although, we will not know with absolute certainty until we die and are
confronted by our Maker, overwhelming statistical probability is considered
proof by the scientific community. For example, DNA evidence is often the
proof needed to get a crime conviction, even though the probability of a
match may be 1 in a quintillion (1 with 18 zeros after it) or one in 10 to
the 29th power if using a full profile.
Consider the proof in the Bible that Jesus was who He said He was.
The Hebrew Scriptures pointed the way to the promised Messiah and went into
great detail about His birth, life and death through prophecy. These
prophecies were made many years before Jesus' birth and the Dead Sea Scrolls
confirm that they remained unchanged.
Oxford scholar Alfred Edersheim compiled a list of 456 identifying
characteristics of the Messiah from these prophecies that were fulfilled by
Jesus.
Dr. Peter Stoner, professor emeritus of science at Westmont College,
calculated the probability of one man fulfilling just the major prophecies
with the help of 12 different classes of 600 college students. Then, he took
more conservative figures to the Committee of the American Scientific
Affiliation and had them verified using the data supplied in the Bible.
Stoner looked at these eight prophecies:
Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2).
A messenger was sent to prepare the way (Malachi 3:1).
Made a triumphant entry into Jerusalem as a king riding on a lowly donkey
(Zechariah 9:9).
Betrayed by a friend that resulted in wounds in the hands (Zechariah 13:6).
Price of betrayal was 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12).
The blood money was used to buy a potter's field (Zechariah 11:13).
Offered no defense at his trial (Isaiah 53:7).
His hands and feet were pierced (Psalm 22:16).
The estimate of one man fulfilling all eight of these prophecies was a
staggering 10 to the 17th power, a number with 17 zeroes after it.
In another calculation, he used 48 prophecies and came up with a probability
of 10 to the 157th power, an impossible figure to achieve without Divine
intervention.
Exactly what do these numbers mean?
Stoner gave us this example. Ten to the 17th power would be the number of
silver dollars needed to cover the entire state of Texas, two feet deep.
To help us visualize 10 to the 157th power, Stoner chose one of the smallest
known objects, the electron. An electron is so small that it would take 2.5
x 1,000,000,000,000,000 of them laid side by side to make a line, single
file, one inch long.
Space, according to some estimates, extends in all directions to a distance
of 6 million light-years. Dr. Stoner asked us to imagine a solid ball of
electrons the size of space. Now fit that space-size ball of electrons, into
a ball of electrons 10 to the 157th power. How big of a dent would our
space-size ball make? It would make a hole so small that it would not be
noticeable.
Remember, that number 10 to the 157th power represents the probability of
one man fulfilling just 48 of these prophesies and there were 456 that Dr.
Stoner and his mathematicians could have used.
Let us go back to the odds that one man could have fulfilled just those
first eight prophecies. Imagine that one of the silver dollars covering the
state of Texas, two feet thick, was marked in red fingernail polish. You are
given the task of walking throughout Texas, reaching down and selecting the
right one on the first try. Suppose your very life was on the line. Could
you do it?
Would you bet your life on that?
Of course you would not, but that is, in effect, what you are doing when
you, like Judas, decide to reject the tremendous amount of evidence that
Jesus Christ was the son of God and the only way to the Father.
Christ willingly laid down His life to pay the price for our sins in order
to give us the gift of eternal life. It is a free gift - yours to accept or
reject.
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"

Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column 26 Apr 2006 04:44:11 PM
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

That may be true, but it was worse even then. Most Americans have
actually heard and understood a Bible verse or two. Until the Bible
was translated into local vernaculars, the same could not be said of
the "dark ages".

The common people were more inclined to be obedient to gospel
principles they were taught than the wealthy and powerful, just as
today.

History tells us otherwise. There were several hundreds of years of
the church trying to exterminate all forms of paganism from the rural
people of Europe. They never really succeeded, and did their best
when they converted pagan ideas into Christian ones, as with Christmas
and Easter.

And blacks are also self-labeled "Christian", and probably to a
greater extent than whites, go to church and otherwise practice the
forms of the religion.

Self-labeled? So they have done something you do not approve of.

No. My labels are utterly irrelevant. That they consider
*themselves* to be Christian, attended church, and otherwise do a
better job of acting like a Christian than most "whites" means that
"Christian" is not synonymous with "white" except in the mind of a
racist Nazi wannabe.
lojbab
.
User: "rbwinn"

Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column 29 Apr 2006 09:02:23 AM
Bob LeChevalier wrote:

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

That may be true, but it was worse even then. Most Americans have
actually heard and understood a Bible verse or two. Until the Bible
was translated into local vernaculars, the same could not be said of
the "dark ages".

The common people were more inclined to be obedient to gospel
principles they were taught than the wealthy and powerful, just as
today.


