Re: Chung dung flushing for 07/22/08

It seems to me I heard somewhere that J A wrote in article
<SqGdncraupCkpw_VnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

"Don Kirkman" <donsno2@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:g5m294l0733v1qvd4dprpavkq29gnjcom7@xxxxxxxxxx
It seems to me I heard somewhere that J A wrote in article
<TLqdnVAU78uLaQ3VnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

You're pretending the Encyclopedia Britannica articles, which are written
by
a number of acknowledged academic experts, are biased, becasue you don't
like what they say.

I'm not pretending; I'm the one who read the article for myself from
the EB set I owned back then, and I have some familiarity with doing
research. I haven't seen anything suggesting you have credentials for
research.

Wow. You actually *read* the article, and have done "research" that
discounts the concensus opinions of the Britannica articles' scholars.

You apparently don't accept what I quoted from the EB Web page, I
guess, or the Wiki page, both discussing EB credibility and what
criticisms have been raised on it.

It started out with leading authorities, but it was sold to a
different company years ago.

Ahhhhh, I see. When it was sold, it became junky.

You apparently have no knowledge of organizational or business
cultures and models. Ownership change is often the prelude to lowered
quality, and that has been said about the EB, as the Wiki article
indicates.

moron, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas has been around for a long time.

I know; 1950 years or so is a long time, but it doesn't reach back to
the lifetime of any of the apostles.

It has no more or less credibility than the writings that the council of
Nicaea chose to include as the "new testament".

We aren't talking about credibility; you've been defending the
authorship of Thomas the Apostle, which would be difficult because it
apparently was not written until about a century after the events
written in the Gospels. Thomas would have been well over 100 years
old by then.

You can't have it both ways; you want the "Infancy Gospel" to be
authentic and you quote it as proof of how Christians accept magic and
superstition. Did you ever consider that they knew it was magic and
superstition so they rejected it?

"The eleventh edition (1910-11) was produced in cooperation with
Cambridge University, and though by then ownership of the Britannica
had passed to two Americans, Horace Hooper and Walter Jackson, the
strength and confidence of much of its writing marked the high point
of Edwardian optimism and perhaps of the British Empire itself."
http://corporate.britannica.com/company_info.html

"Over the course of its history, the Britannica has had difficulty
remaining profitable?a problem faced by many encyclopaedias.[3] Some
articles in certain earlier editions of the Britannica have been
criticised for inaccuracy, bias or unqualified contributors.[4][8] The
accuracy in parts of the present edition have likewise been
questioned,[1][9] although such criticisms have been challenged by the
Britannica's management.[10] Despite these criticisms, the Britannica
retains its reputation as a reliable research tool."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopædia_Britannica

FOOL - all the books of the new testament share that attribute.

But I'm not the one defending them; in fact I've pointed out problems
and implied others. You are defending Thomas as equally valuable to
the early church; the Bishops at Nicene overruled your viewpoint.

"while our present Infancy Gospel of Thomas may have been expanded over
time, the original must have been written sometime in the middle of the
second century".

Exactly what I told you. Thomas lived till he was 140 or 150 years
old so he could write it?

Infancy Gospel of Thomas

Estimated Range of Dating: 140-170 C.E.

You're stepping on your own foot if you accept that dating. :-)

You seem to be a mirror image of Chung--you can't give evidence for
your statements so you indulge in abusive name-calling. You avoid any
real discussion of the claims you make and the issues you raise. You
also share with Chung the faith that you are the sole possessor and
arbiter of truth and that any contrary evidence can be rejected
without being considered.

Both of you are equally men of faith, but unfortunately your faith
depends only on your own conclusions, not on rational evidence. It
has no grounding in reality. Chung is mentally ill, by all accounts,
so he has a basis for his delusions, but I don't think you match him
in that point, at least.

You've become boring with no redeeming insights, so turn your venom on
someone else now.
--
Don Kirkman
donsno2@xxxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Commentary: Living with the Darwin Fish
    ... I've always secretly identified with the apostle Thomas. ... I began looking for real-world evidence to ... bolster my faith in Christ?whether that evidence came in the form of ... "objective" scientists with naturalistic agendas had fallen for hoaxes ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ted Haggard - Another Religious Hypocrite
    ... The people who chose those works certainly had a reason to perpetuate ... Mostly because there is little evidence at all. ... Your statements seem to imply that your lack of faith in those others is ... I think the story of Thomas addresses issue of evidence. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: The Case for a Designer
    ... recently that faith without evidence became important to god. ... It always stuck me as a contraddictory part: Thomas becomes a Saint ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Case for a Designer
    ... recently that faith without evidence became important to god. ... It always stuck me as a contraddictory part: Thomas becomes a Saint ...
    (talk.origins)