Ping: pearl -- OT
USual sUSpect
little friends (greens, greys, who knows) are watching us?
http://www.local6.com/news/2267894/detail.html
PS: I watched the launch of the rocket carrying the Mars Rover earlier
this week and noticed other "anomalies" flying around once it was ~30
miles up. That's when they cut the video feed of it.
pearl
> I'm sure your boy Rense will be talking about this very soon. Think your
> little friends (greens, greys, who knows) are watching us?
Who knows. ;).
> http://www.local6.com/news/2267894/detail.html
>
> PS: I watched the launch of the rocket carrying the Mars Rover earlier
> this week and noticed other "anomalies" flying around once it was ~30
> miles up. That's when they cut the video feed of it.
"anomalies"?
I've seen an MPEG taken from a satellite, a couple of years ago now.
You could see part of the antennae (think that's what it was) in the frames,
and what looked like a brightly glowing sphere pulsing by pretty fast.
Whilst we're on (not only an OT, but) an ET topic, did you see the images
of comet NEAT's very spectacular passing quite close by the sun?
USual sUSpect
<snip>
> "anomalies"?
As in some kind of debris. Maybe. Maybe not. Something was definitely
being passed by that Delta-2 rocket. Fox News Channel, owned by my
fellow evil right-winger Rupert Murdoch, abruptly cut off the feed as
soon as those anomalies appeared on the screen. Next time I'll make sure
I reprogrm my television so I can get those other news channels (though
I understand they cut off the feed even sooner than FNC).
> I've seen an MPEG taken from a satellite, a couple of years ago now.
> You could see part of the antennae (think that's what it was) in the frames,
> and what looked like a brightly glowing sphere pulsing by pretty fast.
That's interesting. Do you recall which satellite?
> Whilst we're on (not only an OT, but) an ET topic, did you see the images
> of comet NEAT's very spectacular passing quite close by the sun?
I've seen only one taken by SOHO during a CME, if that's the one you
mean. Personally, I believe it's some distortion -- saturation is
absolutely plausible, if not probable -- with the digital imaging. DI is
hardly a perfect medium. I certainly don't think that it involved any ET
or UFO. I also think the claims that it's Planet X are completely off
the wall.
Image:
http://tinyurl.com/65wj
Article about conspiracy theorists and NEAT:
http://tinyurl.com/e9uy
Tried looking for more SOHO info on Richard Hoagland's (my all-time
favorite nut) site, but gave up. Most of his SOHO (dis)information is
fairly old. You might like this if you haven't seen it before. I found
it linked from RH's site (and it's so kewl that it links right back):
http://skywatch.iwarp.com/sun/index.html
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> <snip>
> > "anomalies"?
>
> As in some kind of debris. Maybe. Maybe not. Something was definitely
> being passed by that Delta-2 rocket. Fox News Channel, owned by my
> fellow evil right-winger Rupert Murdoch, abruptly cut off the feed as
> soon as those anomalies appeared on the screen. Next time I'll make sure
> I reprogrm my television so I can get those other news channels (though
> I understand they cut off the feed even sooner than FNC).
TBH, there are so many 'sightings' of various UFOs (in every sense) that
it's almost ceased being 'anomolous'.
> > I've seen an MPEG taken from a satellite, a couple of years ago now.
> > You could see part of the antennae (think that's what it was) in the frames,
> > and what looked like a brightly glowing sphere pulsing by pretty fast.
>
> That's interesting. Do you recall which satellite?
I'll try to track it down later.
> > Whilst we're on (not only an OT, but) an ET topic, did you see the images
> > of comet NEAT's very spectacular passing quite close by the sun?
>
> I've seen only one taken by SOHO during a CME, if that's the one you
> mean. Personally, I believe it's some distortion -- saturation is
> absolutely plausible, if not probable -- with the digital imaging. DI is
> hardly a perfect medium. I certainly don't think that it involved any ET
> or UFO. I also think the claims that it's Planet X are completely off
> the wall.
I don't think it has anything to do with ETs or 'Planet X' either.
By 'ET' I meant extra-terrestrial, or off-world. Sorry for not
being clearer.
> Image:
> http://tinyurl.com/65wj
Like I said- spectacular.
> Article about conspiracy theorists and NEAT:
> http://tinyurl.com/e9uy
Some of these theories about conspiracy theories smack of conspiracy. :)
You have to admit that something like this should've made it into the press.
> Tried looking for more SOHO info on Richard Hoagland's (my all-time
> favorite nut) site, but gave up. Most of his SOHO (dis)information is
> fairly old. You might like this if you haven't seen it before. I found
> it linked from RH's site (and it's so kewl that it links right back):
> http://skywatch.iwarp.com/sun/index.html
Thanks. I'm out for a few hours, but will have a good look at this site
when I get back.
USual sUSpect
> TBH, there are so many 'sightings' of various UFOs (in every sense) that
> it's almost ceased being 'anomolous'.
I think we're stuck with such terms as a matter of convention.
>>That's interesting. Do you recall which satellite?
>
> I'll try to track it down later.
Thanks.
>>I've seen only one taken by SOHO during a CME, if that's the one you
>>mean. Personally, I believe it's some distortion -- saturation is
>>absolutely plausible, if not probable -- with the digital imaging. DI is
>>hardly a perfect medium. I certainly don't think that it involved any ET
>>or UFO. I also think the claims that it's Planet X are completely off
>>the wall.
>
> I don't think it has anything to do with ETs or 'Planet X' either.
> By 'ET' I meant extra-terrestrial, or off-world. Sorry for not
> being clearer.
No problemo. I tracked down the video from which that image was taken.
It seems pretty clear to me that it's a problem with DI -- the
horizontal line gets bigger and smaller with each frame and appears only
in C3. Maybe you'll still think something else (what do you think?).
LASCO C3 with the "anomaly":
http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/2003_02/030218_c3.mpg
Same time LASCO C2 no "anomaly":
http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/2003_02/030218_c2.mpg
>>Image:
>>http://tinyurl.com/65wj
>
> Like I said- spectacular.
Yes.
>>Article about conspiracy theorists and NEAT:
>>http://tinyurl.com/e9uy
>
> Some of these theories about conspiracy theories smack of conspiracy. :)
Maybe so, but I think too much was made by the "nuts" in this example.
Then again, they usually make too much of things anyway.
> You have to admit that something like this should've made it into the press.
I believe it did over here.
>>Tried looking for more SOHO info on Richard Hoagland's (my all-time
>>favorite nut) site, but gave up. Most of his SOHO (dis)information is
>>fairly old. You might like this if you haven't seen it before. I found
>>it linked from RH's site (and it's so kewl that it links right back):
>>http://skywatch.iwarp.com/sun/index.html
>
> Thanks. I'm out for a few hours, but will have a good look at this site
> when I get back.
Let me know what you think. I'm about to head out for a few hours
myself. Hopefully the storms won't hit again till tonight (our drought
is almost over). :-\
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> > TBH, there are so many 'sightings' of various UFOs (in every sense) that
> > it's almost ceased being 'anomolous'.
>
> I think we're stuck with such terms as a matter of convention.
Crikey! In alt.usage.english I'd be hung up and dried for that sentence.
The anomalous 'anomolous' was the burned currant on that cookie.
> >>That's interesting. Do you recall which satellite?
> >
> > I'll try to track it down later.
>
> Thanks.
Needle in a haystack, I'm afraid.
I've sent a note out to the crew, so maybe it'll turn up yet.
Meanwhile, any comment on this;
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/disc.html ?
> >>I've seen only one taken by SOHO during a CME, if that's the one you
> >>mean. Personally, I believe it's some distortion -- saturation is
> >>absolutely plausible, if not probable -- with the digital imaging. DI is
> >>hardly a perfect medium. I certainly don't think that it involved any ET
> >>or UFO. I also think the claims that it's Planet X are completely off
> >>the wall.
> >
> > I don't think it has anything to do with ETs or 'Planet X' either.
> > By 'ET' I meant extra-terrestrial, or off-world. Sorry for not
> > being clearer.
>
> No problemo. I tracked down the video from which that image was taken.
> It seems pretty clear to me that it's a problem with DI -- the
> horizontal line gets bigger and smaller with each frame and appears only
> in C3. Maybe you'll still think something else (what do you think?).
>
> LASCO C3 with the "anomaly":
> http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/2003_02/030218_c3.mpg
>
> Same time LASCO C2 no "anomaly":
> http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/2003_02/030218_c2.mpg
My media player is failing to retrieve files, but I've seen the sequence
you refer to. What do I think about it? Quite a Cosmic Event. !
> >>Image:
> >>http://tinyurl.com/65wj
> >
> > Like I said- spectacular.
>
> Yes.
:).
> >>Article about conspiracy theorists and NEAT:
> >>http://tinyurl.com/e9uy
> >
> > Some of these theories about conspiracy theories smack of conspiracy. :)
>
> Maybe so, but I think too much was made by the "nuts" in this example.
> Then again, they usually make too much of things anyway.
However, non-establishment space-capt's have nothing to lose by saying
what they (and others) really think, whereas a scientist with NASA might.
> > You have to admit that something like this should've made it into the press.
>
> I believe it did over here.
Fox?
> >>Tried looking for more SOHO info on Richard Hoagland's (my all-time
> >>favorite nut) site, but gave up. Most of his SOHO (dis)information is
> >>fairly old. You might like this if you haven't seen it before. I found
> >>it linked from RH's site (and it's so kewl that it links right back):
> >>http://skywatch.iwarp.com/sun/index.html
> >
> > Thanks. I'm out for a few hours, but will have a good look at this site
> > when I get back.
>
> Let me know what you think.
Fantastic. Yummee.
> I'm about to head out for a few hours
> myself. Hopefully the storms won't hit again till tonight (our drought
> is almost over). :-\
Every cloud has a silver lining, huh. Beautiful day here.. nice cruise.
pearl
> Meanwhile, any comment on this;
> http://www.iol.ie/~creature/disc.html ?
SOLVED: Thanks to Francois Gosselin for sending us (rense.com) this URL,
Showing the above photo to be a construction by Rene Couzinet in the1950s.
http://www.ville-larochesuryon.fr/rubrique/rd/rd4/rd42/p_rd42/p04_rd42.html
Bet that had some in a spin, including me. Lovely work, regardless.
USual sUSpect
>>I think we're stuck with such terms as a matter of convention.
>
> Crikey! In alt.usage.english I'd be hung up and dried for that sentence.
Then don't cross-post there. Most of those gits are lex-deprived
malcontents anyway.
> The anomalous 'anomolous' was the burned currant on that cookie.
I knew what you meant.
>>Thanks.
>
> Needle in a haystack, I'm afraid.
> I've sent a note out to the crew, so maybe it'll turn up yet.
It's no big deal. Some of my friends are from the quite excitable crowd
who believe in cover-ups and aliens and bigfoot. I'll run your
description by them and see if they recall anything.
> Meanwhile, any comment on this;
> http://www.iol.ie/~creature/disc.html ?
I wouldn't fly something so small and flimsy to San Antonio (70 miles
away), much less to outer space. I followed the link. *If* my government
is covering up something from Roswell, *if* the US government is hiding
aliens and/or spacecraft at Area 51 or Wright-Patterson, and *if* we
have reverse-engineering at either of those facilities, then why would
we steal the efforts of a Frenchman? Why would anyone who already has
Hummers and Jeeps reverse-engineer Renaults?
> My media player is failing to retrieve files, but I've seen the sequence
> you refer to. What do I think about it? Quite a Cosmic Event. !
Beyond the comet, do you think it's a solar event or extra-solar event?
<snip>
>>Maybe so, but I think too much was made by the "nuts" in this example.
>>Then again, they usually make too much of things anyway.
>
> However, non-establishment space-capt's have nothing to lose by saying
> what they (and others) really think, whereas a scientist with NASA might.
I think NASA scientists have a lot more leeway than most people think. I
can think of two lines they shouldn't cross: mishandling classified
material and undermining their own, and thus NASA's, credibility. The
"non-establishment" (as you call them) folks usually have no credibility
to lose.
>>>You have to admit that something like this should've made it into the press.
>>
>>I believe it did over here.
>
> Fox?
Space.com, I think I saw it on our local news had the sequence (iirc), I
recall reading about it in a couple of papers. It wasn't a lead story or
anything, but I think that has more to do with taking our space program
for granted than anything else.
<snip>
pearl
> pearl wrote:
<..>
> > Needle in a haystack, I'm afraid.
> > I've sent a note out to the crew, so maybe it'll turn up yet.
>
> It's no big deal. Some of my friends are from the quite excitable crowd
> who believe in cover-ups and aliens and bigfoot. I'll run your
> description by them and see if they recall anything.
They are? ;) Righto.
> > Meanwhile, any comment on this;
> > http://www.iol.ie/~creature/disc.html ?
>
> I wouldn't fly something so small and flimsy to San Antonio (70 miles
> away), much less to outer space.
Flimsy? You sure? I would. :)
> I followed the link. *If* my government
> is covering up something from Roswell, *if* the US government is hiding
> aliens and/or spacecraft at Area 51 or Wright-Patterson, and *if* we
> have reverse-engineering at either of those facilities, then why would
> we steal the efforts of a Frenchman? Why would anyone who already has
> Hummers and Jeeps reverse-engineer Renaults?
You reckon? This suggests otherwise;
'Depuis mars 1953, il avait mis son établissement de La Roche-sur-Yon à la
disposition de l'armée américaine dans le cadre de l'assistance aux armées alliées.'
http://www.ville-larochesuryon.fr/rubrique/rd/rd4/rd42/p_rd42/p04_rd42.html
'Le 16 décembre 1956, épuisé par les difficultés qui s'accumulent, il disparaît.'
With so many like stories, is it really any wonder 'conspiracy theories' are rife?
> > My media player is failing to retrieve files, but I've seen the sequence
> > you refer to. What do I think about it? Quite a Cosmic Event. !
>
> Beyond the comet, do you think it's a solar event or extra-solar event?
Both. A multi-dimensional event.
> <snip>
> >>Maybe so, but I think too much was made by the "nuts" in this example.
> >>Then again, they usually make too much of things anyway.
> >
> > However, non-establishment space-capt's have nothing to lose by saying
> > what they (and others) really think, whereas a scientist with NASA might.
>
> I think NASA scientists have a lot more leeway than most people think. I
> can think of two lines they shouldn't cross: mishandling classified
> material and undermining their own, and thus NASA's, credibility. The
> "non-establishment" (as you call them) folks usually have no credibility
> to lose.
Of course they do. But they aren't likely to be held to account at work for it.
> >>>You have to admit that something like this should've made it into the press.
> >>
> >>I believe it did over here.
> >
> > Fox?
>
> Space.com, I think I saw it on our local news had the sequence (iirc), I
> recall reading about it in a couple of papers. It wasn't a lead story or
> anything, but I think that has more to do with taking our space program
> for granted than anything else.
Well, there you are.
USual sUSpect
>>It's no big deal. Some of my friends are from the quite excitable crowd
>>who believe in cover-ups and aliens and bigfoot. I'll run your
>>description by them and see if they recall anything.
>
> They are? ;) Righto.
If you're asking about the excitable crowd, yes. A couple of them
(married) even sold their house and moved out of the city under the
belief that the world would cease functioning because of y2k. Now they
have ten-years' worth of canned goods, problems with well water, and
rattlesnakes shading under their porch. They're dear people, just easily
misled. Thank goodness they finally stopped listening to a certain
overnight radio show.
>>I wouldn't fly something so small and flimsy to San Antonio (70 miles
>>away), much less to outer space.
>
> Flimsy? You sure? I would. :)
Yes, I'm sure. The Frogs' greatest engineering feat was the Maginot
Line. Look at what that did for them.
>>I followed the link. *If* my government
>>is covering up something from Roswell, *if* the US government is hiding
>>aliens and/or spacecraft at Area 51 or Wright-Patterson, and *if* we
>>have reverse-engineering at either of those facilities, then why would
>>we steal the efforts of a Frenchman? Why would anyone who already has
>>Hummers and Jeeps reverse-engineer Renaults?
