/ Re: To Aaron. Moses verses Jesus / Date > 13 Sept 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.deism, alt.bible, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
>> "G. R. Gaudreau" wrote: Matt. 16:27. "For the Son of man is about to come in the glory of his Father with
>> his angels, and then he will render to each according to his doings. 28. Verily I say unto you, There are
>> some of those standing here that shall not taste of death at all until they shall have seen the Son of
>> man coming in his kingdom." Jesus is reported as saying that he was about to come 1) with angels,
>> 2) with a reward for all men for their doings and 3) in his kingdom. He was supposed to do that before
>> some of his immediate disciples died. He obviously hasn't come back, so that would mean that he
>> prophesied falsely.
.
> On 31Aug2000 Rev Peter wrote: I noticed that Aaron, was unable to offer an rebuttal; but I am sure in
> his tiny little mind that he considers that he sucessfully refuted him. So let's ask him again. Tell us Aaron,
> did Jesus prophesied falsely? According to the Torah, he did: Deut.18:21-22, "And you may say in your
> heart, 'How shall we know the word which the Lord God has not spoken?' When a prophet speaks in the
> name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not
> spoken ...".  By Moses' measurement, Jesus cannot be the "Lord". peace - Rev Peter
.
 textman answers the unbelievers: Obviously what we have here is a willful incapacity to read and understand the Word of God. Allow me then to try and shed some much needed light upon this confusing matter. Let us begin by recognizing that the Gospel of Matthew is a deliberate revision of the original Gospel of Mark and Peter. If this is so, then perhaps our dilemma can be resolved by recourse to that first gospel? Let us see if this is indeed the case ...
.
 And he said to them, 'I tell you the truth, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God come with power.' Now after six days Jesus took with him Peter, James, and John and led them alone up a high mountain privately. He was transfigured before them, and his clothes became radiantly white, more than any launderer in the world could bleach them. There also appeared before them Elijah and Moses, and they were talking with Jesus. Then Peter said to Jesus, 'Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us make three shelters, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.' (For they were afraid and he did not know what to say.) Then a cloud surrounded them, and a voice came from the cloud, 'This is my one dear Son. Listen to him!' -- Mk 9:1-7/NETbible
.
 Well! ... It certainly looks to me like Jesus prophesied truly. Accordingly, by Moses' measurement, Jesus is, in fact, a true prophet. Geez, what a shocker, eh?

/ Re: To Aaron. Moses verses Jesus-2 / Date > 16 Sept 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.deism,alt.bible,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
>> textman answers the unbelievers: Obviously what we have here
>> is a willful incapacity to read and understand the Word of God.
.
> On 15Sept Rev Peter replies: It isn't the word of a god, it is the words of scribes.
.
 textman answers: Dear RevP, some of the words are undoubtedly the uninspired words of scribes inserted into the text in some feeble attempt to improve upon the original uncorrupted texts; but even so, the entire Christian tradition is firm upon the point that these particular books are somehow divinely inspired. Therefore we are not in error in referring to the Holy Bible as the Word of God.
.
> Your incapacity to realize this only proves that you are essentially a sophist.
.
 I don't think so, RevP. A sophist believes in nothing (except perhaps money), and therefore plays with words solely for their effect upon the listener. In other words, a sophist cares nothing for the truth of things, and so is essentially a nihilist. It seems to me, therefore, that a person without faith (such as yourself) is far more likely to be a sophist than a person of faith.
.
> Try proving that the scribes who wrote these 'scriptures' were telling the truth.
.
 The only people who require "proof" of the truth of scripture are those who have already made up their minds that their is no truth in the scriptures.
.
>> Allow me then to try and shed some much needed light upon this confusing matter.
.
> There is no confusion, it is a FACT that the bible is written by men;
.
 By men, women, *and* the Spirit of Truth.
.
> who could not even agree on the basics.
.
 They all agree that God exists, and cares enough about humankind to become personally involved with their lives. Accordingly, I'd say that they *do* agree at least upon the basics.
.
>> Let us begin by recognizing that the Gospel of Matthew is a deliberate revision
>> of the original Gospel of Mark and Peter.
.
> Sophism.
.
 Biblical science and scholarship.
.
