CNN is dishonest--wants to discredit Christianity/distort history

L

lighthouse99

New member
yeh, i was watching this CNN special that was about "finding Jesus" I believe that was the name of it

It was interesting until i started to realize some things: they said that after testing ONE (count them, one) sample of ONE "true cross"--a piece of wood supposedly from the true Cross Jesus died on--it was found it was not that old, only dated to the 12th century. And of course they had to mention that one Church (more than one?) still, after this scientific finding, has this piece of wood in the Church.

Oh, those silly Christians! Well, how about this? How about the Church doesn't trust scientists (?!)-- and maybe Church leaders feel there is a chance they could be wrong (OMG!)?

These scientists (or others CNN cited)said the same thing about the Shroud of Turin: not from the century in which Christ lived.

But do you see the Church throwing out the Shroud?

We learned a long time ago we cannot trust unbelievers, those who probably have a serious spiritual ax to grind


:luigi:
 
J

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
lighthouse99 said:
yeh, i was watching this CNN special that was about "finding Jesus" I believe that was the name of it

It was interesting until i started to realize some things: they said that after testing ONE (count them, one) sample of ONE "true cross"--a piece of wood supposedly from the true Cross Jesus died on--it was found it was not that old, only dated to the 12th century. And of course they had to mention that one Church (more than one?) still, after this scientific finding, has this piece of wood in the Church.

Oh, those silly Christians! Well, how about this? How about the Church doesn't trust scientists (?!)-- and maybe Church leaders feel there is a chance they could be wrong (OMG!)?

These scientists (or others CNN cited)said the same thing about the Shroud of Turin: not from the century in which Christ lived.

But do you see the Church throwing out the Shroud?

We learned a long time ago we cannot trust unbelievers, those who probably have a serious spiritual ax to grind

:luigi:
Click to expand...
If you put your faith in shrouds and pieces of wood, then what can you expect!

Christianity should never put itself in the position where its credibility is based on religious relics.
 
Nazaroo

Nazaroo

New member
Lets just get down to business.

Who owns CNN?

Get to him. Change his mind. Or replace him.

No time for idiots when you're trying to save a country from self-destruction.

Extreme prejudice is always an option for Chamberlains and Benedict Arnolds.

CNN -> Turner Broadcasting -> Time Warner -> Warner Communications -> Warner Bros.



The company's name originates from the four founding Warner brothers (born Wonskolaser or Wonsal before Anglicization):[6][7] Harry (born Hirsz), Albert (born Aaron), Sam (born Szmul), and Jack (Itzhak, or to some sources, Jacob). They emigrated as small children with their parents to Canada from Krasnosielc which was located in the part of Congress Poland that had been subjugated to the Russian Empire

I.e., Russian Jews from Poland.

930–1935: Pre-code realistic period

With the collapse of the market for musicals, Warner Bros., under Zanuck turned to more socially realistic storylines. For its many films about gangsters;[21] Warner Bros. soon became known as a "gangster studio".[22]


...In 1933, relief for the studio came after Franklin D. Roosevelt became president and began the New Deal.[HBTN 28] This economic rebound allowed Warner Bros. to again became profitable.
...
By 1956 the studio was losing money,[HBTN 48] declining from 1953's net profit of $2.9 million[cph 56] and the next two years of between $2 and $4 million.[cph 57] In February 13, 1956, Jack Warner sold the rights to all of his pre-1950 films to Associated Artists Productions (which merged with United Artists Television in 1958, and was subsequently acquired by Turner Broadcasting System in early 1986 as part of a failed takeover of MGM/UA by Ted Turner).[41][42][43]
In May 1956, the brothers announced they were putting Warner Bros. on the market.[44] Jack secretly organized a syndicate – headed by Boston banker Serge Semenenko[HBTN 48]– to purchase 90% of the stock.[HBTN 48] After the three brothers sold, Jack – through his under-the-table deal – joined Semenenko's syndicate[HBTN 49] and bought back all his stock.[HBTN 49] Shortly after the deal was completed in July,[cph 58] Jack – now the company's largest stockholder – appointed himself its new president.[HBTN 50][cph 58] Shortly after the deal closed, Jack announced the company and its subsidiaries would be "directed more vigorously to the acquisition of the most important story properties, talents, and to the production of the finest motion pictures possible."[45]
Warner Bros. played a large part in the discontinuation of the HD DVD format. On January 4, 2008, Warner Bros. announced that they would drop support of HD DVD in favor of Blu-ray Disc.[53] HD DVDs continued to be released through May 2008, but only following Blu-ray and DVD releases.
...

