Medical Forum / General / Cardiology / May 2008
Celestial chickens and re: Pearse, a true xian troll
|
|
Thread rating:  |
J A - 29 Apr 2008 23:08 GMT "Roger Pearse" <roger.pearse@googlemail.com> wrote in message news:11e16382-58fd-44de-8687-08c65df04ad6@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
<snip Pearse lying, obfuscation and running> ;-))
Here's where we started, and what this Pearse dwarf is trying to change the subject from.
His last drivel was pretending that the subject was "atheism", which he's trying to pretend is itself a "religious" belief.
J666
>> How many of the Celestial Chicken's chickens have given their life so man >> can live. How many chickens have died on a barbecue spit so that we can >> live. > > You mock because you don't understand the verses in the Bible that say, > "He did for our sin", etc. You fail to understand the meaning of the > suffering and death of Christ. Yet it is so obvious that it is an outrage > that it has not been taught in the past. Me: He's playing on the fact that for thousands of years before (and after) the jesus myth, people sacrificed animals to the "gods", then ate the remains in feasts.
Jesus "sacrificed",,,, shamen priests giving people waffers and grape juice,,,, you should be able to get the idea.
The jesus myth that we were all raised with, is just a compilation of earlier myths that people are no longer aware of, and they think is describing some unique actual event (it's not).
From Encyclopædia Britannica:
The reason why Christmas came to be celebrated on December 25 remains uncertain, but most probably the reason is that early Christians wished the date to coincide with the pagan Roman festival marking the "birthday of the unconquered sun" (natalis solis invicti); this festival celebrated the winter solstice, when the days again begin to lengthen and the sun begins to climb higher in the sky.
The traditional customs connected with Christmas have accordingly developed from several sources as a result of the coincidence of the celebration of the birth of Christ with the pagan agricultural and solar observances at midwinter.
In the Roman world the Saturnalia (December 17) was a time of merrymaking and exchange of gifts. December 25 was also regarded as the birth date of the Iranian mystery god Mithra, the Sun of Righteousness.
On the Roman New Year (January 1), houses were decorated with greenery and lights, and gifts were given to children and the poor. To these observances were added the German and Celtic Yule rites when the Teutonic tribes penetrated into Gaul, Britain, and central Europe. Food and good fellowship, the Yule log and Yule cakes, greenery and fir trees, and gifts and greetings all commemorated different aspects of this festive season. Fires and lights, symbols of warmth and lasting life, have always been associated with the winter festival, both pagan and Christian. Since the European Middle Ages, evergreens, as symbols of survival, have been associated with Christmas. Christmas is traditionally regarded as the festival of the family and of children, under the name of whose patron, Saint Nicholas <eb://gateway/g?gtype=article_view&doc_name=core/05/71/23_1.html> (q.v.), or Santa Claus, presents are exchanged in many countries. ===
For those wanting a full academic treatment on how christianity took over existing pagan myths and celebrations see:
Paganism and Christianity 100-425 C.E. by Ramsay MacMullen , Yale University Press
some reviews from http://www.speroforum.com/book/item.asp?ItemId=0300080778&SI=Books
Summary: The History Christianity Never Told This is a very important book, one that every student of religious history should read. Ramsay MacMullen has undertaken the task of speaking on behalf of a people who were not allowed to speak for themselves: the pagans of the Roman Empire. He points out that the focus of history has been on Christianity; after all, Christians wrote the histories of that era. But he notes as well that the estimates on Christian numbers by Tertullian and Eusebius are "manifestly absurd", an expression "of the authors' zeal and their sense of the distance traveled by their church since the first century." What this amounts to, in MacMullen's view, is that "the Christians, not only in their triumphant exaggerations but in their sheer bulk, today, seriously misrepresent the true proportions of religious history."
Orthodox Christianity was not interested in voices raised in protest. What were seen as heretical writings were burned, as were non-Christian texts and "copyists were discouraged from replacing them by the threat of having their hands cut off." And Christianity's own historians were not interested in giving a balanced accounting of events. MacMullen comments that Eusebius "disclaimed the telling of the whole truth. Rather, he proposed to limit his account to 'what may be of profit.'"
