Guest guest Report post Posted April 18, 2004 Hi Simon > I agree....books can also be misleading....as well as word and mouth communications. Indeed, but at least with most books (and, unfortunately, only a few web pages), it is possible to follow up the research of the author with the use of their footnotes and bibliographies. Also with books, they are frequently assessed in peer reviewed journals, so it is possible to revify the validity of the research and of the conclusions without too much difficulty. As far as I am aware, there are no history journals which review web sites, so it is much harder to gain an insight into the level of expertise (or lack of) of the writer. BB Peter Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 18, 2004 Hi Simon > There has been different translations of the bible. No disrepect to jews in general, with the Prominence of Jesus. fish merchants could incoporated that story in the > Gospels for promotion. In historical terminology, this is referred to as "special pleading". That basically means desperately trying to find a possible reason to cling to an unsupportable theory without actually presenting evidence! :-) BB Peter Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 19, 2004 - Peter Sunday, April 18, 2004 10:48 PM Re: Re: Life After Death Hi Simon > There has been different translations of the bible. No disrepect to jews in general, with the Prominence of Jesus. fish merchants could incoporated that story in the > Gospels for promotion. In historical terminology, this is referred to as "special pleading". That basically means desperately trying to find a possible reason to cling to an unsupportable theory without actually presenting evidence! :-) BB PeterTo send an email to - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 19, 2004 - Peter Sunday, April 18, 2004 10:48 PM Re: Re: Life After Death Hi Peter In historical terminology, this is referred to as "special pleading". That basically means desperately trying to find a possible reason to cling to an unsupportable theory without actually presenting evidence! :-) You also have to look at the possiblities..a modern terminology refers to it as "having an open mind". As the bible has been through some translations and interpretions in the past...a slip of the pen is quite possible even probably.Who knows? Simon To send an email to - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 19, 2004 I can assure you at the time in my life thst I practiced prayer I was fully convicted in its power. No less so than I am now fully convicted in its futility. , " simonpjones " <simonpjones@o...> wrote: > > - > " David Brown " <quickformgreen> > > Friday, April 16, 2004 2:48 PM > Re: Life After Death > > > > Sorry double tap on this one. All of my prayers' answers have been > > negative, the Faithful would say " Some of Gods greatest gift are > > unanswered prayers! " How convenient. In my book the only gifts God > > has in stock are unanswered prayrs. Maybe I was just praying for the > > wrong thing right, well who does't, there wouldn't be a need to pray > > if they were the right things, again how convenient....> > > Who knows..sometimes the ego likes to take centre stage and won't allow > humble praying. > > > > > > , " simonpjones " <simonpjones@o...> > > wrote: > > > I believe there is a scientific even mathematical element to faith > > in religious matters, much like those that had faith in building > > flying machines, landing people on the moon etc.I think you can test > > praying and get results as I have found for myself. > > > - > > > ioannis Tsoucas > > > > > > Thursday, April 15, 2004 6:28 PM > > > Re: Re: Life After Death > > > > > > > > > Faith is science for someone like me, who wants to know first, > > what is true and then to accept it. > > > For the most people faith may be not science, but they are not > > faithful. They only have a religion and they don't know what it is > > and they don't ask why. > > > This is the big difference between conscious faithful persons and > > the many religious people. The real faithful, according to my > > discription don't have a religion. They have the revelation of God. > > This is the correct Christianism and the correct believe or the > > correct faith, if you want to give a name to it. This is a faith with > > evidences, not with words like: maybe, if, then, etc. > > > > > > Yannis > > > > > > simonpjones <simonpjones@o...