David Bowden

No, it's a story about a miracle worker who did his work in front of a lot of witnesses.

In Beowulf, the monster attacks a Danish stronghold and there were a lot of witnesses. But did such things ever really happen? No one has ever shown that they did; a story about something unusual is not enough to make us believe it.

And even verifying huge crowds of witnesses/believers isn't enough: Benny Hinn performs his 'miracles' in front of many more witnesses than Jesus was likely to have had. Do you accept all of Hinn's healings, etc., as genuine, since they happened in front of huge crowds?

That's assuming that the miracle stories were in fact historical events capable of being witnessed, and that the witnesses had it in them to try and test the miracles. Neither of those assumptions is warranted. What proof do you offer that these assumptions can be held with integrity?

Given
1) the number of miracle-stories handed down to us from ancient literature, pagan and Xtian alike, as well as
2) the fact that no shred of evidence exists to support any of them, not to mention (but I will) the fact that
3) a fair number of Xtians do not believe in the literal historicity of such miracle-stories...

...the burden of proof definitely lies upon the one who claims that such stories are true. What proof do you offer?

You forget (or never knew) that the Josephus testimony is considered by scholars to be controversial. Most don't believe that he wrote the passages in question as they come down to us from antiquity, but that there were Xtian revisions made. A fair case can be made that they are entirely Xtian in origin, but it's hardly necessary to go that far to discredit the claims some Xtians make. <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html" target="_blank">this article</a> among others shows the folly in depending on Josephus for Jesus material.

Also, ancient historians and biographers frequently made mention of mythical figures, mixed fiction with fact, and/or wrote their histories or biographies in a slanted way. The Xtian historian Eusebius even advocated lying for God.

Even if Josephus was writing about a historical Jesus, this in no way makes the gospels true accounts of his life, or his miracles any more factual. Those are separate issues. What arguments do you offer on those issues that would make it possible for us to hold your opinion on the matter with integrity?

Hope this helps.

-Wanderer

[ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: wide-eyed wanderer ]</p>

davidH

Yes, the fact that the danish people themselves take it to be a myth showes that in all likelyhood it was a story that was made up. There are no followers because the people at that time knew it wasn't true.

But in saying that, who are we to pronounce judgement. Maybe the story does have a ring of truth in it - Maybe it was a bear that attacked and ran wild in the castle - we don't know but that could have been what happened and it has down the years had bits added to it to make it more interesting.

But that isn't so with the Bible - the New Testament hasn't changed down the years. The earliest manuscripts are the same as those copied later - nothing was added - although it is true that some manuscripts don't have Mark 16 v 9-20. That is told in that area of the Bible.


First of all I doubt that Benny Hinn had many more witnesses than Jesus. Jesus was known all over Isreal as a prophet who healed people. Every town he went into he was mobbed with people bring him the sick to heal.

No, I don't accept all of Hinn's healings as genuine - even if they were performed infront of large crowds.
I have seen Hinn and have been disturbed about him - infact many Christians that I know that know him, are also of the same mind.
I'll tell you why;

1. He takes up collections at the meetings - promising the people who give that they will be protected when the economy (or something like that) falls.
- Nowhere does Jesus promise this for believers, infact he says that the Christian life will never be easy. I measure what a person says to what the Bible says(God says)

2. He has his own private jet. Says that he needs the comfort in order to do his work. - That's a terrible excuse - I wonder where he got the money from to buy the plane?

3. When I saw him he kept calling out "substance" or something like that... I have the feeling he uses the music, people's emotions to supposedly heal them - I doubt it is from God.

But that's just an aside. Why not look at Rinhad Bonky (that's the pronoucation of his name). He also heals people - but his focus is God and not for any gain of his own.


Yeah, but how can any of them be tested in a way that you will be completely satisfied.
Just think for a minute if everything in the new Testament was true and did happen in History. How would you, a person at that time preserve what had happened so that future generations would know?
Would you rely on telling it by mouth and passing down the stories from you to your children? Or would you write it down and document all that had happened so that a reliable testament can be made?

The fact is that if you tell it by mouth the stories are then in the hands of those you told - ever played chinese whispers? The words you start with are rarely those that you finish with - so the only way is to write it down.
They had no video tapes only writing - that was the only way it could have been documented and still be considered reliable.

