MEL GIBSON - JEW HATER!

Back from a week in Chicago and getting right to it.

Mel Gibson, the super catholic that denied he is an anti-Semite even though his father denied the holocaust ever happened. He also denied that his movie "The Passion of Christ" had any anti-Semitic intentions - bullshit.

Mel was arrested for drunk driving recently in California and proceeded to spew Jew hating language at his arresting officer who he obviously thought was a Jew. He went on to scream that the Jews are responsible for all wars, etc........................................................................

He issued an immediate apology saying he said things that he did not really believe. Those of us who are known to take a drink or two know that alcohol relaxes the tongue and allows the real brain to speak.

Mel cannot hide his true feelings any longer. He hates Jews because he believes, as Christians have for centuries, that the Jews killed Jesus. People that still believe that are just plain naive about Christianity and the history of Christianity which obviously, Mel is.

His movie about the last days of Jesus had absolutely no historical basis - it even was not faithful to the existing Gospels which are not historical at all. He plainly picked what he liked out of scripture and fashioned what he believed was what really happened. In his twisted mind the Jews killed Jesus because he was God?

The Romans killed Jesus because he was a trouble maker and the Romans did not allow trouble makers to ferment trouble - it is as simple as that. And if Jesus was God, he should have killed all the Romans and made himself king of all the land!

The problem with Gibson is that he has money and can spout off his bullshit and people listen. Now maybe people will realize what an asshole he is but I still like him as an actor - go figure.

Janusz

MERCY KILLING DURING KATRINA

Two nurses and a doctor have been charged with euthanasia during Hurricane Katrina. It appears that patients who were "not to be resuscitated" or in plain words, allowed to die under normal circumstances, were found during autopsy, to have abnormal levels of morphine and another drug. This indicated to the pathologist conducting the autopsy that they were deliberately injected with this lethal combination dose for the purpose of hastening death.

The local prosecutor, as, in my opinion, all local prosecutors, saw a chance to get his name in the paper and has decided to charge these medical personnel with homicide.

I was not there but I have worked in hospitals and I have worked with patients just waiting to die. I cannot imagine taking care of patients in a hospital without power, without air conditioning, without lights, without running water, without supplies, etc............................................................

If normal, healthy people were having trouble coping what do you think the patients that needed constant care and constant medical attention doing.

Logic tells us that these medical people had no other reason to do what they did except to show mercy for a fellow human being. They could have just left them there to die a miserable death, but they took pity on them and allowed them to die in peace.

Yes, they played God as the prosecutor charged, someone had to, God was not paying attention.

The prosecutor wants to put them, two nurses and a doctor, away for life. If God was really listening or if there was real justice in the world, that young prosecutor would not be allowed to do what he is doing.

Janusz

STEM CELL BUSH

One Senator said that the teacher that taught President Bush science should be ashamed of the job they did.

Bush has used his only veto to veto stem cell research because it was murder? I am not going to even try to explain the science behind stem cell research but sufice it to say that the cells in question were heading for the garbage heap so how is using them for research murder? This is beyond stupid - it makes the whole country look really stupid.

The people that hoped stem cell research could cure some diseases like Nancy Reagan for Alzheimers and Michael J. Fox for Parkinsons should not be dismayed. Stem cell cures will be eventually developed but probably not here. Probably in India who will then sell the cures to desperate Americans for zillions!

I hope Republicans will now realize that to be a Republican and a conservative you don't have to be backward. I hope that they realize Bush is not a Republican, he is in a class all by himself, the dark age class.

Janusz

ARE IRAQIS BETTER OFF?

When you read the headline recently that 6,000 Iraqis died in just the last two months alone and countless thousands before that, did you think they are grateful ole' Bush came to rescue them from Saddam?

The smart people at the Bush administration did not know that Iraq is an artificially created country just like Yugoslavia was and was made up of people that would not coexist with each other, other than by being forced to by a dictator? Dumb shits - they could have asked any one with a simple knowledge of history. A little research may have saved countless lives, American and Iraqi and oh so much suffering.

For anyone watching the daily slaughter in Iraq, Sunnis versus Shiite and visa versa can sense that they will NEVER live in peace. Divide the country right now or leave and let them divide it themselves - and they will.