>
>
> You reckon? This suggests otherwise;
> 'Depuis mars 1953, il avait mis son établissement de La Roche-sur-Yon à la
> disposition de l'armée américaine dans le cadre de l'assistance aux armées alliées.'
> http://www.ville-larochesuryon.fr/rubrique/rd/rd4/rd42/p_rd42/p04_rd42.html
> 'Le 16 décembre 1956, épuisé par les difficultés qui s'accumulent, il disparaît.'
Yes, I read that. The presence of l'armée américaine is coincidental to
the craft's disappearance -- it could've simply been discarded or
scrapped in the three-year span that page mentions.
> With so many like stories, is it really any wonder 'conspiracy theories' are rife?
No, not really. I think conspiracy theories are borne of a few factors
which can't be displaced by information -- rather, conspiracy theories
THRIVE on the basis of information. Whether information is released
immediately, slowly, or withheld for whatever reason, some contrarian
cottage industry will pop up to challenge it.
>>Beyond the comet, do you think it's a solar event or extra-solar event?
>
> Both. A multi-dimensional event.
Okay.
>>I think NASA scientists have a lot more leeway than most people think. I
>>can think of two lines they shouldn't cross: mishandling classified
>>material and undermining their own, and thus NASA's, credibility. The
>>"non-establishment" (as you call them) folks usually have no credibility
>>to lose.
>
> Of course they do. But they aren't likely to be held to account at work for it.
I think such accountability goes hand-in-hand with credibility. It's in
nobody's interest to hire at taxpayer's expense a crackpot who wastes
time chasing fantasies and trying to connect irrelevant dots. I'm all
for a diversity of opinions, but there are valid reasons to draw lines
between "plausible" and "completely off the wall."
>>Space.com, I think I saw it on our local news had the sequence (iirc), I
>>recall reading about it in a couple of papers. It wasn't a lead story or
>>anything, but I think that has more to do with taking our space program
>>for granted than anything else.
>
> Well, there you are.
That doesn't demonstrate a cover-up. Take a look at all the other things
occurring back in February, most of which had a lot more bearing on our
daily lives than a distorted digital image of a comet and coronal mass
ejection. The media are independent, but they're driven to cover things
that most people have an interest. Had the 18th or 19th been a slower
news day, perhaps we would've heard or read or seen more about it.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> >>It's no big deal. Some of my friends are from the quite excitable crowd
> >>who believe in cover-ups and aliens and bigfoot. I'll run your
> >>description by them and see if they recall anything.
> >
> > They are? ;) Righto.
>
> If you're asking about the excitable crowd, yes. A couple of them
> (married) even sold their house and moved out of the city under the
> belief that the world would cease functioning because of y2k. Now they
> have ten-years' worth of canned goods, problems with well water, and
> rattlesnakes shading under their porch. They're dear people, just easily
> misled. Thank goodness they finally stopped listening to a certain
> overnight radio show.
All that for y2k? Earth changes, I could understand, and that's still possible.
> >>I wouldn't fly something so small and flimsy to San Antonio (70 miles
> >>away), much less to outer space.
> >
> > Flimsy? You sure? I would. :)
>
> Yes, I'm sure. The Frogs' greatest engineering feat was the Maginot
> Line. Look at what that did for them.
This is about the work of one man in particular. Outstanding men appear
from time to time, even in France, mon ami. I hate to argue with you, but
the design looks far from 'flimsy', and made with strong materials, why not.
> >>I followed the link. *If* my government
> >>is covering up something from Roswell, *if* the US government is hiding
> >>aliens and/or spacecraft at Area 51 or Wright-Patterson, and *if* we
> >>have reverse-engineering at either of those facilities, then why would
> >>we steal the efforts of a Frenchman? Why would anyone who already has
> >>Hummers and Jeeps reverse-engineer Renaults?
> >
> > You reckon? This suggests otherwise;
> > 'Depuis mars 1953, il avait mis son établissement de La Roche-sur-Yon à la
> > disposition de l'armée américaine dans le cadre de l'assistance aux armées alliées.'
> > http://www.ville-larochesuryon.fr/rubrique/rd/rd4/rd42/p_rd42/p04_rd42.html
> > 'Le 16 décembre 1956, épuisé par les difficultés qui s'accumulent, il disparaît.'
>
> Yes, I read that. The presence of l'armée américaine is coincidental to
> the craft's disappearance -- it could've simply been discarded or
> scrapped in the three-year span that page mentions.
It says that he left his business in the US army's hands to assist the allied
forces, in March 1953, that he was unable to take his work to full term,
and, exhaused from the accumulated difficulties, he disappeared in Dec'
of 1956, but it doesn't mention what happened to the craft, or his work.
> > With so many like stories, is it really any wonder 'conspiracy theories' are rife?
>
> No, not really. I think conspiracy theories are borne of a few factors
> which can't be displaced by information -- rather, conspiracy theories
> THRIVE on the basis of information. Whether information is released
> immediately, slowly, or withheld for whatever reason, some contrarian
> cottage industry will pop up to challenge it.
Conspiracy theories are for the most part borne of conspiracy fact, imho.
<..>
> >>I think NASA scientists have a lot more leeway than most people think. I
> >>can think of two lines they shouldn't cross: mishandling classified
> >>material and undermining their own, and thus NASA's, credibility. The
> >>"non-establishment" (as you call them) folks usually have no credibility
> >>to lose.
> >
> > Of course they do. But they aren't likely to be held to account at work for it.
>
> I think such accountability goes hand-in-hand with credibility. It's in
> nobody's interest to hire at taxpayer's expense a crackpot who wastes
> time chasing fantasies and trying to connect irrelevant dots. I'm all
> for a diversity of opinions, but there are valid reasons to draw lines
> between "plausible" and "completely off the wall."
Of course.
> >>Space.com, I think I saw it on our local news had the sequence (iirc), I
> >>recall reading about it in a couple of papers. It wasn't a lead story or
> >>anything, but I think that has more to do with taking our space program
> >>for granted than anything else.
> >
> > Well, there you are.
>
> That doesn't demonstrate a cover-up. Take a look at all the other things
> occurring back in February, most of which had a lot more bearing on our
> daily lives than a distorted digital image of a comet and coronal mass
> ejection. The media are independent, but they're driven to cover things
> that most people have an interest. Had the 18th or 19th been a slower
> news day, perhaps we would've heard or read or seen more about it.
Yes,.. and those particular events surrounding the NEAT spectacle.
(You did ask me to remind you of religion and beliefs this weekend.)
pearl
It says that he left his business at the US army's disposal* to assist the
allied forces in March 1953, that he was unable to take his work to full
term, and, exhausted from the accumulated difficulties, he disappeared in
USual sUSpect
> correction.*
>
> All that for y2k? Earth changes, I could understand, and that's still possible.
They trusted Art Bell and his assortment of conspiracy theorists, remote
viewers, psychics, and other so-called "experts" all of whom predicted
chaos and calamity. Some even said that Bill Clinton would institute
martial law before 1 Jan 00. So much for their veracity and so-called
"expertise."
>>Yes, I'm sure. The Frogs' greatest engineering feat was the Maginot
>>Line. Look at what that did for them.
>
> This is about the work of one man in particular. Outstanding men appear
> from time to time, even in France, mon ami. I hate to argue with you, but
> the design looks far from 'flimsy', and made with strong materials, why not.
Take it back. You LOVE to argue with me. As for flying that sucker, good
luck.
>>Yes, I read that. The presence of l'armée américaine is coincidental to
>>the craft's disappearance -- it could've simply been discarded or
>>scrapped in the three-year span that page mentions.
>
> It says that he left his business at the US army's disposal* to assist the
> allied forces in March 1953, that he was unable to take his work to full
> term, and, exhausted from the accumulated difficulties, he disappeared in
> Dec' of 1956, but it doesn't mention what happened to the craft, or his work.
Okay, I misread. Still, it's coincidental.
>>No, not really. I think conspiracy theories are borne of a few factors
>>which can't be displaced by information -- rather, conspiracy theories
>>THRIVE on the basis of information. Whether information is released
>>immediately, slowly, or withheld for whatever reason, some contrarian
>>cottage industry will pop up to challenge it.
>
> Conspiracy theories are for the most part borne of conspiracy fact, imho.
Ha! More like borne of one grain of truth and a whole lotta connecting
of irrelevant dots.
>>I think such accountability goes hand-in-hand with credibility. It's in
>>nobody's interest to hire at taxpayer's expense a crackpot who wastes
>>time chasing fantasies and trying to connect irrelevant dots. I'm all
>>for a diversity of opinions, but there are valid reasons to draw lines
>>between "plausible" and "completely off the wall."
>
> Of course.
That's the case with Hoagland, who was reportedly a good scientist
before he got wrapped (or is it unwrapped?) into a few really weird ideas.
>>That doesn't demonstrate a cover-up. Take a look at all the other things
>>occurring back in February, most of which had a lot more bearing on our
>>daily lives than a distorted digital image of a comet and coronal mass
>>ejection. The media are independent, but they're driven to cover things
>>that most people have an interest. Had the 18th or 19th been a slower
>>news day, perhaps we would've heard or read or seen more about it.
>
> Yes,.. and those particular events surrounding the NEAT spectacle.
Meaning...?
> (You did ask me to remind you of religion and beliefs this weekend.)
I believe that was my "speciesist" views, right?
I don't know if I can add any novelty to the arguments raised on either
side about what dominion means (at least with respect to Biblical
teachings); I'm on the side that believes it means we should be good
stewards, which includes treating them humanely, but that animals are
for our use. I do believe man's diet was originally to be only
plant-based, but that did change. Animals were created for man's
pleasure (Gen 2) and benefit (food, clothing, etc.). Just before He
kicked them out of Eden, God made clothes for Adam and Eve from animal
skins. While the all-creatures.org crowd think that only prefigures the
sacrifice of Christ, I think it also foreshadows the use of animals for
man's benefit. This is certainly true by the time of Noah and his sons,
when God said every moving thing (fish, fowl, animal) shall be for meat
(Gen 9:2-3). Leviticus and Deuteronomy have quite a bit to say about how
animals are to be treated, and other isolated passages tell people to
treat animals well. The Bible's not as exhaustive as modern regulations,
but tax rates are also a lot higher now than the ten-percent of Bible times.
While I'm on the topic, let me state another opinion. Jesus was NOT
vegetarian, despite assertions to the contrary. Jesus ate the passover
seder (meal). That meal traditionally includes lamb. Also, Jesus fished
with his disciples before and after the resurrection, and also ate fish
following the resurrection. St Paul wrote in several instances that
Christians should not judge one another over diet, particularly over the
consumption of meat; he also wrote (1 Timothy 4) that the commmand to
abstain from certain foods (which includes meat) is a doctrine of devils.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> > All that for y2k? Earth changes, I could understand, and that's still possible.
>
> They trusted Art Bell and his assortment of conspiracy theorists, remote
> viewers, psychics, and other so-called "experts" all of whom predicted
> chaos and calamity. Some even said that Bill Clinton would institute
> martial law before 1 Jan 00. So much for their veracity and so-called
> "expertise."
I don't really know enough about that scenario to comment. I do think
we have a built in 'BS detector' (discernment), but sometimes (often)
we can allow wishful thinking, or fears, or desires, or peer-pressure,
or prior beliefs, or hatreds, or habit, or prejudice, etc. to override it.
> >>Yes, I'm sure. The Frogs' greatest engineering feat was the Maginot
> >>Line. Look at what that did for them.
> >
> > This is about the work of one man in particular. Outstanding men appear
> > from time to time, even in France, mon ami. I hate to argue with you, but
> > the design looks far from 'flimsy', and made with strong materials, why not.
>
> Take it back. You LOVE to argue with me. As for flying that sucker, good
> luck.s
I WON'T take it back. lol. Thanks. ^*^
> >>Yes, I read that. The presence of l'armée américaine is coincidental to
> >>the craft's disappearance -- it could've simply been discarded or
> >>scrapped in the three-year span that page mentions.
> >
> > It says that he left his business at the US army's disposal* to assist the
> > allied forces in March 1953, that he was unable to take his work to full
> > term, and, exhausted from the accumulated difficulties, he disappeared in
> > Dec' of 1956, but it doesn't mention what happened to the craft, or his work.
>
> Okay, I misread. Still, it's coincidental.
That's still conjecture.
> >>No, not really. I think conspiracy theories are borne of a few factors
> >>which can't be displaced by information -- rather, conspiracy theories
> >>THRIVE on the basis of information. Whether information is released
> >>immediately, slowly, or withheld for whatever reason, some contrarian
> >>cottage industry will pop up to challenge it.
> >
> > Conspiracy theories are for the most part borne of conspiracy fact, imho.
>
> Ha! More like borne of one grain of truth and a whole lotta connecting
> of irrelevant dots.
Nope. There are simply way too many relevant dots. There is definitely
a pink elephant, or two, in the room.
> >>I think such accountability goes hand-in-hand with credibility. It's in
> >>nobody's interest to hire at taxpayer's expense a crackpot who wastes
> >>time chasing fantasies and trying to connect irrelevant dots. I'm all
> >>for a diversity of opinions, but there are valid reasons to draw lines
> >>between "plausible" and "completely off the wall."
> >
> > Of course.
>
> That's the case with Hoagland, who was reportedly a good scientist
> before he got wrapped (or is it unwrapped?) into a few really weird ideas.
Again, please will you give some examples of what you mean.
> >>That doesn't demonstrate a cover-up. Take a look at all the other things
> >>occurring back in February, most of which had a lot more bearing on our
> >>daily lives than a distorted digital image of a comet and coronal mass
> >>ejection. The media are independent, but they're driven to cover things
> >>that most people have an interest. Had the 18th or 19th been a slower
> >>news day, perhaps we would've heard or read or seen more about it.
> >
> > Yes,.. and those particular events surrounding the NEAT spectacle.
>
> Meaning...?
Most notably, the unprecedented call for resolution without aggression.
Of course, ultimately, everyone will have his or her own interpretation
of it, if any.
> > (You did ask me to remind you of religion and beliefs this weekend.)
>
> I believe that was my "speciesist" views, right?
That specifically, yes.
> I don't know if I can add any novelty to the arguments raised on either
> side about what dominion means (at least with respect to Biblical
> teachings); I'm on the side that believes it means we should be good
> stewards, which includes treating them humanely, but that animals are
> for our use. I do believe man's diet was originally to be only
> plant-based, but that did change. Animals were created for man's
> pleasure (Gen 2) and benefit (food, clothing, etc.). Just before He
> kicked them out of Eden, God made clothes for Adam and Eve from animal
> skins. While the all-creatures.org crowd think that only prefigures the
> sacrifice of Christ, I think it also foreshadows the use of animals for
> man's benefit. This is certainly true by the time of Noah and his sons,
> when God said every moving thing (fish, fowl, animal) shall be for meat
> (Gen 9:2-3). Leviticus and Deuteronomy have quite a bit to say about how
> animals are to be treated, and other isolated passages tell people to
> treat animals well. The Bible's not as exhaustive as modern regulations,
> but tax rates are also a lot higher now than the ten-percent of Bible times.
Letting Be in the Name of God
By Andrew Linzey
Throughout history, Christianity has shown precious little compassion
for animals. It has also consistently denied that animals have minds,
reason, souls, sentience or status. Pervasive though such a negative
tradition is, it doesn't quite answer why it is that in a post-Christian
society there should continue to be so much indifference to the claims
of animals. I suggest that it is humanism - both religious and secular -
that is the dominant philosophical adversary.
By "humanism" I am not referring to people who don't believe in God.
Nor do I mean those people who are generally in favor of human
happiness, welfare, dignity and rights, as indeed I am. I mean, rather,
humanism defined as the "religion of humanity," comprising that
ancient notion that "man is the measure of all things."
From this view, it is only a short step to the belief that "man is the
master of all things," that human interests are absolute and that
animals are made, not for the glory of God, but for us.
The upshot of deifying humanity is this: animals are resources for us,
animals are our tasters, animals are our tools. Animals are means to
human ends. The prospect offered to us is clear: ever-increasing human
management, dominance and control of the earth. Some of us contemplate
this prospect with horror. It occasions perhaps the great spiritual crisis
in our world today. In the words of the philosopher Jean Paul Sartre:
"Man's fundamental desire is to be God."