History tells us otherwise. There were several hundreds of years of
the church trying to exterminate all forms of paganism from the rural
people of Europe. They never really succeeded, and did their best
when they converted pagan ideas into Christian ones, as with Christmas
and Easter.

And blacks are also self-labeled "Christian", and probably to a
greater extent than whites, go to church and otherwise practice the
forms of the religion.

Self-labeled? So they have done something you do not approve of.


No. My labels are utterly irrelevant. That they consider
*themselves* to be Christian, attended church, and otherwise do a
better job of acting like a Christian than most "whites" means that
"Christian" is not synonymous with "white" except in the mind of a
racist Nazi wannabe.

Well, if you had ever read the Bible, you would know that one of the
first Christian converts after the crucifixion was a black man, a
eunuch from Ethiopia.
Robert B. Winn
.


User: "Larry Scratch"

Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column 26 Apr 2006 02:10:52 PM
Curt wrote:

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:uodj42pg2tk0klkv3mc7rfekc3ga2f2o5e@4ax.com...

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

In terms of religion, they were dark centuries. The scriptures were
chained to the pulpit, and any common person who read them could be put
to death.

Any common person who read them was not a common person, since common
people couldn't read. Those who could read, still probably wouldn't
have been able to read them, because they were in Latin, and the
common people didn't know Latin. Indeed, in medieval Britain a
substantial percentage of the clergy couldn't read. They studied and
memorized the mass orally, and that was all they needed to know. And
since they didn't know Latin, they probably had only a vague idea what
the words of the mass meant.

For a good thousand years the masses were Christian only because their
rulers said they were Christian. Most probably had little idea what
the religion actually believed, only that they might be put to death
or otherwise punished if they didn't go to church.


The Christian masses in the Yew Ess Aye are the same way today. It has
nothing to do with anything the Baby Jesus said.. all Christian means,
basically, is I'm white and born here.

You sir are a liar! Ever heard of Black baptist churches? Tell us what
the Catholic church is made up of? All white? I think not!
Curt, your loosing it man.
--
"Every concession leads to aggression"
Putin, 2005
.
User: "Curt"

Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column 26 Apr 2006 04:16:39 PM
"Larry (Scratch)" <Scratch@Tigard.OR.com> wrote in message
news:v4CdnS1wSK4iWNLZRVn-tQ@comcast.com...

Curt wrote:

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:uodj42pg2tk0klkv3mc7rfekc3ga2f2o5e@4ax.com...

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

In terms of religion, they were dark centuries. The scriptures were
chained to the pulpit, and any common person who read them could be

put

to death.

Any common person who read them was not a common person, since common
people couldn't read. Those who could read, still probably wouldn't
have been able to read them, because they were in Latin, and the
common people didn't know Latin. Indeed, in medieval Britain a
substantial percentage of the clergy couldn't read. They studied and
memorized the mass orally, and that was all they needed to know. And
since they didn't know Latin, they probably had only a vague idea what
the words of the mass meant.

For a good thousand years the masses were Christian only because their
rulers said they were Christian. Most probably had little idea what
the religion actually believed, only that they might be put to death
or otherwise punished if they didn't go to church.


The Christian masses in the Yew Ess Aye are the same way today. It has
nothing to do with anything the Baby Jesus said.. all Christian means,
basically, is I'm white and born here.


You sir are a liar! Ever heard of Black baptist churches? Tell us what
the Catholic church is made up of? All white? I think not!

Curt, your loosing it man.

Asked and answered. It was, of course, a comment quickly dashed off. If I'd
reflected a bit, I wouldn't have sent it in exactly that way. But then I
never reflect on what I'm about to post-- if I did I probably wouldn't ever
post anything.
Curt
.
User: "Larry Scratch"

Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column 26 Apr 2006 07:19:21 PM
Curt wrote:

"Larry (Scratch)" <Scratch@Tigard.OR.com> wrote in message
news:v4CdnS1wSK4iWNLZRVn-tQ@comcast.com...

Curt wrote:

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:uodj42pg2tk0klkv3mc7rfekc3ga2f2o5e@4ax.com...

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

In terms of religion, they were dark centuries. The scriptures were
chained to the pulpit, and any common person who read them could be

put

to death.

Any common person who read them was not a common person, since common
people couldn't read. Those who could read, still probably wouldn't
have been able to read them, because they were in Latin, and the
common people didn't know Latin. Indeed, in medieval Britain a
substantial percentage of the clergy couldn't read. They studied and
memorized the mass orally, and that was all they needed to know. And
since they didn't know Latin, they probably had only a vague idea what
the words of the mass meant.

For a good thousand years the masses were Christian only because their
rulers said they were Christian. Most probably had little idea what
the religion actually believed, only that they might be put to death
or otherwise punished if they didn't go to church.

The Christian masses in the Yew Ess Aye are the same way today. It has
nothing to do with anything the Baby Jesus said.. all Christian means,
basically, is I'm white and born here.