If we leave them to their own devices other countries will step in. Iran and Syria behind the Shiites and Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the rest in favor of the Sunnis. The Kurds have no one to help them. Could start a general Muslim war. They could wipe each other out. MAYBE THAT WAS BUSH'S PLAN ALL ALONG - naw, he is not that smart.

Janusz

IRAQ HEADLINE

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

To: The Detroit Free Press
Re: “Nearly 6,000 Iraqis died in 2 months”, July 19.


The headline “Nearly 6,000 Iraqis died in 2 months”, July 19, begs the question; are the Iraqis better off after President Bush so graciously decided to rescue them from their misery under a ruthless tyrant or are they not.


Janusz M. Szyszko

THE MASSES ARE SOMETIMES ASSES!

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

To:     The Detroit Free Press
Re:     “Poll: More education spending can help economy”, July 19.

Just because eight out of 10 Michiganders want to compel the state to spend more on education, “Poll: More education spending can help economy”, July 19, does not make it a good idea. Most Michiganders wanted and voted for legislative term-limits and look what a bloody mess that turned out to be. I say let the elected officials do their jobs and don’t let the masses make asses out of themselves again.


Janusz M. Szyszko

NUCLEAR ARMAGEDDON?

Well, I guess I cannot keep talking about religion when the world is going to hell in a hand basket. Fundamentalist Christians may be right about Armageddon being just around the corner.

Make no mistake about it, the latest Middle East flare-up is pretty serious business. I scared my wife when I said that I had strong feelings that this time nuclear weapons may actually be used. Think that is far-fetched?

Iran and Syria are the main movers behind Hezbollah. Both countries are Shiite Muslims as is Hezbollah. For reference purposes, Hamas, the group running Palestine is Sunni.

Iran has told Syria that if Israel attacks, we will back you up – OK?

Do you now see why Iran REALLY wants an atom bomb? I have a feeling that Hezbollah started this war a little too soon for Iran – they probably don’t have a bomb ready yet – so why should Israel wait till they have one?

Now I am not talking about Nagasaki or Hiroshima type nuclear devices. I am talking about small, clean (no radioactive clouds) nuclear bombs that would be aimed at specific targets and would guarantee utmost shock and awe. The targets may be Iran’s nuclear factories and Syria’s capital and army barracks. I am sure the targets have been selected long time ago.

Rationale; Israel is a small country, with a small population. Their duty is to protect the citizens of Israel. Why should they wait till they can no longer protect their people – strike now and secure the future?

I must admit that I have tried to be objective but after seeing Israel give land back in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and still get shit on; I see no way out using the tried and failed methods of the past. We need major new and dramatic thinking and action.

Let me throw something else into the fray. The Sunni countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others have CONDEMNED Hezbollah for creating this unnecessary situation which is killing Muslims and destroying a country that has just finished rebuilding itself after the last conflict. This is a first. Arabs have not criticized other Arabs, at least when it comes to the Jews, ever before.

Believe me; the Sunnis are scared of IRAN, the Shiite powerhouse. Look at Iraq and the wholesale slaughter of Sunnis by Shiites and visa versa – they REALLY hate each other and do not want to live in peace (I guess I am back to the subject of religion).

THE SUNNIS MAY ACTUALLY WANT ISRAEL TO DROP A NUCLEAR BOMB ON SHIITE IRAN. After centuries, the Sunnis finally destroy their real enemies, their Muslim brothers.

Hey, I am not kidding, I feel like atom bombs are going to fall if this escalates any further.

I cannot help but take a swipe at the Bush Administration and their evacuation plans for American citizens. It appears that the French and the Italians are evacuating U.S. citizens out of Beirut to Cypress; we just can’t seem to get our shit together fast enough – great superpower that we are!

Janusz

SECULARIZATION ON THE RISE?

A couple of headlines drew my attention recently. One was “In Europe, Islam rises, Christianity falls” in the Detroit Free Press and “Pope Visits Spain, Flash Point for Church-State Tensions” in the New York Times.

I have been reading more and more about how secular Europe has become. We have to specify Western Europe because on my many visits to Poland, I saw that the country was actually Catholic to an extreme where the Church WAS the government.

Anyway, what intrigues me is that Europeans are becoming more secular and the Americans are becoming more religious – what gives?