In one sense, Christians have only themselves to blame. They have
allowed their ancient texts, in particular the first chapter of Genesis,
to be read in a way that supports, if not requires, human despotism.
In fact, the text suggest something quite different. Follow the sequence:
humans are made in the image of God, given dominion, and then told
to follow a vegetarian diet (Genesis 1:29). Herb-eating dominion is
not despotism.
We need a concept of ourselves in the universe not as the master
species but as the servant species - as the one given responsibility
for the whole and for the good of the whole. We must move from the
idea that animals were given to us and made for us, to the idea that
we were made for creation, to serve it and ensure its continuance.
This actually is little more than the theology of Genesis chapter two.
The Garden is made beautiful and abounds with life: humans are
created specifically to "take care of it" (Genesis 2:15).
Philosopher Hazlitt wrote that "Man is the only species that can laugh
or cry because it is the only being who knows the difference between
what is and what should be." This may be another example of humans
claiming too much for themselves, but the moral point remains. We are
the species now responsible for the global garden. With the power of
technology, we hold the earth in our hands.
Along with our new view of ourselves should go a new credo, a
fundamental part of which has to be this recognition: animals have
the right to be left alone. Of course, it is true that, sometimes, humans
have to intervene to prevent the worst from happening - almost always
the result of previous human intervention. But as a general principle,
the right of animals to be animals, to live in their space on God's
good earth, is a moral principle I commend as a rule of thumb.
"Letting go" and "letting be" should be the catchwords of this new
credo.
If this sounds a strange gospel coming from a theologian, let me say
immediately that there is also so much in the Bible about the awfulness,
the cruelty and the unfaithfulness of humankind that we may be
sometimes justified in wondering why God continues to love us at
all. We do well to remember that, after all the violence with humans
had created on earth, God surveyed the debris and felt remorseful
for ever having made human beings (Genesis 6.7).
It is no longer enough to talk generally about reverence and respect.
We have to mean business, and this means taking on those people
who, as a matter of commerce, profit from the exploitation of animals,
whether that exploitation takes place in the circus, the zoo or the
slaughterhouse, or involves trade in exotic species or so-called food
animals.
In the process of disengagement, we must examine our own personal
lifestyle. In case there are any reading this who have still not seen
the vision, allow me to spell it out in moral advice: if you attend
zoos and circuses, find other entertainment; if you are engaged
in intensive "livestock" farming, throw away the systems of close
confinement; if you are engaged in animal experimentation, find
alternatives; and to those who still eat meat: give it up.
This moral challenge often comes hardest to those who think of
themselves as environmentalists. But it is difficult to see how we
can have sensitivity to wild creatures and ecosystems if we have no
sensitivity to the caged animals, to the animals undergoing product
testing or to the animals about to be slaughtered.
Neither do I understand how it is possible to talk about conservation
while idling away one's leisure time in the despoliation of pheasants,
foxes, deer and hares. Conservation and hunting for sport is a
contradiction in terms.
Finally, let us rekindle that vision in Isaiah 11 where the lion does
not eat the lamb but lies down in symbiotic relationship with it. For
those of you who judge this as too visionary, let me remind you of the
line from the Psalmist: "Where there is no vision, the people perish."
Moral theology would hardly advance at all without visionaries and
extremists, people who see things differently from others judged
insignificant. I don't think there are many moderates in heaven. #
"We have enslaved the rest of the animal creation, and have treated
our distant cousins in fur and feathers so badly that beyond doubt, if
they were able to formulate a religion, they would depict the Devil in
human form."
William Ralph Inge (1860-1954)
"There is no religion without love, and people may talk as much as
they like about their religion, but if it does not teach them to be
good and kind to other animals as well as humans, it is all a sham."
Anna Sewell
"Pain is pain, whether it is inflicted on man or on beast; and the
creature that suffers it, whether man or beast, being sensible of the
misery of it whilst it lasts, suffers Evil..."
"We may pretend to what religion we please, but cruelty is atheism.
We may boast of Christianity; but cruelty is infidelity. We may trust
our orthodoxy; but cruelty is the worst of heresies."
A Dissertation on the Duty of Mercy and the Sin of Cruelty to Brute
Animals (1776) Humphrey Primatt Priest
> While I'm on the topic, let me state another opinion. Jesus was NOT
> vegetarian, despite assertions to the contrary.
"God giveth the grains and the fruits of the earth for food; and for righteous
man truly there is no other lawful sustenance for the body.... For God is just
and bountiful who ordaineth that man shall live by the fruits and seeds of
the earth alone."
"For of the fruits of the trees and the seeds of the earth alone do I partake,
and these are changed by the Spirit into my flesh and my blood. Of these
alone and their like shall ye eat who believe in me, and are my disciples, for
of these, in the Spirit, come life and health and healing unto man."
http://www.essene.org/Jesus_Diet.htm
> Jesus ate the passover seder (meal). That meal traditionally includes lamb.
From The Gospel of the Holy Twelve
http://www.essene.com/NazareneGospel/index.html
(75) The Last Paschal Supper
4. And Yeshua said, With desire have I desired to eat this Passover
with you before I suffer. and to institute the Memorial of my Oblation
for the service and salvation of all. For behold the hour cometh when
the Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of sinners.
5. And one of the twelve said unto him, Lord, is it I ? And he answered,
He to whom I give the sop the same is he.
6. And Iscariot said unto him, Master, behold the unleaven bread, the
mingled wine and the oil and the herbs, but where is the lamb that Moses
commanded? (for Judas had bought the lamb, but Yeshua had forbidden
that it should be killed).
7. And John spake in the Spirit, saying, Behold the Lamb of God, the
good Shepherd which giveth his life for the sheep. And Judas was
troubled at these words, for he knew that he should betray him. But
again Judas said, Master, is it not written in the law that a lamb must
be slain for the passover within the gates?
8. And Yeshua answered, If I am lifted up on the cross then indeed
shall the lamb be slain; but woe unto him by whom it is delivered into
the hands of the slayers; it were better of him had he not been born.
9. Verily I say unto you, for this end have I come into the world, that
I may put away all blood offerings and the eating of the flesh of the
beasts and the birds that are slain by men.
10. In the beginning, God gave to all, the fruits of the trees, and the
seeds, and the herbs, for food; but those who loved themselves more
than God, or their fellows, corrupted their ways, and brought diseases
into their bodies, and filled the earth with lust and violence.
11. Not by shedding innocent blood, therefore, but by living a righteous
life, shall ye find the peace of God. Ye call me the Christ of God and ye
say well, for I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.
12. Walk ye in the Way, and ye shall find God. Seek ye the Truth, and
the Truth shall make you free. Live in the Life, and ye shall see no death.
All things are alive in God, and the Spirit of God filleth all things.
13. Keep ye the commandments. Love thy God with all thy heart, and
love thy neighbour as thyself. On these hang all the law and the prophets.
And the sum of the law is this-Do not ye unto others as ye would not
that others should do unto you. Do ye unto others, as ye would that
others should do unto you.
14. Blessed are they who keep this law, for God is manifested in all
creatures. All creatures live in God, and God is hid in them.
..
http://www.essene.com/NazareneGospel/Holy_12_8.html#gn75
> Also, Jesus fished
> with his disciples before and after the resurrection, and also ate fish
> following the resurrection.
The Gospel of the Holy Twelve
4. And the day was far spent, and his disciples came unto
him and said, This is a desert place, and now the time is far
passed. Send them away, that they may go into the country
round about into the villages, and buy themselves bread, for
they have nothing to eat.
5. He answered and said unto them, Give ye them to eat.
And they say unto him, Shall we go and buy two hundred
pennyworth of bread, and give them to eat ?
6. He saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? go and see.
And when they knew, they said, Six loaves and seven clusters
of grapes. And he commanded them to make all sit down by
companies of fifty upon the grass. And they sat down in ranks
by hundreds and by fifties.
7. And when he had taken the six loaves and the seven clusters
of grapes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed and brake the
loaves, and the grapes also and gave them to his disciples to set
before them and they divided them among them all.
8. And they did all eat and were filled. And they took up twelve
baskets full of the fragments that were left. And they that did eat
of the loaves and of the fruit were about five thousand men,
women and children, and he taught them many things.
..
http://www.essene.com/NazareneGospel/Holy_12_3.html#gn29
> St Paul wrote in several instances that
> Christians should not judge one another over diet, particularly over the
> consumption of meat; he also wrote (1 Timothy 4) that the commmand to
> abstain from certain foods (which includes meat) is a doctrine of devils.
'Paul was known by the apostles as the "demon-driven enemy of the
messiah." He suppressed the original vegetarian Essene teaching of Jesus,
and supplanted it with his own teaching, and a meat-eating, animal sacrifice
cult.
Read the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, in which Peter states
that Jesus told the disciples how to discriminate between those scriptures
which are true, and which are false. He clearly states that all scriptures
which advocate taking the life of any creature, or causing it pain or injury,
are false scriptures, which he called false pericopes. He said that such
scriptures were corrupted by demons who attached themselves to people's
minds, makings suggestions the "scribes" thought were their own.' (Habib).
Peter concludes:
"Wherefore, Clement, my spiritual son, beware of those scriptures
which portray God as... fond of burnt animal fat, bloody animal
sacrifice and war.... For if God is portrayed as loving war, what
sort of 'God' is that?"
USual sUSpect
>>They trusted Art Bell and his assortment of conspiracy theorists, remote
>>viewers, psychics, and other so-called "experts" all of whom predicted
>>chaos and calamity. Some even said that Bill Clinton would institute
>>martial law before 1 Jan 00. So much for their veracity and so-called
>>"expertise."
>
> I don't really know enough about that scenario to comment. I do think
> we have a built in 'BS detector' (discernment), but sometimes (often)
> we can allow wishful thinking, or fears, or desires, or peer-pressure,
> or prior beliefs, or hatreds, or habit, or prejudice, etc. to override it.
Is the latter part why you still use your zapper?
>>Take it back. You LOVE to argue with me. As for flying that sucker, good
>>luck.
>
> I WON'T take it back. lol. Thanks. ^*^
Okay, but I know the truth.
>>Okay, I misread. Still, it's coincidental.
>
> That's still conjecture.
No more so than suggesting the US Army offed that Frog. ;-)
<snip>
>>That's the case with Hoagland, who was reportedly a good scientist
>>before he got wrapped (or is it unwrapped?) into a few really weird ideas.
>
> Again, please will you give some examples of what you mean.
I'll have to look through his site, but off the top of my head I recall
his involvement a few years ago at a formation uncovered in Miami. He
and others were certain that it was Florida's own Stonehenge. A quick
search revealed that pics on his and others' sites have been removed,
presumably by themselves. Anyway, the issue appears to be completely
dead despite the whackos who descended on Miami to save the "circle." I
believe this was the time when RH had a heart attack after working
himself into a frenzy, and which he subsequently blamed the government
(apparently one way the USA silences goofballs is to cause them to have
unhealthy diets and lifestyles over many years so they'll have heart
attacks).
>>Meaning...?
>
> Most notably, the unprecedented call for resolution without aggression.
What does that have to do with a digital image? Even if war had not been
building, something else would've received more coverage than this. Most
people have only a fleeting interest in space -- and even fewer can tell
you what a coronal mass ejection is.
> Of course, ultimately, everyone will have his or her own interpretation
> of it, if any.
Exactly, and some *are* tugged by the mere mention of cover-up.
> That specifically, yes.
Okay.
<snip>
> Letting Be in the Name of God
> By Andrew Linzey
>
> Throughout history, Christianity has shown precious little compassion
> for animals. It has also consistently denied that animals have minds,
> reason, souls, sentience or status. Pervasive though such a negative
> tradition is, it doesn't quite answer why it is that in a post-Christian
> society there should continue to be so much indifference to the claims
> of animals. I suggest that it is humanism - both religious and secular -
> that is the dominant philosophical adversary.
First sentence: bullshit. Even in the darker ages of Roman Catholicism,
you'll find writings by and accounts of men like St Fancis who are still
renowned for their views on animals. Other theologians like Aquinas also
wrote about humane treatment of animals.
Here's a short Catholic view I found on my first search. I can find more
information for you later this evening if you want, or you can search
yourself.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04542a.htm
Second sentence and following: I don't see it as a negative tradition. I
also disagree with the suggestion that animals have "claims."
> By "humanism" I am not referring to people who don't believe in God.
> Nor do I mean those people who are generally in favor of human
> happiness, welfare, dignity and rights, as indeed I am. I mean, rather,
> humanism defined as the "religion of humanity," comprising that
> ancient notion that "man is the measure of all things."
>
> From this view, it is only a short step to the belief that "man is the
> master of all things," that human interests are absolute and that
> animals are made, not for the glory of God, but for us.
Very poor reasoning, and lacks understanding of the central tenets of
Christianity.
> The upshot of deifying humanity is this: animals are resources for us,
> animals are our tasters, animals are our tools. Animals are means to
> human ends. The prospect offered to us is clear: ever-increasing human
> management, dominance and control of the earth. Some of us contemplate
> this prospect with horror. It occasions perhaps the great spiritual crisis
> in our world today. In the words of the philosopher Jean Paul Sartre:
> "Man's fundamental desire is to be God."
The Biblical view of animals is 180-degrees from this writer's. Man is
not presented in Judeo-Christian teachings as just one of the animals,
but a unique being created in the image and likeness of God.
> In one sense, Christians have only themselves to blame. They have
> allowed their ancient texts, in particular the first chapter of Genesis,
> to be read in a way that supports, if not requires, human despotism.
Bullshit.
> In fact, the text suggest something quite different. Follow the sequence:
> humans are made in the image of God, given dominion, and then told
> to follow a vegetarian diet (Genesis 1:29). Herb-eating dominion is
> not despotism.
This is true, but elsewhere God says animals may (and are to) be eaten.
We can pick and choose our texts, or take everything in the fullest
context. If we do the latter, meat-eating and the use of animals for our
welfare (food, clothing, labor, enjoyment) is fully acceptable.
Ahhh, I knew we would get to the more blatant misanthropic views. Why
did he waste so much time getting down on mankind? Take a look at other
texts and you'll have your reasons why God still loves us. You'll also
find areas in which God acts in manners which may seem quite cruel.
> It is no longer enough to talk generally about reverence and respect.
> We have to mean business, and this means taking on those people
> who, as a matter of commerce, profit from the exploitation of animals,
> whether that exploitation takes place in the circus, the zoo or the
> slaughterhouse, or involves trade in exotic species or so-called food
> animals.
My opinion: Christians should be about Christ, not about animals.
Turning some passing fancy into a holy crusade is what leaves so many
stains in history.
> In the process of disengagement, we must examine our own personal
> lifestyle. In case there are any reading this who have still not seen
> the vision, allow me to spell it out in moral advice: if you attend
> zoos and circuses, find other entertainment; if you are engaged
> in intensive "livestock" farming, throw away the systems of close
> confinement; if you are engaged in animal experimentation, find
> alternatives; and to those who still eat meat: give it up.
>
> This moral challenge often comes hardest to those who think of
> themselves as environmentalists. But it is difficult to see how we
> can have sensitivity to wild creatures and ecosystems if we have no
> sensitivity to the caged animals, to the animals undergoing product
> testing or to the animals about to be slaughtered.
>
> Neither do I understand how it is possible to talk about conservation
> while idling away one's leisure time in the despoliation of pheasants,
> foxes, deer and hares. Conservation and hunting for sport is a
> contradiction in terms.
>
> Finally, let us rekindle that vision in Isaiah 11 where the lion does
> not eat the lamb but lies down in symbiotic relationship with it. For
> those of you who judge this as too visionary, let me remind you of the
> line from the Psalmist: "Where there is no vision, the people perish."
> Moral theology would hardly advance at all without visionaries and
> extremists, people who see things differently from others judged
> insignificant. I don't think there are many moderates in heaven. #
Isaiah 11 is not a visionary statement of animal rights. ;-)
> "We have enslaved the rest of the animal creation, and have treated
> our distant cousins in fur and feathers so badly that beyond doubt, if
> they were able to formulate a religion, they would depict the Devil in
> human form."