The fact that 4 gospels each written separately show Jesus life is proof that there were 4 witnesses. Then you have the letters to the churches - again more witnesses in those.
Is there a more reliable way to document what happened then?

True it may seem incrediable to people of future generations - something happened that would never happen again, and a few people of that time wrote it so that it would not become lost.

Would you like to quote some of those?
It would make it easier for me to comment on some of them if I knew which ones u were thinking of.

Yeah, many don't - but why don't they consider this to be him writing? Maybe the whole thing is a fake too - made up by a "Xian" to try and support the Bible historically? How far are u going to push the boundaries?
For all we know every bit of ancient literature that has no evidience to support it could be a load of rubish - where are you going to draw the boundary?
You know why the passage in context could be considered to be written by a Christian? Maybe Josephus was a Christian - I have no evidience to support this, maybe he wasn't. Maybe he had seen for himself the miracles that Jesus had done.

The question you have to ask is this - why would a Christian have altered what was written? To make people believe? - come on , these are pushing into the releams of fantasy - something that is only exerted because it provives proof that Jesus did exist - and so maybe the Bible is true after all.
It's hardly surprising that people try anything, even pushing something to the limits to try and disprove that Jesus is who he said he was.

Infact there are a number of historical sources that refer to Jesus - though I have no links.

I have already passed those - I will leave something for you to think about;

What arguements do u offer to show that Jesus didn't exist or do the miracles that he did?

If you think about it, what other way would you at that time in history document what Jesus did, if it really did happen?

theyeti

David: this topic has swerved far afield of evo/cre. I know it's not entirely your fault, but you can either go back to the original topic (which is a bit stale at this point), start another topic about E/C in this forum, or take this discussion to the appropriate forum, like Biblical Criticism and Archeaology, or Misc. Religious Discussions. Otherwise, I'm 'fraid this one will be locked. Thanks.

theyeti

davidH

Yeah, I'll go back to the original topic now.

davidH

I think I have made my point above, if anyone wants to continue with it start the topic and give me a link from this topic. Thanks.


You know theyeti I was thinking this whole time over all I had read in this topic and several things again hit me.
I'll put them down here and you can explain them to me.

You have asserted again and again that mutations aren't harmful.
However what I have quoted above has got me thinking again.

Here you have said that a mutation unless benefical to the bacteria/organism will put it at a disadvantage to its peers because of more material needed to be replicated and so more energy consumption.

If this is the case how can you describe mutations as neutral - when they clearly can't be if this is the case. You yourself have said that it will put a larger metabolic demand on the bacterium and so it will be outcompeted by its peers that don't need to waste energy replicating this "neutral" DNA.
So any neutral mutation, although causing no fatality - will actually be harmful because of the reasons that you have mentioned above. You yourself said not to under estimate the power of natural selection.

Now using what you have said, a mutation will have to be benefical immediatly to the organism otherwise it will prove fatal as the organism will be removed by natural selection. (referring here to bacteria as that was what you were referring to.)
This again raises the odds to massive proportions because a bacterium can't have a "neutral" mutation that sits around until there are more neutral mutations and finally cause them to become a good mutation. - By that time the bacterium according to you would have been out competed by its non mutant peers and would have been removed by natural selection.

That's just what I thought about as I read what you had written. Could you comment on it?
Thanks.


Morpho - since you have access to primary sources could I ask you a question. Hope you are still here to answer it.

1. In the area of the disaster is the plant life as compared with before dramatically changed? By that I mean is there a plant that dominated before the disaster that now no longer dominates?

2. Does the variaty of plant life increase the closer you get to the area of disaster? Like is there an area where there is a large variaty and then an area further away that is exactly the same as it was when the disaster just occurred?

3. Have any new species of plant now been found only in that area?

Thanks a lot. I'd appreciate if you could answer those questions - it's not every day that you get someone who has access to primary sources like those from a pervious disaster area. I'd like to know the answers as much for my own interest as well as for the others here on this site, cause it's interesting stuff.
Thanks again.

theyeti

Dag.

No David. If you would pay attention to what I say, you would notice that I have repeatedly shown how "beneficial" and "harmful" are only defined in terms of the environment. You would also notice that I never claimed that mutations weren't harmful; I tried to point out that most were neutral, some harmful, and a few rarely beneficial. Of course, it depends on the ENVIRONMENT -- most organisms are well adapted to their environments, so it's no surprise that few mutations will be beneficial. Put them in a different environment, and you've got a different story.