In Spain, the secular premier declined to attend a papal mass during Pope Benedict XVI’s visit; even Castro attended a mass during the late Pope’s visit to Cuba.

Spain has always been VERY Catholic. Today 80% of Spaniards call themselves Catholic yet only 18% attend mass regularly – probably old ladies.

Spain just passed a gay marriage law and has loosened laws governing divorce.

In France the statistics are even worst. Eighty eight (88%) percent of the French call themselves Catholic but only 5% attend mass on a regular basis – those darn old ladies I presume.

In the United States, religion seems on the rise, or does it only seem that way to me because the fundamentalists are always in the news.

Polls show that the U.S. is also heading more to the secular side but a lot more slowly. 14% claim no religious affiliation, up from 8% in 1990. 23% of men and 18% of women under the age of 35 claim they do not follow any organized religion. 43% of the unaffiliated were former Catholics.

The survey also found that 19% of baptized Catholics leave the church compared to 16% of Americans of other faiths. 28% of Catholics who leave the church do not join another religion.

Pope Benedict XVI is concerned about his religion. It appears Catholicism is doing OK in the poorer regions of Latin America and Africa but is losing big time in Europe where it used to be on top. Is that the problem; the Church was too dominant in the past and people rebelled and are rebelling? Why are we going in the opposite direction; have we not learned from history or our Founding Fathers?

What about the prediction that Europe will be mostly Muslim by the end of the century – more on this later.

Janusz

FEMALE BISHOPS IT IS!

Here is a little update on the Episcopalian saga. Remember how the Vatican official spoke at the gathering in London of the governing body of the Church of England (Anglicans) and told them that IF they decide to allow female bishops to be ordained that any hope of a Catholic / Anglican union would be doomed.

Well the governing body voted after a three (3) hour debate. They voted 288 to 110 to allow female bishops – take that to the Vatican and stuff it! That is a more than two-thirds majority.

Well, at least they agree on female bishops. They do have other matters that may cause a schism in the 77 million member Anglican Communion; more on that later.


Janusz

THE FEMALE BISHOP AND THE VATICAN

Continuing in my Episcopalian mode, a recent article in our paper’s religion section was titled “Female Episcopal bishop could strain Catholic ties”.

I mentioned before that as soon as the Episcopal Church in the United States elected Katherine Jefferts Schori to be presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, the Vatican said forgetaboutit to talks of uniting the two churches.

Now just to be clear, the Vatican did not seem to have any problems with female Episcopal priests, gay priests or gay bishops, the problem is specifically a female bishop or any female that is placed in an “in charge” position within the Episcopal Church – interesting?

The Vatican’s top dude in charge of liaison with non-Catholic Christians, Cardinal Walter Kasper spoke to the Church of England’s bishops (Anglicans) about the four decades of work trying to bring both churches to “shared communion” – union?

He said that the goal of restoring full relations would no longer exist if the Anglican mother church in England were to consecrate a female bishop. He said nothing about a gay bishop!

Here is the kicker – Kasper defended his views and that of the Vatican on “theological convictions”.

It appears that the Vatican first explained its opposition to female priests when Canadian Episcopalians authorized female priests in 1975 and the U.S. in 1976.

Pope Paul VI said the ban honors “the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held” this fits “God’s plan for his church”.

Aha! It appears that this old reason, which many in the church have abandoned as silly, has resurrected and still holds as the official Vatican rationale.

Well using the Vatican’s own “Historical Critical Method” of reading the Gospels / Scripture exactly how and why they were written IN THE EXACT TIME THEY WERE WRITTEN IN, not as if they were written today to today’s population; Jesus had to choose men because women were total crap in their society and were treated as such! Obviously the Catholic Church still maintains that tradition along with the Muslims and a few others.

In fact, Jesus made it a point to associate with women and had women followers AND WAS CRITICIZED FOR DOING SO.

Here is the BIG POINT that the Vatican obviously refuses to recognize. The Gospels state that after Jesus died and resurrected, who did he appear to first? Who did the Angel appear to? Who was told to “tell the others what you have seen”? Who was deemed to be “the Apostle to the Apostles”? I can keep going but you know the answer – it was a woman or women depending which Gospel you read.