This book attempts to set the record straight. MacMullen notes that previously scholars had thought that paganism had been defeated by the end of the fourth century and all converted to the new faith. This is not true, he tells us. "Stain Augustine did not live in a Christian world" he says and in the book's five chapters proceeds to demonstrate the truth of this assertion.
We see that paganism of the late Roman Empire was alive and well. "It used to be thought that, at the end, the eradication of paganism really required no effort" and that paganism had become a hollow husk. "But historians seem now to have abandoned this interpretation...The real vitality of paganism is instead recognized; and to explain its eventual fate what must also be recognized is an opposing force, an urgent one, determined on its extinction." And we see the extreme measures to which Christianity was willing to resort to stamp out all opposition: fines, confiscation, exile, improsionment, flogging, torture, beheading, and crucifixtion. "What more could be imagined? Nothing. The extremes of conceivable pressure were brought to bear." Nor was this violence restricted to pagans. Speaking of the fourth century, MacMullen says "more Christians died for their faith at the hands of fellow Christians than had died before in all the persecutions."
Like Pagans and Christians before it, Christianity & Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries must be read for the truth of the past to be understood. The facts have for long been misrepresented and misunderstood, and MacMullen brushes these obstructions away with a masterful hand to reveal the vibrancy of a pagan world scholarship has long consigned to oblivion. I cannot recommend it highly enough.
Summary: Paganism: Tolerance and Tradition As far as I know Ramsay MacMullen could not in any way be accurately described as a Pagan. In fact, he does say some things that indicate that he almost certainly is not one. Nevertheless, this is one history book that every well-educated Pagan should read. It's not a pretty story - in fact its an excrutiatingly painful story.
MacMullen deals with most of the important myths about the rise of Christianity and the downfall of Paganism: (1) that Pagans voluntarily chose to convert to Christianity without coercion (2) that women, slaves and the rural populations were less loyal to Paganism than the urban male elites (3) that Paganism "went quietly" (4) that Paganism simply disappeared without a trace
All of these myths are laid to rest by MacMullen. May they rest in peace.
Despite (apparently) not being a Pagan himself, MacMullen nevertheless displays an uncanny sympathy for and understanding of Classical Paganism. In particular he adeptly captures the spirit of Paganism with the two words "tradition" and "tolerance". Paganism was a Religion and a world-view in which tradition was honored and revered - it was a way for human beings to feel a strong connection to the past and to each other. And it was also a Religion in which tolerance was taken for granted. This is the real take-home lesson of this book.
MacMullen calmly tells the tale of how Christianity grappled with a simple fact: nobody knew exactly how to go about imposing one religion on everyone. It had never been done before and the very idea was not so much objectionable as it was simply incomprehensible. MacMullen tells the horrifying story of how the Christians slowly perfected the repressive machinery necessary to enforce spiritual and psychological conformity. At first edicts against Paganism could be safely ignored - but as the decades and centuries went on, through a combination of savage mob-violence and state terrorism, Paganism was driven underground.
MacMullen makes it clear that Paganism fought to survive. Without probably intending to, he leaves the door wide open for future investigations of the ways in which Paganism continued to survive as a clandestine Religion.
Summary: Awsome Book, Crappy Footnotes Well, a lot has been said about this book. Let me just say this: this book is most likely the best out there on the subject. MacMullen's arguments and knowledge of his sources is unquestionable.
This book serves to document the first of many crimes committed by the Christian religion: the bloody persecution of paganism. Temples were destroyed, books burned, and yes, people killed. People would not have to wait for the crusades and the Inquisitions to get a religiously-inspired blood bath. And the terrible thing is, though most at least know of the Inquisitions, the crusades, the Witch trials, etc. nobody remembers the persecution of the pagans, so they basically got away with it. This book serves, in particular, to outline the despicable deeds of Justinian; I cannot wait to get the Secret History. Theodosius, Justinian, et al go down in history with Hitler, Stalin, Moa Zedong, and Pol Pot as the greatest mass murderers in history. Cannot recommend enough. Except for the footnotes; prepare for days of fun as you cite them in discussions and then have trouble actually finding out what in the heck MacMullen is referring to. I don't get it, the notes in Christianizing the Roman Empire were certainly not perfect, but they at least did not require a companion volume to read. Oh, and I liked his writing, if that counts for anything.
