It's nothing at all like that, which I'm sure you know deep down.

Are you sure you're not a blithering idiot? You just confused Islam with ISIS, or wrote such a confused post that you sure made it seem that way.

You seem to be confusing the Bible with a work of non-fiction. How quaint. Just because something claims to be divine in nature doesn't magically make it so. The rest of your post makes about as much sense as arguing about Spock.

It's "Cue", not "queue", unless you expect him to stand in a line waiting for something.

Jesus might have claimed that, but that means nothing. There is no solid evidence Jesus existed, and if there was, there is no solid evidence Jesus was not just a lunatic, or in any way different to the dozens of other self-professed prophets running around the middle east at that time. Please, get a grip. Your attempts to explain Jesus as a real person is like someone using a comic book to show how Spiderman must exist.

They can subjectively point to their history, as there is no supporting evidence that these conversations ever took place. No evidence at all. Conviction is not evidence.

No, it's perfectly pertinent. There is no objective difference between someone talking to God and someone talking to voices in their head they think are God. None.

Clerics who also ate food, so I guess we can skip the clerics part and just say the medical advances were due to food/trousers/surviving a Wednesday/etc.. Unless you can demonstrate how their religious teachings are directly responsible for the discoveries, you don't really have a point.

The scary thing is you actually believe that nonsense. Wow.

Or you could look at the multitude of places where there is strong competition in such markets, and see what they've been doing. How it's done in the vast majority of the US is pathetic.

"Europe" did nothing of the sort, but don't let that get in the way of a good rant.

That might have been the original meaning, but the meaning of words changes over time.

"Connect" is not a noun, fyi.

That's not entirely true. You can have a free ISP market, for example, where the last mile infrastructure is owned by a government-sanctioned monopoly which is required to lease to any ISP which applies. The infrastructure might be a (government-owned) monopoly, but a free market operates on top of it, providing much better competition and services for the customer than if the last mile was not a monopoly. That's how it's done in the UK where BT owns the phone infrastructure, but is required by law to lease it to ISPs, including leasing it to BT's own ISP at the same rates. That gives a shit-tonne of competition, as anyone can tap in to that market and become an ISP without having to dig trenches or wire up entire cities on their own.