Bible vs. Science

It's his worse suit -- hiding a source is highly suspicious, often from a site that has been thoroughly discredited for being bogus. I wouldn't bother to sue anyone but if the author of the site were to trace a copyrighted quotation or article posted without credit, they can sue for plagerism. It can also be reported to other authorities. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

RexRed wrote:
Lightwizard wrote:
Oh, gosh, don't do anybody any favors. It's all over this forum in the recommendations to post. It's actually considered plagerism to cut-and-paste material you did not write.

You know my writing style I am not trying to pull something off as my own. I am not insecure as to being able to be original on my own.

I do not always give my sources I have my reasons.

Again, I might give this source if you ask nicely.

I will give you a hint.

Those words were "first published as a pamphlet in 1853".

That should get you there if you google that.

I will continue to quote things that I don't write sometimes...

I will try to make note of it somehow. But when I make note then you inquire. These sources are my secrets. I give them out when I want to not when people demand I do so..

If you don't like it, sue me.

I will not put my teachers up to your scrutiny.

It is the ideas not the character of the messenger we are considering.

Mr Red, credibility is not your strong suit.

When It comes to my sources I have been personally given the right to teach on their behalf.

Except in this case where I have begrudgingly given you a way to find the source.

I don't plagiarize anything really, I just don't give my sources other than the Bible which anyone could figure out themselves if they only studied it.

The core of my teachers are only teaching what the Bible says, so then who is plagiarizing whom?

If I said Pat Robertson said or Jerry Falwell said such and such I would spend an hour debating their character rather than what they said.

But I was not commissioned as a missionary by either of these men so I cannot really speak on their behalf.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

It's his worse suit -- hiding a source is highly suspicious, often from a site that has been thoroughly discredited for being bogus. I wouldn't bother to sue anyone but if the author of the site were to trace a copyrighted quotation or article posted without credit, they can sue for plagerism. It can also be reported to other authorities. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

There you go discrediting my source before I even give it.

Now you know why I keep them to myself.

0 Replies

With a proponent such as Rex, the proposition Rex forwards is presented with greater inconvenience than any which could be provided by external enemies.

If there was such a thing as an "MVP for the Opposing Team" award, Rex and RL would be just about locked in a tie for the prize.

0 Replies

Ok here is the link

http://philologos.org/__eb-ttb/

This is a great but controversial book.

Again it is so valuable (though controversial) that it is free on the internet.

It is written in the critical form so it is full of information.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Ok here is the link

http://philologos.org/__eb-ttb/

This is a great but controversial book.

Again it is so valuable (though controversial) that it is free on the internet.

It is written in the critical form so it is full of information.

You gotta be kiddin' me!

0 Replies

Oh, he's not kidding, Frank - laughingstocks flock together.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Oh, he's not kidding, Frank - laughingstocks flock together.

Well...to be fair to him...

..I now understand why he was reluctant to offer the source.

0 Replies

What's next--Jack Chick tracts?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
Oh, he's not kidding, Frank - laughingstocks flock together.

Well...to be fair to him...

..I now understand why he was reluctant to offer the source.

If you haven't read the book cover to cover then you can't judge it.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
Oh, he's not kidding, Frank - laughingstocks flock together.

Well...to be fair to him...

..I now understand why he was reluctant to offer the source.

If you haven't read the book cover to cover then you can't judge it.

Really!

Is that one of the laws I'd find in it???

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

RexRed wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
Oh, he's not kidding, Frank - laughingstocks flock together.

Well...to be fair to him...

..I now understand why he was reluctant to offer the source.

If you haven't read the book cover to cover then you can't judge it.

Really!

Is that one of the laws I'd find in it???

Haha, if there was a law in it you would find it...

0 Replies

You ought to read it, Frank, I did. It's a great work, highly critical of the Roman Church and it's methods and theology. Of course, it attempts to supplant one set of whacko myths and ideas with an even more bizarre set of interpretations of what is presumed to be holy words.

