Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) - VMS

This is a discussion on Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) - VMS ; On Aug 23, 12:32 pm, Doug Phillips wrote: > On Aug 23, 12:19 pm, "FredK" wrote: > > > wrote in message > > > Neil: Come on man - no need to poke Bob with a stick just for ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 323

Thread: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

  1. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On Aug 23, 12:32 pm, Doug Phillips wrote:
    > On Aug 23, 12:19 pm, "FredK" wrote:
    >
    > > wrote in message

    >
    > > Neil: Come on man - no need to poke Bob with a stick just for fun. If
    > > things are slow, I can point out a lot of really wacky sites that you can
    > > waste huge amounts of time in.

    >
    > Couldn't resist posting this one:
    >
    > <http://www.stupidvideos.us/video.asp...ge%20W.%20Bush
    > %20imitation/Funny%20videos/>
    >
    > That'll probably wrap, but if you need a good laugh and want to take a
    > few minutes to do so, go towww.stupidvideos.comand click the "Funny
    > Videos" link on the left. Scroll down and find the "George W. Bush
    > imitation" video. It's relevant to more than one of the recent Bob-
    > related off-topics being discussed here.


    Sorry, it's and I wouldn't have wasted this
    bandwidth except it's one of the funniest things I've seen in a long
    time.


  2. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On Aug 23, 1:19 pm, "FredK" wrote:
    > wrote in message
    >
    > news:1187829941.906578.232570@z24g2000prh.googlegr oups.com...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Aug 21, 11:38 pm, Neil Rieck wrote:

    >
    > >> Example-3, everyone today loves the King James Version but it appears
    > >> that this book is based upon a 12th century manuscript that just might
    > >> have been the worst choice for a bible (but there were not many others
    > >> available in Western Europe at the time)

    >
    > >> Food for thought: If the bible is the inspired word of God then why
    > >> did he allow all these people to mess around with it? Or, from what I
    > >> can see (I just finished reading the book) he seems to have gone out
    > >> of his way to make sure we can never get a glimpse of the original
    > >> text.

    >
    > > well these links seem to shot holes in your misguided theory ...

    >
    > >http://odyssey.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/...nuscripts.html

    >
    > >http://theologos.net/NTpapyrus.html

    >
    > >http://www.prophecyinthenews.com/art...?Article_ID=72

    >
    > Arrgh. First of all, the "Bible" consists of more than just the New
    > Testament. Second of all, the only site you quote that has any form of
    > objectivity is the first one at Duke - and it dates the earliest papyrus
    > examples of New Testament writing at between 150 and 200 years ACE. In fact
    > it agrees that the earlier English translations of those writings were
    > flawed and were not improved until the late 19th century and again in the
    > mid-20th. Nor does it deal with nuance of meaning when translating the
    > words in their context of (say) 1st or 2nd century Greek into 21st century
    > English. Have you ever read the original Sheakspear? Chaucer?
    >
    > Interestingly, all of these "sources" appear to start with the premise that
    > the New Testament was originally written in Greek - and if that is the case
    > then I am left to wonder why if Jesus and his disciples spoke Arameric - why
    > they can draw any conclusion that the GREEK writing was written either first
    > person, or by someone who was a contemporary of the writer. It is far more
    > likely to be the codification of oral history several generations removed
    > from the time of Christ. OTOH - some things may well BE transcriptions of
    > actual letters written in Greek. Which neither proves or disproves the
    > "truth" of their content.
    >
    > Nor does any of this address why the books in the New Testament qualify for
    > inclusion in the Bible - and other books from the same periods were banned
    > from the Bible. So ignoring transliteration problems with Arameric, Greek,
    > German and English - the entire editing process of what *is* and what *is
    > not* the inspired or literal word of God is suspect as humans made political
    > and theological decisions as to what should be orthodoxy in the Church...
    > and different splinter groups of Christianity have over time removed and
    > added things as they saw fit - for example the book of Mormon.
    >
    > Lastly, it doesn't matter. You believe what you want to. Be it the Bible
    > or the Qu'ran. No amount of evidence to support or disprove it matters - it
    > is a matter of faith. If your faith leads to you believe things that to
    > most people make you a fool - like the age of the earth being 5000 years -
    > then so be it.
    >
    > So.
    >
    > Bob: Give it up. Proof of your beliefs can't be found in the writings of
    > men. The existance of God has yet to be proven - otherwise you would not
    > need faith to believe. Please try to refrain from using this forum to
    > convert the heathen - there are many better ways to do that - and to follow
    > the commands of Christ.
    >
    > Neil: Come on man - no need to poke Bob with a stick just for fun. If
    > things are slow, I can point out a lot of really wacky sites that you can
    > waste huge amounts of time in.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    the apostles such as Paul travelled to many countries
    including Greece and spoke the language ...