If the resurrection is so bloody important to the Catholic faith, you would think GOD would want to
present such an important and religion defining act to the leader of his chosen MEN – no, He chose to
reveal this most sacred of acts to a woman / women!

As far as I am concerned the Vatican does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to their argument against female priests, in fact, the Vatican insults all our intelligences by their stubborn and silly stance.
I will have more on this when I calm down.

Janusz

ps. What did you think of Paul VI's statement that this fits "God's plan for his church"?
Don't you just hate people who know what God is thinking and what His plans are?

DEMOCRATS AND BLACKS Letter

Saturday, July 08, 2006

To: The Detroit News
Re: “Anti-Granholm ad taps Nazi images”, July 7.


The anti-Granholm ad in the Michigan Chronicle had a confusing presentation but I feel the main message is valid, “Anti-Granholm ad taps Nazi images”, July 7.

Democratic President Lyndon Johnson’s well intentioned “War on Poverty” is seen by historians as being ultimately detrimental to African-Americans by being a contributing factor to dependency on welfare, unemployment and high criminal involvement.

Blaming the Democrats for some of the problems facing the Black community today is not all that far-fetched.


Janusz M. Szyszko

HITLER, BLACKS AND DEMOCRATS?

Michigan is in the midst of a gubernatorial campaign. We have two very strong candidates for the office, Jennifer Granholm and Dick DeVos of Amway fame and money.

What caught my eye this week was a report of an ad placed in the Michigan Chronicle, a mostly African-American journal, featuring our Democratic Governor Granholm along side a picture of Adolf Hitler and the image of a Nazi swastika.

The message was that blacks have been used and abused by the Democratic Party. The Democrats have used blacks as “foot soldiers”, whatever that means, and that their reward has been a dependency on welfare, high unemployment and a disproportionate number of black men locked up in prison.

The ad called on blacks to abandon the Democratic Party and their candidates or demand respect from the party in exchange for their vote. The Republican candidate DeVos condemned the ad.

OK, what do it all mean? Well, in the first place, I kind of agree with the ad or at least part of it. I have always blamed the problems blacks face in our society on President Lyndon B. Johnson and his “War on Poverty”. I believe it was his good-willed program created the welfare society which rewarded unemployment and promoted out of wedlock childbearing. Those children now make up most of our prison population.

So in essence, it was the socialist ways of our Democratic Party that has harmed our African-American population.

Let me give you one example from our personal history. My wife went to a high school with a large black student population in the early 60s. The blacks in her school were not rich, nobody was, but they had two parents who were employed, lived in small, single-family homes, were well behaved and had plans for their futures. What the hell happened? The war on poverty happened and that is the Democrat’s doing!

The ad was pretty crude supposedly done by Adolph Mongo & Associates – get the “Adolph” connection?
Despite its jumbled presentation, it somehow had Jesse Owens / Hitler and the Munich Olympics as examples of disrespecting blacks, the main point was clear; Democrats have hurt African-Americans despite their well-meaning intentions.

What to do? Well, we can’t go back in history and change things so we have to look at what can be done today. Bush Republicans are not real Republicans when it comes to economic policies; they are more interested in religion. But if you find a real Republican, one that believes in separation of Church and State, vote for him because his economic principles are better for the American black than those of a Democrat.

Janusz

LETTERS VS GAY EPISCOPALIAN

Following up on the Episcopalian blog, a lesbian reporter (Deb Price) who happens to be an Episcopalian wrote a piece in our local paper titled “Losing my church, but not my faith”.

She wrote that she no longer would attend a church that discriminated against gays. Her faith is still strong and she will return to church once the “Neanderthals” are no longer in power.

As I mentioned previously, the Episcopal leaders pleaded restraint in addressing the gay issues in a bid to keep peace within the Episcopalian community but a number of churches voted to break with the main church specifically over the openly gay bishops and same-sex marriages.

Her article garnered an interesting assortment of letter to the editor.

One letter writer stated that God called homosexuality an abomination and how can you argue with that. This is obviously an example of people thinking the Bible is the word of God. In my previous blogs, I have argued that the belief that the words in the Bible are the actual words of God is totally unsupportable by available evidence. It is even unsupportable by plain common sense. Unfortunately, I do not see how people’s minds can be changed on this issue.

