jclalor 12 #1 June 20, 2010 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-karger/8-the-mormon-proposition_b_326832.html Cant wait to see this movie. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #2 June 20, 2010 Quote Cant wait to see this movie. why? Quote Yeah, Right, Like Jesus Would Own a Gun and Vote Republican. like he needs to...Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #3 June 20, 2010 Quotehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-karger/8-the-mormon-proposition_b_326832.html Cant wait to see this movie. Be advised that everything you think you know about Cousin Jesus comes from accounts under the editorial control of the people who killed him as a threat to their power. This is to say that Rome killed him, and later took over management of his franchise. Regardless of the authorship of the Christian Scriptures, there are no originals available and the versions in common circulation are clearly heavily redacted. Whether or not Jesus actually said any of the things attributed to him is questionable at best (Bogart never said "play it again, Sam" and Marie Antoinette never said "let them eat cake"). Quite how Jesus himself would have addressed the issues of political persuasion or responsible firearm ownership is better considered from the standpoint that he was an observant Jew - not a follower of Vatican orthodoxy. WRT the movie, we get even farther afield. While Rome subverted the movement of Messianic Judaism to suit their political agenda, the Book of Mormon was fabricated out of whole cloth. The Christian Scriptures are a badly concocted rewrite of actual events (King Herod died at least three years before Jesus was born, etc.), but the Mormon mythos is a fairy-tale without a shred of merit, narrated by a brazen swindler. Even though Mormons fancy themselves to be a variation on the Christian theme, there is less merit to their credo than that of Scientology (your classic "less than zero"). Mormons and Scientologists are the proof of my thesis that the only inexhaustible natural resource is stupidity, and that anyone who can harness it is set for life. I suppose it worked better for L. Ron Hubbard than for Joseph Smith when all was said and done, but the fact that Brigham Young took over the Mormon flock is probably why the Mormons did not go the way of the Shakers (also, the Shakers were not into sex, but the Mormons are procreating fools). After reading the Book of Mormon, the idea that anyone who subscribes to that nonsense should presume to do my thinking for me is very scary. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #4 June 20, 2010 QuoteQuotehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-karger/8-the-mormon-proposition_b_326832.html Cant wait to see this movie. Be Quoteadvised that everything you think you know about Cousin Jesus comes from accounts under the editorial control of the people who killed him as a threat to their power. This is to say that Rome killed him, and later took over management of his franchise. Regardless of the authorship of the Christian Scriptures, there are no originals available and the versions in common circulation are clearly heavily redacted. I am not sure what you mean that the scriptures come from the "people that killed him" They in fact came from his earliest followers. While there were no origional manuscripts ever found, the changes made were in fact made by early christians trying to promote thier own particular beleifs. While there many different gospels and books written in the first couple of hundred years after the death of Jesus, the vast majority finally settled on the the bible as we know it today (more or less the same bible). I don't see how you can say that the early scriptures came under any editorial control, as they were all coppied one at a time by Christian scribes. There are numerous copies that have been found, coppied over hundreds of years, all over the Mediteranain and for the the most part are the same. One of the best scholars of the new testament is Bart Erhman, who has some great books on the subject. http://www.bartdehrman.com/biography.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites winsor 236 #5 June 20, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuotehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-karger/8-the-mormon-proposition_b_326832.html Cant wait to see this movie. QuoteBe advised that everything you think you know about Cousin Jesus comes from accounts under the editorial control of the people who killed him as a threat to their power. This is to say that Rome killed him, and later took over management of his franchise. Regardless of the authorship of the Christian Scriptures, there are no originals available and the versions in common circulation are clearly heavily redacted. I am not sure what you mean that the scriptures come from the "people that killed him" Quote Romans killed