Summary: TGIF? McMullen has an interesting style that some may find irritating but I rather enjoyed. At times he uses orotund and convoluted sentences reminiscent of Gibbon or Samuel Johnson. At other times he lapses into the first person and uses contractions and old-fashioned slang such as "argy-bargy." It is rather like listening to conversation over the port in the Senior Common room of some ancient college. I was irritated by the references. These occupy a large part of the book and are grouped as end-notes (Gibbon had footnotes). They often give only a single name of author without date or place of publication. If you track down the author in the bibliography (which is separate) you often still don't get anywhere, even if you remember where in the text you started off. Sometimes the references contain references. The question of which festivals and folk customs represent survivals of pre-Christian religions is more complex than he acknowledges. It's better dealt with by Ronald Hutton in "Pagan religions of the Ancient British Isles." I've always been intrigued by the names of the days of the week in Indo-European languages. In French you have Vendredi for Friday. In Welsh we have Dydd Gwener. Who was Gwener?
Summary: Excellent! This is a fantastic research book, & for those of you interested in the history of Christianity & Paganism, this is a good & easy read. I'll leave the details for you to read in the book, but this book should prove enlightening.
Roger Pearse - 30 Apr 2008 09:37 GMT > <snip Pearse lying, obfuscation and running> ;-)) > > Here's where we started... (troll, evasions snipped)
There is, no doubt, some reason why this appears in sci.med.cardiology, but it is not apparent to me. Take your silliness somewhere else.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 30 Apr 2008 10:15 GMT > satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) despairingly posted: > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > sci.med.cardiology, but it is not apparent to me. Take your silliness > somewhere else. It has no free will to do anything but evil...
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Despairingsatan
<><
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/ProofsByGOD
J A - 01 May 2008 00:05 GMT >> satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) despairingly posted: >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It has no free will to do anything but evil... Well... I think Andrew is miffed becasue he saw the "There will be blood" movie dvd, which has his character well depicted...
As for free will, I use my free will to read your posts, but then usually react either with disgust or laughter as an automatic reaction.
I don't think that's "evil".
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Despairingsatan > > <>< > > http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/ProofsByGOD monkfish - 30 Apr 2008 14:46 GMT >> <snip Pearse lying, obfuscation and running> ;-)) >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Roger Pearse He is an evangelistic atheist. The best way to handle people like him is to set the followup-to header to alt.atheism or something other than your own newsgroup.
 Signature monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy.
J A - 01 May 2008 00:05 GMT >>> <snip Pearse lying, obfuscation and running> ;-)) >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > He is an evangelistic atheist. All I posted were some historical information from credible sources on how christian holidays and myths came into being, from pagan sources.
Atheism is not a religion, dummy, it means a disbelief in supernatural beings.
You're a disbeliever, too.
There are thousands of gods that have been worshipped by homo sapiens in the past and present. Start here: <http://www.lowchensaustralia.com/names/gods.htm> Can you tell me which ones you believe in and which you don't, and show the EVIDENCE for the existence of the ones you believe in?
Or, if you're stupid enough to think all god claims need to be disproved by non-believers instead of PROVED by the believer - then also give evidence for the non-existence of all the gods you don't believe in.
Roger Pearse - 01 May 2008 07:13 GMT > >Roger Pearsewrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > All I posted were some historical information from credible sources on how > christian holidays and myths came into being, from pagan sources. Allow me to correct your memory. You posted some hearsay copied off the dumber part of the web, and then went all atheist when challenged. Smile.
> Atheism is not a religion, dummy, it means a disbelief in supernatural > beings. The inability and refusal of atheists to discuss their own religious position is a source of constant amusement to those of us who think for ourselves.