No, this has nothing to do with a mutation per se. Rather that antibiotic resistant bacteria usually result from having extra DNA. They take in a plasmid, which is a small circular piece of DNA, that has an antibiotic resistant gene(s) on it. This process is known as transformation, and it's the way that most bacteria aquire antibiotic resistance. It takes energy and material to replicate that plasmid, so like everything else, it comes at a cost. Once again, the theme here is that what's beneficial or harmful depends on the environment. If there are antibiotics present, it's beneficial. Absent, harmful, though only slightly so.

Which is why antibiotic resistance wouldn't have evolved and been maintained without the presence of antibiotics. They put an extremely high selective demand on the bacteria -- only one bacterium in several billion might survive being dosed with antibiotics.

No, this only applies to cases where the "mutation" consists of taking in extra DNA. Point mutations, deletions, insertions, inversions, transpositions, etc. do not cause greater metabolic demand, at least not that I know of.

Also, going way back on this thread, I explained that the reason that eukaryotes can maintain introns and other kinds of "junk" DNA is that DNA replication and maintainace is much less significant for them metabolically speaking. You will find that organisms that reproduce the fastest have the smallest introns and other "junk", presumably because there's some selective pressure to remove it. We "higher" eukaryotes, on the other hand, have tons of it because almost all of our energy is used for things like muscle contraction; therefore removing junk DNA isn't really helpful, and so it accumulates. The case in point with antibiotic resistance involved bacteria, who, unlike us, are under enormous selective pressure to metabolically sreamline themselves.

Whoa! Where did that come from? Mutations that aren't immediately beneficial aren't necessarily fatal! Things like superflous DNA just put them at a slight disadvantage, that's all. Given some time and a limited evironment, we expect such things to be eventually elimiated. Unless of course the bacteria are occasionally subjected to antibiotics, in which case the superfluous DNA is no longer superfluous. This is why we have antibiotic resistance -- because there are antibiotics. This is further compounded by the fact that the plasmids that usually carry the resistance genes are not confined to a single bacterial lineage -- they can move about. In a way, it is the plasmid that is under selective presure. You can think of it as its own organism -- "selfish" DNA. (I've got a bad feeling that I just let the confusion monster loose.)

In some cases, yes. But mutations are constant occuring, and all populations have some variation. When the selective presures change, we see some of those variants do better than others. We don't see organisms that can immediately adapt to anything that you throw at them, precisely because, like you said, not every potentially beneficial mutation will be preserved. Things go extinct you know.

When you talk about "odds", they don't really mean much. If you're saying that the odds of some major morphological changes are slim, then I couldn't agree with you more. This is why we see change in the fossil record occur over many millions of years, and not within the puny span of a human lifetime. Evolution is slow, though variable in its rate. This is not just a theoretical position given the Darwinian mechanism, it's what's empirically observed throughout Earth history.

theyeti

DNAunion

DNAunion: DavidH, if a deleterious mutation occurs in a bacterium, then any of its progeny (which would be clones) will be at a disadvantage (degree is not important here - it is the idea), and assuming intense competition, will be eliminated.

The "rule of thumb" is that if thousands of bacteria incur deleterious mutations, they will simply be eliminated and the mutations will not propagate indefinitely. But if a single advantageous mutation occurs, the possessing bacterium - and all of its genetically identical progeny - will have a selective advantage and will increase in number. So in a given colony of bacteria, a thousand deleterious mutations can arise along with only a single beneficial one, and all that will remain after several generations will be the beneficial mutation. So more deleterious mutations than beneficial mutations can occur without the population's size spiraling down to 0.

As far as neutral mutations, they are selectively neutral. The give the possessing organism no advantage, and no handicap.

As far the replication of a neutral mutation putting the possessing at a disadvantage because it has to expend energy replicating it, that doesn't work. A gene with a neutral mutation - such as a point mutation that is selectively neutral - requires no more energy during replication than does the original gene.

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]

PS: Darn, I already edited this post - making me a liar according to Scientiae - and now I see another error I should correct (I ommitted a word). But my editing the post to correct my grammatical error would make me a double liar - according to Scientiae - in this one post. I guess I had better leave things as they are.