> William Ralph Inge (1860-1954)
>
> "There is no religion without love, and people may talk as much as
> they like about their religion, but if it does not teach them to be
> good and kind to other animals as well as humans, it is all a sham."
> Anna Sewell
>
> "Pain is pain, whether it is inflicted on man or on beast; and the
> creature that suffers it, whether man or beast, being sensible of the
> misery of it whilst it lasts, suffers Evil..."
> "We may pretend to what religion we please, but cruelty is atheism.
> We may boast of Christianity; but cruelty is infidelity. We may trust
> our orthodoxy; but cruelty is the worst of heresies."
> A Dissertation on the Duty of Mercy and the Sin of Cruelty to Brute
> Animals (1776) Humphrey Primatt Priest
Looks like I'll have to find quotes from the Church fathers to show the
radicals have no monopoly on compassion for animals.
<snip>
The Essene Gospel is an apocryphal text of questionable origin and
authenticity. The fact that it was found in a Vatican library is
meaningless as to its origin, its validity, and its authenticity; many
manuscripts and documents are contained within all kinds of libraries.
What I can say is that no early Church father quoted it, mentioned it,
alluded to it, or even gave an indication of its existence. Christianity
and mainstream Jewish teachings and history have common parallels; the
Essenes were a marginal cult, and there is no serious evidence that
Jesus was an Essene (check Talmudic writings, which will support this).
I give The Essene Gospel about as much credence as I do Scientology or
the Book of Urantia.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
<..>
> > I don't really know enough about that scenario to comment. I do think
> > we have a built in 'BS detector' (discernment), but sometimes (often)
> > we can allow wishful thinking, or fears, or desires, or peer-pressure,
> > or prior beliefs, or hatreds, or habit, or prejudice, etc. to override it.
>
> Is the latter part why you still use your zapper?
No. Is the latter part why you'll believe anything establishment says?
<..>
> >>Okay, I misread. Still, it's coincidental.
> >
> > That's still conjecture.
>
> No more so than suggesting the US Army offed that Frog. ;-)
Like I did suggest- there are just too many like 'coincidences'.
> <snip>
>
> >>That's the case with Hoagland, who was reportedly a good scientist
> >>before he got wrapped (or is it unwrapped?) into a few really weird ideas.
> >
> > Again, please will you give some examples of what you mean.
>
> I'll have to look through his site, but off the top of my head I recall
> his involvement a few years ago at a formation uncovered in Miami. He
> and others were certain that it was Florida's own Stonehenge. A quick
> search revealed that pics on his and others' sites have been removed,
> presumably by themselves. Anyway, the issue appears to be completely
> dead despite the whackos who descended on Miami to save the "circle." I
> believe this was the time when RH had a heart attack after working
> himself into a frenzy, and which he subsequently blamed the government
> (apparently one way the USA silences goofballs is to cause them to have
> unhealthy diets and lifestyles over many years so they'll have heart
> attacks).
But you just said he 'worked himself into a frenzy'. Hasn't overwork
been shown to increase risk of heart attack? He was in good health
apparently, didn't drink, nor smoke.
Anyway, I found this page about the Miami Circle.
http://www.greatdreams.com/mayan.htm
Very interesting reading. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
> >>Meaning...?
> >
> > Most notably, the unprecedented call for resolution without aggression.
>
> What does that have to do with a digital image?
The 'line' in the image is nothing, ok. Otherwise it's clear.
> Even if war had not been
> building, something else would've received more coverage than this. Most
> people have only a fleeting interest in space -- and even fewer can tell
> you what a coronal mass ejection is.
And whose fault is that? If the news wasn't so full of political BS,
maybe we could get to find out more about what's really going on.
> > Of course, ultimately, everyone will have his or her own interpretation
> > of it, if any.
>
> Exactly, and some *are* tugged by the mere mention of cover-up.
People that are sceptical of an official version, obviously. I wonder why.
<snip>
> > Letting Be in the Name of God
> > By Andrew Linzey
> >
> > Throughout history, Christianity has shown precious little compassion
> > for animals. It has also consistently denied that animals have minds,
> > reason, souls, sentience or status. Pervasive though such a negative
> > tradition is, it doesn't quite answer why it is that in a post-Christian
> > society there should continue to be so much indifference to the claims
> > of animals. I suggest that it is humanism - both religious and secular -
> > that is the dominant philosophical adversary.
>
> First sentence: bullshit. Even in the darker ages of Roman Catholicism,
> you'll find writings by and accounts of men like St Francis who are still
> renowned for their views on animals. Other theologians like Aquinas also
> wrote about humane treatment of animals.
'Aquinas (also) refused to believe that this peaceable kingdom
was vegetarian, although Genesis 1:30 reports that it was: "God
said..to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and
all the creatures of the earth and all the creatures that move on
the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it, I give every
green plant for food."
Although this verse of scripture could not be more definite, Aquinas
refused to believe it. Instead, he taught that "the trees and herbs were
[not] given to all animals and birds, but only to some." His refutation
of the Bible and the insistence that God created animals as dangerous
beings, violent and carnivorous from the beginning, bolstered his claim
that man needed to dominate other creatures and use them for his
own advantage.
Aquinas was a great believer in the power of observation and rational
thought and in the SUMMA THEOLOGICA wrote that man's ability
"to reason makes him like to the angels." But he was oblivious to the
distortions created by his own subjectivity and prejudice. In the same
treatise in which he claimed angelic reasoning ability, he made the
statement that man's dominion over animals consists of "making use
of them without hindrance." Hardly a heavenly outlook. ..'
http://cwpp.slq.qld.gov.au/vvsq/religion_aquinas.asp.
> Here's a short Catholic view I found on my first search. I can find more
> information for you later this evening if you want, or you can search
> yourself.
> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04542a.htm
'The CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA informs its readers that
"the visible world with which man comes in contact is divided into
persons and non-persons. For the latter term the word "things" is
usually employed...animals, in contradistinction to persons [are]
classed as things." By arbitrarily relegating animals to the category
of "things" theologians have effectively excluded them from the
moral and ethical consideration due them as sentient beings.
Of course this is an absolute contradiction of the second chapter
of Genesis which clearly states that both animals and humans are
"nefesh chaya"--living souls. But religious spokesmen frequently
ignore the Bible when it conflicts with their man-made doctrines.
St. Thomas was no exception.
He was so anxious to promote the belief that animals were a
negligible form of life, that he refused to accept the Genesis account
which teaches that animals, like humans, were created as nonviolent
beings; that the garden of Eden was a peaceable kingdom. ..
..
Less than a decade ago, the revised CATECHISM OF THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH made the doctrinal statement that
"animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined
for the common good of past, present, and future humanity." And
the papal encyclical, Gaudium et spes, stated that "believers and
unbelievers agree almost unanimously that all things on earth
should be ordained to man as to their center and summit."
This kind of teaching is not a Roman Catholic aberration: it also
permeates Protestant Christianity. Even those who have never
directly studied Aquinas, or the various documents based on
his theology, have integrated the follies of his theology into their
own belief system. This acceptance manifests itself in the
contemporary teaching of many Protestant and Jewish
spokesmen. ...'
http://cwpp.slq.qld.gov.au/vvsq/religion_aquinas.asp.
> Second sentence and following: I don't see it as a negative tradition.
Only because -you- aren't in a cage, on the other end of a rope,
or chain, or whip, or knife, or gun..
> I also disagree with the suggestion that animals have "claims."
As in 'interests', (which we are aware of).
> > By "humanism" I am not referring to people who don't believe in God.
> > Nor do I mean those people who are generally in favor of human
> > happiness, welfare, dignity and rights, as indeed I am. I mean, rather,
> > humanism defined as the "religion of humanity," comprising that
> > ancient notion that "man is the measure of all things."
> >
> > From this view, it is only a short step to the belief that "man is the
> > master of all things," that human interests are absolute and that
> > animals are made, not for the glory of God, but for us.
>
> Very poor reasoning, and lacks understanding of the central tenets of
> Christianity.
'The newly formed Interfaith Council for Environmental Stewardship,
a coalition of "we Jews, Catholics and Protestants" issued the
CORNWALL DECLARATION as its first public act. In what it
calls "reason--including sound theology" the declaration resurrects
the theology of Aquinas, clothed in modern terminology. Instead of
referring to Homo sapiens as the apex of God's creation, the
declaration calls humans the world's "most valuable resource."
It goes on to say "Humanity alone of all the created order is capable
of developing other resources and can thus enrich creation, so it can
properly be said that the human person is the most valuable resource
on earth." Then, leaving aside its claim of promoting "stewardship,"
the document reverts to using the "d" word, advocating dominion
over the rest of creation. "[Romanticism] leads some to...oppose
human dominion over creation."
It seems obvious that those who signed a declaration which calls
opposition to human dominion "romanticism" are unaware that for
many centuries Christianity has recognized man's abusive and sinful
treatment of God's other creatures. As far back as A.D. 275, St.
Basil, the Archbishop of Casesarea, asked forgiveness for this
sinful dominion. "Oh God, enlarge within us the sense of fellowship
with all living things, our brothers the animals to whom Thou gavest
the earth as their home in common with us. We remember with
shame that in the past we have exercised the high dominion of man
with ruthless cruelty so that the voice of the earth, which should have
gone up to thee in song, has been a groan of travail."
http://cwpp.slq.qld.gov.au/vvsq/religion_aquinas.asp.
> > The upshot of deifying humanity is this: animals are resources for us,
> > animals are our tasters, animals are our tools. Animals are means to
> > human ends. The prospect offered to us is clear: ever-increasing human
> > management, dominance and control of the earth. Some of us contemplate
> > this prospect with horror. It occasions perhaps the great spiritual crisis
> > in our world today. In the words of the philosopher Jean Paul Sartre:
> > "Man's fundamental desire is to be God."
>
> The Biblical view of animals is 180-degrees from this writer's. Man is
> not presented in Judeo-Christian teachings as just one of the animals,
> but a unique being created in the image and likeness of God.
With privilege comes responsibility. (in cap's)
> > In one sense, Christians have only themselves to blame. They have
> > allowed their ancient texts, in particular the first chapter of Genesis,
> > to be read in a way that supports, if not requires, human despotism.
>
> Bullshit.
No. Very true. That is an accurate summing-up of your stance.
> > In fact, the text suggest something quite different. Follow the sequence:
> > humans are made in the image of God, given dominion, and then told
> > to follow a vegetarian diet (Genesis 1:29). Herb-eating dominion is
> > not despotism.
>
> This is true, but elsewhere God says animals may (and are to) be eaten.
That's what it says.
> We can pick and choose our texts, or take everything in the fullest
> context. If we do the latter, meat-eating and the use of animals for our
> welfare (food, clothing, labor, enjoyment) is fully acceptable.
'..explained by Peter in The Clementine Homilies and Recognitions.
After pointing out various passages in the Torah that are false pericopes,
Peter declares:
"For the scriptures have had added to them many falsehoods against
God. The prophet Moses having by the order of God delivered the
true law... it was not long before the written law had added to it
certain falsehoods contrary to the law of God.... If, therefore, some
of the scriptures are true and some false, for good reason our Master
revealed to us the mystery of his saying 'Be ye wise money changers',
inasmuch as in the scriptures there are some true sayings and some
spurious."
http://www.essene.org/Essene_Scriptures.htm
Yours.
> Why did he waste so much time getting down on mankind?
The bible does.
> Take a look at other
> texts and you'll have your reasons why God still loves us.
You tell me why.
> You'll also
> find areas in which God acts in manners which may seem quite cruel.
God? You sure?
> > It is no longer enough to talk generally about reverence and respect.
> > We have to mean business, and this means taking on those people
> > who, as a matter of commerce, profit from the exploitation of animals,
> > whether that exploitation takes place in the circus, the zoo or the
> > slaughterhouse, or involves trade in exotic species or so-called food
> > animals.
>
> My opinion: Christians should be about Christ, not about animals.
What was Christ about, in your opinion?
> Turning some passing fancy into a holy crusade is what leaves so many
> stains in history.
What passing fancy? And, 'holy crusades', -what's that all about, anyway?
> > In the process of disengagement, we must examine our own personal
> > lifestyle. In case there are any reading this who have still not seen
> > the vision, allow me to spell it out in moral advice: if you attend
> > zoos and circuses, find other entertainment; if you are engaged
> > in intensive "livestock" farming, throw away the systems of close
> > confinement; if you are engaged in animal experimentation, find
> > alternatives; and to those who still eat meat: give it up.
> >
> > This moral challenge often comes hardest to those who think of
> > themselves as environmentalists. But it is difficult to see how we
> > can have sensitivity to wild creatures and ecosystems if we have no
> > sensitivity to the caged animals, to the animals undergoing product
> > testing or to the animals about to be slaughtered.
> >
> > Neither do I understand how it is possible to talk about conservation
> > while idling away one's leisure time in the despoliation of pheasants,
> > foxes, deer and hares. Conservation and hunting for sport is a
> > contradiction in terms.
> >
> > Finally, let us rekindle that vision in Isaiah 11 where the lion does
> > not eat the lamb but lies down in symbiotic relationship with it. For
> > those of you who judge this as too visionary, let me remind you of the
> > line from the Psalmist: "Where there is no vision, the people perish."
> > Moral theology would hardly advance at all without visionaries and
> > extremists, people who see things differently from others judged
> > insignificant. I don't think there are many moderates in heaven. #
>
> Isaiah 11 is not a visionary statement of animal rights. ;-)
9 They shall not hurt, nor shall they kill in all my holy mountain, for the
earth is filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as the covering waters of
the sea. :)
> > "We have enslaved the rest of the animal creation, and have treated
> > our distant cousins in fur and feathers so badly that beyond doubt, if
> > they were able to formulate a religion, they would depict the Devil in
> > human form."
> > William Ralph Inge (1860-1954)
> >
> > "There is no religion without love, and people may talk as much as
> > they like about their religion, but if it does not teach them to be
> > good and kind to other animals as well as humans, it is all a sham."
> > Anna Sewell
> >
> > "Pain is pain, whether it is inflicted on man or on beast; and the
> > creature that suffers it, whether man or beast, being sensible of the
> > misery of it whilst it lasts, suffers Evil..."
> > "We may pretend to what religion we please, but cruelty is atheism.
> > We may boast of Christianity; but cruelty is infidelity. We may trust
> > our orthodoxy; but cruelty is the worst of heresies."
> > A Dissertation on the Duty of Mercy and the Sin of Cruelty to Brute
> > Animals (1776) Humphrey Primatt Priest
>
> Looks like I'll have to find quotes from the Church fathers to show the
> radicals have no monopoly on compassion for animals.
Too little, too late.
> <snip>
>
> The Essene Gospel is an apocryphal text of questionable origin and
> authenticity. The fact that it was found in a Vatican library is
> meaningless as to its origin, its validity, and its authenticity; many
> manuscripts and documents are contained within all kinds of libraries.
> What I can say is that no early Church father quoted it, mentioned it,
> alluded to it, or even gave an indication of its existence. Christianity
> and mainstream Jewish teachings and history have common parallels; the
> Essenes were a marginal cult, and there is no serious evidence that
> Jesus was an Essene (check Talmudic writings, which will support this).
> I give The Essene Gospel about as much credence as I do Scientology or
> the Book of Urantia.
'When the soldiers of the Roman Emperor "Constantine the Great"
were sent to confiscate all copies of the original Essene-Christian New
Testament (Constantine had taken control of the meat-eating branches
of the Christian Church -- those originally started by his hero Paul --
altered the New Testament in favor of Paul, and created a State-run
religion known as "The Catholic Church"), some brave Essene-Christian
monks went to India and deposited a copy of the authentic Essene-
Christian New Testament in the Mystery School Library of a Buddhist
monastery. (Several centuries later that manuscript was moved from
the Indian Buddhist Monastery to a Buddhist monastery in Tibet.) It
was that manuscript -- THE GOSPEL OF THE HOLY TWELVE --
which was translated by Rev. Ouseley in the 1880's. (Even before
Ouseley, several excerpts from this manuscript were known, having
been quoted in various books written by early Church Fathers; but
no complete "Holy Twelve" manuscript was available prior to the
Ouseley translation.