> wrote: > > > > > > - > > > fartybriivismeisteranushead ta-da! > > > > > > Tuesday, April 13, 2004 8:50 AM > > > Re: Re: Life After Death > > > > > > > > > faith is not a science. it's speculative and subjective; > > felt but not proven. if anything is not logical, it's religion> > > > > > > Is science a faith. it seems so sometimes when theories that > > are treated as fact> > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > To send an email to - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- ---- > > ---------- > > > Messenger - Communicate instantly... " Ping " your friends > > today! Download Messenger Now > > > > > > To send an email to - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- ---- > > ---------- > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 19, 2004 Hi Simon > You also have to look at the possiblities..a modern terminology refers to it as "having an open mind". Having an "open mind", means being able to listen to the arguments for and against a particular theory, and then judging it with as unbiased a view point as is possible. I wouldn't say that deciding on a theory with no evidence to support it, and then refusing to listen to any evidence to the contrary could be classified as being open minded. > As the bible has been through some translations and interpretions in the past...a slip of the pen is quite possible even probably.Who knows? Absolutely possible... however, if you're going to make an argument for such a slip of the pen, then you need to provide some form of substantial point for discussion. As an example, Gerald Aardsma has come up with a very interesting argument that a slip of the pen has meant that the Exodus is commonly thought of as 1000 years later than it actually happened (personally I am not convinced, but at least he presents a good case) - however, he supports his theory with archaeological and documentary evidence. There is also the now fairly well accepted idea that the "Red Sea" should actually be the "Reed Sea" (the fact that Red and Reed are similar in English is actually a complete coincidence - the transcription error was actually in the Hebrew version), but, again, that is supported by good historical evidence. Of course, both of these are in the OT, and come from much older documents which have passed through much more transcription, translation, and a healthy period of oral tradition, which tend to allow for more errors to creep in. So, what evidence is there that the word which we now have as "fish" in the gospels should have been something else? What else should it have been? And at what point in time and in which language did it become corrupted? Personally, I think that if the word had been something other than "fish" in the earliest known (or any) versions of the gospels, there would have been some comment amongst biblical scholars. I can't imagine that there would be any agendas which would prevent them from doing so.... last I was aware, the meat marketing board had not been investing in Biblical research :-) BB Peter Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 19, 2004 fish merchants could incoporated that story in the Gospels for promotion. i'm pretty inclined to think the bible was tainted in several ways by human hands at the pen. the few sinister aspects of christian teachings (the prejudices and intolerances SOME dogmatic followers maintain*) could well have been the input of someone no more divine than some butt-scratching bigot named "chad" who had been in the lucky position to transcribe second-hand happenings from someone more knowledgeable into the (mostly) good book. ~~brii *most of my friends are youth-groupers bent to spread cheer like a pandemic, never having dreamt of casting judgement >"simonpjones" <simonpjones > > >Re: Re: Life After Death >Sun, 18 Apr 2004 21:37:28 +0100 > >There has been different translations of the bible. No disrepect to jews in general, with the Prominence of Jesus. fish merchants could incoporated that story in the Gospels for promotion. > > >- > fartybriivismeisteranushead ta-da! > > Sunday, April 18, 2004 6:42 AM > Re: Re: Life After Death > > > Though the commonly used bibles Jesus is not don't protray Jesus as a vegetarian...I believe he would of been. > > > but isn't it in the bible that jesus killed masses of fish to feed to humans? (i think i read here that it was one fish whom he turned into many to kill for humans, but that's not much different) also, i find the "jesus fish" extremely disrespectful-- not only did he kill the fish, but, out of a life otherwise filled with giving love, he's symbolized by (and revered for) the only creatures he did harm to. > > There has been different translations of the bible with the prominence of Jesus fish merchants could have incoporated that story in the Gospels for promotion. With the different translations of the bible a little slip of the pen and the word fruit could easily have become fish, who knows what the tranlators were up to. > > Simon > >"simonpjones" <simonpjones > > > > > >Re: Re: Life After Death > >Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:55:23 +0100 > > > > > > - > > Peter > > > > Wednesday, April 14, 2004 5:54 PM > > Re: Re: Life After Death > > > > > > Hi Simon > > I think we should turn that question around... do you not think it is possible for people to understand love and compassion without reading about it? Personally, I think love and compassion is within all of us, whether or not we read about it in a book.