> You're a disbeliever, too. > There are thousands of gods that have been worshipped by homo sapiens > in the past and present. > Start here: <http://www.lowchensaustralia.com/names/gods.htm> > Can you tell me which ones you believe in and which you don't, and > show the EVIDENCE for the existence of the ones you believe in? Sloganising is SO characteristic of atheists. This one is a trick, of course; its excludes your own religious beliefs from the list and then tries to insinuate that all the beliefs on the list must be wrong because there are so many.
Perhaps you would like to explain just why your religious position is right and all the other ones wrong.
Start here: <http://www.lowchensaustralia.com/names/gods.htm>, and detail what you know about each one listed.
> Or, if you're stupid enough to think all god claims need to be > disproved by non-believers instead of PROVED by the believer - then > also give evidence for the non-existence of all the gods you don't > believe in. Funny how every atheist post consists of demanding that other people prove things, while the atheist doesn't have to prove anything! Of course the demand is sincere, but that's because atheists are sincerely pretty unthinking. Any fool can tell that every religious position has to be evaluated for itself, not for what it does not believe in but for what it does.
The manner in which atheists act suggests that their main principle is "convenience".
The way in which atheists respond to such comments is usually to issue an unsubstantiated denial, change the subject or hurl abuse. Prove me wrong if you can.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
J A - 01 May 2008 23:09 GMT On 1 May, 00:59, "J A" <a...@re.com> wrote:
> "monkfish" <monkfish@nowhere> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > All I posted were some historical information from credible sources on how > christian holidays and myths came into being, from pagan sources. Allow me to correct your memory. You posted some hearsay copied off the dumber part of the web, and then went all atheist when challenged. Smile. <
The sources you claim are "hearsay copied off the dumber part of the web" are from the Encyclopedia Britannica and a well regarded professor's history book published by Yale University Press (with some reviews from people who have read it) .
The fact that you have to lie so blatantly, shows how bankrupt and weak you are, and just how false christianity is. <smile>
Here's what I posted that put him into a panic and got him shrieking..
..... thousands of years before (and after) the jesus myth, people sacrificed animals to the "gods", then ate the remains in feasts.
Jesus "sacrificed",,,, shamen priests giving people waffers and grape juice,,,, you should be able to get the idea.
The jesus myth that we were all raised with, is just a compilation of earlier myths that people are no longer aware of, and they think is describing some unique actual event (it's not).
From Encyclopædia Britannica:
The reason why Christmas came to be celebrated on December 25 remains uncertain, but most probably the reason is that early Christians wished the date to coincide with the pagan Roman festival marking the "birthday of the unconquered sun" (natalis solis invicti); this festival celebrated the winter solstice, when the days again begin to lengthen and the sun begins to climb higher in the sky.
The traditional customs connected with Christmas have accordingly developed from several sources as a result of the coincidence of the celebration of the birth of Christ with the pagan agricultural and solar observances at midwinter.
In the Roman world the Saturnalia (December 17) was a time of merrymaking and exchange of gifts. December 25 was also regarded as the birth date of the Iranian mystery god Mithra, the Sun of Righteousness.