You sir are a liar! Ever heard of Black baptist churches? Tell us what
the Catholic church is made up of? All white? I think not!

Curt, your loosing it man.


Asked and answered. It was, of course, a comment quickly dashed off. If I'd
reflected a bit, I wouldn't have sent it in exactly that way. But then I
never reflect on what I'm about to post-- if I did I probably wouldn't ever
post anything.

Curt


Oh hell man, don't stop posting :) Need to keep the ole' blood pumping :)
--
"Every concession leads to aggression"
Putin, 2005
.

User: "samurai"

Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column 26 Apr 2006 06:27:09 PM
Curt wrote:

"Larry (Scratch)" <Scratch@Tigard.OR.com> wrote in message
news:v4CdnS1wSK4iWNLZRVn-tQ@comcast.com...

Curt wrote:

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:uodj42pg2tk0klkv3mc7rfekc3ga2f2o5e@4ax.com...

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

In terms of religion, they were dark centuries. The scriptures were
chained to the pulpit, and any common person who read them could be

put

to death.

Any common person who read them was not a common person, since common
people couldn't read. Those who could read, still probably wouldn't
have been able to read them, because they were in Latin, and the
common people didn't know Latin. Indeed, in medieval Britain a
substantial percentage of the clergy couldn't read. They studied and
memorized the mass orally, and that was all they needed to know. And
since they didn't know Latin, they probably had only a vague idea what
the words of the mass meant.

For a good thousand years the masses were Christian only because their
rulers said they were Christian. Most probably had little idea what
the religion actually believed, only that they might be put to death
or otherwise punished if they didn't go to church.

The Christian masses in the Yew Ess Aye are the same way today. It has
nothing to do with anything the Baby Jesus said.. all Christian means,
basically, is I'm white and born here.

You sir are a liar! Ever heard of Black baptist churches? Tell us what
the Catholic church is made up of? All white? I think not!

Curt, your loosing it man.


Asked and answered. It was, of course, a comment quickly dashed off. If I'd
reflected a bit, I wouldn't have sent it in exactly that way. But then I
never reflect on what I'm about to post-- if I did I probably wouldn't ever
post anything.

Curt


Start reflecting.
.



User: "rbwinn"

Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column 25 Apr 2006 11:35:22 PM
Bob LeChevalier wrote:

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

In terms of religion, they were dark centuries. The scriptures were
chained to the pulpit, and any common person who read them could be put
to death.


Any common person who read them was not a common person, since common
people couldn't read. Those who could read, still probably wouldn't
have been able to read them, because they were in Latin, and the
common people didn't know Latin. Indeed, in medieval Britain a
substantial percentage of the clergy couldn't read. They studied and
memorized the mass orally, and that was all they needed to know. And
since they didn't know Latin, they probably had only a vague idea what
the words of the mass meant.

For a good thousand years the masses were Christian only because their
rulers said they were Christian. Most probably had little idea what
the religion actually believed, only that they might be put to death
or otherwise punished if they didn't go to church.

In the Netherlands an entire family was condemned to be burned at the
stake because they were studying the Bible at home.
Robert B. Winn


lojbab

.

User: "Sam Rouse"

Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column 15 Apr 2006 03:14:31 AM
In article <1145081869.542909.55640@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Sorry I do not communicate in dead languages.

This arguably makes you unqualified to assert that what is in the Holy Tome is
the irrefutable Word of God.
--

.
User: "rbwinn"

Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column 15 Apr 2006 08:13:49 AM
Sam Rouse wrote:

In article <1145081869.542909.55640@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Sorry I do not communicate in dead languages.


This arguably makes you unqualified to assert that what is in the Holy Tome is
the irrefutable Word of God.
-

Well, I know how sensitive you Europeans are about Latin. I do study
Hebrew a little. Hebrew is a living language.
Robert B. Winn
.
User: "Baxter"

Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column 15 Apr 2006 09:13:59 PM
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145106829.433065.233100@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...


Sam Rouse wrote:

In article <1145081869.542909.55640@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Sorry I do not communicate in dead languages.


This arguably makes you unqualified to assert that what is in the Holy

Tome is

the irrefutable Word of God.
-

Well, I know how sensitive you Europeans are about Latin. I do study
Hebrew a little. Hebrew is a living language.

Modern Hebrew will not help you with ancient Aramaic (which is what the
early gospels were written in.)
.
User: "Bill Shatzer"

Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column 16 Apr 2006 01:09:16 AM
Baxter wrote:
-snip-

Well, I know how sensitive you Europeans are about Latin. I do study
Hebrew a little. Hebrew is a living language.

Modern Hebrew will not help you with ancient Aramaic (which is what the
early gospels were written in.)

