h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Vicky:

The question stands.

Just what makes some christians mainstream and others not? What is "christian mainstream" doctrine, in a nutshell? If you can't answer the question, why don't you display a modicum of integrity and say that it is impossible(for you), instead of playing the role of the poor victim or gratuitously lashing out?

<>

Are you saying that the president of the United States is NOT a "mainstream christian" and that those who oppose him are the mainstream representatives of the doctrine?

Back to you, Vicky.

"The scientist who first theorised the Big Bang was a Catholic priest"



When was Professor Stephen Hawking a Catholic priest?

F

He was the priest who converted Bob Dylan...didn't you know?

Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Éduard Lemaître

HE converted Bob Dylan!?

Seriously, I think there's a miscommunication due to a limited vocabulary on one researcher's part.

She said "theorised", something Hawkins did.

She meant "postulated", something the good Monsignor did.

<>

You've never heard of Georges Lemaitre? I can't believe the depth of ignorance of that statement you've just made...

I'm the faith-head, I am supposed to be the moron, remember?

Good attempted save there, oh one of name changing propensities that make my stunt three years ago look pathetic!

You're an American, or so your original space said, so I'll forgive your unfamiliarity with English. Theorised. Put forward the theory. Postulated, if you like.

Potato, potarto...

Really? Is it sarcasm you can't understand or is this just another attempt to avoid answering the genuine question? Please don't get sidetracked, there, Vicky. You've been avoiding the question for several days now.

How do you define "mainstream christianity"?

Are Bush's opponents "mainstream" while Bush is not?

A simple "I can't answer," will do nicely.

Sorry, Della. I'm not American, never have been. But that would explain your bigotry towards Americans, wouldn't it?

What pathetic stunt are you refering to? Your history is rife with them.

Please answer the question or stop trolling!

1. You're the troll
2. Your first user space, the one that was banned, said you're a famous American * journalist.
3. Saying that my feelings about Americans have anything to do with you, is to give yourself an importance you don't have. You're a nuisance, a mosquito, that's all.
4. I don't hate anybody, not even you, much though you'd love it if I did - what a wonderful martyr you'd be!



* As more than one of them have admitted, *culturally* (if not politcally) Canadians are very little different from Americans, so if you're about to yell in a hurt and angry manner that you're canadian, then big fat hairy deal!

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

What American journalist? I'm bewildered. You are wrong there. Show the posting or stop repeating the lie.

Your constant America bashing IS bigotry. In any case this isn't about who I am, it's about the ideas we are here to discuss. Isn't it?

Now about those questions?

This post has been removed.

As expected. Have another drink, sweetie.

Finally!! The curtain opens to reveal someone of *religiosity* who steps outside the OT curtain to show some cajones in real scientific endeavor. LOL


The *hypothesis of the primeval atom* is nothing more or less than real, absolute and proveable science. At last, a religious figure who admits that science is part of *god's plan*.

What a misguided, revisionist, hopeful little troll you are, Della.

I sleep with a smile on my face tonight.

Oh, and I hope I haven't crossed the line to Footinooti, you precious little gift from the Southern Hemisphere, you.

A11634707

Where'd she go?

I can't can't think of any clearer statement that our favourite researcher is not prepared to tell us what she means by "mainstream christianity".

It would seem therefore safe to assume that she means herself whenever she says "mainstream" and that her definitions can shift as do her stories and positions. In a nutshell, it would suggest that she hasn't anything whatever to say that isn't simple gratuitous abuse.

May I submit to the real researchers, the ones who are interested in the actual subject, the proposal that we dismiss that individual's rantings as insignificant and move forward with our discussions and just ignore her empty input?

Okay.

To resume.

What this tells me is that there is little point in trying to speak of doctrines that seem representative of a given religion. The inherent intellectual dishonesty allows a believer to point his/her finger at anyone else when called on one of the more blatant absurdities and claim the other is not "mainstream".

What needs to be disputed, it seems to me, is not the point-by-point minutae of a virtually unlimited selection of silly, contradictory, and absurd doctrines, but the very fundamental concept itself. We need to ask anybody who insists on espousing and proselytising the notion of a supreme being to give some justification for the apparently irrational claim.

To be lured in to a discussion of which of the commandments take precedence over the others is to give the entire comical proposition a degree of dignity it hasn't earned.

It is, after all, up to them to support the claim...it's not up to someone who isn't persuaded to disprove it.