> > > > > Yes I think it is... once we have the desire to. It 's just that I havn't heard of anyone else before Jesus that demostrated in such a way what love and compassion were. I believe the vegetarians before Jesus and during his time had to be compassionate people, but there is no record as far I know of anyone challenging the authorities with what some of us might even call common sense theses days. You know how easy it is for people to be lead astray..killing, hating, eating animals etc.( Though the commonly used bibles Jesus is not don't protray Jesus as a vegetarian...I believe he would of been. > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > To send an email to - > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 20, 2004 Were you vegan, when you believed in the existence of a God. - " David Brown " <quickformgreen Monday, April 19, 2004 6:56 PM Re: Life After Death > I can assure you at the time in my life thst I practiced prayer I was > fully convicted in its power. No less so than I am now fully > convicted in its futility. > > > , " simonpjones " <simonpjones@o...> > wrote: > > > > - > > " David Brown " <quickformgreen> > > > > Friday, April 16, 2004 2:48 PM > > Re: Life After Death > > > > > > > Sorry double tap on this one. All of my prayers' answers have > been > > > negative, the Faithful would say " Some of Gods greatest gift are > > > unanswered prayers! " How convenient. In my book the only gifts > God > > > has in stock are unanswered prayrs. Maybe I was just praying for > the > > > wrong thing right, well who does't, there wouldn't be a need to > pray > > > if they were the right things, again how convenient....> > > > > Who knows..sometimes the ego likes to take centre stage and won't > allow > > humble praying. > > > > > > > > > > , " simonpjones " > <simonpjones@o...> > > > wrote: > > > > I believe there is a scientific even mathematical element to > faith > > > in religious matters, much like those that had faith in building > > > flying machines, landing people on the moon etc.I think you can > test > > > praying and get results as I have found for myself. > > > > - > > > > ioannis Tsoucas > > > > > > > > Thursday, April 15, 2004 6:28 PM > > > > Re: Re: Life After Death > > > > > > > > > > > > Faith is science for someone like me, who wants to know first, > > > what is true and then to accept it. > > > > For the most people faith may be not science, but they are not > > > faithful. They only have a religion and they don't know what it is > > > and they don't ask why. > > > > This is the big difference between conscious faithful persons > and > > > the many religious people. The real faithful, according to my > > > discription don't have a religion. They have the revelation of > God. > > > This is the correct Christianism and the correct believe or the > > > correct faith, if you want to give a name to it. This is a faith > with > > > evidences, not with words like: maybe, if, then, etc. > > > > > > > > Yannis > > > > > > > > simonpjones <simonpjones@o...> wrote: > > > > > > > > - > > > > fartybriivismeisteranushead ta-da! > > > > > > > > Tuesday, April 13, 2004 8:50 AM > > > > Re: Re: Life After Death > > > > > > > > > > > > faith is not a science. it's speculative and subjective; > > > felt but not proven. if anything is not logical, it's religion> > > > > > > > > Is science a faith. it seems so sometimes when theories > that > > > are treated as fact> > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To send an email to - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > ---- > > > ---------- > > > > Messenger - Communicate instantly... " Ping " your friends > > > today! Download Messenger Now > > > > > > > > To send an email to - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > ---- > > > ---------- > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 20, 2004 - fartybriivismeisteranushead ta-da! Monday, April 19, 2004 9:18 PM Re: Re: Life After Death fish merchants could incoporated that story in the Gospels for promotion. i'm pretty inclined to think the bible was tainted in several ways by human hands at the pen. the few sinister aspects of christian teachings (the prejudices and intolerances SOME dogmatic followers maintain*) could well have been the input of someone no more divine than some butt-scratching bigot named "chad" who had been in the lucky position to transcribe second-hand happenings from someone more knowledgeable into the (mostly) good book. ~~brii I don't have to read past the 6th day to find the answer to Bliss/ Eden/Elysium/Heaven/Nirvana/Paradise/Salavaionl/Utopia/Valhalla/ Zion.etc >"simonpjones" <simonpjones > > >Re: Re: Life After Death >Sun, 18 Apr 2004 21:37:28 +0100 > >There has been different translations of the bible. No disrepect to jews in general, with the Prominence of Jesus. fish merchants could