The consensus of opinion seems to be that all four of the gospels were
originally written in Greek.
Certainly Luke was originally written in Greek and the evidence seems
quite strong that the other three were as well - though some argue for
Latin with Mark.
There's a tradition that Matthew was originally in Aramaic but the
internal evidence seems to argue more strongly for Greek.
Peace and jusitce,
.
User: "Baxter"

Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column 16 Apr 2006 02:37:22 PM
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Bill Shatzer" <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2padnXPCW_q1fdzZRVn-rQ@comcast.com...

Baxter wrote:

-snip-

Well, I know how sensitive you Europeans are about Latin. I do study
Hebrew a little. Hebrew is a living language.


Modern Hebrew will not help you with ancient Aramaic (which is what the
early gospels were written in.)


The consensus of opinion seems to be that all four of the gospels were
originally written in Greek.

Certainly Luke was originally written in Greek and the evidence seems
quite strong that the other three were as well - though some argue for
Latin with Mark.

There's a tradition that Matthew was originally in Aramaic but the
internal evidence seems to argue more strongly for Greek.

In any case, archaic versions of the language (except, perhaps for Latin.)
.


User: "rbwinn"

Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column 16 Apr 2006 07:39:02 AM
Baxter wrote:

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145106829.433065.233100@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...


Sam Rouse wrote:

In article <1145081869.542909.55640@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

Sorry I do not communicate in dead languages.


This arguably makes you unqualified to assert that what is in the Holy

Tome is

the irrefutable Word of God.
-

Well, I know how sensitive you Europeans are about Latin. I do study
Hebrew a little. Hebrew is a living language.


Modern Hebrew will not help you with ancient Aramaic (which is what the
early gospels were written in.)

Well, the inscription on the wall of Hezekiah's tunnel, interestingly
enough, was written in ancient Hebrew. Ancient Hebrew was not used
after the Babylonian captivity.
Robert B. Winn
.




User: "Don Homuth"

Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column 15 Apr 2006 11:48:45 AM
On 14 Apr 2006 23:17:49 -0700, "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:


Don Homuth wrote:

On 14 Apr 2006 11:00:08 -0700, "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:


Don Homuth wrote:


When Xtianity was trying to evolve itself out of Judaism, there were a
whole bunch of different approaches to it that had a coterie of firm
believers.

A series of committee meetings decided who was doctrinally correct,
which decisions were then administered by the temporal powers at the
time.


Well, no. There were no committe meetings in the beginning.


Yeah, there surely were. First thing Xrist did was form a committee,
in fact.

There were twelve apostles


Yep -- that's them, all right.

... who had been ordained by Jesus Christ and given
authority to build up his church.


Well, no -- not all of them. Peter was primum inter pares of the
group, according to the Holy Tome.

Sorry I do not communicate in dead languages.

Then you ought to learn. Latin represents earlier translations of the
Holy Tome than you are aware of -- thereby closer to the initial
meaning. I'd do it in Greek as well, but we don't have the
appropriate character set.

Peter was ordained by
Jesus Christ the same as the other Apostles and set apart as the
leading apostle.

Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I
will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against
it.
Thou art Peter = Tu es Petrus.
Petrus is also the Latin for Rock.
Peter has a status well above that of the other apostles.

As the church expanded there began
to be false teachings such as the teachings of the Gnostics, who were
Greeks trying to incorporate Greek religion into Christianity.


Who said so? A committee of other superstitionists, that's who. The
determination of the several church councils had no greater divine
authority than did anyone else. They did have the advantage of the
ear of Constantine, early on, and of other temporal leaders as well.

Well, technically you are correct.

Thank you, grudging as that may be.

Once the apostles were dead, there
was more false teaching than truth. The Council of Nicene had no more
authority than the Gnostics to represent Jesus Christ.

Oh, yes it did! It had Constantine to back up the committee's
decisions with Temporal Power of enforcement.
Did that matter? Of course it did! Else that committee would have
had No particular outcome at all.
The earlier committee meeting was circa 50 or so, and that one was
supposedly attended by Paul, who was Not one of the apostles, but who
really did set much of the course for later Xtian doctrine. The
Council of Jerusalem, as it has become known, was the first of the
major committee meetings to settle Xtian doctrine, and Paul averred
that he was correct in all ways because Jesus told him so -- though
Paul never met Jesus in any known record. It was all via a Personal
Revelation.
And folks chose to believe that!
Sounds just like any other cult leader of the present day, does it
not? There's no particular way to distinguish Paul from David Koresh
in that regard, save for some personal oddities wrt Sex that Paul
didn't happen to share.

And yagotta love their means of dealing with those who were not in the
majority of the committee at the time. They just killed them off
entirely, as much as possible.

Well, then later on the Bishop of Rome excommunicated the Bishop of
Constantinople, and the Bishop of Constantinople excommunicated the
Bishop of Rome. Which excommunication was the real one?