> Try proving that the gospel according to Mark, was written by a man named Mark?
> There is no internal evidence to its authorship.
.
 It's true that *most* of the evidence regarding authorship comes from outside sources, but there are also a few hints and clues within the text that suggest that the first gospel was a collaborative effort by Mark and Peter.
.
>> If this is so,
.
> "IF", "if', IT IS NOT SO. You are making an assertion without any evidence.
.
 The evidence that Mt used Mk is all there in the text of Mt.
.
>> then perhaps our dilemma can be resolved by recourse to that first gospel?
.
> Can you prove that there was no previous gospels which have been lost to time?
> If not, than you cannot say that Mark's is the first gospel.
.
 The "proof" that there were no gospels prior to Mk is the fact that no physical evidence of such supposed documents exists. It is unreasonable to first postulate the existence of something for which there is no evidence, and then go on to claim that these alleged documents were "lost to time". In this case Occam's Razor cuts your throat.
.
>> Let us see if this is indeed the case ... <snip quote for brevity>  -- Mk 9:1-7/NETbible
>> Well! ... It certainly looks to me like Jesus prophesied truly.
.
> Your explanation makes Jesus a fool; he talks about death, and six days later fulfills it. Let's look at the
> prophecy again, this time with Matthew's complete prophecy:
.
> Matt. 16;27-28, "27 For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father and His angels; and will
> recompense every man according to his deeds. 28 Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are
> standing here *who shall NOT taste death* until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
.
> What are the elements of this prophecy: 1) the second coming 2) the last judgement 3) rewards and
> punishments 4) Jesus' kingdom on earth
.
> *WHEN: before his apostles tasted death. Well textman, they're dead.
.
 What is clear to me is that Matthew has added to Mark's prophecy such that we end up with not one prophecy, but two: an end-times prophecy (v.27) which is still on the way, and a short-term prophecy (v.28) which was fulfilled at the Transfiguration. Moreover, all the elements of both prophecies (with the exception of 'rewards and punishments' -> ie. the Matthean addition) were fulfilled during the Transfiguration episode:
.
 "glory of His Father" -> "His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light." (Mt 17:2)
.
 "His angels" -> "Then Moses and Elijah also appeared to them, talking with him." (Mt 17:3)
.
 "some of those who are standing here" -> "Jesus took with him Peter and James and John." (Mt 17:1)
.
 "who will not taste death before they see" -> "And after six days" (Mt 17:1)
.
 "Son of Man coming in his kingdom." -> "a bright cloud surrounded them, and a voice from the cloud said, 'This is my one dear Son, in whom I take great delight. Listen to him!'" (Mt 17:5)
.
>> Accordingly, by Moses' measurement, Jesus is, in fact, a true prophet.
.
> You have demonstrated an example of sophism. Your apologetic makes jesus look like a fool.
.
 That's your (uninformed) opinion. Naturally, I disagree with your faithless and cynical conclusions.
.
> In reality, Jesus promised to return, establish his kingdom, carry out the last judgement, and reward
> his faithful -- none of that was accomplished.
.
 Your interpretation is both skewed and simplistic; based not so much upon the texts as upon your biased reading of them. Accordingly, a faithful reading of the passage shows us that your conclusion that "none of that was accomplished" is not only wrong, but also wrong-headed.
.
> According to the measure of Moses; Jesus, is in fact, a false prophet.
.
 According to the measure of Moses; Jesus is, in fact, a true prophet!
.
> "The ignorance you observe is based on the mindless repetition of the LABEL put on that collection
> of books, i.e. that it is the "Word of God". Once you accepts that assertion as fact, you get involved
> in an endless effort to defend every word, every statement, every fable contained in those books."
> -- Libertarius
.
 Since that is obviously not the case with the cyber-prophet, it is apparent that Libertarius' observation applies only to Fundy extremists who uphold the unbiblical dogma of inerrancy.  ... Nice try though.
.
> -- peace, Rev Peter -- http://members.xoom.com/grgaud/ "The very powerful and the very stupid
> have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to
> fit their views ..." -- Dr. Who
.
  Yes, and in this case, you're the one who's altering the facts to fit your preconceived and biased views. Which only leaves us with one remaining question: Are you very powerful or very stupid?