In 2009, Warner Bros. became the first studio in history to gross more than $2 billion domestically in a single year.[citation needed]
Warner Bros. Harry Potter film series was the worldwide highest grossing film series of all time without inflation adjustment. Its Batman film series was one of only two series to have two entries earn more than $1 billion worldwide. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 was Warner Bros.' highest grossing movie ever (surpassing The Dark Knight).[citation needed] However, the Harry Potter movies have produced a net loss due to Hollywood accounting.[54] IMAX Corp.signed with Warner Bros. Pictures in April 2010 to release as many as 20 giant-format films through 2013.[55]
Warner Bros. formed a short form digital unit, Blue Ribbon Content, under its Warner Bros. Animation & Warner Digital Series president.[56]


On February 6, 2014, Warner Bros., through the legal name Columbia TriStar Warner Filmes de Portugal Ltda., announced that would have its offices at Portugal no more from March 31, 2014.[57]
As of 2015, Warner Bros. is one of only three studios to have released a pair of billion-dollar films in the same year (along with Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures and Universal Studios); the distinction was achieved in 2012 with The Dark Knight Rises and The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.[58][59][60]






So its still part of the big Hollywood Atheist Syndicate.



The six corporations that collectively control U.S. media today are Time Warner, Walt Disney, Viacom, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., CBS Corporation and NBC Universal. Together, the “big six” absolutely dominate news and entertainment in the United States.Oct 23, 2014
Who Owns The Media? The 6 Monolithic Corporations
 
Nazaroo

Nazaroo

New member



  2. Karen Hudes (@KarenHudes) says:
    July 12, 2015 at 11:55 am
    You have forgotten to mention that the six corporations which control the media (GE, Newscorp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner & CBS) are joined at the hip in a super-entity which three mathematicians at the Federal Institute of Technology in Switzerland call the Network of Global Corporate Control http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.5728v2.pdf
    The Network of Global Corporate Control is losing their battle to censor the fact that they are in receivership in a trust that Ferdinand Marcos set up in 1950 for the benefit of humanity that is administered by the World Bank and IMF. https://s3.amazonaws.com/khudes/Twitter4.19.15.pdf As I informed the American Bar Association a year ago, “the degree of control of the mainstream press in suppressing stories of this magnitude certainly supports the PLoS One paper in its conclusion that they constitute a single conglomerate by interlocking boards of directors.” https://s3.amazonaws.com/khudes/Twitter5.26.14.pdf DCTV recently named their series on the Network of Global Corporate Control as Video of the Month: https://s3.amazonaws.com/khudes/Twitter7.8.15.2.pdf
    The chance humanity gets their gold monetary reserves, (including those of the US) held in that trust? About 90-95%, according to a power transition model developed for the US Department of Defense by a political scientist, Jacek Kugler, who brought the model to the World Bank in 2004 https://s3.amazonaws.com/khudes/sentia+model.pdf The model started predicting the demise of the Network of Global Corporate Control when I and another World Bank whistleblower, Elaine Colville, got our statements up on the UK Parliament and EU Parliament websites:
    House of Commons International Development Committee, Written Evidence for the inquiry into The work of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, published July 7, 2012:
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmintdev/writev/402/contents.htm
    House of Commons Public Administration Committee, Written Evidence for the inquiry into Public engagement in policy making, published November 2, 2012:
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmpubadm/writev/publicpolicy/m03.htm
    House of Commons Public Administration Committee, Written Evidence for the inquiry into Complaints Do They Make A Difference, published July 20, 2013, pages 186-7 (Elaine Colville’s testimony is on page 178):
    http://www.parliament.uk/documents/...tration/Complaints-1-consolidated-13-sept.pdf
    The European Parliament Committee on Budgetary Control Hearing on Whistleblowing May 25, 2011:
    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/docum...01105/20110518ATT19540/20110518ATT19540EN.pdf
    Where do things stand? DC’s Board of Ethics and Government Accountability, https://s3.amazonaws.com/khudes/Twitter5.9.15.pdf the DC Council, the Mayor, and US public have to convince Melvin Gresham, Commander of DC police’s 2nd precinct, that the Board of Governors (188 ministers of finance and development that run the World Bank) are not barring me from my job after they reinstated me https://s3.amazonaws.com/khudes/reinstatement3.pdf as Acting General Counsel of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the oldest agency of the World Bank) and lawyer for the Global Debt Facility, TVM-LSM-666, which is what the trust holding the world’s wealth is called


 
G

Greg Jennings

New member
lighthouse99 said:
yeh, i was watching this CNN special that was about "finding Jesus" I believe that was the name of it

It was interesting until i started to realize some things: they said that after testing ONE (count them, one) sample of ONE "true cross"--a piece of wood supposedly from the true Cross Jesus died on--it was found it was not that old, only dated to the 12th century. And of course they had to mention that one Church (more than one?) still, after this scientific finding, has this piece of wood in the Church.