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]

OOPS, I edited my post to make my point, but in doing so did become a double liar - according to Scientiae.

Ooops, and now I have edited my post again to make that point, making me a triple liar in just this one post. I should be shot! :-)

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]</p>

Principia

Anybody else wants to ask DNAUnion to drop the matter? He is clearly smarting from his last argument against me about how the center of mass of the solar system oscillates with time because of planetary rotations.

SC

Sojourner553

this post is to DavidH in reply to:

____________________________________________
No, I don't believe Christianity is true because of the number of people that follow it - how could I since there are millions that also follow Isalm? I'm not implying that at all.

What I am implying is that you couldn't get people in your own hometowns to believe what you say - if you say that a man lived in that time and did many miracles infront of huge crowds, and was then killed by people in your town and rose again.
____________________________________________

I am pretty new to this site, and just now saw your post.

I realize you have switched to other topics, but I never saw anyone address the issue you mentioned above so am responding to it now:


According to the gospels, Jesus own family did NOT believe in him. Citations given.


* When Jesus is informed that his mother and brothers are looking for him,
he replies, "Who are my brother and my brothers?" Then turning to
his followers, he says, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whosoever
does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother." (Mark 3:31-5)


* Jesus' hometown of Nazareth likewise rejected Jesus, saying:

"'Where does he get all this? What is this wisdom that he has been given--
and what about these marvelous things that he can do? He's only the
carpenter, Mary's son, the brother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon; and his
sisters are living here with us!'

"And they were deeply offended with him. But Jesus said to them, 'No
prophet goes unmoored--except in his native town or with his own relations
or in his own home!'

"And he could do nothing miraculous there apart from laying his hands on a
few sick people and healing them; their lack of faith astonished him."
(Mark 6:2-6)

(Because Joseph is never mentioned in a scene after Jesus begins
his ministry, some have suggested that Joseph had abandoned his family,
or more likely--had died by the time Jesus began his public ministry.)

*In Luke, Jesus tells those who wish to follow him, that:

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and
wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he
cannot be my disciple...And whoever of you does not renounce all that he
has cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26,33, see also Matthew 10:37).

* While still alive on the cross, the gospel writer John tells us that
Jesus saw his mother Mary. The powerful, but distant Jesus then tells his
mother "Woman, behold your son!" There is no tender exchange in conversation
recorded between Jesus and Mary. Instead, Jesus commits her to the care
of "the disciple whom he loved." (John 19:25)

taken from:
(http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/MARRIAGE.TXT)

********************

If you look at the first Christians who believed in Jesus -- you see something very similar to the the numbers of people who have claimed to see Elvis sitings (after he died.)

Here is a link that compares Christianity with the mystery religions. You should recognize many of the stories here -- among much older religions!

The Promise of Salvation by the Mystery Religions

By far, the vast majority of the people in ancient Greece--indeed
throughout the ancient world, were very religious, and the general climate
for religious tolerance allowed for a large number and variety of cults to
evolve. By the time of Jesus, historians estimate that there were hundreds
of religious cults, possibly even thousands of sub-cults operating throughout
the ancient hellenized world. Essentially ALL of these mystery religions
promised PERSONAL salvation through procuring for the believer forgiveness
of sins by a god (or gods) and/or providing mediation for the spirit of the
believer after death. Believers were taught how to protect their spiritual
soul from outside evil forces (often by imparting the correct name of the
deity or through special incantations to ward of evil spirits). In this way,
they believed that upon death, they would experience a spiritual journey
into the realm of the High One, afterwhich they would live forever in
eternal bliss.

According to S. Angus, in his book THE MYSTERY-RELIGIONS:

"The mystery ritual supplied for distressed consciences a cathartic
to remove the stain of sin. The 'mystes' did not die without hope.
He believed that in some mysterious way he was brought in initiation
into fellowship with the eternal life of his god; he not only saw in the
death and resurrection of the cult-deity a symbol of his own deathlessness,
but also experienced a real inner 'henosis' [rejoining with the Oneness
of God]" (S. Angus, PHD, D.LIT. DD, THEY MYSTERY-RELIGIONS--A Study in
the Religious Background of Early Christianity, Dover Publications,
Inc., New York, p 52)

Most mystery cults were also based around a concept of a belief in an
immortal heroic god-savior. According to the world famous Egyptologist and
scholar E.A. Wallis Budge, adherents of the Osiris cult believed that he had
risen from the dead, and that they themselves could share in his resurrection:

"[B]eing the son of god...[they] believed that he died on their behalf
and rose again in order that they also might rise from the dead. Every
worshipper of Osiris based his own hope of resurrection and immortality
upon the fundamental fact of the resurrection of Osiris."
EA Wallis Budge, OSIRIS; THE EGYPTIAN RELIGION OF RESURRECTION).