him, blamed the act on his kinfolk, and promulgated a set of writings in his name. QuoteThey in fact came from his earliest followers. While there were no origional manuscripts ever found, the changes made were in fact made by early christians trying to promote thier own particular beleifs. Romans calling themselves "christians" is about as convincing as George W. Bush calling himself a follower of Muhammad. Quote While there many different gospels and books written in the first couple of hundred years after the death of Jesus, the vast majority finally settled on the the bible as we know it today (more or less the same bible). The Nicene Council had something to do with it. QuoteI don't see how you can say that the early scriptures came under any editorial control, as they were all coppied one at a time by Christian scribes. There are numerous copies that have been found, coppied over hundreds of years, all over the Mediteranain and for the the most part are the same. Romans were notorious in their application of flame to anything that flew contrary to their notion of what ought to be "true." QuoteOne of the best scholars of the new testament is Bart Erhman, who has some great books on the subject. Let's stick to "Christian Scriptures" and "Hebrew Scriptures." New implies continuation of the Old, and it is anything but. A study of your newfangled writings holds me in the kind of rapt fascination elicited by tracts on phrenology or astrology. Anything that requires "belief" to stomach is surely hogwash. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jclalor 12 #6 June 20, 2010 . QuoteA study of your newfangled writings holds me in the kind of rapt fascination elicited by tracts on phrenology or astrology. Anything that requires "belief" to stomach is surely hogwash. When did I ever state I was a believer? I am in fact an atheist. I have found the best way to argue with believers is to have a better understanding of the bible than they do. The scholar I mentioned was a Prominent baptist minister who lost his faith, He is now an atheist and one of the leading authorities on the historical new testament. If you are like minded, I highly suggest his books. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites winsor 236 #7 June 20, 2010 Quote. QuoteA study of your newfangled writings holds me in the kind of rapt fascination elicited by tracts on phrenology or astrology. Anything that requires "belief" to stomach is surely hogwash. When did I ever state I was a believer? I am in fact an atheist. I have found the best way to argue with believers is to have a better understanding of the bible than they do. The scholar I mentioned was a Prominent baptist minister who lost his faith, He is now an atheist and one of the leading authorities on the historical new testament. If you are like minded, I highly suggest his books. Perhaps it's worth a read. My point here is that the Tanakh consists of Bronze Age tribal lore, and was not prepared for general consumption. Most Rabbis worth their salt will roll their eyes if you attempt to get literal with the contents of Bereshit (Genesis), and will note that its value has little to do with its accuracy per se. "We have 5770 years since Creation, based on the ages of the Patriarchs. How did Adam know quite when he came to be, along with the accurate count the days/years thereafter and the understanding of the significance of this measure?" "Don't sweat it bubbie, it's tradition." In a Christian church, you might as well have a big neon sign on the wall that says "BELIEVE!" A Synagogue could do well with a sign that says "Think." BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jclalor 12 #8 June 20, 2010 QuoteQuote. Quote***A study of your newfangled writings holds me in the kind of rapt fascination elicited by tracts on phrenology or astrology. Anything that requires "belief" to stomach is surely hogwash. When did I ever state I was a believer? I am in fact an atheist. I have found the best way to argue with believers is to have a better understanding of the bible than they do. The scholar I mentioned was a Prominent baptist minister who lost his faith, He is now an atheist and one of the leading authorities on the historical new testament. If you are like minded, I highly suggest his books. Perhaps it's worth a read. My point here is that the Tanakh consists of Bronze Age tribal lore, and was not prepared for general consumption. Most Rabbis worth their salt will roll their eyes if you attempt to get literal with the contents of Bereshit (Genesis), and will note that its value has little to do with its accuracy per se. "We have 5770 years since Creation, based on the ages of the Patriarchs. How did Adam know quite when he came to be, along with the accurate count the days/years thereafter and the understanding of the significance of this measure?" "Don't sweat it bubbie, it's tradition." In a Christian church, you might as well have a big neon sign on the wall that says "BELIEVE!" A Synagogue could do well with a sign that says "Think." +1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 102 #9 June 20, 2010 I've found it quite refreshing that Jewish scholars I've encountered are willing to not take things literally. Very different for Christian doctrine.