Another letter writer argued that we all receive free will with which we can agree to obey God or go against His will. This person obviously thinks that gays CHOOSE to be gay. I have pointed out in previous blogs that if you use your common sense how you could ever believe that someone would CHOOSE to be gay. That is Neanderthal thinking!

Another letter says that it is nice that Deb still has her faith and believes Jesus loves her BUT she should realize that God hates sin and the scriptures are clear that homosexuality is a sin. That is not the case; they are not clear at all and how could you know what the hell scripture is talking about since was written by someone thousands of years ago to people that existed thousands of years ago.

A statement made fun of Deb suggesting that God made her gay; another imbecilic belief that gays choose their gay lifestyle. More and more evidence is being published that will hopefully, convince these people that God or nature created gays – they are born that way idiots!

Catholics took the stand that their church does not hate gays it just wants them to refrain from acting gay. They remained strong in their condemnation of gay marriage saying that God said marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman. Historical Critical Textual Criticism of the Bible reveals that the people that wrote the Bible thousands of years ago, did know the concept of homosexuality so how in the hell are we to treat their words as words of meaning to us in 2006.

Janusz

THE EPISCOPALIAN DILEMMA

Another recent religious headline was “Episcopalians Shaken by Division in Church”. Episcopalians, you may recall, are the liberal ones; the ones that elected a gay Bishop, a woman leader and perform gay marriages. Well I guess not all of them are that happy with the direction the Church is taking and has been taking.

Historically, the Episcopalians in the United States are the same, or at least similar to the Anglicans in England. Their nominal spiritual leader is the Archbishop of Canterbury (London). Anglicans exist all over the world, mainly where the British Empire once reigned supreme but are concentrated in Africa – remember Desmond Tutu, the Anglican Bishop that helped end apartheid in South Africa.

Going back even further in history, England was Roman Catholic under the Pope in Rome during the reign of King Henry VIII. You remember him as the king that could not seem to get a male heir so he kept either divorcing or beheading his wives until he got one that would produce a prince.

Henry wanted to do all this according to Catholic law and asked the Pope at that time for an annulment (divorce). The Pope was feeling his oats and wanting to show how he is more powerful than some mere king, denied Henry.

Henry told the Pope to shove it and took over the Catholic Church in England making himself the head of the new Anglican Church. Henry also took over all the Church property and the property of all the monasteries in England; a tidy some of money.

I am of course simplifying everything as you may gather. The Anglicans were called Catholics without a Roman Pope as their head but actually their religion is not identical to Catholicism even though there has been a Vatican Commission trying to unite the two faiths together for quite a few years. When the Vatican heard they elected a woman as Bishop they told the Anglicans forgetaboutit.

American Episcopalians are divided on the issue of homosexuality, homosexual priests and bishops and the sanctioning of gay marriage; basically conservatives against the liberals with the liberals being in the majority.

To complicate things a little further let me add the African Anglicans. These are definitely arch conservatives who oppose homosexuality but on the other hand they believe each male can have sex with any female he meets and that condoms do not prevent AIDS and debase a man’s masculinity if he has to wear one.

So you have this world Anglican Communion which the Archbishop of Canterbury is trying to keep together. He recently issued a “theological reflection” where he will try to find a theological path to bring both sides together. This, all sides agree, will not happen because a bridge that both sides can live with does not exist and cannot exist.

I don’t pretend to know everything about the Episcopalian / Anglican religion but I know that I have always admired their liberalism, flexibility and dedication to social issues and social ills. They were a truly progressive religion, to me, that also truly represented the essence of Christianity and of Jesus in their treatment of people, no matter whom they were or where they came from (Christian love and Christian justice).

Obviously, these American Christians found a way to practice their religion in a compassionate manner without some of the fundamentalist, discriminatory views of other Christians in this country. I have to believe that the way they treat the Bible has to play a role. I know they consider scripture as the foundation of their religion but why do they not read the Bible in the same way that homophobic fundamentalists do?

The story with the Episcopalians is unfolding just like our entire society is. We are being divided into Right and Left with no apparent room in the middle – why?

I think a good start on the road to recovery would be to tell the African Anglicans and the American Episcopalian Conservatives to form their own religion because clearly they are not true followers of Jesus; more on this later.