    No, the apostles did not write the Gospels, but others
    did and somewhere along the line it got written in
    Greek ... how do you or anyone else know the
    exact sequence of events ... the writings are close
    enough that God must approve or He would have
    done something about it ...

    the only ones who are changing the bible are the
    ones who do not like what it says ...


  3. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On Aug 22, 10:55 pm, Neil Rieck wrote:
    > On Aug 22, 9:06 pm, ultra...@gmail.com wrote:
    >
    > > On Aug 21, 11:38 pm, Neil Rieck wrote:

    >
    > Any idiot can set up a website which can be used by others as proof.
    > It is hardly what any rational person would accept as peer-reviewed
    > literature.
    >
    > Why not try reading the book "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who
    > Changed The Bible and Why" (which was peer-reviewed by the way) then
    > get back to me. The proof laid out in this book shows that a majority
    > of very early Biblical manuscripts are different. If you're going to
    > believe in something you had better be aware of the warts and all.
    >
    > p.s. as an aside, reading the book has not changed "MY" belief in
    > Christianity. In fact, it has cleared what I saw as a few
    > inconsistancies. YMMV
    >
    > NSR


    the only ones who are changing the bible are the
    ones who do not like what it says ...


  4. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)


    wrote in message
    news:1187892204.789756.284980@x40g2000prg.googlegr oups.com...
    > On Aug 23, 1:19 pm, "FredK" wrote:
    >
    > the apostles such as Paul travelled to many countries
    > including Greece and spoke the language ...
    >
    > No, the apostles did not write the Gospels, but others
    > did and somewhere along the line it got written in
    > Greek ... how do you or anyone else know the
    > exact sequence of events ... the writings are close
    > enough that God must approve or He would have
    > done something about it ...
    >


    Oh, gee. I guess I stepped into this... but what the heck. How come he
    hasn't "fixed" the Qu'ran? Or the Book of Mormon?

    But you ask a perceptive question: "how do you or anyone else know the exact
    sequence of events". Think about that for a second. Heck, we can speculate
    that the entire New Testament was the outcome of a freshman year Greek Lit
    class.

    That is the point. Right, wrong, brilliant, stupid, inspired, literal - we
    don't "know". We don't know if God approves or dissaproves of it - since he
    has pretty much stopped making in-person appearances and delivering new
    stone tablets. It is a matter of faith.

    > the only ones who are changing the bible are the
    > ones who do not like what it says ...
    >


    Now, now Bob. Please. We know that both the Old and New Testaments *have*
    changed over time. First translation IN ITSELF can change the meaning.
    Second we know that there were several major revisions made to the New
    Testament in the 19th and 20th centuries - in fact you referenced an
    authority on that. Common sense should tell you that words are not static
    and cannot be perfectly translated - the meanings and phasing is in a
    context of the writer of the text and his understanding of the world and
    culture around him - to interpret the meanings requires more than linguistic
    talent - and no two translators consistently achieve the same translation.

    The writings in the Bible are the words of Men, not of God. Those who wrote
    them, and some who read them may believe they are the inspired Word of God -
    yet they often betray all-to-human failings - like Paul the nutjob who lived
    two centuries after Christ and created much of the Christian mythology and
    orthodoxy and who had some real problems with woman and sex - among other
    things.





  5. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    In article <1187892204.789756.284980@x40g2000prg.googlegroups. com>, ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
    >
    > the only ones who are changing the bible are the
    > ones who do not like what it says ...
    >


    Which the record shows dates back to the earliest copies.


  6. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On 08/23/07 14:00, FredK wrote:
    [snip]
    >
    > Now, now Bob. Please. We know that both the Old and New Testaments *have*
    > changed over time. First translation IN ITSELF can change the meaning.
    > Second we know that there were several major revisions made to the New


    Which is why old Muslims are smart to make young Muslims (no matter
    their ethnicity) learn Arabic, so that they can read the Koran in
    the original language.