The god Serapis, probably originated from the ancient Egyptian Osiris,
and was introduced into hellenic culture during the time of Alexander
the Great. This cult believed snakes to be divine. (Snakes were worshipped
in the Orient and India, where they symbolized health and immortality--
because the snake molting his skin appeared to be reborn. Many therefore
attributed supernatural-like powers to the snake. According to the Christian
Eusebius (I.,7), "The serpent never dies naturally, but only when injured
by violence." The sacred symbol of the cult of Serapis was the cross.

Although different rites were employed by the adherents, basically the
religious themes and feelings were the same.--They expressed faith in a
divine being (Mithras, Serapis, Isis, Osiris, etc), who had descended from
the heavenly realm to become man, experiencing suffering on earth at the
hands of the unjust and wicked, and then was resurrected. The believer
could, through various mysterious sacraments, symbolically re-enact the
resurrection of the savior, and in this way escape from this life into a
fantastic and marvelous beyond and live in eternity with the Creator.
(Christianity: Some Non-Christian Approaches. the ed. published by
McGraw-Hill, New York, p 162)

Marvelous traditions told of these redeeming saviors and their mysteries--
Mystical and fantastic rites and plays, set the mood for a twilight,
other-worldly state of mind, whereby the believer could "feel" himself
getting in touch with the divine powers of the universe. Afterwards, the
believer would realize his distance from the Creator, and long to join it,
in an afterlife of eternal life and bliss. Some historians have speculated
that hypnosis and hallucinogenic drugs were sometimes a part of the rituals
to induce a religious/mystical religious state in the believer. (Ibid)

Many of the members of the mystery religions were initiated into their
sects through baptisms or lustral purifications, through which they
experienced rebirth and the remission from sin: According to Tertullian,
'In certain Mysteries, e.g. of Isis and Mithra, it is by baptism that members
are initiated...in the Apollinarian and Eleusinian rites they are baptized,
and they imagine that the result of this baptism is regeneration and the
remission of the penalties of their sins." (Tertullian, DE BAPT. 5, as
referenced by S. Angus, op cit, p 81.)

Various forms of religious practices were also conducted by the mystery
sects--such as prolonged fasts, public confessions, abstinence from sex,
pilgrimages to holy places to atone for sin, self whippings, and of course
monetary contributions to the sect. Pilgrimages, public confessions, and
self-inflicted beatings were seen as a form of penance to prove the believer's
desire to be uplifted into a new spiritual experience. Sometimes a sacred
meal was conducted, whereby eating the flesh of some special animal was
believed to connect the believer to the mystery god, whereby he "shared" in
the his substance and qualities. In some of the more frenzied sects, "devout"
members could prove themselves worthy by beating, slashing, or even mutilating
(ie castrating) themselves-- in the belief that they were "sharing" in the
suffering of their redeemer and "purifying" themselves symbolically from
materialistic influences (identified with sin.)

One gets a flavor for the nature of some of these practices, by reading a
satirical reference written by Juvenal. In this passage, Juvenal is poking
fun at "fanatical" women believers of the cult of Isis:.

"In the middle of winter, at dawn, she'll [the woman devotee of Isis will]
go down to the Tiber, break through the ice, and piously immerse herself
three times to purify her body, and then she'll crawl on her bleeding knees
halfway across Rome--to atone for having slept with her husband the night
before: this is the ritual prescribed by the deity in favor THIS month.
If some Egyptian goddess instructs here to make a pilgrimage to the Nile,
she'll leave at once, follow the river to its source, and return with a
phial of sacred water to sprinkle on the temple...She actually believes
that Isis speaks to her! As if any god would bother to talk with such
a fool."

"Women like this revere any Egyptian priest who cons his followers with
elaborate rituals and meaningless taboos. He has them convinced that he
has the power to obtain forgiveness for their sins. If they fail to
abstain from marital relations on holy days, or if they owe a penance
for violating the goddess' prohibitions, the goddess will reveal her
displeasure by shaking her head; the priest in tears, mumbling an
empty litany, will intercede with the gods so that Osiris, bribed by a
fat goose and a piece of cake, will forgive them."
(Juvenal, VI, 523ff)

There were different levels of piety that one could strive for--with the
most severe and burdensome of these designed to gain one the status of
priest or saint within the Mystery religion. (Footnote: S. Angus, op cit, p
84.)

According to S. Angus:

"Those of Phrygia and the related Anatolian cults were among the bloodiest;
next came the Syrian cults, but these were gradually refined by the
development of a solar monotheism. That of Isis was the most respectable,
while that of Mithra was the most sober."

Angus goes on to contrast these with Christianity, which he deems the most
humane religion of all, because of its "means whereby man can most securely
enter into union with God." (Angus, op cit, p 87)

Animal sacrifices were conducted in many of the cults, despite later
protests by Greek philosophers against these. Still, these protests were
not successful because of the prevailing ancient view that "without shedding
of blood there is no remission of sin." (Ibid p 83)

Relevance of the Mystery Religions to Christianity

There are various interpretations regarding the relationship of the
mystery religions to Christianity. According to some religious writers,
the mystery religions laid down the foundation for monotheism and a
belief in redemption--thus making it easier for Christianity to come in
and replace paganism. S. Angus, was a proponent of this view, writing,
"The Mystery-Religions offer a fascinating study for those who believe
that 'through the ages one increasing purpose runs', and that the march
of mankind is Godward." (Ibid, p 43)

Other religious writers (including most early Christian Orthodox fathers,
such as Justin and Tertullian) believed that ALL paganism was evil, and
that any similarity with Christian practices such as the sacraments--were
due to the work of the Devil! For example, according to Tertullian
when discussing the similarity of pagan and Christian sacraments:

"Satan imitates the sacraments of God." (DE EXH. CAST., 13.).

Other religious scholars (primarily PROTESTANT) contend that many of the
sacraments and rites of the early Catholic Church WERE indeed adapted from
those of the mystery religions. As proof, they point out that there is no
BIBLICAL reference to these, so they must have arisen out of the hellenistic,
pagan culture in which the early Catholic church developed. (Protestants
believe they have cleansed their sects from most, if not all, of these pagan
trappings).

Others, (including many nonChristians) have argued that it was MORE
than just the rites and practices of the mystery religions, that had an
impact on early Christianity. They believe that many early Christian
DOCTRINES were also strongly influenced by hellenistic religions and
philosophies.--Examples would include the cosmic, spiritual view of
heaven and hell; and the belief in Jesus as a divine god from heaven
(as opposed to the Jewish Christian view of a man who was appointed
by God to be his agent on earth). That is, this group interprets the
above to mean that Christianity originally started off as a Jewish sect,
but became transformed, from its encounter with hellenistic views into a
new religion--ie "another" mystery religion.

Unfortunately because of the limited source material that exists on the
mystery religions, it is difficult to piece together many of the exact beliefs
and practices of the mystery religions with any real degree of certainty to
know who influenced whom.-- First of all, many of the mystery rites were
secretive, and members were strongly urged not to divulge them. Secondly,
most writings from the mystery religions were destroyed in the late fourth
and fifth centuries C.E.-- when Christian Orthodox leaders commandeered the
leveling of all pagan temples and shrines-- and effaced, as much as possible,
all traces of their literature and liturgy. (See Section V, Chapter 3).
Sources on the mystery religions have thus come down to us from ruined
temples, mutilated inscriptions, and surviving fragmentary writings and art.
As we have seen there are also references by Orthodox Christian writers, such
as Tertullian-- which although antagonistic to the pagan mystery religions,
still give us SOME information about their practices


<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/GREEK.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/GREEK.TXT</a>

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a>

pangloss

Reminds me of the time that book came out documenting something like 300 false claims made by Rush Limbaugh that he never rectified on his show. He then spent HOURS doing idiotic stiff like what DNAunion/R.P. is doing - he would say the incorrect day and time, then launch into this big spiel "Oh, ladies and gentlemen, I just made a mistake. It is Thursday, not Wednesday. I just made an error and I am correcting it now..." And on and on...

Certainly diverts from the real issue, which was the intent, obviously...