They both were!
Once the superstitions separated, each got to play the game its own
way. The adherents to each believed as fervently as the other, and
the Holy Writ emanting from each was (and still is) considered every
bit as valid as the other.
That's one of the things I have come to like about Xtian History.
Once the early church fathers got into Market Differentiation, there
was all sorts of room to play.
But the goal was always to eliminate the competition from the field,
and if conversion didn't work, excommunication would, and killing
finally settled the matter pretty much.
In an era where Trial by Combat was one of the major ways of
discerning the Will of The Lowered, it was certainly a convenient way
to handle things.
Imagine how doctrine would have been different had some of the other
sects won out as well as the two major ones did.
.
User: "rbwinn"

Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column 16 Apr 2006 08:33:40 PM
Don Homuth wrote:

On 14 Apr 2006 23:17:49 -0700, "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:


Don Homuth wrote:

On 14 Apr 2006 11:00:08 -0700, "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:


Don Homuth wrote:


When Xtianity was trying to evolve itself out of Judaism, there were a
whole bunch of different approaches to it that had a coterie of firm
believers.

A series of committee meetings decided who was doctrinally correct,
which decisions were then administered by the temporal powers at the
time.


Well, no. There were no committe meetings in the beginning.


Yeah, there surely were. First thing Xrist did was form a committee,
in fact.

There were twelve apostles


Yep -- that's them, all right.

... who had been ordained by Jesus Christ and given
authority to build up his church.


Well, no -- not all of them. Peter was primum inter pares of the
group, according to the Holy Tome.


Sorry I do not communicate in dead languages.


Then you ought to learn. Latin represents earlier translations of the
Holy Tome than you are aware of -- thereby closer to the initial
meaning. I'd do it in Greek as well, but we don't have the
appropriate character set.

Peter was ordained by
Jesus Christ the same as the other Apostles and set apart as the
leading apostle.


Matthew 16:18

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I
will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against
it.

Thou art Peter = Tu es Petrus.

Petrus is also the Latin for Rock.

Peter has a status well above that of the other apostles.

As the church expanded there began
to be false teachings such as the teachings of the Gnostics, who were
Greeks trying to incorporate Greek religion into Christianity.


Who said so? A committee of other superstitionists, that's who. The
determination of the several church councils had no greater divine
authority than did anyone else. They did have the advantage of the
ear of Constantine, early on, and of other temporal leaders as well.


Well, technically you are correct.


Thank you, grudging as that may be.

Once the apostles were dead, there
was more false teaching than truth. The Council of Nicene had no more
authority than the Gnostics to represent Jesus Christ.


Oh, yes it did! It had Constantine to back up the committee's
decisions with Temporal Power of enforcement.

Did that matter? Of course it did! Else that committee would have
had No particular outcome at all.

The earlier committee meeting was circa 50 or so, and that one was
supposedly attended by Paul, who was Not one of the apostles, but who
really did set much of the course for later Xtian doctrine. The
Council of Jerusalem, as it has become known, was the first of the
major committee meetings to settle Xtian doctrine, and Paul averred
that he was correct in all ways because Jesus told him so -- though
Paul never met Jesus in any known record. It was all via a Personal
Revelation.

And folks chose to believe that!

Sounds just like any other cult leader of the present day, does it
not? There's no particular way to distinguish Paul from David Koresh
in that regard, save for some personal oddities wrt Sex that Paul
didn't happen to share.

And yagotta love their means of dealing with those who were not in the
majority of the committee at the time. They just killed them off
entirely, as much as possible.


Well, then later on the Bishop of Rome excommunicated the Bishop of
Constantinople, and the Bishop of Constantinople excommunicated the
Bishop of Rome. Which excommunication was the real one?


They both were!

Once the superstitions separated, each got to play the game its own
way. The adherents to each believed as fervently as the other, and
the Holy Writ emanting from each was (and still is) considered every
bit as valid as the other.

That's one of the things I have come to like about Xtian History.
Once the early church fathers got into Market Differentiation, there
was all sorts of room to play.

But the goal was always to eliminate the competition from the field,
and if conversion didn't work, excommunication would, and killing
finally settled the matter pretty much.

In an era where Trial by Combat was one of the major ways of
discerning the Will of The Lowered, it was certainly a convenient way
to handle things.

Imagine how doctrine would have been different had some of the other
sects won out as well as the two major ones did.

Well, I know you would like to have authority to demote Paul from his
position as Apostle, but only the other Apostles acting as a quorum had
authority to do that. It did not happen. Paul was still an Apostle
when he was beheaded in Rome. Peter was the Presiding Apostle from
the time he was called to that position, and, consequently was the head
of the church on earth after the crucifixion.
Robert B. Winn
.


User: "DanielsNEws"

Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column 25 Apr 2006 11:25:23 PM
Why Investigate 9/11? DanielsNews.com
.