incoporated that story in the Gospels for promotion. > > >- > fartybriivismeisteranushead ta-da! > > Sunday, April 18, 2004 6:42 AM > Re: Re: Life After Death > > > Though the commonly used bibles Jesus is not don't protray Jesus as a vegetarian...I believe he would of been. > > > but isn't it in the bible that jesus killed masses of fish to feed to humans? (i think i read here that it was one fish whom he turned into many to kill for humans, but that's not much different) also, i find the "jesus fish" extremely disrespectful-- not only did he kill the fish, but, out of a life otherwise filled with giving love, he's symbolized by (and revered for) the only creatures he did harm to. > > There has been different translations of the bible with the prominence of Jesus fish merchants could have incoporated that story in the Gospels for promotion. With the different translations of the bible a little slip of the pen and the word fruit could easily have become fish, who knows what the tranlators were up to. > > Simon > >"simonpjones" <simonpjones > > > > > >Re: Re: Life After Death > >Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:55:23 +0100 > > > > > > - > > Peter > > > > Wednesday, April 14, 2004 5:54 PM > > Re: Re: Life After Death > > > > > > Hi Simon > > I think we should turn that question around... do you not think it is possible for people to understand love and compassion without reading about it? Personally, I think love and compassion is within all of us, whether or not we read about it in a book.> > > > > Yes I think it is... once we have the desire to. It 's just that I havn't heard of anyone else before Jesus that demostrated in such a way what love and compassion were. I believe the vegetarians before Jesus and during his time had to be compassionate people, but there is no record as far I know of anyone challenging the authorities with what some of us might even call common sense theses days. You know how easy it is for people to be lead astray..killing, hating, eating animals etc.( Though the commonly used bibles Jesus is not don't protray Jesus as a vegetarian...I believe he would of been. > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > To send an email to - > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 20, 2004 - Peter Monday, April 19, 2004 8:00 PM Re: Re: Life After Death Hi Peter Having an "open mind", means being able to listen to the arguments for and against a particular theory, and then judging it with as unbiased a view point as is possible. I wouldn't say that deciding on a theory with no evidence to support it, and then refusing to listen to any evidence to the contrary could be classified as being open minded.> I totally agree. And to be 100% sure that what is called evidence is evidence, not asumptions based on probabilities etc. Simon > As the bible has been through some translations and interpretions in the past...a slip of the pen is quite possible even probably.Who knows? Absolutely possible... however, if you're going to make an argument for such a slip of the pen, then you need to provide some form of substantial point for discussion. As an example, Gerald Aardsma has come up with a very interesting argument that a slip of the pen has meant that the Exodus is commonly thought of as 1000 years later than it actually happened (personally I am not convinced, but at least he presents a good case) - however, he supports his theory with archaeological and documentary evidence. There is also the now fairly well accepted idea that the "Red Sea" should actually be the "Reed Sea" (the fact that Red and Reed are similar in English is actually a complete coincidence - the transcription error was actually in the Hebrew version), but, again, that is supported by good historical evidence. Of course, both of these are in the OT, and come from much older documents which have passed through much more transcription, translation, and a healthy period of oral tradition, which tend to allow for more errors to creep in. So, what evidence is there that the word which we now have as "fish" in the gospels should have been something else? What else should it have been? And at what point in time and in which language did it become corrupted? Personally, I think that if the word had been something other than "fish" in the earliest known (or any) versions of the gospels, there would have been some comment amongst biblical scholars. I can't imagine that there would be any agendas which would prevent them from doing so.... last I was aware, the meat marketing board had not been investing in Biblical research :-) BB PeterTo send an email to - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 20, 2004 Sorry..left a comment out on last post. - Peter Monday, April 19, 2004 8:00 PM Re: Re: Life After Death Hi Simon Having an "open mind", means being able to listen to the arguments for and against a particular theory, and then judging it with as