On 3 May, 03:41, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
Roger Pearsewrote:
On 1 May, 16:35, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
The council also voted as to whether women were humans. *

What a curious idea; impossible for any Christian council to do such a
thing. *Someone is pulling your leg, my friend.

This is an interesting assumption. *Why would you insult them to suggest
this? *...

Come, this won't do. *You know very well why this claim about the
Council is made -- it's an appeal to contemporary societal values and
is intended as a smear. *Either produce evidence for your claim or
retract it, hey?

You made a bald assertions that such a vote was impossible. You made
that without support. (assertions snipped)

Indeed so. That is because I have some idea of what sort of things
the councils were interested in. In fact I made it in response to
your bald statement which was actually historically wrong.... :-)

They also decided to not include other groups texts such as the
gosphel of thomas. *Someone
had to go through and select among the texts from various groups
and then edit them to make them somewhat more consistent.

Well, I'm going to have to be blunt. *Please now produce an ancient
text which supports this claim or retract it. *:-)

The fact is that the gosphel of Thomas was not included.

At Nicea? The canon was not discussed at Nicaea...

It's not really relevant, but the Coptic Gospel of Thomas (there are
others) was never accepted as gospel by any Christian church in
antiquity. It is only referred to once in antiquity, by Hippolytus,
who calls it a fake used in Egypt.

There are also others in the Nag Hamadi scrolls that were ignored. These all
date from the time of the council of Nicea.

I'm very sorry, but I don't really understand what you're trying to
say here (The Nag Hammadi texts are in codices, not rolls, by the way,
not that it matters). The physical manuscripts are later than Nicaea
by some 50-100 years. The texts contained in them mostly predate
Nicaea; since one of those texts is part of Plato's "Republic",
predates Nicaea by 6 centuries!

Composing pseudo-gospels in the names of apostles has been a cottage
industry from the second century down to our own. The church has
sometimes compiled lists of them, mainly as a warning, but otherwise
they mean nothing. They were never accepted as canonical.

Just guessing... are you working with some sort of idea that there was
a time for some centuries when there was no NT, and loads of different
gospels were accepted by the church, and then someone came along and
threw out most of them? Because if so, that isn't how it happened.
The church only used the four gospels -- indeed some parts of it tried
to reduce that to one, Tatian's Diatessaron -- and the composition of
others by outsiders merely hardened this view.

How did books get considered special? Well, the churches were founded
by apostles and their henchmen or sidekicks. Naturally any texts left
behind by the founders were considered special. Over time this
hardened into 'scripture'. As 'scripture' began to take the place of
direct memory, people also started to create forgeries in their own
interests. This caused lists of books which were genuine to be
created. Over time these lists coalesced. But they were never
wildly different in the first place, naturally enough.

This is all very general, and probably irrelevant, but I am trying to
engage with your comment.

... and so it accepted the texts from various ones even though there
are terrible discrepancies between them.
This sounds like a confused memory of the fact that the last few books
(2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Hebrews, Revelation) were not geographically
spread over the same areas, and harmonisation gradually happened after
the church became legal when it was easier to hold councils.
Matthew for instance, is the jewish book ... (snip)

None of the assertions snipped appear relevant to my comment, tho.

I notice the very dishonest snipping of support for the comments I made
about differences in the books. *This is the operation of a coward who
does not want to lose a discussion. You cannot argue with what was
posted so you snip it.

You asked for discrepancies, I provided them. [religious comments snipped]

Hey!! Whatever did I say that deserved that??

I think perhaps you have got confused here? I didn't ask you for
these, actually. Such stuff doesn't matter to the argument which, if
you remember, is about whether the gospels were made canonical at
Nicaea.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

On 3 May, 03:46, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
Roger Pearsewrote:
On 28 Apr, 01:06, Uncle Al wrote:
George Hammond wrote:

[snip crap]

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
*Dunning-Kruger effect (2000 Ig Nobel Prize): *ignorance more
frequently begets confidence than does knowledge

* *1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of
skill.
* *2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in
others.
* *3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their
inadequacy.

No doubt. But I must say (as a pretty uninterested bystander) that
this seems to fulfil George's definition of 'mindless heckling' to a
tee. *At all events it doesn't tell me anything useful; only that you
don't like what George has to say.

Surely, if a rational response can be made, why not put one together
on a web page, perhaps as an FAQ, and just link to it each time it
seems necessary.

Not that I care either way; my interest is limited to patristics.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

George has had his mistakes pointed out for years. He does not
want to learn from them. ...