With assistance from a sort of "underground" spiritual fellowship,
Ouseley gained access to the manuscript preserved in the Tibetan
monastery and translated it from Aramaic into English. He claimed
that Christ and holy angels helped him -- in fact, led him -- through
the entire process. However, mainline Christianity was not pleased:
He was forced to leave the Church of England -- in which he was
an ordained Priest -- immediately after releasing his translation of
"Holy Twelve." Several attempts were made to assassinate him.
His house was twice set on fire. At that point he formed an
underground church called the Essene Order of At-Onement.
The main purpose of that church was to acquire and preserve
ancient Essene books for future publication.
Dr. Edmond Bordeaux Szekely was chosen by Christ to bring to
light another ancient Essene manuscript: THE ESSENE GOSPEL
OF PEACE. Like Ouseley, Szekely was a dynamic balance of
HEAD and HEART: a great scholar who was deeply spiritual.
In the early 1920's, while doing research in the secret archives
of the Vatican, Dr. Szekely discovered ancient Essene manuscripts.
Much to the dismay of the Vatican (the Vatican is the seat of
authority of the Catholic Church), Dr. Szekely refused to keep
quiet: He published the Essene manuscripts in a four-book set
titled, The Essene Gospel of Peace. When Dr. Szekely published
the Essene manuscripts he had discovered, HE WAS BANISHED
BY THE VATICAN AND ALL OTHER ORTHODOX
CHRISTIAN AUTHORITIES. Why? Because they don't want
their comfortable boats rocked by the radical waves of the Essene
Jesus! Can you imagine the orthodox authorities trying to explain
to their congregations that Jesus was a vegetarian and taught
reincarnation?
http://www.essene.org/Essene_Scriptures.htm
USual sUSpect
>>Is the latter part why you still use your zapper?
>
> No. Is the latter part why you'll believe anything establishment says?
Who says I believe anything the establishment reports? One needn't go
off the deep end to question authority.
>>No more so than suggesting the US Army offed that Frog. ;-)
>
> Like I did suggest- there are just too many like 'coincidences'.
It's irrational to believe that one coincidence makes other coincidences
more relevant, particularly in the absence of clear supporting evidence.
>>I'll have to look through his site, but off the top of my head I recall
>>his involvement a few years ago at a formation uncovered in Miami. He
>>and others were certain that it was Florida's own Stonehenge. A quick
>>search revealed that pics on his and others' sites have been removed,
>>presumably by themselves. Anyway, the issue appears to be completely
>>dead despite the whackos who descended on Miami to save the "circle." I
>>believe this was the time when RH had a heart attack after working
>>himself into a frenzy, and which he subsequently blamed the government
>>(apparently one way the USA silences goofballs is to cause them to have
>>unhealthy diets and lifestyles over many years so they'll have heart
>>attacks).
>
> But you just said he 'worked himself into a frenzy'. Hasn't overwork
> been shown to increase risk of heart attack? He was in good health
> apparently, didn't drink, nor smoke.
Overwork over a short time span isn't necessarily bad. Bad diet over a
longer timespan IS. I don't know his health history, but his diet was
admittedly not very good. One of my friends told me about the efforts RH
and others were undertaking to save the "circle." I read it about it as
it was happening, and listened to a show on which RH was a guest. He was
obviously very worked up about it. It was after his heart attack that he
pointed fingers at the government for trying to silence him.
> Anyway, I found this page about the Miami Circle.
> http://www.greatdreams.com/mayan.htm
> Very interesting reading. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Ummm, you're welcome. I guess. I wonder if that developer has ever been
allowed to build his project or been compensated for his losses.
>>>Most notably, the unprecedented call for resolution without aggression.
>>
>>What does that have to do with a digital image?
>
> The 'line' in the image is nothing, ok. Otherwise it's clear.
Okay.
>>Even if war had not been
>>building, something else would've received more coverage than this. Most
>>people have only a fleeting interest in space -- and even fewer can tell
>>you what a coronal mass ejection is.
>
> And whose fault is that? If the news wasn't so full of political BS,
> maybe we could get to find out more about what's really going on.
Such as...?
>>Exactly, and some *are* tugged by the mere mention of cover-up.
>
> People that are sceptical of an official version, obviously. I wonder why.
Scepticism can be rational; it can also be irrational. There's a clear
distinction between scepticism and contrarianism. Contrarianism is an
irrational approach to events. I think most conspiracy theorists are
contrarians.
<snip>
pearl
<..>
> Who says I believe anything the establishment reports?
I did. That's my impression.
> One needn't go off the deep end to question authority.
Indeed. So why do you refer to those that question in an extreme
and derogatory manner ('go off the deep end', for one example)?
<..>
> > Like I did suggest- there are just too many like 'coincidences'.
>
> It's irrational to believe that one coincidence makes other coincidences
> more relevant, particularly in the absence of clear supporting evidence.
Let's see. In this short thread alone, we've happened across
four individuals, Couzinet, Ouseley, Szekely, and Hoagland,
and discovered that; the first disappeared, the second suffered
attempts on his life, his house set on fire twice, that he, like the
third, had his livelihood terminated and his reputation wrecked,
then the fourth suspects something dirty, and that's WITHOUT
EVEN TRYING!
<..>
> Overwork over a short time span isn't necessarily bad. Bad diet over a
> longer timespan IS. I don't know his health history, but his diet was
> admittedly not very good.
Did you hear him say that, or read it somewhere?
> One of my friends told me about the efforts RH
> and others were undertaking to save the "circle." I read it about it as
> it was happening, and listened to a show on which RH was a guest. He was
> obviously very worked up about it. It was after his heart attack that he
> pointed fingers at the government for trying to silence him.
I was looking for a reference to that, and came across this;
'The Brookings Report suggested that religionists, especially
Christians, along with scientists and engineers would have
difficulty accepting proof of artificiality - which suggests that
they would reject it if there was any way they could do so.
Dr. McDaniel makes a statement that might explain, at least
in part, why NASA and their related contractors are so totally
against independent researchers, and attempts to silence them
via ridicule and mocking, or via "scientific analysis" which is
nothing more than blatant attempts to silence what NASA is
so vigorously attempting to hide: '
http://www.truinsight.com/tithonia_citythe_case_for_absolu.htm .
(cool page)
> > Anyway, I found this page about the Miami Circle.
> > http://www.greatdreams.com/mayan.htm
> > Very interesting reading. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
>
> Ummm, you're welcome. I guess. I wonder if that developer has ever been
> allowed to build his project or been compensated for his losses.
You think the Circle should have been destroyed?
<..>
> >>Even if war had not been
> >>building, something else would've received more coverage than this. Most
> >>people have only a fleeting interest in space -- and even fewer can tell
> >>you what a coronal mass ejection is.
> >
> > And whose fault is that? If the news wasn't so full of political BS,
> > maybe we could get to find out more about what's really going on.
>
> Such as...?
Comets? Coronal mass ejections?
> >>Exactly, and some *are* tugged by the mere mention of cover-up.
> >
> > People that are sceptical of an official version, obviously. I wonder why.
>
> Scepticism can be rational; it can also be irrational. There's a clear
> distinction between scepticism and contrarianism. Contrarianism is an
> irrational approach to events. I think most conspiracy theorists are
> contrarians.
Contrarian? Just for the sake of it? Sorry, I just can't buy that.
> <snip>
>
USual sUSpect
>>Who says I believe anything the establishment reports?
>
> I did. That's my impression.
That figures.
>>One needn't go off the deep end to question authority.
>
> Indeed. So why do you refer to those that question in an extreme
> and derogatory manner ('go off the deep end', for one example)?
That's my impression. ;-)
>>It's irrational to believe that one coincidence makes other coincidences
>>more relevant, particularly in the absence of clear supporting evidence.
>
> Let's see. In this short thread alone, we've happened across
> four individuals, Couzinet, Ouseley, Szekely, and Hoagland,
> and discovered that; the first disappeared, the second suffered
> attempts on his life, his house set on fire twice, that he, like the
> third, had his livelihood terminated and his reputation wrecked,
> then the fourth suspects something dirty, and that's WITHOUT
> EVEN TRYING!
Yes, it certainly appears there's a coordinated effort to silence kooks
and other assorted nutjobs. Have you checked your doors and windows lately?
>>Overwork over a short time span isn't necessarily bad. Bad diet over a
>>longer timespan IS. I don't know his health history, but his diet was
>>admittedly not very good.
>
> Did you hear him say that, or read it somewhere?
I heard him say it on the Art Bell radio show shortly after he returned
to his home in NM following the heart attack. I don't remember what I
was doing up so freaking late (I rarely stay up past 10pm local time),
but I remember hearing him.
<snip>
>>Ummm, you're welcome. I guess. I wonder if that developer has ever been
>>allowed to build his project or been compensated for his losses.
>
> You think the Circle should have been destroyed?
Not my decision to make. I think the developer who owned the land should
be free to do what he wants with his own land. If the circle has any
economic viability, let him open it up and charge people to visit. If he
wants to sell more nameless south Florida condos, let him build them.
It's his land. The delays, not to mention the potential loss of control
of his own land, are costing him a LOT of money.
>>>And whose fault is that? If the news wasn't so full of political BS,
>>>maybe we could get to find out more about what's really going on.
>>
>>Such as...?
>
> Comets? Coronal mass ejections?
Okay. Those things were still reported.
>>Scepticism can be rational; it can also be irrational. There's a clear
>>distinction between scepticism and contrarianism. Contrarianism is an
>>irrational approach to events. I think most conspiracy theorists are
>>contrarians.
>
> Contrarian? Just for the sake of it? Sorry, I just can't buy that.
I'm sure you can't. :-X
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> >>Who says I believe anything the establishment reports?
> >
> > I did. That's my impression.
>
> That figures.
If I'm wrong you only need say so.
> >>One needn't go off the deep end to question authority.
> >
> > Indeed. So why do you refer to those that question in an extreme
> > and derogatory manner ('go off the deep end', for one example)?
>
> That's my impression. ;-)
heh, if my impression can be wrong so might yours. ;)
> >>It's irrational to believe that one coincidence makes other coincidences
> >>more relevant, particularly in the absence of clear supporting evidence.
> >
> > Let's see. In this short thread alone, we've happened across
> > four individuals, Couzinet, Ouseley, Szekely, and Hoagland,
> > and discovered that; the first disappeared, the second suffered
> > attempts on his life, his house set on fire twice, that he, like the
> > third, had his livelihood terminated and his reputation wrecked,
> > then the fourth suspects something dirty, and that's WITHOUT
> > EVEN TRYING!
>
> Yes, it certainly appears there's a coordinated effort to silence kooks
> and other assorted nutjobs.
You just won't get it will you. (Another main man for that list- J.C.)
> Have you checked your doors and windows lately?
And what exactly could that accomplish?
> >>Overwork over a short time span isn't necessarily bad. Bad diet over a
> >>longer timespan IS. I don't know his health history, but his diet was
> >>admittedly not very good.
> >
> > Did you hear him say that, or read it somewhere?
>
> I heard him say it on the Art Bell radio show shortly after he returned
> to his home in NM following the heart attack. I don't remember what I
> was doing up so freaking late (I rarely stay up past 10pm local time),
> but I remember hearing him.
Saying what? 'I was very fond of steak', maybe?
> <snip>
> >>Ummm, you're welcome. I guess. I wonder if that developer has ever been
> >>allowed to build his project or been compensated for his losses.
> >
> > You think the Circle should have been destroyed?
>
> Not my decision to make. I think the developer who owned the land should
> be free to do what he wants with his own land. If the circle has any
> economic viability, let him open it up and charge people to visit. If he
> wants to sell more nameless south Florida condos, let him build them.
> It's his land. The delays, not to mention the potential loss of control
> of his own land, are costing him a LOT of money.
'Pressured by schoolchildren, preservationists, American Indians and
other groups, Penelas [Miami-Dade Mayor] led the campaign to save
the Circle from developers. The state and county eventually cobbled
together loans and grants to buy the property for $26.7 million,..'
(Published Saturday, May 6, 2000, in the Miami Herald)
http://www.greatdreams.com/mayan.htm
Am I missing something, or were you unaware of that?
> >>>And whose fault is that? If the news wasn't so full of political BS,
> >>>maybe we could get to find out more about what's really going on.
> >>
> >>Such as...?
> >
> > Comets? Coronal mass ejections?
>
> Okay. Those things were still reported.
Again, on mainstream media news?
> >>Scepticism can be rational; it can also be irrational. There's a clear
> >>distinction between scepticism and contrarianism. Contrarianism is an
> >>irrational approach to events. I think most conspiracy theorists are
> >>contrarians.
> >
> > Contrarian? Just for the sake of it? Sorry, I just can't buy that.
>
> I'm sure you can't. :-X
Meaning?
(btw, you are pretty contrary yourself, USual)
USual sUSpect
>>>I did. That's my impression.
>>
>>That figures.
>
> If I'm wrong you only need say so.
Why change? Think whatever you want about me.
>>That's my impression. ;-)
>
> heh, if my impression can be wrong so might yours. ;)
I'm not terribly worried about our impressions of each other.
>>Yes, it certainly appears there's a coordinated effort to silence kooks
>>and other assorted nutjobs.
>
> You just won't get it will you. (Another main man for that list- J.C.)
Oh, but I *do* get it. I understand where you're coming from, but I also
know where that road leads. It's your business if you're content
believing in conspiracy theories. Connecting irrelevant, contrived, and
conjectured dots of conspiracy theories just isn't for me. I want more
facts -- little details the conspiracy theories typically lack.
I see coincidence, you see connection. I say coincidence because who has
any proof either way? You say the lack of proof *is* proof. That's just
not enough for me. You question my authority, and I question yours.
Round and round it goes -- lack of proof *is* proof to one, but lack of
proof to the other is simply lack of proof. The thing I keep wondering
is: why does it even matter, and why should one even waste time arguing
about it if there's no proof?
I'm not losing sleep just because the DIY saucer guy disappeared. For
all we know, a jealous husband may have settled a score with him or he
may have had (egads) a mental illness that led him to wander off. It
wouldn't be the first time anything like either of those situations,
especially a manic episode, happened -- or nearly anything else -- even
to a scientist.
Do you mean to add Jesus to your list? I wouldn't compare those others
to him on a wide range of grounds. Chief among them is a parallel and
contemporary record of Jesus and his followers in the writings
encompassed in the Talmud; those writings clearly contradict theosophy
and Szekely's Essene Gospel.
>>Have you checked your doors and windows lately?
>
> And what exactly could that accomplish?
*shrug* Other than mounting your zapper, how do you take on the dark
conspiratorial forces aligned against you?
>>I heard him say it on the Art Bell radio show shortly after he returned
>>to his home in NM following the heart attack. I don't remember what I
>>was doing up so freaking late (I rarely stay up past 10pm local time),
>>but I remember hearing him.
>
> Saying what? 'I was very fond of steak', maybe?
IIRC, he said that he ate whatever was available whenever he could
actually grab a bite, and some of that was stuff he knew was probably
not very good for him. I don't recall if he specifically mentioned
particular foods by name; it was a couple years ago and not exactly the
most important thing to me.
> 'Pressured by schoolchildren, preservationists, American Indians and
> other groups, Penelas [Miami-Dade Mayor] led the campaign to save
> the Circle from developers. The state and county eventually cobbled
> together loans and grants to buy the property for $26.7 million,..'
> (Published Saturday, May 6, 2000, in the Miami Herald)
> http://www.greatdreams.com/mayan.htm
>
> Am I missing something, or were you unaware of that?
As I said, I haven't paid attention to it in a while. I had the Miami
Herald's archive bookmarked but it's apparently dead. So, too, are all
the sites those people who said it was an American Stonehenge. Funny,
why would they make such a fuss about it and then let their interest in
it fizzle?
>>Okay. Those things were still reported.
>
> Again, on mainstream media news?
Again, YES.