On the Roman New Year (January 1), houses were decorated with greenery and lights, and gifts were given to children and the poor. To these observances were added the German and Celtic Yule rites when the Teutonic tribes penetrated into Gaul, Britain, and central Europe. Food and good fellowship, the Yule log and Yule cakes, greenery and fir trees, and gifts and greetings all commemorated different aspects of this festive season. Fires and lights, symbols of warmth and lasting life, have always been associated with the winter festival, both pagan and Christian. Since the European Middle Ages, evergreens, as symbols of survival, have been associated with Christmas. Christmas is traditionally regarded as the festival of the family and of children, under the name of whose patron, Saint Nicholas <eb://gateway/g?gtype=article_view&doc_name=core/05/71/23_1.html> (q.v.), or Santa Claus, presents are exchanged in many countries. ===
For those wanting a full academic treatment on how christianity took over existing pagan myths and celebrations see:
Paganism and Christianity 100-425 C.E. by Ramsay MacMullen , Yale University Press
some reviews from http://www.speroforum.com/book/item.asp?ItemId=0300080778&SI=Books
Summary: The History Christianity Never Told This is a very important book, one that every student of religious history should read. Ramsay MacMullen has undertaken the task of speaking on behalf of a people who were not allowed to speak for themselves: the pagans of the Roman Empire. He points out that the focus of history has been on Christianity; after all, Christians wrote the histories of that era. But he notes as well that the estimates on Christian numbers by Tertullian and Eusebius are "manifestly absurd", an expression "of the authors' zeal and their sense of the distance traveled by their church since the first century." What this amounts to, in MacMullen's view, is that "the Christians, not only in their triumphant exaggerations but in their sheer bulk, today, seriously misrepresent the true proportions of religious history."
Orthodox Christianity was not interested in voices raised in protest. What were seen as heretical writings were burned, as were non-Christian texts and "copyists were discouraged from replacing them by the threat of having their hands cut off." And Christianity's own historians were not interested in giving a balanced accounting of events. MacMullen comments that Eusebius "disclaimed the telling of the whole truth. Rather, he proposed to limit his account to 'what may be of profit.'"
This book attempts to set the record straight. MacMullen notes that previously scholars had thought that paganism had been defeated by the end of the fourth century and all converted to the new faith. This is not true, he tells us. "Stain Augustine did not live in a Christian world" he says and in the book's five chapters proceeds to demonstrate the truth of this assertion.
We see that paganism of the late Roman Empire was alive and well. "It used to be thought that, at the end, the eradication of paganism really required no effort" and that paganism had become a hollow husk. "But historians seem now to have abandoned this interpretation...The real vitality of paganism is instead recognized; and to explain its eventual fate what must also be recognized is an opposing force, an urgent one, determined on its extinction." And we see the extreme measures to which Christianity was willing to resort to stamp out all opposition: fines, confiscation, exile, improsionment, flogging, torture, beheading, and crucifixtion. "What more could be imagined? Nothing. The extremes of conceivable pressure were brought to bear." Nor was this violence restricted to pagans. Speaking of the fourth century, MacMullen says "more Christians died for their faith at the hands of fellow Christians than had died before in all the persecutions."
Like Pagans and Christians before it, Christianity & Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries must be read for the truth of the past to be understood. The facts have for long been misrepresented and misunderstood, and MacMullen brushes these obstructions away with a masterful hand to reveal the vibrancy of a pagan world scholarship has long consigned to oblivion. I cannot recommend it highly enough.
Summary: Paganism: Tolerance and Tradition As far as I know Ramsay MacMullen could not in any way be accurately described as a Pagan. In fact, he does say some things that indicate that he almost certainly is not one. Nevertheless, this is one history book that every well-educated Pagan should read. It's not a pretty story - in fact its an excrutiatingly painful story.
MacMullen deals with most of the important myths about the rise of Christianity and the downfall of Paganism: (1) that Pagans voluntarily chose to convert to Christianity without coercion (2) that women, slaves and the rural populations were less loyal to Paganism than the urban male elites (3) that Paganism "went quietly" (4) that Paganism simply disappeared without a trace
All of these myths are laid to rest by MacMullen. May they rest in peace.
Despite (apparently) not being a Pagan himself, MacMullen nevertheless displays an uncanny sympathy for and understanding of Classical Paganism. In particular he adeptly captures the spirit of Paganism with the two words "tradition" and "tolerance". Paganism was a Religion and a world-view in which tradition was honored and revered - it was a way for human beings to feel a strong connection to the past and to each other. And it was also a Religion in which tolerance was taken for granted. This is the real take-home lesson of this book.
