Summations Only

"do be, do be, do" Sinatra

Dredge, notice John's prophecy in Rev. 17:3 where he
saw a woman sit upon a scarlet colored beast, full of
names of blasphemy.A woman is used as a symbol of a church. In this case
an apostate church.This apostate church is the same as the second beast in
Rev. 13.The beast that she rides is the first beast in Rev. 13.This great false church is ruled by Satan. His counterfeit
religion had already began setting down roots during the
days of the Apostles. Paul and John specifically warned
Christ's followers not to be deceived by her lawlessness.This church practiced some aspects of Christianity, just
enough to call itself ChristianThis false church has possessed much power during the
course of her existence, even political power.This church from its beginning has had concourse with
emperors, presidents, kings, and rulers from around the
world. It has strong influence on the majority of nations
and cultures, including politics.In Rev. 17:5 John states "And upon her forehead was a
name written MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE
MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE
EARTH."This mother church has daughter churches that came out
of her in protest.However, they still practice and defend a
good number of her abominations.This church practices a mystery religion, with many of
her doctrines dating to ancient Babylon at the time of
Nimrod and Semiramis, the founders of the Babylonish
mystery religion.This great false church is pictured as being drunk with
the blood of the saints.Both this harlot and the beast that she rides have
persecuted and killed many ot those who remained
faithful to God's laws.This universal church has adopted practices from pagan
religions and label them as Christian.

Dredge, notice John's prophecy in Rev. 17:3 where he
saw a woman sit upon a scarlet colored beast, full of
names of blasphemy.A woman is used as a symbol of a church. In this case
an apostate church.This apostate church is the same as the second beast in
Rev. 13.The beast that she rides is the first beast in Rev. 13.This great false church is ruled by Satan. His counterfeit
religion had already began setting down roots during the
days of the Apostles. Paul and John specifically warned
Christ's followers not to be deceived by her lawlessness.This church practiced some aspects of Christianity, just
enough to call itself ChristianThis false church has possessed much power during the
course of her existence, even political power.This church from its beginning has had concourse with
emperors, presidents, kings, and rulers from around the
world. It has strong influence on the majority of nations
and cultures, including politics.In Rev. 17:5 John states "And upon her forehead was a
name written MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE
MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE
EARTH."This mother church has daughter churches that came out
of her in protest.However, they still practice and defend a
good number of her abominations.This church practices a mystery religion, with many of
her doctrines dating to ancient Babylon at the time of
Nimrod and Semiramis, the founders of the Babylonish
mystery religion.This great false church is pictured as being drunk with
the blood of the saints.Both this harlot and the beast that she rides have
persecuted and killed many ot those who remained
faithful to God's laws.This universal church has adopted practices from pagan
religions and label them as Christian.

Y-A-W-N.

The three most-prominent Apostles were Peter, James and John. That being so, please explain why Peter is mentioned more than 60 times in Acts, while James and John are mentioned no more than 6 times each.BTW, you still haven't explained why Jesus, the very first time he met Simon, said he would change his name to "rock" (John 1:42). Hint: read Matt 16:18

Yeah, this religious fantasy bashing, on both sides, is a groaner. It's all fake.

Where is the true church?

Y-A-W-N

Dredge, when Jesus said "and upon this rock I will build
my church," what in the world makes you think that He
was talking about Peter?When speaking about Peter "rock" is from Petros.
Petros is simply "a piece of the rock."Rock, when referring to Jesus, is from Petra. Petra
refers to "a mass of Rock" or "boulder."The Word that Jesus used for the "Rock" that He would
build His house upon is "Petra."You can look this up yourself. And, I wonder why you
have not already done so.Jesus could have simply touched His finger to His chest
when He said "upon this Rock I will build my church."However, there was no need for Him to have done so.
He used the word "Petra."Peter was anything but a rock. Peter was brash,
impulsive, and strong-willed.Peter swore that he would stand by Jesus and never
deny Him.Yet, he did deny Him. And he cursed and swore at those
who said he was one of Jesus' disciple.Peter showed fear and cowardice. The denial of Jesus
was shameful.Peter was impulsive when he asked Jesus to allow him
to walk on water. He never thought it through, and when
fear struck he began to sink.When Jesus described His upcoming death, Peter said
that it would never happen.Jesus answered by saying "get behind me Satan, you
are an offense to me. Peter relied on human reasoning
and not the will of God.In other words, Peter spoke in opposition to God's plan.In the end Peter became a rock-solid member of the
body of Christ. And Acts shows that he became a mighty
preacher.He became a great teacher of humility, hope, and love.However, he was a part of the body of Christ, just like
the other Apostles. The other Apostles were also rock-
solid followers of Christ.Peter and the other Apostles were all pieces of the rock
that helped to make up the foundation of the church.But, Jesus was the Chief-cornerstone. He was the Rock
that the foundation rested upon.