Janusz

CATHOLICS AND THE BIBLE

The newspapers are filled with religion related stories which I will comment on shortly but first I need to get in one Catholic issue from my childhood.

My religious education was Catholic. I was taught primarily by nuns from grade school all the way through high school. We had regular “religion” classes which were sometimes attended by the local priest and “Catechism” classes where we studied the latest edition of our Catechism book.

Early on in my education, I was told NOT to read the BIBLE because I may become confused. I was told to rely on the Catholic Church and my Catholic teachers to convey everything about religion I needed to know.

Obviously, I went and got a Bible and started reading it but they were right, it did not make much sense to me even though I enjoyed some of the “dirty” stories.

The instructions to NOT read the Bible puzzled me. My Protestant friends would tell me that in their religion SCRIPTURE was paramount. In my study of religious history I saw how the words in the Bible not only dictated what people believed about God but influenced their views about a variety of subjects.

Today Christian Fundamentalists, who believe EVERY WORD in the Bible came from God himself, play an influential role in our government and therefore in our society which means a direct affect on us as individuals.

As you know, I have been studying religion and the history surrounding religion for most of my life. I credit my Catholic education for inspiring me to search for answers my Catholic education did not provide.

Anyway, the Bible is a study topic all by itself and the most interesting part of Bible study to me is how it came to be written and by whom. Most books are about the words in the Bible and what they all mean but I needed to know how the Bible itself came to be.

A great new book by Bart D. Ehrman, my favorite religion professor and author, called “MISQUOTING JESUS; The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why”, 2005, came on the market recently. It not only talked about how the Bible became what it is today but also touched on why the Catholic Church, at one time, discouraged its members from reading it.

I am referring mostly to the New Testament Books.

Now I am not going to detail all that has happened with the Bible throughout history but kind of summarize what scholars have found. We do not have the originals of any of the Books found in the New Testament (NT). We don’t even have the first copies of the originals. What we have are a hell of a lot of translations of copies of copies……………………………………………….etc.

In 1707 a book was published that is considered a classic in New Testament textual criticism. This particular book compelled scholars to take the “textual situation of our NT manuscripts seriously”.
John Mills, a fellow at Queens College, Oxford, England spent 30 years researching his Greek New Testament edition.

He compared ALL available translations of the NT in all languages. In his “critical apparatus” notes he indicated places of variation among all the surviving material available to him. He listed thirty thousand (30,000) variations.

His work prompted the BIG question IF ONE DID NOT KNOW WHICH WORDS WERE ORIGINAL TO THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, HOW CAN ONE USE THESE WORDS DECIDING CORRECT CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE AND TEACHING.


Protestant scholars quickly argued that God would never allow the holy text to be so corrupted as to render the standard of faith insecure. They accused the “Papists” (Roman Catholics) of trying to undermine the basis for Protestantism.

This was 1707 but today we have discovered and catalogued 5,700 Greek manuscripts. We also know of 10,000 manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate plus versions of Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Old Georgian, Church Slavonic and the like. The number of variations has now grown to 400,000 or more.

Not all the variations are earth shattering. Many are accidental but many are intentional and those should give us pause.

The Catholic Church knew about the variations and the unreliability of any one text from the very beginning. They continued to teach that true faith required the “Apostolic Traditions” preserved within the Church itself and that true faith cannot be based solely on scripture (Sola Scriptura) as the Protestant Reformation maintained because the scripture is unstable and unreliable.

The Protestants then set upon devising methods of textual criticism that would enable modern scholars to reconstruct the original words of the NT.

Many, many books have been published on the subject and continue to be published but in my opinion it is virtually impossible to reconstruct the original words of the N.T.

Today, the Protestants have their version of the Bible and so do the Catholics. Each version tends to reflect the specific theology of each Christian sect.

But to me, the early admonition not to read the Bible makes perfect sense when trying to mold young minds into the “correct” religious thinking. It is easier to study “stories” from the Bible instead of the actual words of the Bible which may or may not be correct.

On a deeper level, religion scholars cannot guarantee that the words in the N.T. are the ones originally written and because such a guarantee cannot be made, the idea that the “words” were / are “divinely” inspired cannot be supported either.

This obviously wreaks havoc with the people that use Biblical “words” to support their way of thinking about matters.


Janusz