MacMullen calmly tells the tale of how Christianity grappled with a simple fact: nobody knew exactly how to go about imposing one religion on everyone. It had never been done before and the very idea was not so much objectionable as it was simply incomprehensible. MacMullen tells the horrifying story of how the Christians slowly perfected the repressive machinery necessary to enforce spiritual and psychological conformity. At first edicts against Paganism could be safely ignored - but as the decades and centuries went on, through a combination of savage mob-violence and state terrorism, Paganism was driven underground.
MacMullen makes it clear that Paganism fought to survive. Without probably intending to, he leaves the door wide open for future investigations of the ways in which Paganism continued to survive as a clandestine Religion.
Summary: Awsome Book, Crappy Footnotes Well, a lot has been said about this book. Let me just say this: this book is most likely the best out there on the subject. MacMullen's arguments and knowledge of his sources is unquestionable.
This book serves to document the first of many crimes committed by the Christian religion: the bloody persecution of paganism. Temples were destroyed, books burned, and yes, people killed. People would not have to wait for the crusades and the Inquisitions to get a religiously-inspired blood bath. And the terrible thing is, though most at least know of the Inquisitions, the crusades, the Witch trials, etc. nobody remembers the persecution of the pagans, so they basically got away with it. This book serves, in particular, to outline the despicable deeds of Justinian; I cannot wait to get the Secret History. Theodosius, Justinian, et al go down in history with Hitler, Stalin, Moa Zedong, and Pol Pot as the greatest mass murderers in history. Cannot recommend enough. Except for the footnotes; prepare for days of fun as you cite them in discussions and then have trouble actually finding out what in the heck MacMullen is referring to. I don't get it, the notes in Christianizing the Roman Empire were certainly not perfect, but they at least did not require a companion volume to read. Oh, and I liked his writing, if that counts for anything.
Summary: TGIF? McMullen has an interesting style that some may find irritating but I rather enjoyed. At times he uses orotund and convoluted sentences reminiscent of Gibbon or Samuel Johnson. At other times he lapses into the first person and uses contractions and old-fashioned slang such as "argy-bargy." It is rather like listening to conversation over the port in the Senior Common room of some ancient college. I was irritated by the references. These occupy a large part of the book and are grouped as end-notes (Gibbon had footnotes). They often give only a single name of author without date or place of publication. If you track down the author in the bibliography (which is separate) you often still don't get anywhere, even if you remember where in the text you started off. Sometimes the references contain references. The question of which festivals and folk customs represent survivals of pre-Christian religions is more complex than he acknowledges. It's better dealt with by Ronald Hutton in "Pagan religions of the Ancient British Isles." I've always been intrigued by the names of the days of the week in Indo-European languages. In French you have Vendredi for Friday. In Welsh we have Dydd Gwener. Who was Gwener?
Summary: Excellent! This is a fantastic research book, & for those of you interested in the history of Christianity & Paganism, this is a good & easy read. I'll leave the details for you to read in the book, but this book should prove enlightening.
>> Atheism is not a religion, dummy, it means a disbelief in supernatural >> beings.
>The inability and refusal of atheists to discuss their own religious position is a source of constant amusement to those of us who think
>for ourselves. He won't even attempt to defend his cult.
Instead, he just pretends that not believing in supernatural myths is itself a religion.
A transparent, poor show. Still, it's revealing since it shows he won't even attempt to defend his "beliefs". <smile>
<snip further troll rubbish>
monkfish - 01 May 2008 23:26 GMT > "Roger Pearse" <roger.pearse@googlemail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > published by Yale University Press (with some reviews from people who have > read it) . Have you found the myth that tells us to love our enemies yet?
 Signature monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy. -- The best way to handle spams is to ignore them. But if you must reply to them, you should at least set the followup-to header to something other than your own newsgroup.
Roger Pearse - 02 May 2008 14:58 GMT > Allow me to correct your memory. You posted some hearsay copied off > the dumber part of the web, and then went all atheist when [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > history book published by Yale University Press (with some reviews from > people who have read it) . Funny how the assertions get vaguer as you go on. <smile>
> Here's what I posted that put him into a panic and got him shrieking.. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Jesus "sacrificed",,,, shamen priests giving people waffers and grape > juice,,,, you should be able to get the idea. Oh dear. What twaddle.
