brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight johnknight at usa.com
Tue Jul 23 02:21:31 EST 2002


"Angilion" <angilion at ypical.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3d3b0bd5.1389151 at news.freeserve.net...
> >You don't understand Christianity, Angilion.  One of the reasons may be
that
> >you listen to the reams and volumes of jewish diatribes about what
> >Christianity is, without consulting with the Holy Bible first.
>
> Try this:  "You don't understand Feminism, <name here>.  One of the
> reasons may be that you listen to the reams and volumes of patriarchal
> diatribes about what Feminism is, without consulting with feminists
> first."
>
> I'm sure you seen stuff like that many times.  Does it please you
> to know that you are just like the worst of feminists?
>

You don't know how much.

> >The two
> >"religions" are exact opposites.  The Talmud goes to great lengths to try
to
> >discredit the Holy Bible, Christianity, and Jesus Christ, and that
program
> >has been a moderate success, but that's no reason to abandon all reason.
>
> Since Christianity is a spin-off from Judaism and the bible for each
> religion has a lot of the same books, I'm sure you are talking crap.
> Judaism+Christ = Christianity.  Judaism+Christ+Mohammed = Islam.
>

Fortunately, this is a LIE, and you most likely promulgate this LIE because
you don't know that the Holy Bible and the Talmud are anti-poles of each
other, just as Christians and jews are (which is why jews have been kicked
out of 86 nations already, are being kicked out of Russia as we speak, and
are soon to be kicked out of the US).

It's a crafty LIE, but it's still a LIE, because jews had nothing to do with
writing the Holy Bible--Israelites did.  And jews aren't Israelites (nor are
they Hebrews, children of Abraham, nor Semites).  It's mostly Christians who
are.

> Mind you, after seeing dozens of posts from you, I just assume you
> are talking crap because that's the norm for you.  You ignore
> facts.  You state things that are provably untrue.  Whatever
> intelligence you possess has been completely over-ruled by
> your prejudices.
>

And what "prejudice" would that be?

> As for Christianity being science...where are the experiments
> yielding reproducible results?  Where is the rigorous methodical
> challenge to the theory by those who believe it to be correct?
> How can you reconcile faith with science, as the two are diametrically
> opposed?  How do you reconcile the irrational prejudices of people like
> yourself with science, which cannot be irrational?  Where is the
> evidence for *any* of the key tenets of Christianity, let alone the
> multitude of totalitarian demands stuck on top and claimed to be
> essential by appeal to authority (a classic logical fallacy - so much for
> being scientific)?
>
> In short, where is any indication that Christianity is a form of science
> according to the current (not 14th century) meaning of "science"?
> A self-referencing and self-justifying system of "knowledge" is not
> science.
>

Where's the dictionary definition of "science" which I posted which you just
ignored?

John Knight





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list