/ Re: To Aaron. Moses verses Jesus-3 / Date > 16 Sept 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.deism,alt.bible,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
>> textman wrote: <big snip> Well! ... It certainly looks to me like Jesus prophesied truly.
>> Accordingly, by Moses' measurement, Jesus is, in fact, a true prophet. Geez, what a shocker, eh?
.
> On 14Sept "G. R. Gaudreau" replied: No, I'm not at all shocked, Textman. You've simply begged a
> different question than Aaron did. How do you know that "the Gospel of Matthew is a deliberate
> revision of the original Gospel of Mark and Peter?" Don't forget now, it's not what you believe, but
> what you KNOW, i.e., what you can prove, that I'm looking for.
.
 textman answers: Dear GR, I'm very tempted to simply say that it ought to be perfectly obvious that the Gospel of Matthew is a midrashic revision and expansion of the original 'primitive' Gospel, but apparently that is not the case here. So how do I know that Mt made use of Mk? Because I've done my homework, that's how. If it's "proof" you want, I suggest you consult the commentaries. There are many good ones on both Mt and Mk that address various aspects of this matter. ... Or would you like me to post a few hundred relevant pages from the available commentaries?
.
 But before we are forced to such a drastic measures, let us first make an initial observation for the benefit of those not privy to the mountains of secondary literature relating to this question. Now anyone studying the four gospels with an eye on how they relate to each other cannot help but notice that there are many points of contact and divergence among the four gospels. Obviously, these interrelationships are both profound and complex. Indeed, the complexity is such that most scholars are frankly baffled; and because of unfounded prior assumptions, are forced to ludicrous measures (eg. Q) in order to "explain" the precise nature of these relationships. About the only thing that most scholars can agree upon is that Mark was the first to be written. Some will go the next step and acknowledge that Mt came second; and one reason for this is that Mt can be profitably studied without recourse to John and Luke, but *cannot* be studied without constant reference to Mk. Now Mk owes nothing to Mt, but Mt owes a great deal (approximately 60%) to Mk. And this is a fact of great significance, which goes a long way in demonstrating  Matthew's dependence upon the text of Mk.
.
> And btw, here's another question for you, o instructor of the unlearned: Why would Jesus say
> that some standing there would not taste death if the event would happen SIX DAYS LATER?
.
 Because he had a flair for the dramatic?
.
> GRG: That makes Jesus look like an idiot, doesn't it?
.
 Only to the spiritually blind.
.
>> - the one who is not really shocked - textman ;>
.
> The one who is really not surprised at the crap Xians will come up with to justify their beliefs.
> G.R. Gaudreau ;>
.
 Your taste buds must have a strong liking for crap, GR; else why would you waste so much time in 'Xian' ngz, instead of going to alt.atheism, where you could find many of those with a mindset like unto yours?

/ Re: To Aaron. Moses verses Jesus-4 / Date > 16 Sept 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.deism,alt.bible,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
>> textman previously wrote: <big snip> Well! ... It certainly looks to me like Jesus prophesied truly.
>> Accordingly, by Moses' measurement, Jesus is, in fact, a true prophet.
.
> On 14Sept "Mike Avery" replied: There are parables in the NT and some of the miracles
> mentioned therein are parables, allegories if you wish.
.
 textman answers: Dear Mike, I tend to agree. In fact, I am of the opinion that this particular pericope functions on many levels at the same time (historical, symbolic, etc); which only goes to show that unless we are willing to pay attention to the text we will never be able to really understand it.
.
> You gave your interpretation of the Transfiguration,
.
 Actually, Mike, I only gave a very small part of my interpretation of this immensely rich and dense passage.
.
> I will give this one. There were Moses, Isaiah and Jesus. The Law, the Prophet and Jesus.
.
 I'm sorry, you already lost me. According to Jewish tradition "the Prophet" is none other than Moses himself. Next to him, the prophet with the highest status (if I may put it that way) is not Isaiah, but rather Elijah.
.
> Three masters. 'You cannot follow three masters'.
.
 I believe the biblical phrase is: 'You cannot follow *two* masters'.
.
> Got to chose one. Two of them disappeared. Peter had learned another good lesson.