Jesus changed only one apostle's name to "rock" - Simon. Why only Simon?
And why did Jesus decide to change Simon's name before they'd even met?Of the twelve Apostles, Peter, James and John were the most prominent. That being so, please explain why Peter is mentioned more than 60 times in Acts, while James and John are mentioned no more than 6 times each.

You'll have to ask him when he comes back. Oh, wait, he's dead. He's not coming back.

Well, he's also fictional, so he didn't exist in the first place.

Wouldn't be any reason to not ask questions about what a fictional character said, would have said, meant by what he said, etc.After all, for a very long time, many people have not only studied such things, but also earned college degrees, even doctorates, in the subject of fictional characters; eg, English Literature, Germanistik (which is like an English degree, including lit, just in a different language), etc. Also theology.

Oh sure, but we can't ask him any questions, not because he's dead, but because he never existed in reality.

Same with Long John Silver. Or Pip. Or Frodo Baggins. Or Vina on Talos IV. Or Carson Napier of Venus.{Addressing candle and sludge} Dudes! It's a story! Don't get all hung up on problems writers introduced by not thinking through their write-arounds thoroughly enough -- like how the writers created the transporter in order to avoid the expensive (both in time and money, not to mention the more primitive state of the art at the time) visual effects in order to avoid showing a starship the size of an aircraft carrier landing on a planetary surface every week (and an different planet each time), but didn't think it through to realize that using a transporter actually kills you, but nobody seems to care because there's a new copy of you now. Even worse, don't expend inordinate amounts of time and bandwidth arguing with others about it. It's a story! Appreciate what the story tells you. And don't miss out on the true value of the story by nit-picking at minor details. One example is the movie, Gravity whose treatment of orbital mechanics is complete and total bollocks (eg, objects moving at much higher velocity than you will move up to a much higher orbit; even though that new orbit would intersect with the original LEO, it would take it longer to get back to there and the chances of it hitting anything also in LEO would be small -- it most certainly would not go ripping through everything in LEO). Other than for that glaring error, it was a pretty good movie, so suspend disbelief and enjoy the show.Similarly, as an engineer I could appreciate how Star Trek: TNG's technobabble was coherent and actually made sense (allowing for non-existent tech and science), though in the medical aspects they kept playing too fast and loose with modified DNA (that scale of change would have been during development, not in a mature individual). My dermatologist at the time was also a sci-fi fan, so I asked her about the show's medical technobabble and she confirmed that it played well in her ear.Another example is a joke I had learned in German class, but couldn't tell to a German. Here's the joke translated to English:

quote:

---

At a dinner in the court of Prussian king Friedrich II, a celebrity (ie, a writer, poet, musician, composer, whatever) is surrounded by adoring fans and making the most of it. Irritated, the king writes a note, "{Celebrity's name} is an ass." and signs it, "Friedrich II", has a servant deliver it to said celebrity, and Friedrich II commands him to read it out loud. The celebrity reads it: "{His own name} is one ass. Friedrich the second".

​

Translation note: the German indefinite article can be translated either as "a / an" or as a count, "one".

---

The problem I encountered when I tried to tell it was that I couldn't remember who the celebrity was in the story, so, not having yet learned enough German cultural history, I made a substitution that didn't match the time period. The German I was telling it to was so hung up on that minor anomaly that he kept arguing past the punch line and didn't hear it.That is what we are witnessing in this tempest in a teacup. Dudes! It's a story! Stop ruining it!