User: "dk"

Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column 14 Apr 2006 03:12:36 PM
This is a HOOT! Love it!
So anyone with a mesianic complex who happened to have been born in
Bethleham
could set up his own death having known the prophecies as any Jew of
that time would. I would like to know the 448 identifying
characteristics that didn't fit Jesus being the Messia.
The most recent discovery of the dead sea scrolls that state that Judas
was directed by Jesus on how to betray him makes it pretty clear he was
yet another crazy middle easterner planning on having 7 virgins in
heaven (sorry - couldn't help it). I do wonder if there is something
wrong with the water in that region or if it is just too much sun...

Stoner looked at these eight prophecies:

Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2).

Not something you could arrange but something that could have started
the ball rolling

A messenger was sent to prepare the way (Malachi 3:1).

Difficult to get a messenger is it?

Made a triumphant entry into Jerusalem as a king riding on a lowly donkey
(Zechariah 9:9).

How hard is it to get a donkey to ride in on given that it was this or
a camel?

Betrayed by a friend that resulted in wounds in the hands (Zechariah 13:6=

)=2E
Well the newly discovered scrolls say that Jesus told Judas, his best
male friend to betray him -

Price of betrayal was 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12).

do you think it was too hard to ask for the price to be what you knew
the prophets to have predicted?

The blood money was used to buy a potter's field (Zechariah 11:13).

do you think it was too hard to use the money as what you knew the
prophets to have predicted?

Offered no defense at his trial (Isaiah 53:7).

Wow this one would have been real hard to follow as the prophets
predicted...

His hands and feet were pierced (Psalm 22:16).

This was the common punishment for all by the Romans.

The estimate of one man fulfilling all eight of these prophecies was a
staggering 10 to the 17th power

Don't know where this guy learned statistics but he would have failed
the course in any decent college that I know of. I would like to know
the
Dominic Torrazzi wrote:

If you need any evidence that the theocrats don't understand science,
statistics, or logic - have a read.

You bet your life

Posted: April 13, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

=A9 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

When Judas Iscariot agreed to deliver Jesus to the chief priests on Maundy
Thursday some 2,000 years ago, he was betting that Jesus was not who He
claimed to be - the son of God. Judas' payoff was 30 pieces of silver.
However, that betrayal cost Judas his life. History has shown this wager =

was

against impossible odds.

Today, many are going against the odds and making that same wager.
Just what are the odds that Jesus was God's son?

Although, we will not know with absolute certainty until we die and are
confronted by our Maker, overwhelming statistical probability is consider=

ed

proof by the scientific community. For example, DNA evidence is often the
proof needed to get a crime conviction, even though the probability of a
match may be 1 in a quintillion (1 with 18 zeros after it) or one in 10 to
the 29th power if using a full profile.

Consider the proof in the Bible that Jesus was who He said He was.

The Hebrew Scriptures pointed the way to the promised Messiah and went in=

to

great detail about His birth, life and death through prophecy. These
prophecies were made many years before Jesus' birth and the Dead Sea Scro=

lls

confirm that they remained unchanged.

Oxford scholar Alfred Edersheim compiled a list of 456 identifying
characteristics of the Messiah from these prophecies that were fulfilled =

by

Jesus.

Dr. Peter Stoner, professor emeritus of science at Westmont College,
calculated the probability of one man fulfilling just the major prophecies
with the help of 12 different classes of 600 college students. Then, he t=

ook

more conservative figures to the Committee of the American Scientific
Affiliation and had them verified using the data supplied in the Bible.

Stoner looked at these eight prophecies:

Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2).
A messenger was sent to prepare the way (Malachi 3:1).
Made a triumphant entry into Jerusalem as a king riding on a lowly donkey
(Zechariah 9:9).
Betrayed by a friend that resulted in wounds in the hands (Zechariah 13:6=

)=2E

Price of betrayal was 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12).
The blood money was used to buy a potter's field (Zechariah 11:13).
Offered no defense at his trial (Isaiah 53:7).
His hands and feet were pierced (Psalm 22:16).

The estimate of one man fulfilling all eight of these prophecies was a
staggering 10 to the 17th power, a number with 17 zeroes after it.
In another calculation, he used 48 prophecies and came up with a probabil=

ity

of 10 to the 157th power, an impossible figure to achieve without Divine
intervention.

Exactly what do these numbers mean?

Stoner gave us this example. Ten to the 17th power would be the number of
silver dollars needed to cover the entire state of Texas, two feet deep.
To help us visualize 10 to the 157th power, Stoner chose one of the small=

est

known objects, the electron. An electron is so small that it would take 2=

..5

x 1,000,000,000,000,000 of them laid side by side to make a line, single
file, one inch long.