    [snip]
    >
    > The writings in the Bible are the words of Men, not of God. Those who wrote
    > them, and some who read them may believe they are the inspired Word of God -
    > yet they often betray all-to-human failings - like Paul the nutjob who lived
    > two centuries after Christ and created much of the Christian mythology and


    A smart guy like you should *know* that Paul died in the mid-60s.
    Either 64CE or 67CE.

    > orthodoxy and who had some real problems with woman and sex - among other
    > things.


    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  7. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On Aug 23, 9:32 am, ultra...@gmail.com wrote:
    > On Aug 22, 10:55 pm, Neil Rieck wrote:
    >
    > are you dense? The sites show they found pieces
    > of New testament that date anywhere from just after
    > John to the first century ... and those writings translate
    > to what the bible is now ... so you wish to continue to
    > deny God and His words, that is not my problem, it's
    > yours ... the proof is there as always with everything
    > in the bible, whether you wish to accept it is another
    > thing ...
    >


    You had better check the peer-reviewed sources. There are no (none,
    zero) original manuscripts of the new testament going back to the
    original authors. The earliest gospel written was Mark which most
    bible scholars think was written between 70-80 AD. If you agree that
    Jesus died in 30 AD at the age of 33, then the gospels were being
    handed on via an oral mechanism for at least 40 years before someone
    decided to put it into writing.

    Copies of the copies of originals exist but all have major to minor
    variations. So-called gnostic gospels only serve to increase the
    confusion. The book I read showed instances where scribes made
    documented changes to "reduce the importance of women in the church"
    while other changes seem to indicate the beginnings of anti-semitism
    (made me think about some of Mel Gibson's points of view)

    It is almost like God does NOT want us to have access to the original
    texts.

    NSR


  8. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)


    "Ron Johnson" wrote in message
    news:LVmzi.282679$LE1.156547@newsfe13.lga...

    >
    > A smart guy like you should *know* that Paul died in the mid-60s.
    > Either 64CE or 67CE.
    >


    Smart? Not likely. Yes, to correct what I wrote - Paul (Saul of Tarsus) is
    believed to have died in Rome in between 65 and 67CE (in his late 50's) by
    beheading - around the same time as Peter (Simon IIRC). The earliest
    reference I can find to a reference to a reference to his writings dates to
    about 110CE. Most sources place the earliest copies of the documents at
    around 200CE - or at least that is what I remembered as I was writing it and
    the date stuck in my head for some reason (old age and senility). But there
    is little doubt that Paul existed and wrote a lot of "stuff" that may or may
    not be the inspired word of God.

    Of course, he still was a nutjob and the architect of much of the Catholic
    tradition and beliefs - and did not have first hand knowledge of Christ. He
    helped stone the first Christian Martyr. He "converted" sometime between
    age 25 and 30 after having been a pretty nasty guy - his conversion was due
    to his being blinded, and then cured by a follower of Christ.




  9. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On 08/23/07 17:14, FredK wrote:
    > "Ron Johnson" wrote in message
    > news:LVmzi.282679$LE1.156547@newsfe13.lga...
    >
    >> A smart guy like you should *know* that Paul died in the mid-60s.
    >> Either 64CE or 67CE.
    >>

    >
    > Smart? Not likely. Yes, to correct what I wrote - Paul (Saul of Tarsus) is
    > believed to have died in Rome in between 65 and 67CE (in his late 50's) by
    > beheading - around the same time as Peter (Simon IIRC). The earliest
    > reference I can find to a reference to a reference to his writings dates to
    > about 110CE. Most sources place the earliest copies of the documents at
    > around 200CE - or at least that is what I remembered as I was writing it and
    > the date stuck in my head for some reason (old age and senility). But there
    > is little doubt that Paul existed and wrote a lot of "stuff" that may or may
    > not be the inspired word of God.


    We agree on that...

    > Of course, he still was a nutjob and the architect of much of the Catholic
    > tradition and beliefs


    You're probably thinking of Augustine of Hippo.

    > - and did not have first hand knowledge of Christ. He
    > helped stone the first Christian Martyr. He "converted" sometime between
    > age 25 and 30 after having been a pretty nasty guy - his conversion was due
    > to his being blinded, and then cured by a follower of Christ.
    >
    >
    >



    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  10. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    Tom Linden wrote:
    >
    > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:09:40 -0700, wrote:
    >
    > > Being prepared to suffer and die for your faith doesn't imply any
    > > validity to
    > > that faith just that you believe in it very strongly.

    >
    > It suggests a psychosis.