>>I'm sure you can't. :-X
>
> Meaning?
Perhaps we think the same about each other, just in opposite ways.
> (btw, you are pretty contrary yourself, USual)
Thanks for noticing.
pearl
<..>
> I'm not terribly worried about our impressions of each other.
It's all more or less the same to me. Just don't 'shoot the messenger'.
> >>Yes, it certainly appears there's a coordinated effort to silence kooks
> >>and other assorted nutjobs.
> >
> > You just won't get it will you. (Another main man for that list- J.C.)
>
> Oh, but I *do* get it. I understand where you're coming from, but I also
> know where that road leads. It's your business if you're content
> believing in conspiracy theories. Connecting irrelevant, contrived, and
> conjectured dots of conspiracy theories just isn't for me. I want more
> facts -- little details the conspiracy theories typically lack.
>
> I see coincidence, you see connection. I say coincidence because who has
> any proof either way? You say the lack of proof *is* proof. That's just
> not enough for me. You question my authority, and I question yours.
> Round and round it goes -- lack of proof *is* proof to one, but lack of
> proof to the other is simply lack of proof. The thing I keep wondering
> is: why does it even matter, and why should one even waste time arguing
> about it if there's no proof?
>
> I'm not losing sleep just because the DIY saucer guy disappeared. For
> all we know, a jealous husband may have settled a score with him or he
> may have had (egads) a mental illness that led him to wander off. It
> wouldn't be the first time anything like either of those situations,
> especially a manic episode, happened -- or nearly anything else -- even
> to a scientist.
'Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events
surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the
entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following
the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address
the actual issues. '
http://web.archive.org/web/20010710055841/http://www.proparanoid.com/truth.htm
Anyway, you've had facts, you just can't face, or admit to the truth of it.
> Do you mean to add Jesus to your list? I wouldn't compare those others
> to him on a wide range of grounds. Chief among them is a parallel and
> contemporary record of Jesus and his followers in the writings
> encompassed in the Talmud; those writings clearly contradict theosophy
> and Szekely's Essene Gospel.
You've not been paying attention, which is a real shame.
Were you around at the time of Christ, you'd be right there up
in front screaming 'kook', and 'nutjob'.
> >>Have you checked your doors and windows lately?
> >
> > And what exactly could that accomplish?
>
> *shrug* Other than mounting your zapper, how do you take on the dark
> conspiratorial forces aligned against you?
*shrug*.
> >>I heard him say it on the Art Bell radio show shortly after he returned
> >>to his home in NM following the heart attack. I don't remember what I
> >>was doing up so freaking late (I rarely stay up past 10pm local time),
> >>but I remember hearing him.
> >
> > Saying what? 'I was very fond of steak', maybe?
>
> IIRC, he said that he ate whatever was available whenever he could
> actually grab a bite, and some of that was stuff he knew was probably
> not very good for him. I don't recall if he specifically mentioned
> particular foods by name; it was a couple years ago and not exactly the
> most important thing to me.
Connecting irrelevant, contrived, and conjectured dots just isn't for me.
I want more facts -- little details your conspiracy theories typically lack.
> > 'Pressured by schoolchildren, preservationists, American Indians and
> > other groups, Penelas [Miami-Dade Mayor] led the campaign to save
> > the Circle from developers. The state and county eventually cobbled
> > together loans and grants to buy the property for $26.7 million,..'
> > (Published Saturday, May 6, 2000, in the Miami Herald)
> > http://www.greatdreams.com/mayan.htm
> >
> > Am I missing something, or were you unaware of that?
>
> As I said, I haven't paid attention to it in a while. I had the Miami
> Herald's archive bookmarked but it's apparently dead. So, too, are all
> the sites those people who said it was an American Stonehenge. Funny,
> why would they make such a fuss about it and then let their interest in
> it fizzle?
Funny, why did you make such a fuss about it, not even knowing it
was resolved three years ago?
> >>Okay. Those things were still reported.
> >
> > Again, on mainstream media news?
>
> Again, YES.
Not again. You said it appeared on a site dedicated to space before.
<..>
pearl
> Do you mean to add Jesus to your list? I wouldn't compare those others
> to him on a wide range of grounds. Chief among them is a parallel and
> contemporary record of Jesus and his followers in the writings
> encompassed in the Talmud; those writings clearly contradict theosophy
> and Szekely's Essene Gospel.
The Rabbis: Polemia Overdose
The Reliability of the Secular References to Jesus
J. P. Holding
We will not spend much time on the writings of the rabbis, for there
is very little of value that they can offer in this context. Some even
doubt that Jesus is referred to at all: Meier writes that the rabbinic
sources contain "no clear or even probable reference" to Jesus, and
may be considered primarily as reactions to Christian claims. [Meie.
MarJ, 96-7] Yamauchi cites Twelftree (see also Twel.GosP5) as
saying that the Talmud references are "of almost no value to the
historian in his search for the historical Jesus," although a contrary
view is also offered by Wilcox, who recommends that the material
may be used, albeit cautiously. [Wilk.JUF, 211]
..
Therefore, they may be taken as an independent and reliable witness
for the mere fact of Jesus' existence, while not necessarily that for
actions and sayings of Jesus. ..'
http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_TAL.html
Just tying up a loose thread. :).
USual sUSpect
<snip>
Ahhhh, but it's still unraveled. ;-)
http://abbc.com/judaism/jesus.htm
The above is a Muslim site, but the information is taken mostly from
works by Christian apologists Josh McDowell, Bill Wilson, and Robert
Morey. While I disagree with the site's claims about Zionism, the
material on that page is well-documented. I think its ample citations
and references more than makes up for the assertions your source
provides, aside from the paragraph that says, "The single point that may
be derived from them [Talmudic writings] is, again, that it provides no
indication that Jesus was a mythical figure; inasmuch as it accepts
Jesus' historicity, and does not doubt it, it provides positive evidence
that Jesus did exist." Yes, that point IS derived because the Talmud is
filled with references to Jesus (who was NOT an Essene).
Your homework: find out what the Talmudic writers had to say
(themselves, not from theosophy websites!) about the Essenes and find
any connection between them and Jesus of Nazareth.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> <snip>
> > Just tying up a loose thread. :).
>
> Ahhhh, but it's still unraveled. ;-)
Oi! Stop picking! :)
'Theologians now realize that "the sect of the Nazarenes" mentioned
in Acts 24:5 was indeed the Essenian sect, the Qumranians. Since the
discovery of the "Dead Sea Scrolls" in 1947 much has been revealed.
The Dead Sea Scrolls speak of "the teacher of righteousness." It is
believed that this "teacher of righteousness" was non other than John
the Baptist.
We also discover that certain terms and phrases found in the Dead
Sea Scrolls are found in the Apostle John's writings as well as in Paul's
writings. The dwelling place of the Essenes was referred to as "the
wilderness" and "Mt. Carmel". It is also interesting to note that there
was no geographical location called "Nazareth" during the time of Jesus
Christ. Nor is "Nazareth" ever mentioned in the Old Testament.
When we read such passages as Matthew 2:23 where it says that
Joseph's family arrived in a "city called Nazareth" we must realize
that the phrase "in the city" does not appear in the older manuscripts.
The correct reading is "he dwelt among the Nazarenes." Also, we find
passages in the English versions which read, "Jesus of Nazareth."
When the correct way it should be read is, "Jesus, the Nazarene."
As a matter of fact, if you do your research you will find that it was
the Roman Catholic church which many, many years after the death
and resurrection of Jesus Christ, bought a plot of land and named it,
Nazareth. The Roman authorities did this to conceal the "Jesus, Essene
connection". Why did they want to hide the connection? Because the
Roman church sought political authority. It is a known fact that the
Essenian sect wanted nothing to do with the Roman Empire. Nor did
they approve of or promote the earlier Macabean revolt. The Essenes
rejected the apocryphal writings because they did not believe in nor
support the Macabean revolt. Thus, to detach themselves from the
Essenes the Roman church made Nazareth a "city" and added the
apocryphal writings to their scriptures.
Other names the Qumranians took on were, the Nazarenes, the
Baptists, and "men dressed in white raiment" ("white as snow"), and
finally the name Christian. What do these titles refer to? The word
Essene is said to come from the ancient Egyption word, Kashai. This
was the sacred priesthood which Moses when in Egypt was said to
belong to. Kashai means, "secret". The ancient Jews pronounced it,
"chsai",the Greek, "essaios", or "essene."
The word, "Nazarene" has many connections. It is close to the
Hebrew word "neser" which means "branch." This connected the
Essenes to the Davidic messianic prophecies which refer to the
messiah as, "the Branch." (Isa. 11:1) Also, the word "Nasrani" means,
"lot's of fish". Jesus referred to his followers as, "fishers of men." When
the Essenes were seen traveling through crowds in Jerusalem with their
white robes on they looked like a "school of fish." To this day the
symbol of a fish is used to represent the Christians. ..'
http://www.geocities.com/zerub33/Essenes.html
Constantine had taken control of the meat-eating branches of the
Christian Church -- those originally started by his hero Paul --, he
altered the New Testament in favor of Paul at the Council of Nicea,
AD 325, created a State-run religion known as "The Catholic Church",
and sent soldiers to confiscate all copies of the original Essene-Christian
New Testament.
'Archdeacon Wilberforce of Westminster said "that after the Council
of Nicea, AD 325, the MSS. of the New Testament were considerably
tampered with".
Professor Nestle in his "introduction to the Textual Criticism of the
Greek Testament" tells us that certain scholars, called correctors,
were appointed by the ecclesiastical authorities, and actually
commissioned to correct the text of Scripture in the interest of what
was considered ORTHODOXY.
http://www.essene.com/NazareneGospel/index.html
'There are essentially two Talmuds. The first is known as Talmud
Yerushalmi or the Talmud of Jerusalem, compiled around AD 400.
The Jerusalem Talmud was the last product of Palestinian rabbinic
Judaism. The second, called Talmud Babli or the Talmud of Babylon,
was compiled sometime during the sixth century AD. (Your link).
Look at the dates. Rabbinic commentaries on Christian texts were
almost certainly commentaries on Constantine's revised version.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
<..>
> > Anyway, you've had facts, you just can't face, or admit to the truth of it.
>
> to shoot messengers, maybe you could set a better example?
I see kb's upon kb's of facts which you have not, nor can, disprove.
> >>Do you mean to add Jesus to your list? I wouldn't compare those others
> >>to him on a wide range of grounds. Chief among them is a parallel and
> >>contemporary record of Jesus and his followers in the writings
> >>encompassed in the Talmud; those writings clearly contradict theosophy
> >>and Szekely's Essene Gospel.
> >
> > You've not been paying attention, which is a real shame.
>
> Oh, but I have.
See other post.
> > Were you around at the time of Christ, you'd be right there up
> > in front screaming 'kook', and 'nutjob'.
>
> Blimey, has that zapper given you the gift of prescience? How do you
> know what I do, and how do you know you'd act any differently?
Why should I think that you'd regard someone on the fringe, then,
any differently than you do today?
<..>
> >>As I said, I haven't paid attention to it in a while. I had the Miami
> >>Herald's archive bookmarked but it's apparently dead. So, too, are all
> >>the sites those people who said it was an American Stonehenge. Funny,
> >>why would they make such a fuss about it and then let their interest in
> >>it fizzle?
> >
> > Funny, why did you make such a fuss about it, not even knowing it
> > was resolved three years ago?
>
> I didn't make a fuss. You asked for an example. I gave one. You may
> think stone circles are important enough to get taxpayers to cough up
> $25-30 million. I don't.
The taxpayers didn't appear to object to the preservation of a very
important archeological site, and too right as well- it's part of your (our)
national and cultural heritage, something money in an individual's hands
could never replace. What a very strange and uncaring attitude.
> >>>Again, on mainstream media news?
> >>
> >>Again, YES.
> >
> > Not again. You said it appeared on a site dedicated to space before.
>
> Geez, I said it was also mentioned briefly in local news as well as on
> cable news outlets.
Ok.
Roger Pearse
> Constantine had taken control of the meat-eating branches of the
> Christian Church -- those originally started by his hero Paul --, he
> altered the New Testament in favor of Paul at the Council of Nicea,
> AD 325,
I'm sure this is posted in good faith, but this material about Nicaea
is a myth that goes around. About the First Council of Nicaea and the
canon of scripture: <http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html>.
> 'Archdeacon Wilberforce of Westminster said "that after the Council
> of Nicea, AD 325, the MSS. of the New Testament were considerably
> tampered with".
Archbishop of Westminster?? Some mistake, surely. The statement,
whoever made it, is untrue as far as I know.
> Professor Nestle in his "introduction to the Textual Criticism of the
> Greek Testament" tells us that certain scholars, called correctors,
> were appointed by the ecclesiastical authorities, and actually
> commissioned to correct the text of Scripture in the interest of what
> was considered ORTHODOXY.
I hardly think Dr. Nestle would subscribe to any such position. Every
scriptorium in antiquity had such people. Their job was to 'correct'
the manually created copies of any text against the originals. In the
manuscript era, such expedients were necessary. Think of them as the
equivalent of the modern proof-reader.
> http://www.essene.com/NazareneGospel/index.html
This page is nonsense, I'm sorry to say. Notice the absence of
references on the 'quotes by scholars' -- or date at which they wrote.
You have to keep an eye out for 19th century tripe on the net, I'm
afraid.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
USual sUSpect
>>Constantine had taken control of the meat-eating branches of the
>>Christian Church -- those originally started by his hero Paul --, he
>>altered the New Testament in favor of Paul at the Council of Nicea,
>>AD 325,
>
> I'm sure this is posted in good faith, but this material about Nicaea
> is a myth that goes around. About the First Council of Nicaea and the
> canon of scripture: <http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html>.
Hi Roger. I respect what you're trying to do, but I'm afraid you're
wasting time trying to reason with pearl. Every time you cite something
valid to refute her, she'll cite 10 even more invalid responses. If you
challenge her sources, she'll find "support" within her same sources.
She also seems to enjoy posting uncorroborated quotes -- whether from
American founder Benjamin Rush (still waiting for her to get back on
that one) or the ones you noted from her Essene Gospel pages. I imagine
she'll fire back with something claiming Eusebius was an apologist for
Constantine.
Anyway, excellent page on Nicea. I enjoy reading the early church
fathers to get a sense of the continuity of faith and tradition. It also
helps me steer clear of the wolves when they make their wilder claims
about church history.
<snip>
pearl
news:3a88eeea.03062...@posting.google.com...
lol.
http://www.essene.com/Church/Forgery/
pearl
I had no idea this NG was frequented by RCC fundies! Or maybe..
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s),
author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new
ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony
which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address
issues, you can do so authoritatively.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010710055841/http://www.proparanoid.com/truth.htm
What's the going rate for 'experts' these days, usual?
>
> <snip>
>
Jonathan Ball
This Point 22 is talking about YOU, ~~HIVweed~~. YOU
are the one manufacturing a new "truth".
USual sUSpect
> I had no idea this NG was frequented by RCC fundies! Or maybe..
I'm not part of the Roman see. ;-)
> 22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s),
> author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new
> ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony
> which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address
> issues, you can do so authoritatively.
How is the above any different than the much more recent attempts by
theosophists and others to re-write Christian history? How do you escape
the same standard for your own sources? Indeed, the real novelty in
views of Christ are those which *you* proffer.
> What's the going rate for 'experts' these days, usual?
I've no idea what you charge for a shag, and I'm not the slightest bit
interested.
pearl
> are the one manufacturing a new "truth".
pearl
> calamity jane wrote:
> > I had no idea this NG was frequented by RCC fundies! Or maybe..
>
> I'm not part of the Roman see. ;-)
Whatever.
> > 22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s),
> > author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new
> > ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony
> > which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address
> > issues, you can do so authoritatively.
>
> How is the above any different than the much more recent attempts by
> theosophists and others to re-write Christian history? How do you escape
> the same standard for your own sources? Indeed, the real novelty in
> views of Christ are those which *you* proffer.
To you, of course. You're totally brainwashed.
> > What's the going rate for 'experts' these days, usual?