unbiased a view point as is possible. I wouldn't say that deciding on a theory with no evidence to support it, and then refusing to listen to any evidence to the contrary could be classified as being open minded. Assumptions based on probabilites..vice versa. S Absolutely possible... however, if you're going to make an argument for such a slip of the pen, then you need to provide some form of substantial point for discussion. As an example, Gerald Aardsma has come up with a very interesting argument that a slip of the pen has meant that the Exodus is commonly thought of as 1000 years later than it actually happened (personally I am not convinced, but at least he presents a good case) - however, he supports his theory with archaeological and documentary evidence. There is also the now fairly well accepted idea that the "Red Sea" should actually be the "Reed Sea" (the fact that Red and Reed are similar in English is actually a complete coincidence - the transcription error was actually in the Hebrew version), but, again, that is supported by good historical evidence. Of course, both of these are in the OT, and come from much older documents which have passed through much more transcription, translation, and a healthy period of oral tradition, which tend to allow for more errors to creep in. So, what evidence is there that the word which we now have as "fish" in the gospels should have been something else? What else should it have been? And at what point in time and in which language did it become corrupted? Personally, I think that if the word had been something other than "fish" in the earliest known (or any) versions of the gospels, there would have been some comment amongst biblical scholars. I can't imagine that there would be any agendas which would prevent them from doing so.... last I was aware, the meat marketing board had not been investing in Biblical research :-) BB PeterTo send an email to - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 22, 2004 Because Christians have Sunday as the day of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ the "meetings", i.e. the day for the weekly worshipping of God. Sunday is not a Catholic day, it is a Christian day. Exception: Seventh-Day-Adventistssimonpjones <simonpjones wrote: Hi Yannis > Again: I AM NOT A CATHOLIC. So the Vatican cannot have influenced me. I am an Orthodox Christian and this was my own choice to be. Between > Catholics and Orthodox Christiana are many differences. The Vatican wanted to have political power and has changed the Christian Creed. This was not > accepted and this is the reason why the Vatican has made the own Catholic Church about 1000 years ago.> You may not be Catholic,But why do you have your meetings on the Sunday..A Catholic traditonal meeting day? / Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 22, 2004 > Again: I AM NOT A CATHOLIC. So the Vatican cannot have influenced me. I am an Orthodox Christian and this was my own choice to be. Between > Catholics and Orthodox Christiana are many differences. The Vatican wanted to have political power and has changed the Christian Creed. This was not > accepted and this is the reason why the Vatican has made the own Catholic Church about 1000 years ago.> I am not having a go at you or at Catholics...But saying the Catholic church doesn't influence you is like saying ie you started a group that was to meet on a monday( a very important day for you) and X comes along and changes the meeting day to a tuesday. Then Y attending the group on a tuesday says thet are not influenced by X. Would you say Y is not influenced by X? especially if you have written monday is an important day for you? Simon Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now To send an email to - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 22, 2004 Ioannis Catholics are Christians. Jo Sunday is not a Catholic day, it is a Christian day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2004 Peter- I have tried three times to unsubsribe the requested way and am still getting vegan chat emails- can you please do something about this? thanks --- Peter <metalscarab wrote: > Hi Yannis > > > It is not much to explain if you look into the > proposed website www.holyfire.org, but I want to > write some words about. Tomorrow is Easter. > > What is Easter? > > Actually, Easter is the celebration of the Celtic > Goddess Eostre (hence the name Easter!) - it's an > ancient fertility festival, hence the fertility > symbols such as bunny rabbits and eggs. > Unfortunately, when the Christians nicked it, they > decided to change it from a solar festival to a > lunar one for some unknown reason, but they kept all > the rest of the festivities the same, and just > super-imposed a little bit of their own mythology > onto it! > > BB > Peter > Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢ ph/print_splash Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