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Guest #10 June 22, 2010 Quote Quote http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-karger/8-the-mormon-proposition_b_326832.html Cant wait to see this movie. Be advised that everything you think you know about Cousin Jesus comes from accounts under the editorial control of the people who killed him as a threat to their power. This is to say that Rome killed him, and later took over management of his franchise. Regardless of the authorship of the Christian Scriptures, there are no originals available and the versions in common circulation are clearly heavily redacted. Whether or not Jesus actually said any of the things attributed to him is questionable at best (Bogart never said "play it again, Sam" and Marie Antoinette never said "let them eat cake"). Quite how Jesus himself would have addressed the issues of political persuasion or responsible firearm ownership is better considered from the standpoint that he was an observant Jew - not a follower of Vatican orthodoxy. WRT the movie, we get even farther afield. While Rome subverted the movement of Messianic Judaism to suit their political agenda, the Book of Mormon was fabricated out of whole cloth. The Christian Scriptures are a badly concocted rewrite of actual events (King Herod died at least three years before Jesus was born, etc.), but the Mormon mythos is a fairy-tale without a shred of merit, narrated by a brazen swindler. Even though Mormons fancy themselves to be a variation on the Christian theme, there is less merit to their credo than that of Scientology (your classic "less than zero"). Mormons and Scientologists are the proof of my thesis that the only inexhaustible natural resource is stupidity, and that anyone who can harness it is set for life. I suppose it worked better for L. Ron Hubbard than for Joseph Smith when all was said and done, but the fact that Brigham Young took over the Mormon flock is probably why the Mormons did not go the way of the Shakers (also, the Shakers were not into sex, but the Mormons are procreating fools). After reading the Book of Mormon, the idea that anyone who subscribes to that nonsense should presume to do my thinking for me is very scary. BSBD, Winsor Well-put, Winsor! How ya been, anyway? Greets from the Gulf, BTW mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
winsor 236 #5 June 20, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuotehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-karger/8-the-mormon-proposition_b_326832.html Cant wait to see this movie. QuoteBe advised that everything you think you know about Cousin Jesus comes from accounts under the editorial control of the people who killed him as a threat to their power. This is to say that Rome killed him, and later took over management of his franchise. Regardless of the authorship of the Christian Scriptures, there are no originals available and the versions in common circulation are clearly heavily redacted. I am not sure what you mean that the scriptures come from the "people that killed him" Quote Romans killed him, blamed the act on his kinfolk, and promulgated a set of writings in his name. QuoteThey in fact came from his earliest followers. While there were no origional manuscripts ever found, the changes made were in fact made by early christians trying to promote thier own particular beleifs. Romans calling themselves "christians" is about as convincing as George W. Bush calling himself a follower of Muhammad. Quote While there many different gospels and books written in the first couple of hundred years after the death of Jesus, the vast majority finally settled on the the bible as we know it today (more or less the same bible). The Nicene Council had something to do with it. QuoteI don't see how you can say that the early scriptures came under any editorial control, as they were all coppied one at a time by Christian scribes. There are numerous copies that have been found, coppied over hundreds of years, all over the Mediteranain and for the the most part are the same. Romans were notorious in their application of flame to anything that flew contrary to their notion of what ought to be "true." QuoteOne of the best scholars of the new testament is Bart Erhman, who has some great books on the subject. Let's stick to "Christian Scriptures" and "Hebrew Scriptures." New implies continuation of the Old, and it is anything but. A study of your newfangled writings holds me in the kind of rapt fascination elicited by tracts on phrenology or astrology. Anything that requires "belief" to stomach is surely hogwash. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jclalor 12 #6 June 20, 2010 . QuoteA study of your newfangled writings holds me in the kind of rapt fascination elicited by tracts on phrenology or astrology. Anything that requires "belief" to stomach is surely hogwash. When did I ever state I was a believer? I am in fact an atheist. I have found the best way to argue with believers is to have a better understanding of the bible than they do. The scholar I mentioned was a Prominent baptist minister who lost his faith, He is now an atheist and one of the leading authorities on the historical new testament. If you are like minded, I highly suggest his books. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites winsor 236 #7 June 20, 2010 Quote. QuoteA study of your newfangled writings holds me in the kind of rapt fascination elicited by tracts on phrenology or astrology. Anything that requires "belief" to stomach is surely hogwash. When did I ever state I was a believer? I am in fact an atheist. I have found the best way to argue with believers is to have a better understanding of the bible than they do. The scholar I mentioned was a Prominent baptist minister who lost his faith, He is now an atheist and one of the leading authorities on the historical new testament. If you are like minded, I highly suggest his books. Perhaps it's worth a read. My point here is that the Tanakh consists of Bronze Age tribal lore, and was not prepared for general consumption. Most Rabbis worth their salt will roll their eyes if you attempt to get literal with the contents of Bereshit (Genesis), and will note that its value has little to do with its accuracy per se. "We have 5770 years since Creation, based on the ages of the Patriarchs. How did Adam know quite when he came to be, along with the accurate count the days/years thereafter and the understanding of the significance of this measure?" "Don't sweat it bubbie, it's tradition." In a Christian church, you might as well have a big neon sign on the wall that says "BELIEVE!" A Synagogue could do well with a sign that says "Think." BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jclalor 12 #8 June 20, 2010 QuoteQuote. Quote***A study of your newfangled writings holds me in the kind of rapt fascination elicited by tracts on phrenology or astrology. Anything that requires "belief" to stomach is surely hogwash. When did I ever state I was a believer? I am in fact an atheist. I have found the best way to argue with believers is to have a better understanding of the bible than they do. The scholar I mentioned was a Prominent baptist minister who lost his faith, He is now an atheist and one of the leading authorities on the historical new testament. If you are like minded, I highly suggest his books. Perhaps it's worth a read. My point here is that the Tanakh consists of Bronze Age tribal lore, and was not prepared for general consumption. Most Rabbis worth their salt will roll their eyes if you attempt to get literal with the contents of Bereshit (Genesis), and will note that its value has little to do with its accuracy per se. "We have 5770 years since Creation, based on the ages of the Patriarchs. How did Adam know quite when he came to be, along with the accurate count the days/years thereafter and the understanding of the significance of this measure?" "Don't sweat it bubbie, it's tradition." In a Christian church, you might as well have a big neon sign on the wall that says "BELIEVE!" A Synagogue could do well with a sign that says "Think." +1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 102 #9 June 20, 2010 I've found it quite refreshing that Jewish scholars I've encountered are willing to not take things literally. Very different for Christian doctrine.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Guest #10 June 22, 2010 Quote Quote http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-karger/8-the-mormon-proposition_b_326832.html Cant wait to see this movie. Be advised that everything you think you know about Cousin Jesus comes from accounts under the editorial control of the people who killed him as a threat to their power. This is to say that Rome killed him, and later took over management of his franchise. Regardless of the authorship of the Christian Scriptures, there are no originals available and the versions in common circulation are clearly heavily redacted. Whether or not Jesus actually said any of the things attributed to him is questionable at best (Bogart never said "play it again, Sam" and Marie Antoinette never said "let them eat cake"). Quite how Jesus himself would have addressed the issues of political persuasion or responsible firearm ownership is better considered from the standpoint that he was an observant Jew - not a follower of Vatican orthodoxy. WRT the movie, we get even farther afield. While Rome subverted