Oh, those silly Christians! Well, how about this? How about the Church doesn't trust scientists (?!)-- and maybe Church leaders feel there is a chance they could be wrong (OMG!)?

These scientists (or others CNN cited)said the same thing about the Shroud of Turin: not from the century in which Christ lived.

But do you see the Church throwing out the Shroud?

We learned a long time ago we cannot trust unbelievers, those who probably have a serious spiritual ax to grind


:luigi:
Click to expand...
I watched every single episode of that. Nothing they concluded was wrong, or even new with one exception: their recreation of the Shroud of Turin through the use of cloth, a pinhole camera, silver salts, and urine proved that the Shroud is likely the first picture ever taken. They admitted that the Shroud could still possibly be from Jesus' time because they are only given permission to date the outside of the cloth (which has likely been replaced over time) instead of the interior. However, there is no real reason to suspect it's Jesus considering how accurately they were able to recreate it, and the fact that faking religious relics was a huge business in the Middle Ages
 
Nazaroo

Nazaroo

New member
However, there is no real reason to suspect it's Jesus considering how accurately they were able to recreate it,
and the fact that faking religious relics was a huge business in the Middle Ages
Click to expand...
Another classic case of FAIL (retarded) logic.

(1) Modern scientists were able to reproduce a likeness of something,
and subjectively decided for themselves that it is 'sufficiently' similar to an actual artifact
from 400-2,000 years earlier, to propose a similar process created both.

What that demonstrates is the state of technology in the 21st century, not the 12th century.
Nor does it demonstrate that the original shroud must have been created
by a unique process, let alone one like the process modern scientists have created.
Strike One and Strike Two.

What is completely lacking in the evidence and reasoning process,
is that (1.) a shroud could only be made by a unique singular process.
Only then can one proceed to further demonstrate (2.) that the singular process found
is the same as the one INVENTED by the 21st century experimenters.

(2) That Religious 'Relics' were a 'huge business' in the Middle Ages is irrelevant,
since those relics were simply old bones claimed to belong to ancient saints,
or ordinary clothing. That 'business' has no resemblance to an imagined
secret factory where photographic or holographic technology would have been used
to produce images like the one on the Shroud.

The 'relic' making business of the Middle Ages had no resemblance to
a supposedly sophisticated forgery laboratory where secret technology
would be used to create 'magical' images that would only be properly revealed
using other technologies to be invented centuries in the future (i.e., with 'negative/positive'
reversals possible. )

The Shroud-Conspiracy theorists must also explain why such a powerful and sophisticated
technology was not immediately used to make both copies and even other forgeries
for either religious or political purposes, and why the technology and all evidence of it
would be immediately destroyed, and left completely undocumented even by its inventors.
 
L

lighthouse99

New member
Greg Jennings said:
I watched every single episode of that. Nothing they concluded was wrong, or even new with one exception: their recreation of the Shroud of Turin through the use of cloth, a pinhole camera, silver salts, and urine proved that the Shroud is likely the first picture ever taken. They admitted that the Shroud could still possibly be from Jesus' time because they are only given permission to date the outside of the cloth (which has likely been replaced over time) instead of the interior. However, there is no real reason to suspect it's Jesus considering how accurately they were able to recreate it, and the fact that faking religious relics was a huge business in the Middle Ages
Click to expand...

i have had spiritual experiences that have really helped me due to just looking at the Shroud (4 a "long" period of time). That may not be very scientific, but it works for me, and that is what counts (if only to me) :)



:luigi:
 
L

lighthouse99

New member
jgarden said:
If you put your faith in shrouds and pieces of wood, then what can you expect!

Christianity should never put itself in the position where its credibility is based on religious relics.
Click to expand...

i dont recall saying i "put my faith in" anything

But i u/stand how you liberals have to twist truth, twist conservatives' words, etc. Well, actually i DONT u/stand it, but i understand that it happens all the time
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top