    Eh, I don't know as I'd go quite that far until the subject turns to homicide
    bombers and other terrorists. (They're usually called "suicide" bombers; but,
    homicide is their actual intent. Their own death is merely incidental.)

    At the risk of sounding like I'm defending anyone, I can't help thinking about
    the early Christians facing the lions and other horrible fates. Surely, these
    innocents did nothing to deserve to die that way. THEY were truly martyrs, dying
    for their chosen convictions, and "convicted" of nothing worthy of death.

    ....not to mention other true cases of persecution, such as the persecution
    inflicted upon the innocent by homicide bombers and other terrorists.

    --
    David J Dachtera
    dba DJE Systems
    http://www.djesys.com/

    Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/

    Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/

    Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/

    Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/

  11. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On 08/23/07 16:52, Neil Rieck wrote:
    [snip]
    >
    > Copies of the copies of originals exist but all have major to minor
    > variations. So-called gnostic gospels only serve to increase the
    > confusion. The book I read showed instances where scribes made
    > documented changes to "reduce the importance of women in the church"


    Maybe that (amount of variation)is part of why they were not chosen
    for the canon...

    > while other changes seem to indicate the beginnings of anti-semitism
    > (made me think about some of Mel Gibson's points of view)
    >
    > It is almost like God does NOT want us to have access to the original
    > texts.


    Since there is no person deity who traipses around doing miracles,
    that's pretty much a moot point.

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  12. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    In article , Ron Johnson writes:
    >On 08/23/07 08:06, Tom Linden wrote:
    >> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:09:40 -0700, wrote:
    >>
    >>> Being prepared to suffer and die for your faith doesn't imply any
    >>> validity to
    >>> that faith just that you believe in it very strongly.

    >>
    >> It suggests a psychosis.

    >
    >It suggests stupidity. Kill the other guy for his cause before he
    >kills you for your. (Paraphrased from George Patton.)
    >

    This was in response to a comment about the early Christians being prepared to
    die for their faith at the hands of the Romans.
    I don't think the early Christians starting to fight a guerilla war against the
    Roman Empire would have helped much.


    David Webb
    Security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University
    >--
    >Ron Johnson, Jr.
    >Jefferson LA USA
    >
    >Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    >Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!


  13. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    In article <1187892204.789756.284980@x40g2000prg.googlegroups. com>, ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
    >
    >the apostles such as Paul travelled to many countries
    >including Greece and spoke the language ...
    >
    >No, the apostles did not write the Gospels, but others
    >did and somewhere along the line it got written in
    >Greek ... how do you or anyone else know the
    >exact sequence of events ...


    That is rather the point. How do you know that what was written and then
    what was selected out of all the Gospels and other early Christian literature
    for inclusion in the New Testament represents the real teachings of the
    historical Jesus ?
    There were many different Christian groups which held a wide variety of beliefs
    in the first and second century. These groups vied with each other for support
    in similar ways to how different Protestant groups have vied with each other
    and Catholicism since the reformation (though the differences were rather more
    pronounced). One group with the help of the Roman Emperor Constantine became
    dominant and produced the canon of the New Testament pretty much as we know it
    today - proscribing other texts as heretical.
    These other "heretical" texts though had been considered sacred texts by various
    groups of Christians. The fact that a text was included in the New testament
    doesn't make it any more authentic than other texts which were excluded - it
    just meant it fitted in better with the beliefs and desires of the group which
    put together the New testament and the political aims of Constantine.


    >the writings are close
    >enough that God must approve or He would have
    >done something about it ...
    >
    >the only ones who are changing the bible are the
    >ones who do not like what it says ...
    >


    Given the existence of an all powerful God those two statements sound
    contradictory.
    However the usual answer to such things is that God gave us free will. Hence it
    would seem likely that men throughout the ages have had the opportunity to
    exercise that free will by shaping the Bible to their own ends.


    David Webb
    Security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University

  14. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On 08/23/07 20:06, David J Dachtera wrote:
    > Tom Linden wrote:
    >> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:09:40 -0700, wrote:
    >>
    >>> Being prepared to suffer and die for your faith doesn't imply any
    >>> validity to
    >>> that faith just that you believe in it very strongly.

    >> It suggests a psychosis.

    >
    > Eh, I don't know as I'd go quite that far until the subject turns to homicide
    > bombers and other terrorists. (They're usually called "suicide" bombers; but,
    > homicide is their actual intent. Their own death is merely incidental.)
    >
    > At the risk of sounding like I'm defending anyone, I can't help thinking about
    > the early Christians facing the lions and other horrible fates. Surely, these
    > innocents did nothing to deserve to die that way. THEY were truly martyrs, dying
    > for their chosen convictions, and "convicted" of nothing worthy of death.