.
 The lesson he learned was that Moses and Elijah are friends of Jesus.
.
> Poor guy could never make out what Jesus meant.
.
 Well, what can you expect from a poor, ignorant, and illiterate fisherman?
At least he wasn't a *sophist* (like Rev Peter).
.
> You could replace Isaiah with Mahomet. You would get the same result. :-)
.
 I sincerely doubt it!
.
> What are miracles to you are for me allegories.
.
 Your observation is largely irrelevant, Mike. Whether the Transfiguration is historical fact or literary invention does not matter to the question of whether or not Jesus is a true prophet according to Moses' measurement. As far as the text itself is concerned, Jesus made a prophesy which later came about as stated. End of story.

/ Re: To Aaron. Moses verses Jesus-5 / Date > 20 Sept 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.deism,alt.bible,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
>>> "G.R. Gaudreau" wrote: <snip> And btw, here's another question for you, o instructor of the
>>> unlearned: Why would Jesus say that some standing there would not taste death if the event
>>> would happen SIX DAYS LATER?
.
>> textman answered: Because he had a flair for the dramatic?
.
> On Sept18 GRG replied: This is a non-answer, so I'll take it to mean you don't have one. Sometimes
> questions like the one I posed are right over Xian's heads. I can understand that, what with the
> blinders they wear.
.
 textman answers: Here is the difference between how believers and unbelievers read the Sacred Text: unbelievers find problems in the text that aren't even there. The problems with the texts that *do* exist can't satisfy them, so they go out of their way to create more! ... How "logical" is that?
.
>>> That makes Jesus look like an idiot, doesn't it?
.
>> tx: Only to the spiritually blind.
.
> Oh, now you went and done it. I thought you were a nice guy, but it turns out you're just
> another pretentious Xian. Too bad.
.
 You thought the offensive one was "a nice guy"? ... LOL ... What cyber-space do you inhabit?  :)
.
 "Where is the wise man? Where is the expert in the Mosaic law? Where is the debater of this age? Has God not made the wisdom of the world foolish? For since in the wisdom of God, the world by its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased to save those who believe by the foolishness of preaching. For Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks ask for wisdom, but we preach about a crucified Christ, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength." -- 1Cor.1:20-25/NETbible
.
] - the one who is not really shocked - textman ;>
.
>>> The one who is really not surprised at the crap Xians will come up with to justify their beliefs.
>>> G.R. Gaudreau ;>
.
>> tx: Your taste buds must have a strong liking for crap, GR; else why would you waste so much
>> time in 'Xian' ngz, instead of going to alt.atheism, where you could find many of those with a
>> mindset like unto yours?
.
> GRG: I'm not an Atheist, but of course that fact doesn't matter to you, does it?
.
 Not really; since one unbeliever is just as blind as the next ...
So just what flavor of unbelief do you put your faith in, anyway?
.
>> - one who wonders what the invaders are *really* after - textman ;>
.
> GRG: One who wonders when Xians will ever practice the humility their master commanded. Oops!
> Silly me, I forgot: They're still sinners. -- Cheers, G. R. Gaudreau    http://members.nbci.com/grgaud/
.
 Quite right, GR. We *are* still sinners; for that is the nature of fallen and finite human being. The difference, however, is that believers *know* we're sinners. That is why we look to the Lord for help. Unbelievers, on the other hand - and even some Christians, sad to say - would much rather rely on themselves [How's that for building on shifting sands?] or on traditional systems and religions and philosophies (eg. "enlightened" skepticism and cynicism); all of which is of dubious value (to say the least)!
.
> "It is the nature of God to reside in mystery - ineluctable, inexhaustible mystery."
> -- Chet Raymo, Sceptics and True Believers
.
 Just so. And that is why our God is such an offense to the self-styled rationalists (for whom 'man is the measure of all things').

P.S. Note to Reader: the offensive one's confusing discussions with the kindly Rev Peter on this same topic [Re: To Aaron. Moses verses Jesus] will continue *soon* in the free newsgroups called alt.religion.deism, alt.bible, and alt.religion.christian.biblestudy under the new thread entitled: On Reason and Foolishness/1 ... Don't miss it, prophet-phans!