the movement of Messianic Judaism to suit their political agenda, the Book of Mormon was fabricated out of whole cloth. The Christian Scriptures are a badly concocted rewrite of actual events (King Herod died at least three years before Jesus was born, etc.), but the Mormon mythos is a fairy-tale without a shred of merit, narrated by a brazen swindler. Even though Mormons fancy themselves to be a variation on the Christian theme, there is less merit to their credo than that of Scientology (your classic "less than zero"). Mormons and Scientologists are the proof of my thesis that the only inexhaustible natural resource is stupidity, and that anyone who can harness it is set for life. I suppose it worked better for L. Ron Hubbard than for Joseph Smith when all was said and done, but the fact that Brigham Young took over the Mormon flock is probably why the Mormons did not go the way of the Shakers (also, the Shakers were not into sex, but the Mormons are procreating fools). After reading the Book of Mormon, the idea that anyone who subscribes to that nonsense should presume to do my thinking for me is very scary. BSBD, Winsor Well-put, Winsor! How ya been, anyway? Greets from the Gulf, BTW mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
jclalor 12 #6 June 20, 2010 . QuoteA study of your newfangled writings holds me in the kind of rapt fascination elicited by tracts on phrenology or astrology. Anything that requires "belief" to stomach is surely hogwash. When did I ever state I was a believer? I am in fact an atheist. I have found the best way to argue with believers is to have a better understanding of the bible than they do. The scholar I mentioned was a Prominent baptist minister who lost his faith, He is now an atheist and one of the leading authorities on the historical new testament. If you are like minded, I highly suggest his books. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #7 June 20, 2010 Quote. QuoteA study of your newfangled writings holds me in the kind of rapt fascination elicited by tracts on phrenology or astrology. Anything that requires "belief" to stomach is surely hogwash. When did I ever state I was a believer? I am in fact an atheist. I have found the best way to argue with believers is to have a better understanding of the bible than they do. The scholar I mentioned was a Prominent baptist minister who lost his faith, He is now an atheist and one of the leading authorities on the historical new testament. If you are like minded, I highly suggest his books. Perhaps it's worth a read. My point here is that the Tanakh consists of Bronze Age tribal lore, and was not prepared for general consumption. Most Rabbis worth their salt will roll their eyes if you attempt to get literal with the contents of Bereshit (Genesis), and will note that its value has little to do with its accuracy per se. "We have 5770 years since Creation, based on the ages of the Patriarchs. How did Adam know quite when he came to be, along with the accurate count the days/years thereafter and the understanding of the significance of this measure?" "Don't sweat it bubbie, it's tradition." In a Christian church, you might as well have a big neon sign on the wall that says "BELIEVE!" A Synagogue could do well with a sign that says "Think." BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #8 June 20, 2010 QuoteQuote. Quote***A study of your newfangled writings holds me in the kind of rapt fascination elicited by tracts on phrenology or astrology. Anything that requires "belief" to stomach is surely hogwash. When did I ever state I was a believer? I am in fact an atheist. I have found the best way to argue with believers is to have a better understanding of the bible than they do. The scholar I mentioned was a Prominent baptist minister who lost his faith, He is now an atheist and one of the leading authorities on the historical new testament. If you are like minded, I highly suggest his books. Perhaps it's worth a read. My point here is that the Tanakh consists of Bronze Age tribal lore, and was not prepared for general consumption. Most Rabbis worth their salt will roll their eyes if you attempt to get literal with the contents of Bereshit (Genesis), and will note that its value has little to do with its accuracy per se. "We have 5770 years since Creation, based on the ages of the Patriarchs. How did Adam know quite when he came to be, along with the accurate count the days/years thereafter and the understanding of the significance of this measure?" "Don't sweat it bubbie, it's tradition." In a Christian church, you might as well have a big neon sign on the wall that says "BELIEVE!" A Synagogue could do well with a sign that says "Think." +1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 102 #9 June 20, 2010 I've found it quite refreshing that Jewish scholars I've encountered are willing to not take things literally. Very different for Christian doctrine.