    Or Jews in Europe and blacks in America.

    > ...not to mention other true cases of persecution, such as the persecution
    > inflicted upon the innocent by homicide bombers and other terrorists.


    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  15. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On 08/24/07 05:16, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
    > In article , Ron Johnson writes:
    >> On 08/23/07 08:06, Tom Linden wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:09:40 -0700, wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Being prepared to suffer and die for your faith doesn't imply any
    >>>> validity to
    >>>> that faith just that you believe in it very strongly.
    >>> It suggests a psychosis.

    >> It suggests stupidity. Kill the other guy for his cause before he
    >> kills you for your. (Paraphrased from George Patton.)
    >>

    > This was in response to a comment about the early Christians being prepared to
    > die for their faith at the hands of the Romans.
    > I don't think the early Christians starting to fight a guerilla war against the
    > Roman Empire would have helped much.


    Too true. Especially since Christianity was (and still is, to a
    large degree) mostly a religion of women and slaves.

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  16. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    Ron Johnson wrote:
    > On 08/23/07 14:00, FredK wrote:
    > [snip]
    >>
    >> Now, now Bob. Please. We know that both the Old and New Testaments
    >> *have* changed over time. First translation IN ITSELF can change
    >> the meaning. Second we know that there were several major revisions
    >> made to the New

    >
    > Which is why old Muslims are smart to make young Muslims (no matter
    > their ethnicity) learn Arabic, so that they can read the Koran in
    > the original language.
    >


    Errr - not quite. The Koran is noted for its "mistranslation" as a matter of
    dogma as much as any other reason.
    Knock yourself out here, or any other place that documents this issue
    http://www.blessedcause.org/Quran.htm

    The Koran is by Islamic definition "the word of God" and can thus never be
    questioned, which is heresy. In order to maintain this patently false
    position, the Koran is constantly mistranslated and changed to indicate that
    it is not a human narrator but from God Himself that the words emanate.

    Religion = Dogma != Truth

    Dweeb

    > [snip]
    >>
    >> The writings in the Bible are the words of Men, not of God. Those
    >> who wrote them, and some who read them may believe they are the
    >> inspired Word of God - yet they often betray all-to-human failings -
    >> like Paul the nutjob who lived two centuries after Christ and
    >> created much of the Christian mythology and

    >
    > A smart guy like you should *know* that Paul died in the mid-60s.
    > Either 64CE or 67CE.
    >
    >> orthodoxy and who had some real problems with woman and sex - among
    >> other things.




  17. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    Ron Johnson wrote:
    >
    > On 08/23/07 20:06, David J Dachtera wrote:
    > > Tom Linden wrote:
    > >> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:09:40 -0700, wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> Being prepared to suffer and die for your faith doesn't imply any
    > >>> validity to
    > >>> that faith just that you believe in it very strongly.
    > >> It suggests a psychosis.

    > >
    > > Eh, I don't know as I'd go quite that far until the subject turns to homicide
    > > bombers and other terrorists. (They're usually called "suicide" bombers; but,
    > > homicide is their actual intent. Their own death is merely incidental.)
    > >
    > > At the risk of sounding like I'm defending anyone, I can't help thinking about
    > > the early Christians facing the lions and other horrible fates. Surely, these
    > > innocents did nothing to deserve to die that way. THEY were truly martyrs, dying
    > > for their chosen convictions, and "convicted" of nothing worthy of death.

    >
    > Or Jews in Europe and blacks in America.


    Well, be careful there.

    The British Colonists (before they became "America") brought Africans to North
    America against their will under deplorable conditions to live and work under
    deplorable conditions, but that had nothing to do with the religious (or any
    other) convictions of the Africans. A bit of stupidity on the part of our
    forefathers was that they considered the Africans to be human-like, but not
    entirely human.

    During the first part of the 20th Century, Jews in Europe were persecuted
    because they were Jewish. Remember: Jews were considered a race more than a
    religious denomination. It could just as easily have been purple people
    persecuting the green because they were green and not purple. The Nazis
    targetted racial purity more than religious leanings (the "master race" thing).