Well, why not digest this into a web page, and just link to it?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 03 May 2008 03:35:21 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 02 May 2008 09:21:13 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:





[John Smith, anti-S.P.O.G.; critic]
OK .. I forgot to add ..... your claim of "politics" is nothing more
than
an unsupported assertion.


[Hammond]
Knowing Christianity is based on Jewish history and after
witnessing the Holocaust and the 3rd Reich you're going to
tell me the discovery of a scientific proof of God is not
"political", get real.


[Hammond]
Look, Richard Dawkins is writing best selling books
entitled _THE GOD DELUSION_ and making millions.

[John Smith, antiSPOG activist]]
So?
Millions are beng made by religous zealots (and faux scientists) writing
about god (and I.D.).


[Hammond]
I've talked to William Dembski (ID author) several times
by private email. The guy has 7 college degrees (none of
them in physics btw) and is a complete nincompoop.

Unsupported assertion.

Anyway - you admit that even a person with seven college degrees MAY not be
all that smart (intelligent).
In case you haven't noticed - you just blew away your OWN argument that your
"degrees" - and the lack of them in others - actually carries ANY weight.

Quit posting your claimed CV's - as though that give you an automatic pass
when it comes to rebuttal challenges!
It just is another example of your fraudulent egomania.




Hey, the SPOG is going to kick BOTH the scientists and
the religious nuts in the butt- both at the same time......

Diarrhea never kicked the butt of anything.


I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of BOTH of
them abusing the public trust, misleading youth and
jeopardizing national security and American prestige, and
making millions doing it!

Bwahahaaaa ........ and you suggest that your pile of outrageously insane
crap is better????



A bona fide scientific proof of God is going to remedy
the situation and put them back in uniform where they
belong!

Even if it ever came, there is no telling what it wouldl do.

YOU certainly haven't shown anything other than your psychotic ignorance!

George Hammond wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2008 19:46:54 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:


SNIP RANT

[Hammond]
You claim to be a physicist but refuse to post your CV,
your real name, or any verification.
From the low intellectual quality of your posts I
conclude you are a fraudulent crackpot with possibly a
charity degree in some lamebrain applied Science field, at
best.
You have not posted ONE SCIENTIFIC COMMENT to this
thread, merely an endless stream of aggravated incompetent
remarks. Get off this thread.

I did not realize that you wanted me to limit myself to
posting only one scientific comment. I tell you what,
just read the many comments in the previous posts one
at a time.


=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

On 2 mei, 22:13, George Hammond wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2008 10:30:34 -0700 (PDT),





" wrote:
On 2 mei, 18:21, George Hammond wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2008 06:45:55 -0700 (PDT), Roger Pearse

wrote:

[Hammond]
* *And finally, Tatian's famous DIATESSARON (c 150 - 160) is
a historically famous Gospel harmony. *In it, Tatian,
combined Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John into a single
narrative. *The historic prominence of this work from 155ad.
alone, is testimony that the 4-Gospel Canon was well known
and widely accepted by mid second century ad.

[Roger Pearse]
Perhaps.

[Hammond]
* *No perhaps about it! *The DIATESSARON was the standard
Gospel text of the Syria Christian Church for 200 years.
It's dating to 155ad is indisputable. *See:
* *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatessaron
where you will find:
=========BLOCK QUOTE==============
* * * *The Diatesseron is notable evidence for the authority
already enjoyed by the four gospels by the mid-second
century.
* *Twenty years after Tatian's harmony, Irenaeus expressly
proclaimed the authoritative character of the four gospels.
* *The Diatesseron became the standard text of the gospels
in the Syriac-speaking churches down to the fifth century,
when it gave way to the four separate Gospels."
======END BLOCK QUOTE==============

[Peter van Velzen, *innocent bystander]
Thanks for mentioning it. I did not know such a work existed!

[Hammond]
* *I ran across it 20 years ago, I thought Origen wrote it
around 220, but it turns out Tatian a Syrian speaking
Christian monk wrote it in 160. *It's quite famous. *Tatian
was a pupil of Justin Martyr in Rome. The guy must have been
amazingly bright to figure out that the 4-Gospel form was
"canonical". *Diatesseron means "through four" in Greek by
the way.

[Peter van Velzen, *innocent bystander]
By the way: this is not a war-zone.
Just give peace a chance :-)

[Hammond]
* *There is a war going on in the Middle East between Moslem
Jihadists and the U.S. military. The Jihadists claim the
U.S. is the "great Satan". *If so, it certainly is a
propaganda blow to Islam that a Christian U.S. Physicst has
discovered and published the world's first and only
scientific proof of God (and allah), and is heroically
defending it against all comers on Usenet.