Space, according to some estimates, extends in all directions to a distan=

ce

of 6 million light-years. Dr. Stoner asked us to imagine a solid ball of
electrons the size of space. Now fit that space-size ball of electrons, i=

nto

a ball of electrons 10 to the 157th power. How big of a dent would our
space-size ball make? It would make a hole so small that it would not be
noticeable.

Remember, that number 10 to the 157th power represents the probability of
one man fulfilling just 48 of these prophesies and there were 456 that Dr.
Stoner and his mathematicians could have used.

Let us go back to the odds that one man could have fulfilled just those
first eight prophecies. Imagine that one of the silver dollars covering t=

he

state of Texas, two feet thick, was marked in red fingernail polish. You =

are

given the task of walking throughout Texas, reaching down and selecting t=

he

right one on the first try. Suppose your very life was on the line. Could
you do it?

Would you bet your life on that?

Of course you would not, but that is, in effect, what you are doing when
you, like Judas, decide to reject the tremendous amount of evidence that
Jesus Christ was the son of God and the only way to the Father.

Christ willingly laid down His life to pay the price for our sins in order
to give us the gift of eternal life. It is a free gift - yours to accept =

or

reject.

.
User: "Curt"

Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column 14 Apr 2006 09:54:15 PM
"dk" <disisdkat@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145045556.857429.196890@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This is a HOOT! Love it!

So anyone with a mesianic complex who happened to have been born in
Bethleham
could set up his own death having known the prophecies as any Jew of
that time would. I would like to know the 448 identifying
characteristics that didn't fit Jesus being the Messia.
The most recent discovery of the dead sea scrolls that state that Judas
was directed by Jesus on how to betray him makes it pretty clear he was
yet another crazy middle easterner planning on having 7 virgins in
heaven

Wouldn't 72 porn stars be better?
Curt
.
User: "Don Homuth"

Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column 15 Apr 2006 11:51:09 AM
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 19:54:15 -0700, "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:


"dk" <disisdkat@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145045556.857429.196890@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This is a HOOT! Love it!

So anyone with a mesianic complex who happened to have been born in
Bethleham
could set up his own death having known the prophecies as any Jew of
that time would. I would like to know the 448 identifying
characteristics that didn't fit Jesus being the Messia.


The most recent discovery of the dead sea scrolls that state that Judas
was directed by Jesus on how to betray him makes it pretty clear he was
yet another crazy middle easterner planning on having 7 virgins in
heaven


Wouldn't 72 porn stars be better?

Depends on your vision of Paradise, one supposes.
If you don't like the one that's offered, make up one of your own.
.
User: "john fernbach"

Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column 17 Apr 2006 07:39:43 PM
I'm a secular humanist, can't buy fundamentalist notions about Jesus at
all, but isn't this a kind of a dumb topic string?
I mean, we've discovered one fundamentalist Christian who likes
statistics, or thinks he does, and who uses them to "prove" the
importance of Jesus.
Seems weird. But who cares?
This debate, on both sides, reminds me of two stories about the Buddha.
In one, a disciple says he's going to quit studying under the Buddha.
Okay, how come? is the Buddha's query. Well, I've been meditating with
you for years, the guy says, and you still haven't told me whether
there is a God or not, or whether I have a soul or not, or whether I
live forever or just die, or whether the universe has always existed or
was created.
True, says the Buddha. Uh -- diid I ever promise to teach you that
stuff?
Well, no, the disciple admits.
"The truth is, you don't need to know any of that information," the
Budda tells him. "You're asking the wrong questions.
"You're like someone who's been shot with a poison arrow, and now you
want someone to tell you the name of the tribe of the man who shot you
before you let anyone pull the arrow out.
"You don't actually need to know whether there's a god or not, or
whether you have a soul or not, or whether you have eternal life or a
mortal existence, or whether the universe has always existed or was
created," the Budda says.
"All you need to know, for your spiritual liberation, is that birth is
painful, and infancy is painful, and childhood is painful, and
adolescence is painful, and young adulthood is painful, and middle age
and old age are painful, and death is painful.
"Your entire existence is suffused with pain. And what makes all of it
painful," the Buddha says, "is your improper attachment -- your desire.
Abandon your desire, get rid of your attachment to the temporary
things and conditions of this world, free your mind, and you will
escape from the suffering."
----------------
There's another story about the Buddha that is a little like this.
In this story, a disciple quits studying under the Buddha and goes away
from many years to study with someone else. At last, after a decade,
the Buddha and the ex-disciple meet by chance by the River Ganges.
"Have you learned anything in your studies with your other master?" the
Buddha asks.
"I'll say! Just watch this!" the ex-disciple replies. He promptly
runs down to the Ganges and walks across it on the top of the water to
the other shore, then turns around and walks back. Doesn't get wet at
all.
"Ta-da!! Did you see that?" the ex-disciple asks.
"You idiot," replies the Buddha. "I could exactly that ten years ago,
if I only had a rupee to pay the boatman."
-------------------------------------------------
I used to hang out with fundamentalist Christians, and whether I'm
right or wrong about this, I find some of their fantasies about Jesus
to be absurd. I don't believe in most of the miracles, I think. At
least not this week. But who the hell cares?
As the Communist folk singer Woody Guthrie once wrote, to the tune of
"Jesse James," Jesus Christ was a man who told the rich to give their
goods to the poor -- "So they laid Jesus Christ in the grave."
As St. Paul, for all his neurosis and his sexism, pointed out, Jesus
taught his disciples that "God is love," and that it's important to
extend God's love even to one's enemies.
As the Catholic Church, an institution I mostly despise, often points
out, Jesus in his parables about heaven predicts a day of judgment in
which the good people will be told, "I was hungry and you fed me, I was
naked and you clothed me, and I was sick and imprisoned and you visited
me -- for as you did it to the least of these my brothers and sisters,
you did it to me."
In short, a lot of what Jesus supposedly said can be interpreted as
calling Christians to participate in a "Kingdom of Heaven" that begins
NOW, through the disciple's embrace of God's love and through the
recognition that in sharing that love with other people, you in a sense
are doing it for and to God.
Isn't that infinitely more interesting and important than the
statistical odds of Jesus supposedly being the Messiah, or the
probabilities of whether the guy actually turned water into wine or
not?
Of course you can loudly disagree with the idea that the universe is,
or should be, ultimately moved by God's love, and you can reject the
idea that you should vote for government programs to help the poor
because "the least of these my brethren" is morally or spiritually
equivalent to Jesus.
You can argue, as the late Ayn Rand did, for the supposed "virtue of
selfishness," or even join Nietzsche in advocating the bloody sacrifice
of the weak to the strong. So the Christian message of love,
forgiveness and sharing isn't noncontroversial -- not by a long shot.
But that's a great deal of the "spiritual" message of the New
Testament, once you've lost interest in what Hegel once called the
"picture thinking," the miracles and whatnot.
So why are conservative Christians "straining out the gnat and
swallowing the camel," as the saying goes, and arguing with people
about the fire and brimstone stuff?
Why in the world is anyone arguing for a statistical approach to
holiness, instead of a heartfelt one, one that shows the non-believers
the joy of a life dedicated to love & peace?
Again, I'm an agnostic, so I just offer this as a thought.
.
User: "Don Homuth"

Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column 17 Apr 2006 07:49:51 PM
On 17 Apr 2006 17:39:43 -0700, "john fernbach"
<fernbach1948@yahoo.com> wrote:

I'm a secular humanist, can't buy fundamentalist notions about Jesus at
all, but isn't this a kind of a dumb topic string?

Everything on the amUsenet is a dumb topic string.
This is about entertainment, nothing more. If folks find it
entertaining to attempt an admixture of religion and politics, what
else is new?
But there is an underlying current of the discussion about the proper
relationship between gubmint and religion.
It ought to be one of practiced indifference.
Of late, some folks want to change that, by making public policy to do
it.
That's relevant and Not Dumb.
.





User: "Crash"

Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column 22 Apr 2006 03:59:21 AM
Whoaaa....
If we darwin tested people before allowing them any darwin based
medical treatment then there would be alot fewer of these insane morons
in the world...
.
User: ""

Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column 19 May 2006 08:01:49 AM
what does "loosen my load" mean anyway? Who are the seven women?Is that
a riddle or what?
.



  Page 36 of 36

1

 

2

 

3

 

4

 

5

 

6

 

7

 

8

 

9

 

10

 

11

 

12

 

13

 

14

 

15

 

16

 

17

 

18

 

19

 

20

 

21

 

22

 

23

 

24

 

25

 

26

 

27

 

28

 

29

 

30

 

31

 

32

 

33

 

34

 

35

 

36

 


Related Articles
Doing your assignments !** INSTEAD OF YOU **!
Well, this is the America you wanted.
You're Invited! Online Chat About Montessori Education and Resources
staying in power when you're not wanted
You might be a Concentration Camp guard next year, if you were born between 1980 and 1987
Firms Lays of 600 in Texas and Missouri. Thank You Bush!
Buckeye, I'd like you to meet Mr. Madison
Bush: 'You can't separate your faith from your life'
The United Nations will not defend you
Re: See or Read these before you VOTE
Re: What will all you junior atheists......................
If You Want Peace, Then Do Understand And Face Evil - A Short Course In Human Rights Philosophy {HRI 20041225-V1.01}
NEW! Doing assignments INSTEAD OF YOU
Philip Mathews - You Too Can Participate
:: :: :: :: *post 1009* - DO YOU WANT TO KNOW FOR SURE YOU ARE GOING TO HEAVEN? :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::