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Guest #10 June 22, 2010 Quote Quote http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-karger/8-the-mormon-proposition_b_326832.html Cant wait to see this movie. Be advised that everything you think you know about Cousin Jesus comes from accounts under the editorial control of the people who killed him as a threat to their power. This is to say that Rome killed him, and later took over management of his franchise. Regardless of the authorship of the Christian Scriptures, there are no originals available and the versions in common circulation are clearly heavily redacted. Whether or not Jesus actually said any of the things attributed to him is questionable at best (Bogart never said "play it again, Sam" and Marie Antoinette never said "let them eat cake"). Quite how Jesus himself would have addressed the issues of political persuasion or responsible firearm ownership is better considered from the standpoint that he was an observant Jew - not a follower of Vatican orthodoxy. WRT the movie, we get even farther afield. While Rome subverted the movement of Messianic Judaism to suit their political agenda, the Book of Mormon was fabricated out of whole cloth. The Christian Scriptures are a badly concocted rewrite of actual events (King Herod died at least three years before Jesus was born, etc.), but the Mormon mythos is a fairy-tale without a shred of merit, narrated by a brazen swindler. Even though Mormons fancy themselves to be a variation on the Christian theme, there is less merit to their credo than that of Scientology (your classic "less than zero"). Mormons and Scientologists are the proof of my thesis that the only inexhaustible natural resource is stupidity, and that anyone who can harness it is set for life. I suppose it worked better for L. Ron Hubbard than for Joseph Smith when all was said and done, but the fact that Brigham Young took over the Mormon flock is probably why the Mormons did not go the way of the Shakers (also, the Shakers were not into sex, but the Mormons are procreating fools). After reading the Book of Mormon, the idea that anyone who subscribes to that nonsense should presume to do my thinking for me is very scary. BSBD, Winsor Well-put, Winsor! How ya been, anyway? Greets from the Gulf, BTW mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
sundevil777 102 #9 June 20, 2010 I've found it quite refreshing that Jewish scholars I've encountered are willing to not take things literally. Very different for Christian doctrine.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #10 June 22, 2010 Quote Quote http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-karger/8-the-mormon-proposition_b_326832.html Cant wait to see this movie. Be advised that everything you think you know about Cousin Jesus comes from accounts under the editorial control of the people who killed him as a threat to their power. This is to say that Rome killed him, and later took over management of his franchise. Regardless of the authorship of the Christian Scriptures, there are no originals available and the versions in common circulation are clearly heavily redacted. Whether or not Jesus actually said any of the things attributed to him is questionable at best (Bogart never said "play it again, Sam" and Marie Antoinette never said "let them eat cake"). Quite how Jesus himself would have addressed the issues of political persuasion or responsible firearm ownership is better considered from the standpoint that he was an observant Jew - not a follower of Vatican orthodoxy. WRT the movie, we get even farther afield. While Rome subverted the movement of Messianic Judaism to suit their political agenda, the Book of Mormon was fabricated out of whole cloth. The Christian Scriptures are a badly concocted rewrite of actual events (King Herod died at least three years before Jesus was born, etc.), but the Mormon mythos is a fairy-tale without a shred of merit, narrated by a brazen swindler. Even though Mormons fancy themselves to be a variation on the Christian theme, there is less merit to their credo than that of Scientology (your classic "less than zero"). Mormons and Scientologists are the proof of my thesis that the only inexhaustible natural resource is stupidity, and that anyone who can harness it is set for life. I suppose it worked better for L. Ron Hubbard than for Joseph Smith when all was said and done, but the fact that Brigham Young took over the Mormon flock is probably why the Mormons did not go the way of the Shakers (also, the Shakers were not into sex, but the Mormons are procreating fools). After reading the Book of Mormon, the idea that anyone who subscribes to that nonsense should presume to do my thinking for me is very scary. BSBD, Winsor Well-put, Winsor! How ya been, anyway? Greets from the Gulf, BTW mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