> The jesus myth that we were all raised with, is just a compilation of > earlier myths that people are no longer aware of, and they think is > describing some unique actual event (it's not). No evidence? I thought not.
> From Encyclopædia Britannica: > > The reason why Christmas came to be celebrated on December 25 .... Is irrelevant. See my comments on it earlier.
> For those wanting a full academic treatment on how christianity took over > existing pagan myths and celebrations see: > > Paganism and Christianity 100-425 C.E. by Ramsay MacMullen , Yale University > Press Argument by book noted. Since the evidence is otherwise, we need hardly pay any attention.
> some reviews fromhttp://www.speroforum.com/book/item.asp?ItemId=0300080778&SI=Books (snip)
Quite why we should listen to these amateur opinions, or ignorant repetitions of unevidenced assertion, of course, you don't make clear.
As I said: no evidence=no evidence. You have none.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
J A - 02 May 2008 23:20 GMT "Roger Pearse" <roger.pearse@googlemail.com> wrote in message news:2adf4019-5363-4582-bbab-
He replies using the "technique" of blatant lying.
Chung and Pearse are examples of your brain (and character) on jesus.
For something more entertaining, here's a few examples of biblical wisdom:
In Deuteronomy Moses gives orders parents to have their children stoned to death for indiscipline.
He also states that "he that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord".
In the book of Numbers, Moses addresses his general's and berates them for sparing civilians: " kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that has known a man by lying with him. But all the women children that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves". There is some debate among Israeli rabbis, as to whether this biblical quotation is a coded commandment to mass murder the Palestinians.
monkfish - 03 May 2008 00:29 GMT > "Roger Pearse" <roger.pearse@googlemail.com> wrote in message > news:2adf4019-5363-4582-bbab- [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > There is some debate among Israeli rabbis, as to whether this biblical > quotation is a coded commandment to mass murder the Palestinians. Moses might have misheard God. Why don't you ask Jesus Christ in you?
Oh, wait! How do you even know genocide is bad? That must be Jesus in you talking.
 Signature monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy. -- The best way to handle spams is to ignore them. But if you must reply to them, you should at least set the followup-to header to something other than your own newsgroup.
JessHC - 02 May 2008 15:46 GMT > The way in which atheists respond to such comments is usually to issue > an unsubstantiated denial, change the subject or hurl abuse. Emulating you, Roger.
Mike Mordant - 02 May 2008 16:38 GMT > > The way in which atheists respond to such comments is usually to issue > > an unsubstantiated denial, change the subject or hurl abuse. > > Emulating you, Roger. Then Andrew B Chung must be the chief atheist.
J A - 02 May 2008 23:20 GMT >> The way in which atheists respond to such comments is usually to issue >> an unsubstantiated denial, change the subject or hurl abuse. > > Emulating you, Roger. Yes, except he adds blatant lies.
He says references to the Encyclopeida britannica and academic historical books published by Yale University Press, come from unreliable parts of the internet. ;-))
J666 - 30 Apr 2008 14:54 GMT >> <snip Pearse lying, obfuscation and running> ;-)) >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Roger Pearse Compared to the absurdities of the Three Assinities, this makes far more sense.
Laus Pollo
J A - 01 May 2008 00:05 GMT On 30 Apr, 00:03, "J A" <a...@re.com> wrote:
> <snip Pearse lying, obfuscation and running> ;-)) > > Here's where we started... (troll, evasions snipped)
There is, no doubt, some reason why this appears in sci.med.cardiology, but it is not apparent to me. Take your silliness somewhere else. <
LOL. More Pearse evasion.
As you well know, it's a reply to some drivel you yourself posted in a thread that included sci.med.cardiology - the thread was started by the noted cardiologist and web entrepreneur, Andrew chung MD, Phd.
<chuckle chuckle>
J666 - 01 May 2008 00:12 GMT > cardiologist and web entrepreneur, Andrew chung MD, Phd. > > <chuckle chuckle> chungle chungle
|
|
|