>
> I've no idea what you charge for a shag, and I'm not the slightest bit
> interested.
lol.
USual sUSpect
>>>22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s),
>>>author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new
>>>ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony
>>>which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address
>>>issues, you can do so authoritatively.
>>>http://web.archive.org/web/20010710055841/http://www.proparanoid.com/truth.htm
>>
>>This Point 22 is talking about YOU, ~~weed~~. YOU
>>are the one manufacturing a new "truth".
>
> Nope. http://www.essene.com/Church/Forgery/
Yep. For example, that link says:
---
Published by
"PSYCHIANA" Moscow, Idaho Copyright 1930
---
Now, then, who or what was PSYCHIANA? It was a home-spun, mail-order
religion founded by a theosophist named Frank Robinson (NOT the
hall-of-fame baseball player and current Montreal Expos manager). The
article you linked to appeared in that rinky-dink mail-order religion's
newspaper.
What was this little home-spun, mail-order piece of Americana religion
all about? Robinson's views of Jesus famously ebbed and flowed according
to his moods, not according to history, tradition, or other objective
measures. His views were also greatly contradictory: he considered
Christianity and Hinduism to be the same religion, though he also
concluded Christianity was a pagan religion.
In other words, it was made up as Mr Robinson went along.
Which is PRECISELY what your little rule #22 is all about. You're the
one who relies on works like that Essene-dot-com forgery article. You're
the one who relies on pseudo-scientific efforts of locoegos-dot-com.
You're the one who posts "studies" of sixty cans of tuna designed only
to scare people from eating it despite more comprehensive studies.
Rule #22. You'll live by it or you'll die by it. The choice is yours.
Jonathan Ball
~~HIVweed~~ strikes me as being very like the Jehovah's
Witnesses. It took me a long time to figure out that
the JWs - note: no apostrophe ;-) - don't even care if
you listen to them or convert. They are fulfilling
their obligation merely by going out and knocking on
your door.
Similarly, I don't think ~~HIVweed~~ really cares if
she persuades anyone or not. She is doing he weird
duty, as she understands it, merely by throwing all
kinds of bullshit into usenet.
It's weird religion.
USual sUSpect
What an excellent observation, and I don't realize if you know how
apropos it is. Charles Taze Russell, founder of the JWs' Watchtower
Bible and Tract Society, started his little religion quite like Mr
Robinson started his: home-spun and mail-order. Russell, like pearl, was
drawn to the pseudo-science of his day, including pyramidology (his
group even placed a pyramid memorial near his grave).
> Similarly, I don't think ~~HIVweed~~ really cares if she persuades
> anyone or not. She is doing he weird duty, as she understands it,
> merely by throwing all kinds of bullshit into usenet.
>
> It's weird religion.
Definitely.
pearl
Yet more USELESS AD HOMINEM drivel. You'll fall on it.
>
USual sUSpect
Everything I said is true, pearl. Do your own search of PSYCHIANA with
or without Frank Robinson (since searching just the latter will likely
only return baseball sites) and read for yourself. You may not have a
personal problem with DIY religious movements like PSYCHIANA or
essene-dot-com, but they're the exact kind of source you should seek to
exclude based on your rule #22.
Roger Pearse
> Nope. http://www.essene.com/Church/Forgery/
You might want to know that Wheless' book is itself fraudulent.
(Modern atheists are aware of this, actually, on the whole).
A while ago I went through the introduction to his book, and looked up
in the original every citation he made, ostensibly from the fathers.
In a very large percentage of cases, he misrepresented what was said.
His training as a lawyer came out in that he lied by selection; e.g.
verbatim choice of words, but carefully omitting the very next
sentence which would have shown the author did not hold to view he was
attributing to them.
I did document these, at
<http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/wheless/wheless.htm>
pearl
Again, USELESS AD HOMINEM DRIVEL.
>
Roger Pearse
Sorry you felt intimidated.
> http://www.essene.com/Church/Forgery/
Not sure what this has to do with the topic mentioned.
Sorry to hear you trust this book. It's a fraud.
pearl
> > Nope. http://www.essene.com/Church/Forgery/
>
> You might want to know that Wheless' book is itself fraudulent.
> (Modern atheists are aware of this, actually, on the whole).
>
> A while ago I went through the introduction to his book, and looked up
> in the original every citation he made, ostensibly from the fathers.
> In a very large percentage of cases, he misrepresented what was said.
> His training as a lawyer came out in that he lied by selection; e.g.
> verbatim choice of words, but carefully omitting the very next
> sentence which would have shown the author did not hold to view he was
> attributing to them.
Ipse dixit.
c.360Julian wrote in Against the Gallileans: "why do you worship this spurious
son...a counterfeit son", "you have invented your new kind of sacrifice "
400-600: era of "aggressive forgeries " in Christian texts [Grant,J.T.S.,1960]
St Faustus " Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches
of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith;
especially since--as already it has been often proved--these things were written
not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by
I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who
made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the
whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were
supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had
written their lies and conceits according to them. "
..
In short,
what we call the Bible today is many generations of changes and redaction
by many people over several centuries, ..'
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Gospel-Timeline.html
See also;
http://www.apollonius.net/bernard1e.html
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tammuz69/home/Index/History/homeChrstn.html
and many, many more.
> I did document these, at
> <http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/wheless/wheless.htm>
404.
pearl
news:3a88eeea.03062...@posting.google.com...
> It's a fraud.
That's my point.
See ya.
USual sUSpect
>>A while ago I went through the introduction to his book, and looked up
>>in the original every citation he made, ostensibly from the fathers.
>>In a very large percentage of cases, he misrepresented what was said.
>>His training as a lawyer came out in that he lied by selection; e.g.
>>verbatim choice of words, but carefully omitting the very next
>>sentence which would have shown the author did not hold to view he was
>>attributing to them.
>
> Ipse dixit.
Actually read the information and see if you still think that.
<snip>
>>I did document these, at
>><http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/wheless/wheless.htm>
>
> 404.
Try:
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/wheless/wheless_intro.htm
You're welcome in advance.
USual sUSpect
>>It's a fraud.
>
> That's my point.
From Roger's site re: Wheless:
"For a man intent on documentary proof of fraud, there is a significant
level of error at even the basic level of accurate citation. 28% of the
references are wrong or unavailable; 28% are inaccurate or can't be
checked; and only 24% of the quotes correctly represent the author's
views! Of course these figures are only a guide. Much real information
is included, although heavily slanted. Nevertheless we have seen a
significant level of misinformation in Wheless' account, and in some
cases deliberate misrepresentation would seem to be a possibility."
Wheless distorted the original intent of the quotations he used 76% of
the time -- that's not very good, pearl. Not only have you violated your
infamous rule #22, you've gone to the bottom of the barrel for your
disinformation. Am I surprised? Not in the least.
> See ya.
Going to bury your head back in the sand?
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> >>A while ago I went through the introduction to his book, and looked up
> >>in the original every citation he made, ostensibly from the fathers.
> >>In a very large percentage of cases, he misrepresented what was said.
> >>His training as a lawyer came out in that he lied by selection; e.g.
> >>verbatim choice of words, but carefully omitting the very next
> >>sentence which would have shown the author did not hold to view he was
> >>attributing to them.
> >
> > Ipse dixit.
>
> Actually read the information and see if you still think that.
Of 25 citations:
Reference: 2 not given, 18 correct, 2 false, 3 not quite right.
Verbal accuracy: 3 not given, 18 correct, 2 false, 2 not quite right
Fair representation: 1 not available, 6 correct, 14 false, 4 mixed
or dubious.
Not good, yet- "Much real information is included," wrote Roger.
> Try:
> http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/wheless/wheless_intro.htm
>
> You're welcome in advance.
:)
USual sUSpect
>>Actually read the information and see if you still think that.
>
> Of 25 citations:
> Reference: 2 not given, 18 correct, 2 false, 3 not quite right.
> Verbal accuracy: 3 not given, 18 correct, 2 false, 2 not quite right
> Fair representation: 1 not available, 6 correct, 14 false, 4 mixed
> or dubious.
> Not good, yet- "Much real information is included," wrote Roger.
Umm, you left out the operative part of that sentence. Roger actually
wrote, "Much real information is included, although heavily slanted."
You can't just shrug off the fact that Wheless distorted the *original
intent* of the quotations he used 76% of the time. That's not just "not
good," it doesn't even count as scholarship.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> >>Actually read the information and see if you still think that.
> >
> > Of 25 citations:
> > Reference: 2 not given, 18 correct, 2 false, 3 not quite right.
> > Verbal accuracy: 3 not given, 18 correct, 2 false, 2 not quite right
> > Fair representation: 1 not available, 6 correct, 14 false, 4 mixed
> > or dubious.
> > Not good, yet- "Much real information is included," wrote Roger.
>
> Umm, you left out the operative part of that sentence. Roger actually
> wrote, "Much real information is included, although heavily slanted."
> You can't just shrug off the fact that Wheless distorted the *original
> intent* of the quotations he used 76% of the time. That's not just "not
> good," it doesn't even count as scholarship.
Even if that's true, the 24% that is, according to Roger, accurate
representation could well be highly significant.
Elsewhere;
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> >>It's a fraud.
> >
> > That's my point.
>
> From Roger's site re: Wheless:
> "For a man intent on documentary proof of fraud, there is a significant
> level of error at even the basic level of accurate citation. 28% of the
> references are wrong or unavailable; 28% are inaccurate or can't be
> checked; and only 24% of the quotes correctly represent the author's
> views! Of course these figures are only a guide. Much real information
> is included, although heavily slanted. Nevertheless we have seen a
> significant level of misinformation in Wheless' account, and in some
> cases deliberate misrepresentation would seem to be a possibility."
>
> Wheless distorted the original intent of the quotations he used 76% of
> the time -- that's not very good, pearl.
If true, agreed.
> Not only have you violated your infamous rule #22,
How DID Roger happen to land on this particular virtual shore?
> you've gone to the bottom of the barrel for your
> disinformation. Am I surprised? Not in the least.
No. For what it's worth, I wasn't too happy with what
he says anyway, and am quite happy to close that book.
> > See ya.
>
> Going to bury your head back in the sand?
Eh? I'm waiting for you to address the revelations on this site;
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Gospel-Timeline.html
pearl
> I've no idea what you charge for a shag, and I'm not the slightest bit
> interested.
Which reminds me;
'During the third and fourth centuries A.D., Emperor Constantine
and the council at Nicea decreed that women were forbidden to
speak or sing in church and the healing traditions of women across
the Mediterranean and Europe were suppressed.
The following quote from 'The Gospel of Mary Magdalene', a
translation from the Coptic text with commentary by Lean-Yves
Leloup, reveals more:
"Mary's identity as a prostitute stems from Homily 33 of Pope
Gregory I, delivered in the year 591… Only in 1969 did the
Catholic Church officially repeal Gregory's labeling of Mary
Magdalene as a whore, thereby admitting their error—though
the image of Magdalene as the penitent whore has remained in
the public teachings of all Christian denominations. Like a small
erratum buried in the back pages of a newspaper, the Church's
correction goes unnoticed, while the initial and incorrect article
continues to influence readers."
http://www.aniwilliams.com/magdalena.htm ***
Nice one, usual.
USual sUSpect
>> From Roger's site re: Wheless:
>>"For a man intent on documentary proof of fraud, there is a significant
>>level of error at even the basic level of accurate citation. 28% of the
>>references are wrong or unavailable; 28% are inaccurate or can't be
>>checked; and only 24% of the quotes correctly represent the author's
>>views! Of course these figures are only a guide. Much real information
>>is included, although heavily slanted. Nevertheless we have seen a
>>significant level of misinformation in Wheless' account, and in some
>>cases deliberate misrepresentation would seem to be a possibility."
>>
>>Wheless distorted the original intent of the quotations he used 76% of
>>the time -- that's not very good, pearl.
>
> If true, agreed.
Have you reason to doubt it? Roger, after all, found the quotes Wheless
used and put them right there for people like you to compare. Since
Roger went further than Wheless and gave full citations, why don't you
ramble on down to your nearest seminary library and have a look-see?
>>Not only have you violated your infamous rule #22,
>
> How DID Roger happen to land on this particular virtual shore?
Perhaps you should ask him.
>>you've gone to the bottom of the barrel for your
>>disinformation. Am I surprised? Not in the least.
>
> No. For what it's worth, I wasn't too happy with what
> he says anyway, and am quite happy to close that book.
LOL!!!!!! Why, pray tell, are you going around using Wheless as a source
if you've been unhappy with his positions?
>>>See ya.
>>
>>Going to bury your head back in the sand?
>
> Eh? I'm waiting for you to address the revelations on this site;
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Gospel-Timeline.html
What "revelation" is there to address? Take a look at the index for his
site:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/
How is it that Mr Quentin Jones of Australia has access to "original
evidence" that no other scholar has -- or that most scholars already
reject on grounds of, well, scholarship? People who look at esoterica
for TRUTH usually miss the forest for the trees. Church history, and I'm
in the camp who believe the ekklesia of the NT is a continuation of the
synagogue of the OT, is a straight, continuous line. Esoterica,
including Gnosticism and Kabalism, is a broken zig-zag line.
USual sUSpect
<snip>
> Nice one, usual.
Thanks. Are you ever going to use credible sources to make your points
or are you going to remain a plonker?
USual sUSpect
<snip>
> ...People who look at esoterica
> in the camp who believe the ekklesia of the NT is a continuation of the
> synagogue of the OT, is a straight, continuous line. Esoterica,
> including Gnosticism and Kabalism, is a broken zig-zag line.
Let's make that a DOTTED line, per our "conspiracy theory" discussion
about connecting dots. The only problem with connecting the dots of
esoterica is you're never quite certain the nature or veracity of the
next dot you connect, as witnessed by your reliance on PSYCHIANA and
Wheless and now Jones.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
<..>
> > http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Gospel-Timeline.html
>
> What "revelation" is there to address? Take a look at the index for his
> site:
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/
>
> How is it that Mr Quentin Jones of Australia has access to "original
> evidence" that no other scholar has -- or that most scholars already
> reject on grounds of, well, scholarship? People who look at esoterica
> for TRUTH usually miss the forest for the trees. Church history, and I'm
> in the camp who believe the ekklesia of the NT is a continuation of the
> synagogue of the OT, is a straight, continuous line. Esoterica,
> including Gnosticism and Kabalism, is a broken zig-zag line.
Believe what you like.
>
pearl
Believe what you will.
>
pearl
Believe what you will.
".. When a blind man and one who sees are both together
in darkness, they are no different from one another. When
the light comes then he who sees will see the light, and he
who is blind will remain in darkness…"
http://www.aniwilliams.com/magdalena.htm
USual sUSpect
> Believe what you like.
No, I don't wanna be like you. :-)
USual sUSpect
> Believe what you will.
USual sUSpect
> Believe what you will.
One pearl is enough for this group. Heck, one is enough for the world.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> > Believe what you will.
>
> No, I don't wanna be like you. :-)
I know, you want to believe what you've been told to believe.
You are right in saying that orthodoxy goes back in one unbroken line, but
it is a line of deceit, with a record of persecutions, slander, and brutality.
The truth is far more interesting.
The Essenoi
..
Within the redacted remnants of early Essenoi texts, and within the
relatively intact oral traditions of early Nazoreanism as preserved
by the surviving gnostic Mandaean sect of Iraq, we have preserved
many original Nazorean, Essene and Gnostic teachings. These
traditions reflect the traditions of earliest Christianity BEFORE the
tampering that occurred in later centuries by the Catholic school.
The Nazorean branch of the ancient Essenoi Order originated in
Wadi Essiah (Essene Canyon) on Mount Karmel in northern Israel
and at Wadi Kharrar (Betharbara) in southern Jordan. In the ninth
century BC Liliukh (known as Elijah in the Jewish Bible) and
Lalaitha (known as Lilith in the Jewish writings) began the Order
at these two locations near pure springs of water. Eventually a
Nazorean Monastery developed in both locales. It was in these
Essene Nazorean Monasteries that Yeshu (known as Jesus to
modern Christians) was conceived, probably born, and raised to
adulthood. Miryai later converted into this Nazorean sect from
Judaism. The New Testament is a corrupted and fabricated
document only loosely based on more authentic Essene texts.