Peter van Velzen
(born 1950)
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands

=====================================
* * *SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
*http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
* *mirror site:
*http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
* * * GOD=G_uv * (a folk song on mp3)
*http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

I finally visited your website, apperantly you see yourselve as an
expert on biology psychologie and physics too.
You lost me already when you concluded that the growth of the human
body is equal to the growth of then human brain.
I do remember being taught that children had comparatively bigger
brains, and I have never heard that basketballplayers are generally
more intelligent that gymnasts. So you might add some support for this
assesment in order to convince othere then me.


I have no doubt your great discovery will never reach the newspapers.
Of course you are right in assuming dieties are created inside the
human mind. But really brain-growth and relativity?
I do not think there is a correlation there.
(Einstein seemed to have a comparetively small brain too)
If you want to convince people with more expertice than me,
you do need a major overhaul, I fear.


Back to Tatian,

He might have had no idea that the four gospels he used were to become
cannonical. The four were probably written during the first century AD
while the non canonical gospel were probably all writeen in the second
century or even later. Thus Tatian might not have them at his
disposal, or might not considered them because they were not known to
be around very long.

Unlike some lovers of conspiracy theories like to suggest, the four
were probably chosen because of there ancienity and because they were
more credible than any of the others. Not because of any ill will
towards rivaling theology (which might have existed, but may not have
effected the choice).


Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands

? "Richard Anacker" ?????? ??? ??????
...
Sers George et all

George Hammond schrieb:

SNIP AGGRAVATED ATHEISM RANT

Sprichst Du deutsch? Bist Du neu hier? Sei auf diese Person nicht boese, er
muss behandelt werden:-)



--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr

"John Smith" writes:

"Michael Moroney" wrote in message
...

remember, my certified public record credentials PROVE that
i know what the scientific method is

Maybe "knew", not know. You probably haven't used the scientific method
or even thought of it for the last 40 years. You certainly didn't use
it for your SPOG crap.

George bellows about his CVs .... but when pressed about the actual JOBS he
had - he, again, ignores the topic.

I've worked at Westinghouse Research and Development Center, near
Pittsburgh.
Those in our department (Optical physics) who did NOT have a Ph.D. were
little more than lab assistants.
They do no scientific inquiry of their own, and only aided in the lab work
of another scientist.

I did that - and I only had a two year electronics degree.

One must wonder, then, how high up the "scientific ladder" George really got
after school:
Lab assistant.
Lipstick case designer?
Janitor at a college?
"You want fries with that"?

Excellent point. Hammond's CV stops cold when he flunked out of the PhD
program in the 1960s, other than his so-called "publications". He is near
retirement age now. He should have a long illustrious physics related
career under his belt. Where is it?

George Hammond writes:

On Fri, 02 May 2008 09:21:13 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:

I am refused publication of the S.P.O.G. in any leading
journal because of it and am besieged by scientific
anti-religious hecklers smearing me night and day on Usenet.

No, you are refused publication in any leading scientific
journal because your work doesn't follow the scientific method and
quite simply, has no science in it.

At least you finally admit you never got published in any scientific
journal.

George Hammond writes:

On Thu, 1 May 2008 22:45:40 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

What experiments have you performed, that other scientists can also
perform, that would prove or disprove your work? The answer is NONE!
No experiments, no scientific method, no peer review, no "proof".

All the necessary experiments have alreaqdy been performed,
confirmed and published in 10,000 experiments over 40 years
and ALL cited in my published papers.

This is a perfect example of your lack of understanding of the Scientific
Method. All experiments and so forth before you create your hypothesis
are part of the creation of the initial hypothesis, which is the very
first step. Later on, once you device a working hypothesis, YOU create an
experiment that when performed, will have a definite outcome if your
hypothesis is true and a different outcome if it is false. If someone
else derives the experiments, then they should get the credit for the
work, not you. Then YOU (or people working with you) do the experiments.
Again, if others do that work, they get the credit. Depending on the
outcome you then go back and modify the hypothesis, derive the new
experiments and perform them until your hypothesis is either a publishable
theory or discarded as false.

Sers Tzortzakakis et all

Tzortzakakis Dimitrios schrieb:

Sprichst Du deutsch?

Nahezu perfekt ;-)

Bist Du neu hier?

Neu wohl nicht direkt, ich hatte das zweifelhafte Vergnügen mit George
schon vor einigen Monaten - ich finde, er betreibt seine Narretei mit
erstaunlicher Vehemenz :-)

Sei auf diese Person nicht boese, er
muss behandelt werden:-)

Nein, ich bin sicher nicht böse auf ihn, er tut sich eben schwer in
sozialem Verhalten

greets
richie
--
Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two