.
P.P.S. Musical Interludes Dept. presents another blast from the past: "Clowns to the left of me.
Jokers to the right. Here I am; stuck in the middle with you!" -- some kinda' 60's pop song ... ???

/ Subject > Re: To Aaron. Moses verses Jesus-6 / Date > 20 Sept 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.bible, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
>> textman previously wrote: <snip> What is clear to me is that Matthew has added to Mark's prophecy
>> such that we end up with not one prophecy, but two: an end-times prophecy (v.27) which is still on
>> the way, and a short-term prophecy (v.28) which was fulfilled at the Transfiguration.
.
> On Sept19 "Brad" replied: So in other words Matthew embellished the Mark prophecy.
.
 textman answers: Dear Brad, that is correct.
.
> Matthew also concocted the flight to Egypt, the 3 days and 3 nights in the grave, the guards at the tomb,
> and the dead rising and walking into town when Jesus died. Embellishments like these, including the
> Matt 27 example certainly create a more lively tale but fall apart when examined for credibility.
.
 'Credibility' in what sense? Just because the Matthean additions are of dubious value historically does not mean that they are therefore devoid of all meaning and value and relevance.
.
>> tx: Moreover, all the elements of both prophecies (with the exception of 'rewards and punishments'
>> ie. the Matthean addition) were fulfilled during the Transfiguration episode: <snip remainder>
.
> Brad: Jesus didn't come from anywhere at the transfiguration as required by scripture.
.
 In order to go up the mountain in the first place, they must have come from somewhere.
.
> Jesus was to come in his kingdom the same way he left as Acts 1:11 states clearly.
.
 What does Acts have to do with it? Are you mixing up prophecies from two different books now? Are we talking about Mt, or are we talking about Acts? Please make up my mind!
.
> There is no indication Jesus came from heaven at the transiguration.
.
 So what?
.
> He was already there. Your statements smack of excuse making.
> "All" elements were fulfilled except two critical ones?
.
 I simply meant that all the Markan elements were fulfilled.
This leaves us with one non-critical element still on the way.
.
> Then "all" elements weren't fulfilled.
.
 If you say so.
.
> Brad: Prophecy fulfillment isn't a game of horseshoes where close can count.
> Anyone can make a half accurate prophecy.
.
 Can you?
.
> It might rain tomorrow and it may not.
.
 Predicting the weather is NOT prophecy, Brad. If you don't even know that much, how can you expect us to take your 'logical' nitpicking seriously?

P.S. "How long, O naive ones, will you love being simple-minded? And scoffers delight themselves in scoffing?
And fools hate knowledge?" - Proverbs 1:22 / NASB

/ Re: To Aaron. Moses verses Jesus-7 / Date > 21 Sept 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.deism,alt.bible,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
>> textman: Here is the difference between how believers and unbelievers read the Sacred Text:
>> unbelievers find problems in the text that aren't even there. The problems with the texts that *do*
>> exist can't satisfy them, so they go out of their way to create more! ... How "logical" is that?
.
> On 21Sept "G. R. Gaudreau" replied: Wrong! Unbelievers find problems that are *in* the text. In fact,
> many of them. But believers, being the gullible, credulous little creatures that they are, don't see the
> problems because they're blind as bats. That would be you, my friend Textman.
.
 textman answers: Dear GR, you're such a *meanie*!
.
 <snip>
.
>>> GR: Oh, now you went and done it. I thought you were a nice guy,
>>> but it turns out you're just another pretentious Xian. Too bad.
.
>> You thought the offensive one was "a nice guy"? ... LOL ... What cyber-space do you inhabit?  :)
.
> GRG: I'm glad to see you have at least enough honesty to admit you're offensive. I'm from that part
> of cyber space that doesn't assume right off the bat that someone, like you, is offensive. I wait for
> proof, which I've now gotten, thanks to you.
.
 Well, we *do* aim to please, you know.
.
>> <snip quote> -- 1Cor.1:20-25 / NETbible
.
> GR: The foolishness of who? God, you say? You mean that paper god you worship? PLease! The most
> ignorant Sceptic can shoot holes the size of basketballs through the "wisdom", so-called, of your god.