It's as if the cartoonists at Warner Bros attempted to redraw all the Disney characters. Mickey Mouse ends up marrying Daffy Duck in a homoerotic cross-species union and Popeye is castigated as a distant heretical figure.

Joe(Never forget the bloodless Mass)Nation

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

You ought to read it, Frank, I did. It's a great work, highly critical of the Roman Church and it's methods and theology. Of course, it attempts to supplant one set of whacko myths and ideas with an even more bizarre set of interpretations of what is presumed to be holy words.

It's as if the cartoonists at Warner Bros attempted to redraw all the Disney characters. Mickey Mouse ends up marrying Daffy Duck in a homoerotic cross-species union and Popeye is castigated as a distant heretical figure.

Joe(Never forget the bloodless Mass)Nation

After hearing your review...I'll pass.

0 Replies

It's fun. First, you have to really concentrate because the writing is about as obtuse as a brick, then you have to suppress the need to laugh out loud, after that there is the complete dulling of the mind as the author drones on and on and on, rather like me, about things not connected to any reality between here and the outer limits of the Planet Xoyonngggh.

But you do get the idea that the idea of stacked heavens is incorrect somehow, that all the heavens there are are spread out like cards on a table. Doesn't that make you feel better to know that imaginary places can be made to have a place on a plane?

Joe(mathematical plane, not JetBlue.)Nation

0 Replies

Wanna scare the crap out of yourself? Read the section of "The Red Dragon" in the voice of HAnnibal Lecter. I dont think Blake was on drugs when he did that etching version of the beasts of Revelation

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Wanna scare the crap out of yourself? Read the section of "The Red Dragon" in the voice of HAnnibal Lecter. I dont think Blake was on drugs when he did that etching version of the beasts of Revelation

Red dragon = fiery serpent

Pretty clever on Hislop's part.

I read this book in my early twenties. Though I have gone back and read it again several times.

I like to keep it in a searchable database.

I wish I had the background on mythology that some of you do.

It makes me envious that some may get more out of this book than me.

My church growing up was mostly sterilized of most pagan ritual (except for the trinity). So I can't relate to this book in an experiential way.

But what blew my mind was the tying in of all pagan religions into one system.

I suddenly saw paganism clearly for what it was meant to be.

Something to control the masses while underneath a secret corruption prevailed. This should echo my secret societies thread. This system is the birth of secret societies.

To think they have done this same conversion of the first century Christ is rather troubling.

It makes one desire to leave behind all religion and adhere only to the written revelation of the Bible to find the true simplicity of the real Jesus message.

0 Replies

Ayn Rand was into her own form of Paganism later in her career. Many thought this was a sell-out of her objectivism principals.

Atlas Shagged

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

I suddenly saw paganism clearly for what it was meant to be.

Something to control the masses while underneath a secret corruption prevailed.

Your description is more accurate of christianity than of paganism.

Quote:

The term pagan is from Latin paganus, an adjective originally meaning "rural", "rustic" or "of the country." As a noun, paganus was used to mean "country dweller, villager." In colloquial use, it would mean much the same as calling someone a 'bumpkin' or a 'hillbilly'. paganus was almost exclusively a derogatory term. (It is from this derivation of "villager" which we have the word "villain", which the expanding Christians called the Pagans of Northern Europe/Scandinavia) From its earliest beginnings, Christianity spread much more quickly in major urban areas (like Antioch, Alexandria, Corinth, Rome) than in the countryside (in fact, the early church was almost entirely urban), and soon the word for "country dweller" became synonymous with someone who was "not a Christian," giving rise to the modern meaning of "pagan."[1] In large part, this may have had to do with the conservative nature of rural people, who were more resistant to the new ideas of Christianity than those who lived in major urban centers.

Source

0 Replies

Smacks of what is going on in the current US administration as orchestrated by Karl Rove and his ilk with GWB as the marionette.

0 Replies

Bible vs. Science

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know