..............................' (links from here, it's all documented).
http://essenes.crosswinds.net/bnei1.htm
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> > Believe what you like.
>
> No, I don't wanna be like you. :-)
I believe the records.
c.360 Julian wrote in Against the Gallileans: "why do you worship this spurious
son...a counterfeit son", "you have invented your new kind of sacrifice "
400-600: era of "aggressive forgeries " in Christian texts [Grant,J.T.S.,1960]
St Faustus " Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches
of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith;
especially since--as already it has been often proved--these things were written
not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by
I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who
made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the
whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were
supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had
written their lies and conceits according to them. "
..
In short,
what we call the Bible today is many generations of changes and redaction
by many people over several centuries, ..'
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Gospel-Timeline.html
'A detailed Chronology of the Gospels and the foundations of Christianity
(that) shows how the Life of Jesus Christ grew over the first century - the
modern four Gospels do not appear until mid-late 2nd century, a century-
and-a-half after the alleged events.'
It's a religion by men for man. It's a massive fraud. The early Christians/
Essenes/Gnostics were persecuted by Rome, so why the 'change of heart'?
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> > Believe what you will.
>
> One pearl is enough for this group. Heck, one is enough for the world.
If you were even half a man you'd concede that orthodoxy committed
1378 years of horrendous slander of Mary Magdalene. Ashamed yet?
Roger Pearse
> > Umm, you left out the operative part of that sentence. Roger actually
> > wrote, "Much real information is included, although heavily slanted."
> > You can't just shrug off the fact that Wheless distorted the *original
> > intent* of the quotations he used 76% of the time. That's not just "not
> > good," it doesn't even count as scholarship.
>
> Even if that's true, the 24% that is, according to Roger, accurate
> representation could well be highly significant.
True. One would have to take it case by case. But it is worrying
that in making his case, the most basic stage -- fair representation
-- is missing.
> Elsewhere;
>
> 400-600: era of "aggressive forgeries " in Christian texts [Grant,J.T.S.,1960]
I think we need a better (and longer) citation than this.
> St Faustus " Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the
> speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree
> not with his faith; especially since--as already it has been often proved--
> these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a
> long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews,
> not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports
> and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the
> apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the
> apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and
> conceits according to them. "
Note the absence of a proper reference. There is always a reason for
this...
I'm away from home so can't find the ref., but I looked this up once.
This is not 'St. Faustus' at all; this is Faustus the Manichee, quoted
by St. Augustine in the process of debunking him. (This citation does
not look quite verbatim, either, btw). A search in the online works
of Augustine -- probably 'Against Faustus' or something like that --
should find it.
I don't know about you, but it seems to me that there is a climate of
hateful fraud in all this. Regardless of our views, shouldn't
everyone take the time to get their facts right? (I know you're
repeating in good faith, but then you didn't write all this stuff but
presumed others had done the looking up). Myself I'm always willing
to allow for mistakes, but there seems to be an avalanche of this
stuff.
> ..
> In short,
> what we call the Bible today is many generations of changes and redaction
> by many people over several centuries, ..'
Nonsense.
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Gospel-Timeline.html
Quentin's list of 'quotes' was a lot longer, and aimed to prove that
Jesus didn't exist, before I pointed out to him how many of them were
bogus. Have a search for it in usenet. You'll find earlier versions
of it, without proper refs and stuffed full of crass errors. I see he
has revised the whole thing again, and I must take the time to go
through it. <smile> Perhaps I should ask for a byline as co-editor!
:)
Jonathan Ball
> "USual sUSpect" <ne...@even.try> wrote in message news:3EF73860...@even.try...
>
>>pearl wrote:
>>
>>>Believe what you will.
>>
>>No, I don't wanna be like you. :-)
>
>
> I know, you want to believe what you've been told to believe.
No, he believes those things for which there is
reliable evidence. You believe whatever makes you feel
good.
pearl
There appear to be discrepancies and various interpretations in both
orthodox and non-orthodox literature, but all in all the evidence points
to a new religion being formed around a personage named 'Yeshu the
Nazorean', sometime after the events.
:).
Lotus.
USual sUSpect
>>No, I don't wanna be like you. :-)
>
> I know, you want to believe what you've been told to believe.
You've *no* idea how I came to my beliefs. ;-)
> You are right in saying that orthodoxy goes back in one unbroken line, but
> it is a line of deceit, with a record of persecutions, slander, and brutality.
Pothead-kettle-black.
> The truth is far more interesting.
You wouldn't recognize the truth if it bit you on your grey mangy
over-Zapped butt.
<snip>
> ..............................' (links from here, it's all documented).
Rule #22 violation, as usual.
USual sUSpect
> There appear to be discrepancies and various interpretations in both
> orthodox and non-orthodox literature, but all in all the evidence points
> to a new religion being formed around a personage named 'Yeshu the
> Nazorean', sometime after the events.
No, not "all in all." Contemporary writings, including Roman secular
information, is quite clear that a certain Jewish controversy occurred
circa AD 34. That controversy centered on a rabbi whom some believed was
the messiah. The rabbi didn't claim a path of esoteric mysticism. His
followers didn't claim a novel religion, but rather the true path of
Judaism. The rabbi was crucified on the testimony of other rabbis by the
Roman governor or Judea, Pontius Pilate, another historical figure. The
executed rabbi's followers believed he rose from the dead, though the
contemporary writings of the other rabbis accuse the rabbi's followers
of moving his body. The followers were persecuted for their beliefs, and
many of them met the same fate (i.e., execution) as their teacher.
The only "evidence" to the contrary is that which is offered to
discredit the clear historical record. Such evidence includes the
misinformation you repeatedly offer which is prima facie violation of
your Rule #22. It has all been debunked, and so have you.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> > There appear to be discrepancies and various interpretations in both
> > orthodox and non-orthodox literature, but all in all the evidence points
> > to a new religion being formed around a personage named 'Yeshu the
> > Nazorean', sometime after the events.
>
> No, not "all in all." Contemporary writings, including Roman secular
> information, is quite clear that a certain Jewish controversy occurred
> circa AD 34. That controversy centered on a rabbi whom some believed was
> the messiah. The rabbi didn't claim a path of esoteric mysticism.
Why was he called 'Jesus the Nazorean' if he wasn't of that Essene sect?
> His followers didn't claim a novel religion, but rather the true path of
> Judaism.
Apocrypha Account of 4 Ezra 14,15
..
[20] For the world lies in darkness, and its inhabitants are without light.
[21] For thy law has been burned, and so no one knows the things which
have been done or will be done by thee.
[22] If then I have found favor before thee, send the Holy Spirit into me,
and I will write everything that has happened in the world from the
beginning, the things which were written in thy law, that men may be
able to find the path, and that those who wish to live in the last days
may live."
[23] He answered me and said, "Go and gather the people, and tell them
not to seek you for forty days.
[24] But prepare for yourself many writing tablets, and take with you Sarea,
Dabria, Selemia, Ethanus, and Asiel -- these five, because they are
trained to write rapidly;
[25] and you shall come here, and I will light in your heart the lamp of
understanding, which shall not be put out until what you are about to
write is finished.
[26] And when you have finished, some things you shall make public, and
some you shall deliver in secret to the wise; tomorrow at this hour you
shall begin to write."
..
4Ezra.15
[1] The Lord says, "Behold, speak in the ears of my people the words
of the prophecy which I will put in your mouth,
[2] and cause them to be written on paper; for they are trustworthy and true.
[3] Do not fear the plots against you, and do not be troubled by the
unbelief of those who oppose you.
[4] For every unbeliever shall die in his unbelief."
[5] "Behold," says the Lord, "I bring evils upon the world, the sword
and famine and death and destruction.
..
http://essenes.crosswinds.net/ezlaw.htm
- that 'true law', channelled by the scribe Ezra? You can keep it
together with the entity calling itself 'lord' that states it brings EVIL
upon the world.
'..explained by Peter in The Clementine Homilies and Recognitions.
After pointing out various passages in the Torah that are false
pericopes, Peter declares:
"For the scriptures have had added to them many falsehoods against
God. The prophet Moses having by the order of God delivered the
true law... it was not long before the written law had added to it
certain falsehoods contrary to the law of God.... If, therefore, some
of the scriptures are true and some false, for good reason our Master
revealed to us the mystery of his saying 'Be ye wise money changers',
inasmuch as in the scriptures there are some true sayings and some
spurious."
"Wherefore, Clement, my spiritual son, beware of those scriptures
which portray God as... fond of burnt animal fat, bloody animal
sacrifice and war.... For if God is portrayed as loving war, what
sort of 'God' is that?"
http://www.essene.org/Essene_Scriptures.htm
The ORIGINAL law given by Moses is what Essenes and Jesus,
as a Nasaraean Essene kept.
"The Nasaraeans . . .They acknowledged Moses and believed that
he had received laws - not this law, however, but some other. And
so, they were Jews who kept all the Jewish observances, but they
would not offer sacrifice or eat meat. They considered it unlawful
to eat meat or make sacrifices with it. They claim that these Books
(of Moses) are fictions, and that none of these customs were
instituted by the fathers. (Panarion 1:18)
http://essenes.crosswinds.net/ezra.htm
> The rabbi was crucified on the testimony of other rabbis by the
> Roman governor or Judea, Pontius Pilate, another historical figure.
Why did orthodox priests testify against him if he was one of them?
> The
> executed rabbi's followers believed he rose from the dead, though the
> contemporary writings of the other rabbis accuse the rabbi's followers
> of moving his body. The followers were persecuted for their beliefs, and
> many of them met the same fate (i.e., execution) as their teacher.
Yes, his followers were persecuted by the orthodoxy as well- why?
> The only "evidence" to the contrary is that which is offered to
> discredit the clear historical record.
The historical record is clear alright.
> Such evidence includes the
> misinformation you repeatedly offer which is prima facie violation of
> your Rule #22. It has all been debunked, and so have you.
You've been debunked, time and time and time and time again.
USual sUSpect
<snip>
> You've been debunked, time and time and time and time again.
Your Essene links fall under the following:
"22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s),
author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new
ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony
which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address
issues, you can do so authoritatively."
http://web.archive.org/web/20010710055841/http://www.proparanoid.com/truth.htm
You've yet to debunk yourself.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> <snip>
Where's your argument? Where are your counter proofs?
WHERE'S ROGER? lol. Let me guess- you're gonna try
on an ad hominem slander as usual, aren't you, eh suspect.
> > You've been debunked, time and time and time and time again.
>
> Your Essene links fall under the following:
No, you foolish disinformationist, your orthodox religions do!
> "22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s),
> author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new
> ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony
> which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address
> issues, you can do so authoritatively."
> http://web.archive.org/web/20010710055841/http://www.proparanoid.com/truth.htm
>
> You've yet to debunk yourself.
Speak for yourself, mr. bunk.
>
USual sUSpect
> Where's your argument? Where are your counter proofs?
Where was YOURS? I don't think I'm compelled to reply to every rule #22
violation you offer, particularly when your argument is merely tautological.
> WHERE'S ROGER? lol.
I'm not Roger's keeper, and I've no idea why you keep asking me about him.
> Let me guess- you're gonna try
> on an ad hominem slander as usual, aren't you, eh suspect.
No. You offered nothing credible, therefore no "counter" is necessary.
>>Your Essene links fall under the following:
>
> No, you foolish disinformationist, your orthodox religions do!
How dare you call me a "disinformationist." I'm not the one passing
along ALTERNATIVE views of rather recent origin from the same close
circle of so-called authorities. Aren't you even a little concerned that
your so-called authorities (like Wheless) misquote church fathers and
mainstream sources over three-quarters of the time when they try to
branch out a little rather than their tight circle of fellow travelers?
>>You've yet to debunk yourself.
>
> Speak for yourself, mr. bunk.
Go read your Wheless, you retro-frugivore.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
<..>
> > Let me guess- you're gonna try
> > on an ad hominem slander as usual, aren't you, eh suspect.
>
> No. You offered nothing credible, therefore no "counter" is necessary.
Ad hominem is not, never was, and never will be a valid rebuttal.
> >>Your Essene links fall under the following:
> >
> > No, you foolish disinformationist, your orthodox religions do!
>
> How dare you call me a "disinformationist."
With great ease.
> I'm not the one passing
> along ALTERNATIVE views of rather recent origin from the same close
> circle of so-called authorities.
Yes you are.
> Aren't you even a little concerned that
> your so-called authorities (like Wheless) misquote church fathers and
> mainstream sources over three-quarters of the time when they try to
> branch out a little rather than their tight circle of fellow travelers?
You may have broken a weak link, but you've not broken the chain.
Address the points you last snipped with counter-evidence, slacker.
<..>
USual sUSpect
>>No. You offered nothing credible, therefore no "counter" is necessary.
>
> Ad hominem is not, never was, and never will be a valid rebuttal.
You offered no argument.
>>How dare you call me a "disinformationist."
>
> With great ease.
You remind me of the dog who barks at the setting sun and thinks he's
something else when it gets dark.
>>I'm not the one passing
>>along ALTERNATIVE views of rather recent origin from the same close
>>circle of so-called authorities.
>
> Yes you are.
No, pearl. You are.
>>Aren't you even a little concerned that
>>your so-called authorities (like Wheless) misquote church fathers and
>>mainstream sources over three-quarters of the time when they try to
>>branch out a little rather than their tight circle of fellow travelers?
>
> You may have broken a weak link, but you've not broken the chain.
Your chain is not even linked.
> Address the points you last snipped with counter-evidence, slacker.
No, slacker.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> > Address the points you last snipped with counter-evidence, slacker.
>
> No, slacker.
Because you can't.
USual sUSpect
>>No, slacker.
>
> Because you can't.
I could, but what will your response be? More links to essene.com? More
links to Mr Jones' website? Do you have others who rely on the same
little circle of anti-historians espousing your favored alternative
views of the moment?
It's futile discussing anything with someone who runs back to the same,
tired sources -- one of which had a credibility factor of 24%. The rest
of them are just as low, if not lower. Those sites prove nothing except
that some people have grudges against historic Christianity. It's your
right to cite them as evidence, but I'm too informed of both your
sources and the historical record to accept those alternative views as
credible evidence.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> >>No, slacker.
> >
> > Because you can't.
>
> I could,
Sure. If you could you would.
<snip waffle>
USual sUSpect
> Sure. If you could you would.
Round and round we go. I cite credible sources, you cite your usual
nonsense like the infamous and debunked Wheless article or silly
conspiracy theories about Couzinet's flying saucer. I cite sources which
are verifiable, you cite sources which are only credible if you go from
site A to site B to site C to see that all the kooks are in agreement
(never mind that site B is accurate only about one-quarter of the time).
You disregard my sources because they're "too mainstream," I disregard
yours because they're way-out alternative. You think I'm establishment,
I think you're a crackpot. It's futile.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> > Sure. If you could you would.
>
> Round and round we go. I cite credible sources,
You haven't cited any sources yet.
Go on, try proving what I've written here is wrong.
--restore--
"USual sUSpect" <ne...@even.try> wrote in message news:3EF8D03...@even.try...
> pearl wrote:
> > There appear to be discrepancies and various interpretations in both
> > orthodox and non-orthodox literature, but all in all the evidence points
> > to a new religion being formed around a personage named 'Yeshu the
> > Nazorean', sometime after the events.
>
> No, not "all in all." Contemporary writings, including Roman secular
> information, is quite clear that a certain Jewish controversy occurred
> circa AD 34. That controversy centered on a rabbi whom some believed was
> the messiah. The rabbi didn't claim a path of esoteric mysticism.
Why was he called 'Jesus the Nazorean' if he wasn't of that Essene sect?
> His followers didn't claim a novel religion, but rather the true path of
> Judaism.
(Exactly)
--end restore--
USual sUSpect
<snip of the typical rule #22 violations>
End of thread. :-)
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> <snip of the typical rule #22 violations>
You lie. You can't show otherwise, nor answer my questions.
> End of thread. :-)
Of course it is.