Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: briskit who wrote (16500)	3/2/2004 5:25:38 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 28931

For some reason you are ignoring my postings where I disclaim any relevance of the documents and deny any personal support for them as "Truth". If you will...I will remain agnostic on the subject. In terms of content (UFO references, space Gods, aliens, and such) it seems comparable to "God" documents from all places and times. In terms of authenticity to claims, it seems at least as spurious and nonsensical as biblical claims, if not more-so. As I have said repeatedly, I am no apologist for such nonsense. I posted it as one opinion as to the true historical order of Matthew and Mark. I have already indicated that I don't consider the matter overly significant for our purposes or very interesting. I have even apologized for posting the link, and I am quite ready to acknowledge that it may be at least as ridiculous, comical, brutal, and offensive as any of the stories which the Christian Movement decided to preserve as "gospel". Again, there was never a question of the linked material itself representing truth or historicity. It was a question of sources and order of development. Whether Mark or Matthew copied and collated first is hardly of more than a passing interest to the thread. After all, they are simply names which became attached by the Christian Movement. We have endured that passing interest, and I thank you for enduring it with me.