.
 I'm still waiting. Just when exactly did you plan to shoot holes through God's wisdom?
.
] tx previously say: Your taste buds must have a strong liking for crap, GR; else why would you waste
] so much time in 'Xian' ngz, instead of going to alt.atheism, where you could find many of those with
] a mindset like unto yours?
.
>>> I'm not an Atheist, but of course that fact doesn't matter to you, does it?
.
>> Not really; since one unbeliever is just as blind as the next ...
>> So just what flavor of unbelief do you put your faith in, anyway?
.
> GRG: The first part of your reply is not worth answering.
.
 That's what they all say ... 
.
> GRG: I'm Agnostic. I don't deny there *may* be a god, but until such time as I have hard evidence,
> I withold belief. If I withold belief, Textman, that means I don't have this "faith" you speak of.
.
 That much is obvious to all, GR.
.
> Do you even know what faith means? Doesn't sound like you do.
.
 No? Well then please *do* enlighten us, O agnostic one.
.
] one who wonders what the invaders are *really* after - textman ;>
.
>>> One who wonders when Xians will ever practice the humility their master commanded. Oops! Silly
>>> me, I forgot: They're still sinners. -- Cheers, G. R. Gaudreau    http://members.nbci.com/grgaud/
.
>> tx: Quite right, GR. We *are* still sinners; for that is the nature of fallen and finite human
>> being. The difference, however, is that believers *know* we're sinners. <snip>
.
> GR: No, Textman my friend, you *believe* you're a sinner because you believe in this abstarct
> concept known as "sin".
.
 'Sin' is an abstract concept now? No wonder all you faithless unbelievers haven't got the first
clue what the scriptures are all about!
.
> There's a difference. I'd be willing to bet my bottom dollar that you don't know the difference between
> belief and knowledge, which is why you claim to know this thing when you really don't. You *believe*
> you're "looking to the Lord" when you don't even know if this "Lord" exists or not. You only believe he
> exists and that's a far cry form proven knowledge.
.
 No one can put God in a test tube, GR. If that's what you're waiting for, then I fear you'll be waiting a long long time.
.
 Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are the people who have not seen and yet have believed." -- the prophetic Gospel of John, chapter 20, verse 29 / NETbible
.
> Can you tell me the difference between knowledge and belief?
.
 Sure thing dude:  Knowledge - n.  1) acquaintance or familiarity gained by experience.  2) the fact or state of knowing.  3) what is or may be known.  4) the sum of what is known.  5) the body of truths or facts accumulated by mankind.  /  Belief - n.  1) something believed.  2) confidence, faith, or trust. 3) religious tenet or tenets. - Syn. 1. conviction, opinion, view. [Definitions courtesy of 'The Random House Dictionary']
.
 Looks pretty straight-forward to me, GR. Was there something I missed?
.
> For eighteen years I was a Xian, born again, loving "the Lord", giving my life to his cause, witnessing, the
> whole shebang. I even pastored two small congregations for the better part of two years. I too thought
> that I *knew* the "Lord". I too thought that I *knew* I was a sinner. But when I learned the difference
> between knowledge and belief, things changed for me. My outlook changed. I wasn't so cocky anymore,
> like you are, because I realized that my ignorance was greater than my knowledge.
.
 It still is, GR!
.
>>> "It is the nature of God to reside in mystery - ineluctable, inexhaustible mystery."
>>> -- Chet Raymo, Sceptics and True Believers
.
>> Just so. And that is why our God is such an offense to the self-styled rationalists (for whom 'man is
>> the measure of all things').
.
> GR: You're so wrong. That's not why your god is an offense to me and I don't think man is
> "the measure of all things."
.
 Sure you do. You're just not honest enough to admit it.
.
> You see how ignorant you are?
.
 I'm getting there (thx to your generous assistance).
.
> But you presume to tell me what I think and what I believe, while you don't even know. You don't even
> know what the above quote from Raymo means and yet you presume to know my thoughts.
.
 Well excuse me, I'm sure ... 
.
 <snip the Textman's attempt at comedy>
.
> -- Cheers, G. R. Gaudreau   http://members.nbci.com/grgaud/
.
 <snip silly definitions>