    --
    David J Dachtera
    dba DJE Systems
    http://www.djesys.com/

    Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/

    Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/

    Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/

    Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/

  18. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    "Dr. Dweeb" wrote:
    >
    > Ron Johnson wrote:
    > > On 08/23/07 14:00, FredK wrote:
    > > [snip]
    > >>
    > >> Now, now Bob. Please. We know that both the Old and New Testaments
    > >> *have* changed over time. First translation IN ITSELF can change
    > >> the meaning. Second we know that there were several major revisions
    > >> made to the New

    > >
    > > Which is why old Muslims are smart to make young Muslims (no matter
    > > their ethnicity) learn Arabic, so that they can read the Koran in
    > > the original language.
    > >

    >
    > Errr - not quite. The Koran is noted for its "mistranslation" as a matter of
    > dogma as much as any other reason.
    > Knock yourself out here, or any other place that documents this issue
    > http://www.blessedcause.org/Quran.htm


    After reading some of this tuff - I tell ya: its frightening!

    --
    David J Dachtera
    dba DJE Systems
    http://www.djesys.com/

    Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/

    Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/

    Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/

    Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/

  19. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On Aug 24, 11:29 pm, David J Dachtera
    wrote:
    > Ron Johnson wrote:
    >

    [...snip...]
    >
    > The British Colonists (before they became "America") brought Africans to North
    > America against their will under deplorable conditions to live and work under
    > deplorable conditions, but that had nothing to do with the religious (or any
    > other) convictions of the Africans. A bit of stupidity on the part of our
    > forefathers was that they considered the Africans to be human-like, but not
    > entirely human.
    >


    I'd also like to point out that many people in America at that time
    used the bible to justify slavery. Some people who opposed the bible
    thumpers were branded as "free thinkers" etc. Today, anyone who would
    use the bible to justify slavery would be considered backwards.

    p.s. I'm not suggesting we get rid of the bible or religion; I'm only
    suggesting that politically motivated religious groups need to calm
    down a little because you are not as correct as you believe.

    >
    > During the first part of the 20th Century, Jews in Europe were persecuted
    > because they were Jewish. Remember: Jews were considered a race more than a
    > religious denomination. It could just as easily have been purple people
    > persecuting the green because they were green and not purple. The Nazis
    > targetted racial purity more than religious leanings (the "master race" thing).
    >


    Talk to anyone who was an adult during World War 2 and you'll find
    that many common folk were anti-Semitic even though they called
    themselves Christians. (The people telling you these facts will always
    tell you it was the other guy). Today, anyone who holds anti-Semitic
    biases is usually considered backwards.

    NSR


  20. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On 08/25/07 07:14, Neil Rieck wrote:
    > On Aug 24, 11:29 pm, David J Dachtera
    > wrote:
    >> Ron Johnson wrote:
    >>

    > [...snip...]
    >> The British Colonists (before they became "America") brought Africans to North
    >> America against their will under deplorable conditions to live and work under
    >> deplorable conditions, but that had nothing to do with the religious (or any
    >> other) convictions of the Africans. A bit of stupidity on the part of our
    >> forefathers was that they considered the Africans to be human-like, but not
    >> entirely human.
    >>

    >
    > I'd also like to point out that many people in America at that time
    > used the bible to justify slavery. Some people who opposed the bible
    > thumpers were branded as "free thinkers" etc. Today, anyone who would
    > use the bible to justify slavery would be considered backwards.


    But most Abolitionists were deeply committed Christians. This was
    "just" another case of using the Bible to justify whatever you want
    to do.

    Still, though, slavery has existed (yes, it still exists in parts of
    Africa and Arabia) (and still exists to a degree in the West with
    poorly paid and poorly treated "wage slaves") for at least 4000
    years, and probably longer. I'd say that it's an extension of our
    hierarchical social nature.

    > p.s. I'm not suggesting we get rid of the bible or religion; I'm only
    > suggesting that politically motivated religious groups need to calm
    > down a little because you are not as correct as you believe.
    >
    >> During the first part of the 20th Century, Jews in Europe were persecuted
    >> because they were Jewish. Remember: Jews were considered a race more than a
    >> religious denomination. It could just as easily have been purple people
    >> persecuting the green because they were green and not purple. The Nazis
    >> targetted racial purity more than religious leanings (the "master race" thing).
    >>

    >
    > Talk to anyone who was an adult during World War 2 and you'll find
    > that many common folk were anti-Semitic even though they called
    > themselves Christians. (The people telling you these facts will always


    "The Jews killed Jesus."

    > tell you it was the other guy). Today, anyone who holds anti-Semitic
    > biases is usually considered backwards.


    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast