kallend 2,175 #1 December 23, 2005 www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000080&sid=a2h3M3qm3GzE&refer=asia Would that religion would do the same with its charlatans.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #2 December 23, 2005 If religion were based on actual facts then it wouldn't be a religion. It's all based on beliefs. So without any tangible facts how do you distinguish between charlatans and those that are not? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #3 December 23, 2005 Quotewww.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000080&sid=a2h3M3qm3GzE&refer=asia Would that religion would do the same with its charlatans. you can't ever pass up an opportunity can you. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #4 December 23, 2005 >So without any tangible facts how do you distinguish between charlatans and those that are not? Well, that's easy. If they disagree with you, they are charlatans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #5 December 23, 2005 yup that seems to be the religious criteria for a charlatan. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,175 #6 December 23, 2005 QuoteIf religion were based on actual facts then it wouldn't be a religion. It's all based on beliefs. So without any tangible facts how do you distinguish between charlatans and those that are not? OBL and Mullah Omar come to mind, murdering thousands in the name of Islam. Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart also come to mind. Preaching one thing and doing another. Plenty more.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #7 December 23, 2005 I am of the opinion that they are all charlatans. All pretending to know the will of some invisible man that knows everything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #8 December 23, 2005 QuoteOBL and Mullah Omar come to mind, murdering thousands in the name of Islam. Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart also come to mind. Preaching one thing and doing another. Agh... but these a just men and can never be perfect, only a god can be perfect......... or so they say..... (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dougiefresh 0 #9 December 23, 2005 QuoteWould that religion would do the same with its charlatans. And maybe we can get rid of all the political phonies too! ...since we're dreaming, I want a pony. edit: the real victim of all this.Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. --Douglas Adams Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #10 December 23, 2005 QuoteQuoteIf religion were based on actual facts then it wouldn't be a religion. It's all based on beliefs. So without any tangible facts how do you distinguish between charlatans and those that are not? OBL and Mullah Omar come to mind, murdering thousands in the name of Islam. Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart also come to mind. Preaching one thing and doing another. Plenty more. You beat me to it. A clergyman abusing his position to commit buggery upon children under his tutelage was the first example I thought of. An hierarchy that conspiratorily enables him through secrecy and transferring him elsewhere so he can abuse more victims is another. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #11 December 23, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf religion were based on actual facts then it wouldn't be a religion. It's all based on beliefs. So without any tangible facts how do you distinguish between charlatans and those that are not? OBL and Mullah Omar come to mind, murdering thousands in the name of Islam. Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart also come to mind. Preaching one thing and doing another. Plenty more. You beat me to it. A clergyman abusing his position to commit buggery upon children under his tutelage was the first example I thought of. An hierarchy that conspiratorily enables him through secrecy and transferring him elsewhere so he can abuse more victims is another. I don't call them charlatans, I call them criminals. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,175 #12 December 23, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIf religion were based on actual facts then it wouldn't be a religion. It's all based on beliefs. So without any tangible facts how do you distinguish between charlatans and those that are not? OBL and Mullah Omar come to mind, murdering thousands in the name of Islam. Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart also come to mind. Preaching one thing and doing another. Plenty more. You beat me to it. A clergyman abusing his position to commit buggery upon children under his tutelage was the first example I thought of. An hierarchy that conspiratorily enables him through secrecy and transferring him elsewhere so he can abuse more victims is another. I don't call them charlatans, I call them criminals. Not mutually exclusive sets.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #13 December 24, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIf religion were based on actual facts then it wouldn't be a religion. It's all based on beliefs. So without any tangible facts how do you distinguish between charlatans and those that are not? OBL and Mullah Omar come to mind, murdering thousands in the name of Islam. Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart also come to mind. Preaching one thing and doing another. Plenty more. You beat me to it. A clergyman abusing his position to commit buggery upon children under his tutelage was the first example I thought of. An hierarchy that conspiratorily enables him through secrecy and transferring him elsewhere so he can abuse more victims is another. I don't call them charlatans, I call them criminals. Not mutually exclusive sets. True but one carries far more gravity. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #14 December 24, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIf religion were based on actual facts then it wouldn't be a religion. It's all based on beliefs. So without any tangible facts how do you distinguish between charlatans and those that are not? OBL and Mullah Omar come to mind, murdering thousands in the name of Islam. Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart also come to mind. Preaching one thing and doing another. Plenty more. You beat me to it. A clergyman abusing his position to commit buggery upon children under his tutelage was the first example I thought of. An hierarchy that conspiratorily enables him through secrecy and transferring him elsewhere so he can abuse more victims is another. I don't call them charlatans, I call them criminals. Not mutually exclusive sets. True but one carries far more gravity. You're both absolutely correct. (Imagine that.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #15 December 24, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIf religion were based on actual facts then it wouldn't be a religion. It's all based on beliefs. So without any tangible facts how do you distinguish between charlatans and those that are not? OBL and Mullah Omar come to mind, murdering thousands in the name of Islam. Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart also come to mind. Preaching one thing and doing another. Plenty more. You beat me to it. A clergyman abusing his position to commit buggery upon children under his tutelage was the first example I thought of. An hierarchy that conspiratorily enables him through secrecy and transferring him elsewhere so he can abuse more victims is another. I don't call them charlatans, I call them criminals. Not mutually exclusive sets. True but one carries far more gravity. You're both absolutely correct. (Imagine that.) We don't have to hug now, do we? I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #16 December 24, 2005 Quotewww.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000080&sid=a2h3M3qm3GzE&refer=asia Would that religion would do the same with its charlatans. But the central premise of religion is that it assiduously avoids accepting fact. Why else would Dubya talk to God? Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #17 December 24, 2005 QuoteI don't call them charlatans, I call them criminals. Would that not make the organization that actively harbours and protects them criminal as well? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #18 December 24, 2005 QuoteQuoteI don't call them charlatans, I call them criminals. Would that not make the organization that actively harbours and protects them criminal as well? The orgainization? No. The individuals w/i the organization that harbour them would be. There isn't anything inherent w/i the organization that fosters the harbouring of child molesters. You don't throw the baby out with the bath water. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #19 December 26, 2005 QuoteThere isn't anything inherent w/i the organization that fosters the harbouring of child molesters I would agree with you if that organization didn´t try to cover it up to avoid bad press, saving in the process many criminals from punishment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #20 December 26, 2005 QuoteQuoteThere isn't anything inherent w/i the organization that fosters the harbouring of child molesters I would agree with you if that organization didn´t try to cover it up to avoid bad press, saving in the process many criminals from punishment. The "organization" doesn't cover up. People w/i the organization do the covering up. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #21 December 26, 2005 Correct and organisations do it all the time..... the police, churches, military, doctors..... nothing new or surprising here.... (Doesn't make it right Tho'). (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #22 December 29, 2005 Shades of cold fusion ! Maybe the guy could go on Oprah and talk about his mother. Or maybe on Jerry Springer and have a big Tae Kwon Do fight with other scientists. Bet you anything hhe takes the "short sword" option soon... Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #23 December 30, 2005 QuoteIf religion were based on actual facts then it wouldn't be a religion. It's all based on beliefs. So without any tangible facts how do you distinguish between charlatans and those that are not? One guy asks his god to call out the god of another guy. The second guy's god never shows up to the fight, ergo he doesn't exist, ergo the second guy's a charlatan. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
